Archives[edit]

/Original commets moved from Proposals for new projects.

Comments on your idea[edit]

Do you want to write about actual convictions of those prosecuted for criminal conspiracies? Do you want to review civil judgments entered for civil conspiracies? Do you want to discuss settlements and plea bargains for illegal conspiracies?

There is a difference between conspiracy and conspiring. For example, there might be a conspiracy of the government covering up evidence of extraterrestrials, but that is a bit different from a group of people conspiring together on, say, insider trading.--70.112.108.51 03:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want to focus on conspiracies that are well documented but haven't been litigated through the court system?

Your project might be interesting but your goal is unclear.

Most crimes, other than everyday street crimes, are the results of planning by two or more persons. This is what defines a conspiracy (an agreement to commit a crime).

Of the four subjects you have cited leave doubts about your goal and understanding of conspiracy law:

Secret Societies" There is nothing, in itself, conspiratorial about forming a "secret society." However, if those involved agree to commit a crime that would be a conspiracy. Therefore,it would be certainly wrong to presume a secret society engages in conspiratorial conduct and would be defamatory to accuse college fraternities, the Masons, and any other fraternal organization that has certain secret rituals to call them conspiratorial groups.

"JFK" Was there an agreement between two or more people to kill the president? The polls show an overwhelming number of American believe there was more than one person involved and the House Select Committee on Assassinations also concluded there was a conspiracy. It is an issue covered extensively elsewhere.

"9/11" No question that a group of terrorists entered into a conspiracy to hyjack planes and commit murder and mayhem. So that conspiracy is well documented.

"Moon landing" I have no idea what this is. Did someone have an illegal agreement to land on the moon? What crime was being broken?
- There are several claims that there was no moon landing. Among other things, the flag waving. There is a Wikipedia article on that somewhere. Jon Harald Søby 19:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Learn to spell, and to write in complete sentences before taking on such a major topic

Also: Read up on conspiracy theories.

Good questions. Of course, with the articles being written by volunteers the topics could quite easily cover any act considered a conspiracy. but for that same reason it could be limited in scope to the most appealing(and well known) topics. Personaly I was thinking of conspiracy theories and not every conspiracy ever. I first thought of this (though I wasn't the first too) while reading the talks page on the Skull and Bones article in wikipedia. It seemed that some people were coming for (and contributing) only verifiable facts. and others were coming for (and contributing) information that, shall I say, suggested that the skull and bones were part of a plot to take over the world (or whatever). Now, to be honest... I enjoy reading grand conspiracy theories, they intrest me. But to have them on wikipedia where everything is supposed to be solid fact causes too many disputes. Here we could focus solely on the theory and all aspects of it. But mostly this is Focusing on Conspiracy Theories (see the wikipedia article for an idea of what im talking about when I say that. though the article stereotypes). Bottom line I think conspiracy Theories are Interesting and a part of our culture and as such they should be recorded and cataloged--Olsdude 03:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiconspiracy"

Cleared Up A Bit?[edit]

Ok so I did a bit of a re-edit. I guess I did make my idea a bit unclear. Of course someone with terrible spelling and grammer such as my self could never take on a major topic like conspiracy law. I guess it was my terrible spelling and grammer that gave that impression.

Where this belongs[edit]

If you want to start something cohesive, why not try WikiProjects? 208.147.72.158 Her Pegship 18:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the link you posted. It says: Generally you should have at least 5–10 people involved before a Wikiproject structure makes any sense and adds any value. If you don't think you'll get at least 5–10 people on board, then don't waste your effort—you'll be better off just writing your articles. If you are not sure: If you have a subject you are passionate about, but you aren't certain if anyone else is interested, then write a brief description of your project on your user page, and a link to it on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List of proposed projects. If interest is good, feel free to launch the project; otherwise you will probably find it more effective to focus your efforts on the articles themselves. so I think this actually belongs here for now.--Olsdude 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alt.wikipedia.org[edit]

Perhaps it might reflect badly on wikipedia, but I myself do not think so.
The use of "alt" is, I believe, a traditional internet convention for such things.
I recommend that verifiable sources are always mentioned, whereas ordinarily on wikipedia this is not convention, since most things are assumed to be beyond dispute.

Xiutwel 13:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the info, however I don't seem to understand what exactly you're talking about. Who brought up "alt"? What may reflect badly on Wikipedia? As for sources, I agree, as far as this proposed project is concerned all sources should be mentioned.--Olsdude 20:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea[edit]

I think this page is a great idea. It will help to clean up the entries on Wikipedia proper and alleviate the constant conflict between conspiracy theorists and skeptics, while allowing the conspiracy theorists to essentially create a massive compendium of known theories.

