Wikispooks policy is intended 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 has no fielty to the authorities and their commercially-controlled media. Some extracts from Wikipedia's definition of "Neutral Point of View"  will suffice to illustrate the differences.
Importance of Evidence
Opinions are helpful, but become much more so when they explain evidence which is readily observed and generally agreed upon. It is easy to cite sources, and help readers track information back to primary sources. Therefore, you are highly recommended to cite your sources by using a pair of <ref> tags containing the reference (e.g. the URL of a webpage).This will display in the main text as a small supertext numeral, while adding the reference to the list at the bottom.
If you lack evidence for your viewpoints, you mat still include them, but should offer an explanation of why this might not be available. You can indicate doubt about a particular statement by using the template:cn template.
If you have non-classified (or de-classified) documents of particular relevance to deep politics and/or if you think that the originals may be removed from elsewhere on the internet, you may upload them to this site.
Trustworthiness of sources
Wikispooks has a simple policy about reliability of sources: - all sources are potentially useful, so automatic assumption of good or bad faith is unhelpful. If you doubt the usefulness of material added by another Wikispooks editor, the recommended first course of action is to discuss this publicly in their talk page. A public discussion through talk pages, by recording all opinions expressed, may help facilitate reflection on reliability or lack of it.
Tracking the origin of statements is very important on Wikispooks. Direct quotes can be a particularly effective way of elucidate a page's subject - and are therefore particularly useful in articles about people. Quotes of a few words are best done inline in the normal fashion with quotation marks ("). For quotes of more than a couple of lines, the best presentation is probably one or other of the Box templates. Long quotes do not belong in the main: namespace - where the quoted material is particularly important, editors should usually important the whole thing into the Document: namespace, for which separate rules apply. Use Template:Uncertain origin to flag any violations of this policy.
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
"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
"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  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.
- Full article: Non-violent communication
- Full article: Non-violent communication
Editors should communicate non-violently, in the sense that they try not to use nebulous enemy images or polarising perspectives. Reports about the activities of the Russian establishment, for example, should be aware that the threat of "Russian Propaganda" has been hyped in recent years by Propornot and a UK counterpart, the Integrity Initiative. This is not to say that Russia does not engage in propaganda, but that it is certainly not the only government to do so, and note should be taken of lies by other groups such as NATO.
Collaboration with a community of editors around the world is sometimes challenging, so editors should maintain courtesy at all times, especially with new editors who may be unfamiliar with procedure. Please 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 good venues for discussion about article content. In particular, if you revert someone's edits, you are recommended either leave an explanation on that page's talk page or on the user's page. At a very minimum, use the comment box to explain the reversion.
- Full article: Wikispooks:Editor Undertakings
- Full article: Wikispooks:Editor Undertakings
Editors are expected to comply with a number of undertaking detailed in the Editor undertakings page. Anyone intending to apply for editor privileges should read this page before doing so.
- 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.
- ↑ Wikipedia 'Neutral Point of View'
- ↑ Like this!
- ↑ cn = "citation needed"
- ↑ BBC refusal to broadcast the "Disasters Emergency Committee" Appeal for Gaza - The Guardian January 2009
- ↑ For example, a NATO spokesman denied all knowledge of Operation Gladio, but the group later admitted that this had been incorrect.