A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

Wikipedia censorship

anon | 14.07.2005 20:27 | Technology

Self-censorship in action?

"Wikipedia's volunteers enforce a policy of 'neutral point of view'". Apparently this involves deleting content deemed to have links to fringe websites. Nothing to see here. Move along now.

Quote: "At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now."

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2005/07/318017.mp3

Self-censorship in action:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:7_July_2005_London_bombings#Visor_Consultants_self-promotion.2Fconspiracy_theorising

Some anon (or anons) keep adding references to a PR firm called Visor Consultants which supposedly predicted the bombings. This is self-promotional rubbish which seems to be being forwarded by conspiracy theorists and fringe websites [4], and it doesn't belong in this article. Could people please keep an eye out for this and delete it if it pops up again? -- ChrisO 22:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

See below - apparently publicity the company does not want and an activity that was merely coincidental. Since people have heard about it, it may be prudent to explain it in the article to avoid people putting incorrect information in there. --Habap 15:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The story was aired on BBC radio and is relevant. It was documented. Why do you want to censor it? If you disagree with the story, add a sentence which outlines the alternative view. DELETING CONTENT BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH IT IS PATHETIC. It also negatively impacts on peoples' confidence in wikipedia as an "unbiased" encyclopedia. -- anon, 14 Jul 2005.

I don't think it was deleted because anyone disagrees that it happened. But it was clearly just this guy trying to fluff himself up by feeding on tragedy. The fact that someone in a metropolitan area of about 10 million people (one that has regular bomb threats) was having an emergency planning meeting at the time of a bombing is a chilling bit of synchronicity for those involved but entirely non-notable for the rest of the world. --Lee Hunter 18:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

anon

Comments

Hide the following 15 comments

Wonder Why ...

14.07.2005 22:19

Please see: "How the Government Staged the London Bombings, in 10 Easy Steps" ...

Isn't it interesting that it was the "fringe" media which was right all along about Bush/PNAC/Bliar, and DIDN'T help disseminate their LIES about Iraq, yet they're still treated as such?

Somebody's nervous ...

Pressure From Above

The charge of the loon brigade.

15.07.2005 14:10

I wonder why the hell you think that something that proves nothing is relevant. By VISOR's own admission there were excercises on various days. Okay, you still not buying coincedence. How about: the oprations were known to the bombers?

As it stands this info proves nothing and places like PrisonPlanet (that sells conspiracy, literally) haven't even got the most BASIC of facts right. "Arab bombers" my arse.

I'll bet if there was a gas explosion in a house at the end of your street you'd think it was the New World Order...

If this was a conspiracy it is legendary sloppiness. Did they contract it out to Reliance?

Mjr. Magoo

The corporate MEDIA can be trusted

15.07.2005 15:24

"I'll bet if there was a gas explosion in a house at the end of your street you'd think it was the New World Order..."

Quite right Mr. Magoo - anyone who questions the official version is certifiably insane.

There isn't any real need for Independent media at all.

Just keep tarring anyone who questions anything with the same brush.

If they think that the Visor exercise co-incidence, the non-functioning CCTV on the bus, and the reduction in the terror-alert just before a G8 summit are a bit odd, then they clearly believe in Lizards.

Nothing to see here, read the Times...........

Rupert Murdoch

Mr Magoo - The Voice of Reason (just not sure whose)

15.07.2005 16:04

Mr Magoo, it seems, has realpolitik analysis capacities to match his namesakes' visual ones - myopic, belligerent and irrelevant.

pentos

And the dish ran away with the spoon... but there is no spoon!

15.07.2005 16:10

Christ, you people are simply impossible. You are now putting words in my mouth.. lord on knows where they have been... in Alex Jones' or David Icke's cretinous skulls most likely.

Where exactly did I say I trusted the "corporate media" (whatever the fuck that is... The Financial Times or Business Week perhaps?)... go on, show me you loon! You can't because I didn't.

Now just because I think this conspiracy pish is too absurd for the CPS to even consider plausible, doesn't mean to say that I am some dehumanised sheep stereotype you loons liek to cite as a defence lol!

A couple of bits of ambiguous data and you think you've solves the mystery of prime numbers. Ask any detective what they'd make of it... of I forgot the "pigs" are our "enemies" and shoeshine boys for the elite.

So, since when has MI5/6 been good at covering up illegal activities without some lefty or liberal in there coughing it all up for the broadsheets?

Let's see: Scargill, CND, Rockingham, Khaddafi plot, bugging Kofi Annan, dodgy dossier, "downing st memos". And that's just off the top of my head.

Now "N30" let's see you list of all the big bad deeds they have done and I have been too covine or ostrucean to be aware that I was plugged into the Matx daddio.

Go I'll take the brown pill and see how deep the U-bend goes... yank my chain.

