- 1 Welcome to Wikispooks!
- 2 Norman Kirk
- 3 Redirects
- 4 Ditchley
- 5 Conversing
- 6 Documents
- 7 Not all Integrity Initaive documents are linked
- 8 Mange takk
- 9 Finding the Wikispooks page
- 10 Simple tip
- 11 Integrity Initiative/Leak
- 12 Couple more tips
- 13 Bilderberg postponement
- 14 Tip for unstubbing pages
- 15 Use of SMWQ
- 16 "Sponsors" is ambiguous
- 17 Use of "constitutes"
- 18 Tip for circumventing Dutch (and other) paywalls
- 19 Members lists
- 20 References
- 21 Good work with Monsignor Brunello
- 22 Circular Traffic
- 23 Email
- 24 Wish for a 2020 End of Year Summary
Welcome to Wikispooks!
We're glad you came. There's lots to do.
The Community portal is probably the best place to start for new users. To add a Wikispooks search facility to your browser, go here. If you've got a topic you're itching to write about, just dive in. If you're not sure where to start, you can introduce yourself by editing either this page or your user page. Robin (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I just fixed BILD Zeitung. Note that redirects only need the page name:
#REDIRECT[[Axel_Springer_Publishing_House]] , not #REDIRECT[[https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Axel_Springer_Publishing_House]]
Thanks for fixing it. I still haven't mastered the tools here, it will take a long time.
a) How to express the relationships between these Ditchley groups? What would you think about having hierarchical pagenames, e.g. Ditchley, Ditchley/UK, Ditchley/US, Ditchley/Canada etc?
b) For listing members, where possible, try to use the template (metadata), since this data is machine readable, so will appear on other pages (e.g. as "Member of: Ditchley/UK"). I did this for the Bilderberg meetings after all the attendance lists were leaked. There are different ways this could be done, and I'm not sure which would work best. One approach might be to have a page Ditchley/Governors (c.f. Bilderberg/Steering committee) and tp use |members= to allocate membership. Background information is: How many members/governors/meetings are there? Where is this documented? How often does membership change?... -- Robin (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Robin, Thanks for the tip, I was struggling with making proper lists. I'll look into it on the weekend.
And yes, I belive Ditchley, Ditchley/UK, Ditchley/US, Ditchley/Canada would work.
For starting new conversations, the user talk page is good. Where there's an ongoing conversation, I'm not automatically informed, but will probably keep an eye on replies. Do remember to end comments on talk pages with "-- ~~~~", which signs it. -- Robin (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Do add as many wikilinks (with '[') as you think helpful. The most important suggestion I have for what else to add would be |description, since this will help people navigate. -- Robin (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Not all II4 documents are showing in https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Integrity_Initiative/Leak/4. Is there anything I can do to get them to show. Example of one not showing: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:CND_Integrity_Initiative_visit_to_Oslo,_29-31_Aug_2016
Mange takk for hjelpen med wikispooks prosjektet. Det blir satt stor pris på Terje.
Finding the Wikispooks page
Here's a tip on finding the Wikispooks pagename of an event. Often we use the same name for events as Wikipedia does, though sometimes this is clearly not suitable - in these cases, provided you know the year of the event, you can find a list of events from going there, e.g. 2016#Events lists all the events of 2016. -- Robin (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes I add content without supporting references, e.g. if I'm pretty sure but can't find a reference, or don't have time to. In this case, I use Template:cn to mark the major points where I feel a reference is justified. -- Robin (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations on uploading the last of the Integrity Initiative/Leak documents, Terje, (and on adding the nationalities to the last Bilderbergers). In case you were wondering why the lists (e.g. Integrity_Initiative/Leak/7#Examples) are missing some, I assume it is just lag. Bilderberg/Guests/Nationality currently reports 2896/2962 are known, though I'm pretty sure they're all accounted for. I thought the IfS members were nearly done, but then I found another list. Wikipedia, by contrast, seems to have been working to reduce its information about the leak. It's now down to just 3 sentences. -- Robin (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I've done maybe 90% of the II-files. It took a few months longer than expected! Left out is a fair amount of the invoices and contact lists (most are integrated in other entries anyway) and most of the media/twitter analysis files (esp II 3 Skripal), which have a fiendish amount of graphics and don't add much anyway.
