I've been interested in conspiracy theories for awhile. If you read enough of them its amusing to notice that almost everything manages to tie in to some theory. The cigarettes you smoke, the tv you watch, the music you listen to, the water you drink, even AIDS. Every event on the news is quickly fit into the puzzle. Its all part of some secret war too grand to perceive, a plot that has brewed since the dawn of time. And at some point in the future is going to make us all sorry. You don't have too beleive them to enjoy it.
The idea is to build an encyclopedia of conspiracy theories and "ignored evidence", all the "secrets". The articles would be constructed from that point of view. So when one writes an article about something it would be about how it fits in with known conspiracy theories. So you would have all the "grand cover-ups", the aliens in Egypt and with the Mayans, the Secret Societies that run the world, the plots to take over our minds. The articles would still be NPOV avoiding statements like "lizard people secretly run the world" and using "David Icke says lizard people run the world". This would not be a place for people to post their own imagined conspiracy theories. If you personaly think that dolphins are evolved humans from the future and that they sunk atlantis don't bring it here. Articles should stick more to established conspiracy theories from reliable sources.... like books written by crazy people and late night UFO documentaries.
(There is some contradiction in the above. So if someone writes a non wiki book and publishes it, then it suddenly is a reliable external source?" It shouldn't make difference if the source is internal or external, but the reliability of it. And that also is very diputable. So a famous writer is a reliable source? And a nitwit not? Crazy wicked Wiki world... -this part can be removed, after these issues have been cleared up in above basic text)
So for instance an article about water could mention that theory from "Dr. Strangelove" about flouride in the water but wouldn't mention the chemical properties of water.
The question is if this ever will be integrated with the official WikiMedia org. Clearly is stated "No original research", what means external reliable sources. There was -even is- a Recyclopedia with all kinds of conspiracy and social movements info. Then there came a DOS attack, what mostly is done when one wants to surpress the info involved. The WikiMedia moderators 'aggreed' (=Wikiconspiracy?) with the DOS attackers and locked Recyclopeda for the public. They broke official rules/policies in doing so, using non-arguments like that all those people who placed subjects in Recyclopedia must be trolls. That instead of stating the DOS attackers are trolls and probably had a reason to attack unwanted info. Subsequently no serious steps have been taken to get this info working again, in- or outside the official org.
There seems to be an internal dispute going on also and a lot is deleted or censored -like there is no Wiki subject "Recyclopedia" either- so the above is NOT YET covering the exact details and might contain errors.
Background info of the above: Wiki_Science:WikiResearch Also for a review about good research conditions for a Wikiconspiracy.
Some initiatives are in a preliminary stage, like:
Waiting for some professional suggestions and contributions to this part...
(Comments &discussion moved to discussion page. Only basic info on this page please)