• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9/11 Wiki Project

Totovader

Game Warden
Totovader
Joined
Jan 31, 2007
Messages
3,321
I know the idea has been tossed around before- and there may already be something up (debunk911myths.org?), but I have been struggling to come up with a medium for the site I wanted to build and a wiki just seemed like the best way to go.

My motivation is that I am frustrated by all my bookmarks, broken links, lost information, and a large amount of uncredited and unspecific photos. I had my computer crash several months ago and I lost a lot of my research. Obviously, there's also a benefit to the collaboration.

I would like to have a site that is not just about debunking the myths- although it will do that by default- I am more interested in having a warehouse of information- a place to put all the compiled research on the events surrounding 9/11- research we've all done. I want to be able to link to that information- and link within that information- easily, and cite the sources like any other wiki. I know it's a bit presumptuous, but I don't want to lose a single piece of information on this event- be that from the lure of conspiracism or the laziness of government- I am a firm believer in maintaining as much history as is possible.

I'd be more than happy to host this.

Is anyone interested in a wiki- are we already doing this or is someone already putting this together... etc, etc.
 
It would just get edited to all hell by the CTers.

But its a good ideee.
 
JAStewart is right, a wiki page would never work when the Truthers are around to edit it. I remember the debunk911myths idea, what ever happened to that? I still think we could work with that website if we need to.
 
i tried to start up a wiki, but couldnt get any editors

as for truthers editing, it would be easy enough to make it so you have to create and account and be approved in order to edit, although it does sort of go against the spirit of a wiki, lol
 
defaultdotxbe said:
i tried to start up a wiki, but couldnt get any editors

as for truthers editing, it would be easy enough to make it so you have to create and account and be approved in order to edit, although it does sort of go against the spirit of a wiki, lol
Click to expand...

If the user accounts could be tied to JREF...

I know, when pigs fly-

But I would have no ethical problems with having strict user accounts. I don't mind misinformation because citations would be needed, I would be more worried about vandalism.

Conspiracists certainly would be welcome- but they would have to deal with the same rigorous standards that everyone else would. If they want to whine about it, I really don't care. They have enough websites.
 
well just forcing them to register accounts would likely scare off many a truther, lol

another possibility would be to have 2 sections, a "conspiracy theory" section, and a "debunking" section, the CT section would be open, and the debunking would only be for approved editors

wiki is pretty flexible, im sure you could find a way to deal with vandalism
 
defaultdotxbe said:
well just forcing them to register accounts would likely scare off many a truther, lol

another possibility would be to have 2 sections, a "conspiracy theory" section, and a "debunking" section, the CT section would be open, and the debunking would only be for approved editors

wiki is pretty flexible, im sure you could find a way to deal with vandalism
Click to expand...

Eh..

To be honest, I'm not really interested in that- I think sites already out there provide this useful service. I'm more interested in having a central place of information- which can be used to debunk conspiracists. Not necessarily "non-partisan" (except that science is just that) but something to house the information, no matter how mundane.

Think of all the FOIA requests, the photographs, the data- it's overwhelming. I think it just has to be maintained somewhere to be easily accessible so that debunking can be done by going straight to the source of the data without having to weed through 20+ pages of Google results plastered with thick conspiracism.

I guess I just want a place where the right information can float to the top- Google just won't work that way (and it's not what Google is for, to be honest).
 
Massive project, regardless of what medium you choose.

Troofers as approved editors? M.E.G.O.

Totovader, I wouldn't dismiss Defaultdotxbe's idea, outright. It has some appeal. The troofers, after all, think they have viable documentation of their own. Misguided as this might be, if you want to seriously take down their theories, his idea has some possibilities. Plus, in the debunking section(s) you could have an organized library, like you've mentioned.

Following up on Defaultdotxbe's thoughts:

To prevent the Tower of Babel syndrome, it might not be a bad idea to have a select committee of CTers organize an outline of what they consider the 20 strongest arguments for conspiracy to be, get some sort of consensus amongst themselves (whoa! that'll be interesting), and then link to factual documents of what they're actually claiming. But those doc links.... they're gonna be wild!
Something like...
Sect I Dominant 911 Conspiracy Theories
A
B
C
D
up to T
with pertinent document links for each.

