9/11 Skeptic Wiki

[Orphia Nay]

Posts collated from this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78817), which was hijacked by debate over theories.

I'd like to point out that there's already a SkepticWiki (Main Page), founded and mostly edited by JREFers.

Here's the section on Conspiracy Theories (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Conspiracy_Theories(Index)). As you can see, some of the articles still need writing (the ones with red links) and the article on 9/11 is (a) not very long (b) probably not up-to-date with the latest lunacy (c) just one article. 9/11 needs a whole bunch of articles, there's so much woo surrounding it.

The problem is that so far no dedicated conspiracy debunker --- not one! --- has registered yet.

I should add that I recently checked, and a lot of our articles come up in the top 10 Google hits --- sometimes as the top Google hit. Adding to the SkepticWiki ensures that people will actually read what you have to say.

Registration is by request, so there are no vandals.

Our Glorious Leader is fowlsound, I'll link him to this thread.


I'm going to invite you all to bring your efforts to the skepticwiki for a couple of reasons:

1) I'd love to have you all contribute to the project.
2) I already have the project in place, and with nothing on the radar about 9/11, which has its advantages to fencesitters.
3) There is no worry for vandals, since joining and account status is at my discretion, all you gents would have to do is email me for an account (check the skepticwiki's front page for the address.)
4) the wiki itself has nightly backups as well as replication across to my development server here, meaning we have full backups and replicatability, something most websites don't usually have.
5) I am always working to improve the wiki, and am very interested in your contributions not only to 9/11 myths, but to the rest of the topics as well.

Please consider combining your efforts to the skepticwiki, as it would consolidate all the information to one place, and be easily accessible.

Email me or PM me if you would like an account.

-Ducky



I signed up at Skeptic Wiki after a suggestion by geni to put the information I'd posted about Leslie Raphael's Naudet conspiracy there. But when I went to post there, I thought I would be giving Leslie Raphael too much credibility to include him among the major 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I feel like I've been lax in not helping edit any other stories, but I have a bit of a debunking inferiority complex when I'm not face-to-face (or pc to pc) with loony twoofers.

I also feel like I should just get off my lazy behind and start editing, and take it from there.


Here is the link to Skeptic Wiki's 9/11 page:

http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/9/11_coverup


Yeah- I signed up a few days ago and have been putting some things together- I haven't made an edit, yet. Once I'm done with the Fetzer-Roberts debates I will start editing the page(s) on the skepticwiki.

I hope more of the CT forum's regular debunkers will take some time out from playing Whack-a-Twoofer to contribute to a possibly more wide-reaching debunking project.

[Dr Adequate]

I've got SLOB's kind permission to turn his Who's Who of 9/11 conspiracy theorists into a SkepticWiki page.

[Totovader]

I've got SLOB's kind permission to turn his Who's Who of 9/11 conspiracy theorists into a SkepticWiki page.

I was working on doing something like that as well- some of them may even require their own page.

[gumboot]

I frankly don't get how this whole wiki thing works. However I'd be happy to contribute information to it.

-Gumboot

ETA. Oh and my apologies for hijacking the other thread... :boxedin:

[Panoply_Prefect]

I frankly don't get how this whole wiki thing works. However I'd be happy to contribute information to it.

-Gumboot

ETA. Oh and my apologies for hijacking the other thread... :boxedin:

Take one umpbillion different bracket-style format tags and let anyone on the net be allowed to edit, create and remove pages, while a cache traces any change, meaning anyone can undo any edit. Add comment pages where you can fight over who made what addition/removing, which btw sucked/was absolutely essential, and you are close to what an unrestricted wiki-environment is. At least thats my experience.

A good setup wiki however, with proper knowledge of the basic tags, gives a great way of making a site in a collaborative fashion.

This will be very interesting ideed.

Cheers,
SLOB

[Dr Adequate]

'Tis done.

