[denna sida behöver översättas till svenska]

Site Rationale

Full article: Wikispooks:Site Rationale

WikiSpooks combines user-submitted information from third parties with a collaborative space for the joint exploration of events, opinions and theories not generally explored in corporate media and as such, not tolerated in Wikipedia. Since official narratives sometimes change, it stands to reason that they are not always correct. WikiSpooks provides a venue for users interested in exploring such lines of research. Most of the content here is post-WW2. Analysis of historical events from earlier times is however welcome, especially when it sheds light on the hidden purposes and practices of contemporary deep politics.

Editorial Policy

Full article: WikiSpooks:Editorial Policy

The fundamental premise of WikiSpooks’ editorial policy is that authority opposes anything which it perceives as a threat, generally successfully because of the greater resources which authority can bring to bear. This power imbalance becomes especially acute where matters of deep politics are involved. For more on this, see Media Lens, a media-monitoring website.[1] Wikispooks therefore does not aim for a (status quo friendly) Neutral Point of View[2] and noting that newspapers and broadcasters can and do lie with impunity, it does not assume endorsement of evidence by the commercially-controlled media to be a reliable indication of its veracity.

What Is Wrong With Wikipedia?

Full article: WikiSpooks:Problems with Wikipedia

Wikipedia is good at what it does. However, its editorial policies guarantee a blind spot around matters of deep politics, so information on such topics is superficial and fragmented at best and more often than not a smokescreen. Wikipedia’s adherence to the official narrative as promulgated by establishment-friendly ’reliable sources’ effectively mean that, to use an astrological metaphor ”the sun must always be represented as revolving around the earth”.[3]

The ”Gunpowder Plot” of 1605 in England is an example of how it is possible to marshal copious undisputed facts but nonetheless to underplay a plausible interpretation worthy of more attention. Popular perception of that event remains consonant with the official narrative that the good authorities were caught off-guard by a dastardly Popish conspiracy to blow up parliament whilst in session, and that the plot was uncovered and foiled in the nick of time. Does that sound familiar? Wikipedia’s article on The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 relegating ”accusations of state conspiracy” to a single paragraph while the copious evidence of agent-provocateuring and facilitating by the authorities of the day are not even mentioned.

Any Other Questions?

Full article: WikiSpooks:FAQ

WikiSpooks has an FAQ which answers a bunch of common queries and a glossary that explains some of the specialist language used and should also give you some idea of the type of material you can find here. If you have further questions, contact the site administrator.


Full article: WikiSpooks:Acknowledgments

The site uses the MediaWiki software[4] developed for Wikipedia. It is inspired and informed by several other open source collaborative projects, and is inspired by Cryptome, Wikileaks, The Deep Politics Forum, SpinProfiles, SourceWatch and last but not least, that keeper of the official narrative on the internet, Wikipedia.