A SaitIt User's Personal Experience Of Censorship Of The Death Of William Cooper - 1 Death, 2 Stories, 2 Emails, & Reference #19.

submitted by JasonCarswell from infogalactic.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The Wikipedia article seems to be acceptably neutral in its language. However, a "controversy" subsection of the Death section should probably be added, since there is apparently a controversy.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

This is NOT Wikipedia.

This "controversy" is BANNED on Wikipedia.

On Infogalactic I prefer to present the "official" corporatocracy narrative along side the alternative perspective(s) and let the reader determine what is controversial or not for themselves.

Feel free to join InfoGalactic and contribute uncensored.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I know. I was referring to the Wikipedia article.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Good luck with that. Their system is utterly rigged. First you need a citation. Because it's a controversial "fringe" topic you'll need multiple citations from "reliable" sources (corporate mainstream media, not counting RT, Al Jazeera, etc etc etc) - and not independent "fringe" sources. And it doesn't end there...

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

To be fair to them, they're trying to create an encyclopedia. It's only going to be accurate on stuff from hundreds of years ago, or completely apolitical topics, because of all the propaganda.

However, I think you should try to add in a "controversy" section. Try to write it as neutrally as possible, and keep it under 2 paragraphs with a short quotation, and source everything. So long as you keep your sources away from "Conspiracist sites such as Infowars.com."[1], you should be fine. That includes thetruthseeker.co.uk and stuff like that, which I've personally noticed to be frequently unreliable! But I'm certain you'll be able to find decent sources on this topic, if you look past the clickbaity pseudo-Truther sites on the first few pages of search results…

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

BULLSHIT

I didn't try to correct 9/11 or even the 9/11 conspiracies article (both terribly inaccurate) but I was trying to correct obvious mistakes on the 9/11 Truth Movement and that shit is locked down and guarded by Nazis.

As I stated I tried to add "allegedly" and they gave me shit about it.

You try if you think you can.

Controversy and alternative perspectives are forbidden.

Na man. I've been there. I got banned for a YEAR for being "another polite truther."

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Wow. Appeal, maybe? Easiest way for a policy change.

Try making a more substantial (REALLY neutral) contribution, instead of such a little one.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Good luck.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, it's not the sort of article I'd edit for accuracy; I don't know enough about it.