Wikispooks:Editorial Policy

WikiSpooks likes Wikipedia's style, but not all of its substance (most clearly so on matters of deep politics). This section is designed to help someone from a Wikipedia background adjust the WikiSpooks policy of what is suitable material. Definitions of "bias", "Neutral Point of View" and (particularly) "notability of sources" may be unfamiliar, since Wikispooks does not align itself with commercially-controlled media. Some extracts from Wikipedia's definition of "Neutral Point of View" ^[1] will suffice to illustrate the differences.

Importance of Evidence

Opinions are helpful in their own right, but become much more so when they explain evidence which is readily observed and generally agreed upon. Therefore, backing up your writing by citing supporting webpages, videos, images or other documents is highly recommended. Use <ref> tags containing the reference (e.g. the URL of a webpage) to display a small supertext numeral^[2]. If you judge these of relevance to deep politics and/or if you think that the originals may be removed from the internet, you may upload them to this site. If you lack evidence for your viewpoints, offer an explanation of why this might not be available. You can indicate doubts about a particular statement by using template:cn^[3].

Majority ≠ Accuracy

Much madness is divinest Sense
To a discerning Eye
Much Sense - the starkest Madness
'Tis the Majority
In this, as All, prevail
Assent - and you are sane
Demur - you're straightway dangerous
And handled with a Chain

Poem 435 - Emily Dickinson, c. 1862

Wikipedia:
"In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the super-majority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field."

Wikipedia equates majority with accuracy. To focus on the specific example, it is quite possible that many non-Western Establishment academics would reverse the relative Wiesenthal/Irving super-majority/minority proportions stated here. Add to that the propensity of certain western countries to imprison people like Irving for simply expressing a minority opinion, and the mainstream assumption that we have anything approaching freedom of expression, speech and research becomes risible. This is not to defend Irving's opinions, but merely to note how 'The majority' imposes absurd orthodoxies which limit the boundaries of allowable debate and are thus reflected in all commercially-controlled media - including Wikipedia.

Professional ≠ Reliable

Wikipedia:
"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views, and the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth should not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority."

The same problem recurs, and note that Wikipedia's definition of "reliable sources" includes those who can be manipulated by money (such as newspaper columnists, television reporters and other professionals). Blogs may be judged reliable "if the writers are professionals". A "significant viewpoint" is of course no less of a value judgment - to illustrate, wind the clock back some 450 years and replace 'flat-earth' with 'Heliocentric'. So NPOV is about echoing a concensus reality, which gives prominence to viewpoints backed by big money.

No Illusion of 'Neutrality'

WikiSpooks intends to give primacy to solid evidence-based viewpoints, even if unpopular, rather than affording spurious credibility to so called "reliable sources/significant viewpoints". 'Neutral', impartial judgments are a fiction - even when said sources are claimed to to be purely scientific, let alone if they are political. Such 'neutrality' in fact gives a grossly disproportionate weight to the Establishment view (what Wikispooks terms the "official narrative").

As John Pilger has noted, value free journalism is a fiction, an excuse for a craven refusal to challenge the status-quo. Decisions about what to write and what not to write are inevitably partisan. For example, note the BBC's refusal to broadcast the "Disasters Emergency Committee" Appeal for Gaza ^[4] in January 2009 on the grounds of 'maintaining impartiality'. WikiSpooks editors need make no apologies for editing according to their personal convictions.

One result of this inclusive approach is that page deletions are rare on Wikispooks. Deletions are reverted unless a valid reason^{[clarification needed]} for deletion is present.

No 'Taboo' Ideas

Wikispooks is a forum for exploring ideas of all types. Wikispooks aims to avoid taboos which rule ideas out of court a priori, though Wikispooks aims to explore reality, not fantasy. For your ideas to persist in the main: namespace, you should be prepared to present at some evidence and/or logic to back them up; persistent failure to explain the relevance of your contributions to articles will result in them being reverted or moved to a sub-page of your userpage.

General Courtesy

Collaboration with a community of editors around the world is sometimes challenging, so editors should maintain courtesy at all times and be mindful that not all Wikispooks editors have native level fluency in English and that misunderstandings can happen in any case. The talk pages are a good venue for discussion about article content. In particular, if you revert someone's edits, you are recommended either leave a note on that page's talk page or on the user's page. At a very minimum, use the comment box to explain the reversion.

Summary

Official announcements, documents, press releases etc. important to the maintenance of hierarchy should be treated with skepticism proportional to the legal power, wealth or other such interest in the establishment hierarchies of their source.
Such information should be assumed to be issued in furtherance of a hidden - if sometimes more or less obvious - agenda and thus designed to mislead rather than to inform.
Reputation, Position, Rank, Place etc., in Establishment hierarchies and protocols are pretentious conceits serving establishment agendas (hidden or otherwise) and thus more deserving of ridicule than respect.