Then Sect II "Alternate" 911 Conspiracy Theories
A as in Ace Baker
B Christophera
C Keebler Elves
up to ZZ
with pertinent document links for each.

Ah, but.... in each section have a bright red hyperlink saying, "Do you wish to read the debunking of this particular theory?" And that link would take them to the panel of editors' work, which would in turn link them to real documents refuting their spurious ones. Or, in rare cases, might lead to an admission that there's still a lot about that particular topic that needs decent investigation.

All of this presumes that you name the site up front and are honest about the intention, i.e. Debunking said theories. Give them their space in the lead position as it forces them to do what they hate - "State Your Position and Theory From the Outset".

The alternate, which would be the TS1234 dream site... Is that someone try to re-cap the "official" position. Ace spent four weeks demanding someone do that for him, and the reason is obvious.... It's easier to tear into someone else's outline or precis than to create your own.

So reverse that strategy on them. If you put the onus on the troofers to get their case organized, and do what is fair and state their objections and evidence, then analyzing it and refuting it is still a big job, but a much easier one. (We all know how many times we've asked troofer newbies to do just that - state your case and your evidence.)

Getting the troofers to even agree on which theories are major and which are alternative, though, would probably grind the project to a halt. Might work if you force them to agree to a CT editorial board, and if you do the same with the debunkers.

If you then also included a forum, you might have the 911 Site of all times. I can imagine a forum on such a site, where they're allowed to stock their own piles of evidence, might attract a decent debate or two. (And a few thousand ridiculous ones.)

Sect I - Major CT
Sect II - Alternative CT
Sect III - CT Documentation Library (no LC... real docs)
Sect IV - Debunking of Sec I and II
Sect V - Documentation Supportin "Official" Version
Sect VI - Forum

Totovader, if this is too far afield from your original idea, ignore it. I just sort of liked the idea and ran with it a bit.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Massive project, regardless of what medium you choose.

Troofers as approved editors? M.E.G.O.

Totovader, I wouldn't dismiss Defaultdotxbe's idea, outright. It has some appeal. The troofers, after all, think they have viable documentation of their own. Misguided as this might be, if you want to seriously take down their theories, his idea has some possibilities. Plus, in the debunking section(s) you could have an organized library, like you've mentioned.

Following up on Defaultdotxbe's thoughts:

To prevent the Tower of Babel syndrome, it might not be a bad idea to have a select committee of CTers organize an outline of what they consider the 20 strongest arguments for conspiracy to be, get some sort of consensus amongst themselves (whoa! that'll be interesting), and then link to factual documents of what they're actually claiming. But those doc links.... they're gonna be wild!
Something like...
Sect I Dominant 911 Conspiracy Theories
A
B
C
D
up to T
with pertinent document links for each.

Then Sect II "Alternate" 911 Conspiracy Theories
A as in Ace Baker
B Christophera
C Keebler Elves
up to ZZ
with pertinent document links for each.

Ah, but.... in each section have a bright red hyperlink saying, "Do you wish to read the debunking of this particular theory?" And that link would take them to the panel of editors' work, which would in turn link them to real documents refuting their spurious ones. Or, in rare cases, might lead to an admission that there's still a lot about that particular topic that needs decent investigation.

All of this presumes that you name the site up front and are honest about the intention, i.e. Debunking said theories. Give them their space in the lead position as it forces them to do what they hate - "State Your Position and Theory From the Outset".

The alternate, which would be the TS1234 dream site... Is that someone try to re-cap the "official" position. Ace spent four weeks demanding someone do that for him, and the reason is obvious.... It's easier to tear into someone else's outline or precis than to create your own.

So reverse that strategy on them. If you put the onus on the troofers to get their case organized, and do what is fair and state their objections and evidence, then analyzing it and refuting it is still a big job, but a much easier one. (We all know how many times we've asked troofer newbies to do just that - state your case and your evidence.)