9/11 Conspiracy Theorists (http://skepticwiki.no-ip.org/index.php/9/11_Conspiracy_Theorists)

To link to one of them within the SW --- say Judy Wood --- type [[9/11 Conspiracy Theorists#Judy Wood|Judy Wood]]

This will provide an internal link which looks like this:

Judy Wood

and which, when clicked on, will take you to the subsection on Judy Wood.

Thanks again to SLOB.

---

I was wondering why the CTs don't have a wiki, and then it hit me --- 'cos they don't agree on anything. It would just be one long edit war, wouldn't it?

[gumboot]

I was wondering why the CTs don't have a wiki, and then it hit me --- 'cos they don't agree on anything. It would just be one long edit war, wouldn't it?


No, that's not it. If they got organised enough to create a wiki the government would take them out. They have succeeded because of their lack of organisation. Just ask Lucus.

-Gumboot

[geni]

I was wondering why the CTs don't have a wiki, and then it hit me --- 'cos they don't agree on anything. It would just be one long edit war, wouldn't it?

Oh I don't know the KDE and GNOME people have been know to work together from time to time.

[Hourglassmemory]

Hey! I was just reading this topic and I got my permission to reply just a few minutes ago!
This is going to be my first post here!
I'm probably the only portuguese person in these forums! I'm in Portugal! I'm certainly gonna reply and give my points of view!
I love reading all these conspiracy theories and then you men and women making fun of them and proving them all wrong, which is great. There's still some(an understatement) sane people in this world.
But anyway!
I think the idea is great, but the only thing that worries me is that, as it has been mentioned before, Ct's will feel very tempted at doing SOMETHING to the page if it's not under surveillance.
And I think it's about time we have a 'wiki' that looks at things AFTER ct's have polluted it.
It's like "the final word"...although I know ct's don't see it that way.
By 'Final Word' I mean: the official version is presented. Ct's will mess it up. then you show up and show them that they're 'research' does not hold water.
for most intellectually competent people, the argument ends there. that's why I say 'The Final Word'.

PS: If you find any grammatical errors.....I'm not speaking my mother language.

[Darth Rotor]

Hey! I was just reading this topic and I got my permission to reply just a few minutes ago!
This is going to be my first post here!
I'm probably the only portuguese person in these forums! I'm in Portugal! I'm certainly gonna reply and give my points of view!
I love reading all these conspiracy theories and then you men and women making fun of them and proving them all wrong, which is great. There's still some(an understatement) sane people in this world.
But anyway!
I think the idea is great, but the only thing that worries me is that, as it has been mentioned before, Ct's will feel very tempted at doing SOMETHING to the page if it's not under surveillance.
And I think it's about time we have a 'wiki' that looks at things AFTER ct's have polluted it.
It's like "the final word"...although I know ct's don't see it that way.
By 'Final Word' I mean: the official version is presented. Ct's will mess it up. then you show up and show them that they're 'research' does not hold water.
for most intellectually competent people, the argument ends there. that's why I say 'The Final Word'.

PS: If you find any grammatical errors.....I'm not speaking my mother language.
Welcome. :)

DR

[JimBenArm]

Hey! I was just reading this topic and I got my permission to reply just a few minutes ago!
This is going to be my first post here!
I'm probably the only portuguese person in these forums! I'm in Portugal! I'm certainly gonna reply and give my points of view!
I love reading all these conspiracy theories and then you men and women making fun of them and proving them all wrong, which is great. There's still some(an understatement) sane people in this world.
But anyway!
I think the idea is great, but the only thing that worries me is that, as it has been mentioned before, Ct's will feel very tempted at doing SOMETHING to the page if it's not under surveillance.
And I think it's about time we have a 'wiki' that looks at things AFTER ct's have polluted it.
It's like "the final word"...although I know ct's don't see it that way.
By 'Final Word' I mean: the official version is presented. Ct's will mess it up. then you show up and show them that they're 'research' does not hold water.
for most intellectually competent people, the argument ends there. that's why I say 'The Final Word'.