Mr Magoo

Re: Corporate Media

15.07.2005 18:04

The Corporate Media is The Times, The Daily Mail, The Guardian, The Independent, The Sun, The Telegraph, The Financial Times, The Scotsman, The Daily Record, The Evening Standard, Newsweek, The Economist, The Daily Mirror, etc...

In other words, all of the mainstream media.

Any regular reader of this website will be familiar with such terminology.

The media reflects the interests of the organisations which run it, the parts of society of the people who own it, and of course the advertisers who bankroll it. That's not a conspiracy, it's basic economics.

Read Chomsky (or whoever) on this, or check out www.medialens.org

Because the whole of the media has such a conservative and pro-corporate bias it's hard to see that bias because it appears to be "normal" because it's all most people know. Thus many people even think of the slightly more forward thinking minority papers such as the Guardian or the Independent as being some how radical or "left wing", whereas they are nothing of the sort.

corporate dan the dollar-bill man

Mummy, why do the numpties never want to play with me?

15.07.2005 18:09

Come back! I'm not finished with you!

Maestro Magu

read chomsky???

15.07.2005 21:06

Is that some sick joke?

I have read voluminous chomsky on linguisstics (primarily) and politics. Now piss off you bumch of teenage eejits.

Mr Magoo

Blimey I never knew how stupid I was until someone told I was thinking wrong[ly]

16.07.2005 08:55

Dan:

Does "all of the mainstream media" have regular orientation meetings? I'm well aware of the relationship between private/corporate wealth and media. But, I still choose to judge the plausibility of ANY information on its merits, whether it be Chomsky, The Daily Mail, Private Eye. To reject anything out-of-hand is just foolish. Though I am getting close to deciding that anything with a link to prisonplanet planet or infowars isn't worth bothering looking at.

We all choose to believe or not to believe. There is no such thing as unbiased information of any description. Go read some linguistics and that'll become rapidly clear. If you are looking for "truth" you're chasing your tail.

It seems that too many people buy into the marketing hype of propaganda and thereby put their hands up and effectively state "yes I am totally gullible and open to manipulation" I think the amount of people that blindly accept spin/lies because they are unthinking (as opposed to it agreeing with their prejudices) will probably equate the amount of people drink Sunny D and eat Pot Noodle (yes, that's a joke!) Or, do you think you are intellectually superior than anyone who disagrees with you... like every other talking ape.

Acolyte Magoo

Aargh! Helicopters

16.07.2005 14:30

Children, children. Leave Magoo alone; stop picking on someone your own size. I am here.

>> I'll bet if there was a gas explosion in a house at the end of your street you'd think it was the New World Order...

When I opened my fridge this morning, I could have sworn I saw Jews behind the orange-juice.

Paranoid Alec

...

17.07.2005 07:48

Paranoid Alec: they could have been arabs posing as jews pretending to be arabs? I'll bet it's all a plot by Ralf Nader.

Let's start a campaign "Make Conspiracy History!"

enlightened magoo

Dear Magooi

17.07.2005 11:46

Just to clarify things, refering you to Chomsky was not some kind of sick joke. Suggesting to someone that they read Chomsky for an insight into how the media works - how is that a sick joke? Sounds pretty sensible to me. You didn't know what the term "corporate media" meant. So I tried to explain. And I refered you to Chomsky amongst other sources, for more information. Chomsky doesn't use the term "corporate media" but he gives a good analysis of what he terms "the propaganda model".

So you've already read Chomsky. Well, I didn't know that. How was I supposed to know that. I don't know you from Adam. It's usually a fair assumption that someone hasn't read Chomsky, seeing as it's quite a small minority of people who read his books.

If you've read Chomsky, and if you're as clever as you're trying to make out that you are (no doubt to compensate for your own insecurities) then you might be expected to have the initiative to work out what people mean by "the corporate media".

So where did anyone say that you should not believe a word of what you believe in the media? Nowhere. The point people were making was that if you spend all your time reading the Daily Mail or even the Guardian then you will probably have a whole bunch of assumptions about how you think the world works, assumptions which need to be challenged, because of their conservative and pro-business bias. The point was that certain things may sound ridiculous to you because they don't fit in with those assumptions. Because you've been reading too much of the corporate media. I can't even remember what the specific argument was about. All I remember was that you didn't know what the "corporate media" meant.

So I explained what it meant and suggested that Chomsky was a source of further information, a perfectly reasonable thing to suggest. And you suggest that's a sick joke.

Bollox to you then.

Dan

Ooopsi!

18.07.2005 16:25

Dan: you are quite right. I owe you an apology for acting the prick. I was caught mid-loon swiping.

I should've simply pointed out that I was inferring I DISAGREED with term "corporate media", as I see the iference that there is one media agenda as an oversimplification. Not that I am saying that mainstream media is in an ideal state.

Contrite Magoo