Of course, care should be taken to ensure that the theories are at least somewhat common, but this is easily shown through common Wikipedia practices such as counting the hits on a Google search.

So, if the theory is "9/11 conspiracy" we can check at Google and see it returns 718,000 hits, therefore it is sufficiently widespread to constitute common knowledge, and should be included in this wiki.

I also like the point that conspiracy theories are a part of culture, and should be cataloged as such. Even if the theories are completely opinionated/delusional, if they are widespread enough to generate Google hits then they should be included, simply to catalog their existence.

Say more on what it is not[edit]

*Not a collection of proved historical events like the Reikstag fire.

Or say what you are not intending on duplicating; References to things said to be proven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proven_conspiracies might be good and GOOD LUCK ! I dont have time to help much the information war is being fought all over the planet.

Good idea, I know something about this[edit]

I like this idea very much. I am big believer of conspiracies. You could simply say that without conspiracies, at least in a more stable NPOV, this project would be a mere daydream, impossible of realization (hahahaha, 1984 allusion).

But, my point - I SUPPORT THIS IDEA! --70.30.0.17 01:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]

More in for RESEARCH[edit]

The point is that there is a difference between conspiracy theories and a well funded articles, news, research, or books.

So you name it; want to be in the category 'conspiracy terrorists'?

I really think such a category should only be meant for insufficient funded theories. So put all the theories together. Even the most ridiculous for fun. And others more-funded. But if there is sufficient proof, it majorly belongs in articles, news, research, or books.

Therefore I registered some time ago:

http://WikiResear.ch/Main_Page[edit]

Contains Dutch pages, some English and some Spanish.
Volunteers needed, also see http://abyz.info/

wikiresearch · Research Wiki Development Group[edit]

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/wikiresearch/

I you're a bit from Sirius & in 4 bloody serious research, please join!

Let's Do It! It will save time in the short run[edit]

Serendipity, just this evening I was thinking we need exactly this, a conspiracy Wiki. The tyranny of the majority is totally frustrating. Knock yourself out trying to put up a good page to spread important knowledge, to make wiki what an encyclopedia should be, that is encyclopedic, and some mean or clueless critter comes along, kicks, and in two seconds flat it's wasted.
Here's a suggestion on modus operandi
Check out the talk page of Robert David Steele's wiki entry [1] where the subject himself chimes in:
"I continue to believe in Wikipedia, but it needs two things to really survive all these fools: a "lock down" on documents facts that mature editors can block for frivolous change without a nomination process; and a graduated scale that limits newcomers to posting new stuff but not destroying old stuff. Don't know if anyone noticed, but when I spent two days trying to make the OSINT page realistic and comprehensive, I did not destroy, I only added. Most of what I added--as the foremost proponent in the world for OSINT--has been corrupted by people with selfish motives or personal angst rather than true knowledge".
A variation on that would be that you can't delete or change someone's contributions without a consensus.
Some of the wreckers like to use the bandwidth argument, too. Maybe if we help fund the project Wiki management might smile on it too.
We would need a little bit different rules from the main Wiki. A bias more to inclusion than exclusion. I suppose sometimes an article would get too long. So we would want to keep the notability principle, but mainstream reliability criteria won't work. If there is a "mainstream" media conspiracy to suppress conspiracy thinking... and only MSM sources are "reliable" -- then you get an Orwellian catch 22. And that's what we got in Wikiworld.
Here's another concept. Allow people to vote on all content, like on reviews on Amazon. If it gets yea votes, it stays. Plus, members earn points when their content earns positive reviews. Then when it comes to a vote on deleting, their score shows along with their comments in the discussion, so you can see who is a contributor and who is not. You need some way to keep editors from becoming gatekeepers. HolaQuetzal 08:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TinWiki[edit]

Have you guys seen TinWiki? They are using a CC license.

Welcome to the TinWiki, the first full-feature Wiki dedicated exclusively to all the topics that inspires the authors to consider "Tin foil hats". Topics such as conspiracy theories, UFO cover ups, extraterrestrial programs, New World Order, Illuminati, secret government programs, top secret bases, and nearly any other "alternative topic" that would cause paranoid fear of the government reprisals, wire taps, and email monitoring are the focus of this collaborative Wiki.

But I think it could be done better... --Zcopley 23:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

secret society[edit]

The people who are part of it what do they usually do ? What is this some sort of ritual ? Renahanweq (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mars[edit]

Doe it have life ? Is there life beneath Mars was there ever police car found on Mars ? Renahanweq (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]