PS: If you find any grammatical errors.....I'm not speaking my mother language.
Welcome! I don't know off-hand of any others from Portugal, but there are posters here from around the world. No problem with your English at all. There are some who are native speakers that I have had more trouble understanding!:D
Anyway, glad you're here, and hope you stick around a while!

[Panoply_Prefect]

Dr Adequate, would you consider emptying your PM-box?

;-)

/S

[Dr Adequate]

Dr Adequate, would you consider emptying your PM-box? Ah, we're going to talk secret NWO stuff, right?

Just one minute ...

ETA: Done.

[Dr Adequate]

I think the idea is great, but the only thing that worries me is that, as it has been mentioned before, Ct's will feel very tempted at doing SOMETHING to the page if it's not under surveillance. People have to register to edit: anyone caught vandalizing it would be kicked off pronto and their edits reverted.

Welcome to the forums!

[Dr Adequate]

I've started a thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2571794) on putting together a glossary of terms.

[Hourglassmemory]

People have to register to edit: anyone caught vandalizing it would be kicked off pronto and their edits reverted.

Welcome to the forums!

Thank you.
Well I have nothing to worry about then.

I do care about these things. the efforts that are put into it. Like Gravy who does a great job at what he does. I find them tremendously important.
I had the conspiracist view in my head until I found this site.
Believe it or not I have been to the other side, and when I say that I mean, to the point of listening to those helicopers that report the traffic...and thinking they were looking at what I was typing. So now I kinda know how a conspiracy theorist's mind works.
But don't worry, I'm one of those that, if I knew how to do it, would make more films like "Screw Loose change"

I think this wiki page could go into the genesis of the CT of the New world order and reptilian aliens and simply say how silly it is, pointing out the science fiction writers who people end up believing in.
this site has great potential....and I believe there are more people who want to help than to distort it.

PS: I use a lot of ---> .......'s

EDIT: How about we put a "Quotes" section?
I don't mean only on the conspiracy field. New Age. Ufo.
quotes from people like Michael Shermer, Randi, Penn and Teller.
We can be watching a lecture with them and suddenyl they say something witty about a subject.
It would be interesting to have. and obvisouly show the sources and when they said it.
Perhaps even....send them an email, saying we're working on this site...and we would like their opinion on this or that subject.

[Ducky]

Take one umpbillion different bracket-style format tags and let anyone on the net be allowed to edit, create and remove pages, while a cache traces any change, meaning anyone can undo any edit. Add comment pages where you can fight over who made what addition/removing, which btw sucked/was absolutely essential, and you are close to what an unrestricted wiki-environment is. At least thats my experience.

A good setup wiki however, with proper knowledge of the basic tags, gives a great way of making a site in a collaborative fashion.

This will be very interesting ideed.

Cheers,
SLOB

Hey SLOB. I'm the admin of the skepticwiki. It is not open to the public to edit. I don't have an enormously rigorous application process (send me a PM or email as per the front page of the wiki if you want an account) but I've eliminated anonymous editing for a reason. I am trying to accent the good wikimedia has put into their software, and eliminate the headaches.

Also, for the rest:

If you don't already have an account PM me with your first name, email and requested moniker.

[Ducky]

Oh I don't know the KDE and GNOME people have been know to work together from time to time.

A sign of the apocalypse for sure. I prefer fluxbox.

[Dr Adequate]

How to Write a SkepticWiki Article


If anyone wants to write an article without learning the typesetting conventions of a wiki, I or other old hands can reformat it for you.

However, if you're going to produce articles on a regular basis, here's some stuff you might want to know.


Basic Typography

Italic text is produced like this: ''This would appear as italic text on the wiki''.

Note that these are two apostrophes, not double quotes. Note also that if you try to write an article in Word and you have AutoCorrect turned on, it'll screw this up royally.

Bold text is produced like this: '''This would appear as bold text on the wiki'''.

You can indent a paragraph using the : character.

:This paragraph would be indented on the wiki.