There are signs that II & partner efforts are still more active than ever, with a fresh country report against 'internal enemies' in Norway + stories/editorials that are obviously following leads from above.
- Now just one person away from the complete known IfS staff. Note that they are still hiring. Whether they will really clean up their act and move their deep state business elsewhere is a moot point. -- Robin (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Couple more tips
I just undid your removal of titular logo, since I judge their logo to have the name written clearly enough to not need text next to it on the coverpage. (Currently that's the only use of that parameter). Whether it is readable of course depends on e.g. screen size, so it's not necessarily a clear cut decision.
You've been doing good work with groups and |members -- this is a good way to improve the existing pages too, since the existing members have a link to their group appear in the "Members of" section. The preferred format for names is not to have titles or usually not even middle initials, although for unknown people, it's good to keep all the info we have, so they are useful. When putting in lists of names as you've been, the simple takeaway for names with middle initials of people we have pages for is that if a preview shows them in red (not-linking), then taking the middle initials away should make them link.
As far as images go, I almost always use either "|left" or "|right", since then the text flows around it, instead of having white space either side around the image. -- Robin (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- I took away "titular logo" because when you previously clicked on Atlantik-Brücke on the main new edits page, it only opened a new page with the image jpg file, not the Wiki-entry itself.
- The lists are a great tool to capture surprising and not-so-surprising connections that otherwise wouldn't be seen, spook-connections and other. And eventually they will show that certain people are members of almost everything. Henry Kissinger, Carl Bildt, Zbigniew Brzezinski and a few other are front runners.
- I leave out Dr., Prof., Amb., etc. If they are left, it is by oversight. Some of the people are nobility, which makes it a bit more ambiguous if their titles should be taken away. And the Yanks normally write Jr. with a comma i.e "Richie Rich, Jr" which I have to remove to make the lists work.Terje (talk)---
Tip for unstubbing pages
The |description parameter is uniquely important to improve the overall site quality, since it is (nearly) the only part of a page which appears on multiple _other_ pages. E.g. The "participants" section of Bilderberg/2019. Because of the interest in Bilderberg2020 increasing, I actually decided that it would be good to add descriptions to each of the 2019 guests. -- Robin (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Use of SMWQ
I've just slightly reorganised the Samuel Huntington page. Good work there BTW. I trimmed the "Quote" section, since I prefer the quote to contribute naturally to the text, like in a magazine article. Maybe you were thinking of the "Related quotes" sections, which some pages have, and which is machine-generated.
One of the more important parameters in SMWQ is |subjects, since this allows the quote to appear on multiple pages. See for example Violence#Related_Quotations. The Huntington quote is not yet there, but should be there when the software does its thing. -- Robin (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Got it, I prefer it like that too. While we are one the subject of metadata:
- I've never seen it on Wikispooks, can I add corporations etc. as 'members' of groups, f.ex British Petroleum as a member of Franco-British Colloque ? Terje (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)---
- Yes. There are actually lots more possibilities than we have explored here. One reason, apart from laziness, that I've avoided giving you tight instructions on how to use the SMW framework is that this way you keep innovating and coming up with new things I hadn't thought of :-) -- Robin (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better to have them in a special category 'sponsors', 'backers' 'purse-holders' or 'financiers'. This would be particularly relevant for NGOs, which get $$$ from George Soros or USAID, NED etc. Terje (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)---
"Sponsors" is ambiguous
I just noticed that the word "sponsors" is unfortunately ambiguous. i.e.
- A "sponsors" [gives to]: B, C, D...
- B's "sponsors" [receives from]: A....