Getting the troofers to even agree on which theories are major and which are alternative, though, would probably grind the project to a halt. Might work if you force them to agree to a CT editorial board, and if you do the same with the debunkers.

If you then also included a forum, you might have the 911 Site of all times. I can imagine a forum on such a site, where they're allowed to stock their own piles of evidence, might attract a decent debate or two. (And a few thousand ridiculous ones.)

Sect I - Major CT
Sect II - Alternative CT
Sect III - CT Documentation Library (no LC... real docs)
Sect IV - Debunking of Sec I and II
Sect V - Documentation Supportin "Official" Version
Sect VI - Forum

Totovader, if this is too far afield from your original idea, ignore it. I just sort of liked the idea and ran with it a bit.
Click to expand...

If we could accomplish something like that... it would be in line with my Conspiracy Challenge- although not really what I was thinking about for a wiki. I'd be completely fine with that kind of a section, though- it can link back to the information I'm looking to post. Then you get 2 birds with one stone: address the theories, and provide a link to the ever-increasing, solid, and verified information in the "facts and evidence" area- or whatever you call it.
 
Great idea, Totovader!
However, although I do love wikis so very much, I wonder if it would be the best way to do a project like this. Why not just make a regular website? It'd make collaboration more difficult, but then you wouldn't have to deal with reversions and banning people, either.
 
(1) I'm an editor on Wikipedia where I have worked on 9/11 articles there for 1 1/2 years. There are dozens of articles on the topic, with a significant portion of my time spent on the talk pages dealing with conspiracy theories, but we also have managed to improve the articles in my time there. The articles still need quite a bit more work to make them "featured articles", which is what we use to denote the best quality Wikipedia articles. We can always use more good editors. The requirements are to adhere to NPOV, make sure your edits are well-referenced from reliable sources (e.g. prisonplanet is not acceptable), be civil, and adhere to other rules.

(2) My own site, except for the front page, is entirely a wiki. Each "topic" is a wiki page, with the wiki features only accessible and visible to people that log into the site. Accounts can be set-up on request (send me a PM) for people that I trust.

Why the site was created?
The site was created ~6-7 months ago, growing out of my work on Wikipedia. The site is a place where real progress can be made on putting together quality pages on various 9/11 topics, without dealing with vandalism and conspiracy cruft nonsense that happens on Wikipedia.
(a) There are particular conspiracy theories that come up time and again on Wikipedia. I needed a place where I can have material put together on each of the theories which I can refer back to at a later time as needed. The page about Osama and the FBI poster is just that... a collection of material I found while dealing with a truther pushing that theory on Wikipedia. It's there on my site, so when the issue comes up again, I don't have to waste time searching for the material again.

(b) I have also used the site to gather information on topics and build material on more general 9/11 topics, some of which I then use in working on Wikipedia articles. If you compare Wikipedia articles with pages on my site, you may find passages of text that are very similar that might appear to be copyright violations. They are all my work and not copyright violations. Recently, I have been gathering material about Mohamed Atta which I will then have available to go improve the wikipedia article about him.

(c) My site can go into more depth than suitable for Wikipedia. (e.g. use of cell phones on airplanes)

(d) The site can be a resource for putting together summarized material, such as a binder or one page handouts, that can be used on Saturdays at GZ whenever I show up, or at the White House, or anywhere else I might show up.

(e) When material on my site and on English Wikipedia gets up to "featured status" quality, it will be useful for then spending time on other language Wikipedia sites. (particularly Spanish and Arabic, which are languages that I have some ability) I just looked at the Arabic article on the 9/11 attacks again. It really hasn't changed much, but I'm quite amazed that someone has just nominated it for "featured status" there, even though it is full of poorly sourced material, inaccuracies, and major omissions (the article neglects to mention Flight 93). :eek:
​
Since I have had my site up and since I joined JREF 6-7 months ago, I feel like I have made significantly more progress on both my site and on Wikipedia, than in the year before that I spent only on Wikipedia. I have worked more consistently on my site in the past month, whereas before I had been working more sporadically and taking breaks from it. I'm on an "improvement drive", spending extra time on my site now before my Arabic course starts in a few weeks. I'm on Wikipedia pretty much every day, sometimes very busy with 9/11 issues and other times the issues subside and I can do other stuff on wiki.