You can make a list with bullet points like this:

* Some stuff.
* Some more stuff.
* Yet more stuff.


Sections and Subsections

You can divide the article into sections and subsections like this.

==First section of the article==

Blah blah waffle waffle, text text text.

===First subsection of the first section===

Text text text, blah jabber blah.

===Second subsection of the first section===

Jabber jabber blah blah blah.

==Second section==

Text blah text stuff waffle, blah!

...

And so forth.


The Contents Box

This is generated automatically by the wiki software from your headings and subheadings. You don't have to think about this.


Internal and External Links

To link to an external site, put the site's address in square brackets:

Dylan Avery made a video called ''Loose Change''[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=Loose+Change&hl=en]

To link to another SkepticWiki article, use two sets of square brackets:

Erich Hufschmid is involved in [[Holocaust Denial]].

You might want to link to an article with one name, but have the link say something slightly different. You can do this with the | character, for example:

Erich Hufschmid is a [[Holocaust Denial|Holocaust denier]].

These internal links are only case-tolerant of the first character. For example

[[polygraph]]

will link to the Polygraph article, but

[[9/11 conspiracy theorists]]

will not link to 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists.

This is another instance where you might want to use the | character, e.g:

[[9/11 Conspiracy Theorists|9/11 conspiracy theorists]] are all as crazy as bedbugs on acid.

You might also want to link to a particular section of another article (or of the same article). For example, the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists article has a section on Judy Wood. You can reference this as follows:

[[9/11 Conspiracy Theorists#Judy Wood|Judy Wood]] is famous for her theories about elves.


More Advanced Stuff

Not just now. Later I may post about inserting pictures, tables, and so forth, but that's enough to be going on with.

In the meantime, if you're really eager to know how to achieve a certain formatting effect, go to a SkepticWiki or Wikipedia page which uses that effect and click on "Edit" to see the underlying code.


Manual of Style

There's a style guide (http://skepticwiki.no-ip.org/index.php/SkepticWiki:Manual_of_style) here.

Do, please, do as it says and indent your quotations using the : character. I always italicize them too.


Laying out the Article

Start with a

==Definition===

or, if it seems more appropriate, an

==Introduction==

containing a paragraph or two saying what the article's about.

By convention, the title of the article (without caps) should appear in the first line of the Definition in bold font[/b].

At the end of the article, you may want to put a

==Links and References==

section.

This needn't give every page you've linked to in the main body of the article. For example, if you were writing about [i]Loose Change, you'd want a link to Loose Change, maybe a link to the LC forums, and links to major debunking sites, but not necessarily a link to the article you referenced about what steel does when it gets hot.

Use bullet points (see Typography, above) to list the links and references.

And finally, a

==Related Articles==

section.

Even if you put nothing else in here, please always put the page that links to it --- in this case:

* [[Conspiracy Theories(Index)|Conspiracy Theories]]

Again, use bullet points. Again, you needn't link to every article you've referenced --- for example, the article on 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists links to articles on Holocaust Denial and on the polygraph, but doesn't have them in "Related Articles", 'cos they're just by-the-by.

In between the Introduction and the Links and References, lay it out as you see fit --- as the internal logic of the subject dictates.

If the article is of any length, then do divide it into sections, because long chunks of text without section headings are unfriendly and hard on the eyes.


How to Start Writing an Article

First, you must be registered. Enquiries to fowlsound, please, not to me, I don't run it, I'm just the Unofficial Head Cheerleader.

Email skepticwiki AT gmail DOT com (where AT = @ and DOT = . --- this is an anti-spam precaution).

Once you've done that, go to the Conspiracy Theories(Index) page. Click on "Edit", and you'll be taken to a form where you can edit the page. Make an internal link to the article you want to write, e.g:

* [[Flight 93]]

Submit the CT Index page.

There will now be a red link on the page (red to indicate that no-one's written the article) saying Flight 93.