Use of "constitutes"
The aim of |constitutes is to put like with like, so it is necessary to be somewhat generic, so that items match with each other. I there change "Dutch prize committee for most successful propaganda" into just "awards committee", since this is more likely to match something else -- although it doesn't yet have its own page. I shoifted the original |constitutes into description, where specificity is good. -- Robin (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
If you want to cite sources in Dutch (as I've seen you do sometimes) most regular Dutch surfers walk into the Dutch paywalls for older articles on the main newspapers (usually 7 days after publication) (and some American too nowadays apart from the geo-block) I use this on google chrome; https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome
Maybe you already use this and this is just a waste of bytes, but it has been vital to me, so I thought why not share this. Hope it can help you, thx for your work on the Dutch pages! Jun (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Jun. EDIT; PS: Firefox version; https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox
Thanks, that tool is very handy! I try to boycott MSM, but still use them for references.
I will look at the Dutch pages as you make them, and give my input when I have something. (NB! I don't always discover all of them, as new edits can disappear among all the other new ones.) Terje (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)---
Firstly, let me say how much I appreciate your adding new groups and members lists - it's a very valuable addition to the site. Because of the SMW basis of the site, data entered here simultaneously works on 2 levels:
- What is visible to the user
- The machine readable data, used to auto-fill the SMWDocs sections and infoboxes
For the second of these, it's important to put data in predictable places, i.e. Use of /Members would confuse the SMW, even if it might be better for the readership. I understand your concern about making the pages look good, so let's discuss ideas of what might be an improvement. The current system was set up with groups like Le Cercle in mind, where all members are of importance. This has only a few hundred known members, rather than thousands. The current approach probably won't scale well for really big groups. One idea, for example, could be to initially hide the members, but have a button to show them if the user requests it. I'm not sure how easy that would be to implement. I welcome your thoughts on how to improve display of group membership. -- Robin (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure how easy it is to implement, but if members that have a separate biography gets priority ('names in blue'), it will cover most relevant persons. Another category that definitely should be shown is people who are members of multiple groups but still don't have a separate entry - this would indicate that they are people of interest. Hopefully this would be automatically updated.
As people move up the greasy pole and/or is found worthy of a Wikispooks biography, they would be added to the visible names. For example, with Clade X, only Margaret Hamburg,Jamie Gorelick and Tom Daschle have separate biographies for now. But John Bellinger a member of multiple groups (Ditchley/US, British-American Project and Council on Foreign Relations/Members) and hence is possibly an important person and it would add to Clade X if he was shown.
Council on Foreign Relations is a mammoth with 5000+ names, and such lists might require a separate policy. I had to split it in 3 parts, since Wikispooks wouldn't let me list them in one entry.
There will be a similar but more concentrated problem with 'sponsor of' - a handful mega-organizations - Open Society, NED, Bill & Melinda Gates sponsor a lot of things.
PS I tried to use 'financing' in the metadata, but it doesn't seem to work. 'Sponsor of' works, so I have been using it a few times. Which one should I stick to? Terje (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)---
While on the topic: especially when merging long member lists from multiple sources, it can be hard to weed out duplicates - maybe a computer script could do this? Terje (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)---
- That's not a bad idea. I used a simple word processor and "sort" to trim the duplicates last time. Slightly long winded, but the data almost always needs a manual cleanup anyway. Agreed though, with huge long lists, it would be a good help. Shouldn't be that hard to program. The putting known members first, ditto. I agree, this would improve usability. Re: financing, use "sponsor of". -- Robin (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Good work with Monsignor Brunello
Thanks for your work these days. Would you be willing to use more links and referrals in your articles? So that visitors on the site are more inclined to read more articles than just the page they land on. Some articles like the blowback have less blue links than paragraphs. It doesn't have to change your writing style, I've edited the blowback article not removing any word giving an example. Please review it. Jun (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll certainly take note of it, but the problem is normally to decide which word it is worth bracketing; in the Blowback entry, 'political','military' and 'weapon' is good, while 'incompetence' and 'anti-Western' have no entry!☺
Wish for a 2020 End of Year Summary
Regarding some suggestions for that summary, Robin provided them here; Wikispooks:News, I don't know if you saw it. There are more stats I could add for us contributors using the Pwiki stats, but that would take some time, as I would need to sort every page manually to whoever made it as far as my knowledge goes. But it is in fact on a long list of to do for me as well, don't worry about that. Hope this anwers your question for now. Thanks for your hard work on the Universities as well! Jun (talk)