Though doing things on my site, on my own has its advantages in making sure I know all aspects of all topics very well. It's all a big, time consuming project that could go faster with some help. A few months ago, I did hand out accounts to a few folks that expressed interest. Nonetheless, it's mainly been just me working on the site. I think the wiki functionality and interface was too difficult/confusing for others to use and too hidden. I have spent time to change that and it should be much easier for others to use now.

We set up an "Index to Conspiracy Claims" page, which is presently linked on the "Miscellaneous" page. It is very much a rough draft with incomplete sections. Because of that, I don't have it linked more prominently. When it gets filled in more, it can replace the "All topics" link at the top of my site.

The front page of the site is managed separately with blog software. Unfortunately, I haven't the time to update it more frequently, but it can be a place for announcements, highlight items "in the news", or whatever.

If this project sounds like something you want to help with, just send me a PM. You can help with whatever aspects of the site that interest you.
 
I have just such a site. It is private, though I can create a public site. PM me and we can talk about it.
 
Last edited:
Debunk911Myths said:
(1) I'm an editor on Wikipedia where I have worked on 9/11 articles there for 1 1/2 years. There are dozens of articles on the topic, with a significant portion of my time spent on the talk pages dealing with conspiracy theories, but we also have managed to improve the articles in my time there. The articles still need quite a bit more work to make them "featured articles", which is what we use to denote the best quality Wikipedia articles. We can always use more good editors. The requirements are to adhere to NPOV, make sure your edits are well-referenced from reliable sources (e.g. prisonplanet is not acceptable), be civil, and adhere to other rules.

(2) My own site, except for the front page, is entirely a wiki. Each "topic" is a wiki page, with the wiki features only accessible and visible to people that log into the site. Accounts can be set-up on request (send me a PM) for people that I trust.

Why the site was created?
The site was created ~6-7 months ago, growing out of my work on Wikipedia. The site is a place where real progress can be made on putting together quality pages on various 9/11 topics, without dealing with vandalism and conspiracy cruft nonsense that happens on Wikipedia.
(a) There are particular conspiracy theories that come up time and again on Wikipedia. I needed a place where I can have material put together on each of the theories which I can refer back to at a later time as needed. The page about Osama and the FBI poster is just that... a collection of material I found while dealing with a truther pushing that theory on Wikipedia. It's there on my site, so when the issue comes up again, I don't have to waste time searching for the material again.

(b) I have also used the site to gather information on topics and build material on more general 9/11 topics, some of which I then use in working on Wikipedia articles. If you compare Wikipedia articles with pages on my site, you may find passages of text that are very similar that might appear to be copyright violations. They are all my work and not copyright violations. Recently, I have been gathering material about Mohamed Atta which I will then have available to go improve the wikipedia article about him.

(c) My site can go into more depth than suitable for Wikipedia. (e.g. use of cell phones on airplanes)

(d) The site can be a resource for putting together summarized material, such as a binder or one page handouts, that can be used on Saturdays at GZ whenever I show up, or at the White House, or anywhere else I might show up.

(e) When material on my site and on English Wikipedia gets up to "featured status" quality, it will be useful for then spending time on other language Wikipedia sites. (particularly Spanish and Arabic, which are languages that I have some ability) I just looked at the Arabic article on the 9/11 attacks again. It really hasn't changed much, but I'm quite amazed that someone has just nominated it for "featured status" there, even though it is full of poorly sourced material, inaccuracies, and major omissions (the article neglects to mention Flight 93). :eek:
​
Since I have had my site up and since I joined JREF 6-7 months ago, I feel like I have made significantly more progress on both my site and on Wikipedia, than in the year before that I spent only on Wikipedia. I have worked more consistently on my site in the past month, whereas before I had been working more sporadically and taking breaks from it. I'm on an "improvement drive", spending extra time on my site now before my Arabic course starts in a few weeks. I'm on Wikipedia pretty much every day, sometimes very busy with 9/11 issues and other times the issues subside and I can do other stuff on wiki.