If you now click on that red link, you'll be taken to a form where you can input the article. When you're done, submit the page.

I strongly suggest that we standardize the use of caps in article titles. Let's use the same convention as book titles --- little words like "and", "of", "a", "the", "to" and so forth uncapitalised, longer words with an initial capital.


Some Hints

Here's some stuff I've learnt from experience.

* You probably don't want to sit down and write the whole article on the teensy little form that the wiki article supplies. Use a text editor you fell comfortable with.

* When you enter a new article into the edit form, use the "Preview" button to preview it, 'cos you've probably screwed up the typography at some point.

* Find all your links, references, and quotations before you start writing the article. That way you'll know what it's going to say before you start writing it. This saves time, trust me.

* Always look for and cite primary sources. If you google up a secondary source which refers to a primary source, cite the primary source. If you find a secondary source which doesn't refer to primary sources, treat it with grave suspicion. Even if someone is "on our side", that doesn't mean that they've been skeptical in their practices. I could tell you some strange stories ...

* Whenever possible, represent your opponents' views by direct quotation from someone reasonably articulate.

* You think you can spell, but you can't.

* If you go back and look at the article you've written a couple of days after you posted it, you'll notice all the infelicities of spelling, grammar, punctuation and phraseology which you missed when you first proofread it.

* Although at the time of writing the SkepticWiki is short on 9/11 material, there are other useful articles you might want to provide internal links to. If you want to mention, for example, Holocaust Denial, or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the Argument from Ignorance, there are already articles on these topics which you can link to.

* There are lots of people on this forum willing to give help, advice, and criticism. In many cases, it might well be a good idea to first start a thread asking for help with the relevant links, quotes, and arguments --- on the understanding, of course, that you'll put all this together into a finished article.

[Dr Adequate]

How about we put a "Quotes" section?We're way ahead of you, my friend.

Quotations (http://skepticwiki.no-ip.org/index.php/Quotations)

[Totovader]

We're way ahead of you, my friend.

Quotations (http://skepticwiki.no-ip.org/index.php/Quotations)

What's a cracker motto?

[gumboot]

Hey! I was just reading this topic and I got my permission to reply just a few minutes ago!
This is going to be my first post here!



Welcome to the forums!

-Gumboot

[Dr Adequate]

What's a cracker motto? Was that too obscure?

Mottos you get in Christmas crackers.

Perhaps you Yanks don't have them, they're like fortune cookies only seasonal.

[Totovader]

Was that too obscure?

Mottos you get in Christmas crackers.

Perhaps you Yanks don't have them, they're like fortune cookies only seasonal.

LMAO- a fortune cookie?

Us Yanks may view the "cracker motto", differently. "Cracker" is racial slang for a white person- and motto is... well, sort of like it's used: a slogan. So when I read that, it reads as if only white people have mottos- like only white people can be skeptics.

[Dr Adequate]

LMAO- a fortune cookie?

Us Yanks may view the "cracker motto", differently. "Cracker" is racial slang for a white person- and motto is... well, sort of like it's used: a slogan. So when I read that, it reads as if only white people have mottos- like only white people can be skeptics. Fixed. Let no-one say I slept while a verbal ambiguity went unnoticed.

---

In the UK, a cracker is either something you pull at Christmas or a sort of thin savory biscuit.

And "motto", though I may be old-fashioned (especially for 34) can mean any pithy or aphoristic statement, as in Hugh Selwyn Mauberley:

His true Penelope was Flaubert,
He fished by obstinate isles;
Observed the elegance of Circe's hair
Rather than the mottoes on sun-dials.

---

England and America are two countries divided by a common language.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Yo Dr Adequate! I'd like to edit the "Who's who" page a tad. But I haven't got any editing rights. Could you help me out?

Cheers
S

[geni]

Yo Dr Adequate! I'd like to edit the "Who's who" page a tad. But I haven't got any editing rights. Could you help me out?

Cheers
S

PM me with your requested username and I should be able to sort it out.