Though doing things on my site, on my own has its advantages in making sure I know all aspects of all topics very well. It's all a big, time consuming project that could go faster with some help. A few months ago, I did hand out accounts to a few folks that expressed interest. Nonetheless, it's mainly been just me working on the site. I think the wiki functionality and interface was too difficult/confusing for others to use and too hidden. I have spent time to change that and it should be much easier for others to use now.

We set up an "Index to Conspiracy Claims" page, which is presently linked on the "Miscellaneous" page. It is very much a rough draft with incomplete sections. Because of that, I don't have it linked more prominently. When it gets filled in more, it can replace the "All topics" link at the top of my site.

The front page of the site is managed separately with blog software. Unfortunately, I haven't the time to update it more frequently, but it can be a place for announcements, highlight items "in the news", or whatever.

If this project sounds like something you want to help with, just send me a PM. You can help with whatever aspects of the site that interest you.
Click to expand...
For some time I have been trying to add William Rodriguez's first CNN interview on Wiki. Someone continues to remove it and I don't know what to do about it. Can you help?
 
FactCheck said:
For some time I have been trying to add William Rodriguez's first CNN interview on Wiki. Someone continues to remove it and I don't know what to do about it. Can you help?
Click to expand...

CNN definitely qualifies as a "reliable source" and is acceptable. Try adding it again. You should be able to edit the article without creating an account or logging in, but I strongly advise registering an account (if you haven't yet) to make edits. It masks you IP address which can contain private information, and allows you to build a track record of good edits and gain trust of other editors.
 
Totovader said:
My motivation is that I am frustrated by all my bookmarks, broken links, lost information, and a large amount of uncredited and unspecific photos. I had my computer crash several months ago and I lost a lot of my research. Obviously, there's also a benefit to the collaboration.
Click to expand...

For bookmarks, I've been using del.icio.us

http://del.icio.us/kmf164

The links will be sorted at some point and added to my site.
 
Taking the concept further than an archive of sources and encyclopedia type articles, you would be able to create a "live debate" server. Theories could be posted and the points supported and refuted one by one. It should stop the problem of critical points getting skipped over and the same data being posted over and over that I see in the linear forums. It also allows the theories to evolve as the data is refined. The debate is propagated from the facts up to the theories.

The wiki provides indexing, back references, page history and a side discussion area which I believe would all be useful in such a system.

Index pages could be created to list the best supported theories at the top and all the debunked theories would sink to the bottom. To otherwise declare that some theories are acceptable and others are second class conspiracies would not be scientific.

To handle a hot topic like 9/11 I think you will need proof of identity on registration. Otherwise you will probably get swamped with sock puppets.
 
Why hasn't anyone mentioned the Complete 911 timeline?? If someone has i missed it, but this is the largest volume of work about 911 in history, failure to look at this is just flat dumb. 911myths is a site that talks about opposing ideas to popular CT's, but it doesn't give alot of real answers, simply b/c we don't have enuf evidence....but we do need to deal with the things we do know about 911. Whatever that might be!
 
israelside said:
Why hasn't anyone mentioned the Complete 911 timeline?? If someone has i missed it, but this is the largest volume of work about 911 in history, failure to look at this is just flat dumb. 911myths is a site that talks about opposing ideas to popular CT's, but it doesn't give alot of real answers, simply b/c we don't have enuf evidence....but we do need to deal with the things we do know about 911. Whatever that might be!
Click to expand...

What does 911myths.com have to do with this?
 
i was comparing different points of view on sept 911, thats what 911myths has to do with it. Plus, why spend so much time "debunking" ideas that are based on so little evidence. Why not just give us real answers and stop trying to prove people wrong that really don't know the whole issue in the first place. Arn't we suppose to be searching for the truth in all of this instead of showing others where they are wrong? I have yet to hear toto even consider typing anything about the complete 911 timeline....yet he is the "bruce lee" of 911 info! lol, more like bruce the flee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom