|
July 9th, 2012 | #21 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,145
|
|
July 9th, 2012 | #22 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
|
|
July 9th, 2012 | #23 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,145
|
|
July 9th, 2012 | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,216
|
Akins, how would you edit this link? Would you do it by adding your name to the list of notable individuals?
|
July 9th, 2012 | #25 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
|
Quote:
Quote:
I see no reason to bring myself into such an article as I am not an activist figure nor do I have any sort of prominent standing in the movement. I'm just one of many voices out there that tries to focus more on ideas and improving methodology than on reactionary displays. It is my view that if Wikipedia could be successfully infiltrated that our efforts would be better placed on exposing the opposition rather than a revision of material that pertains directly to WN, as going in and focusing on revisions of WN related articles would send up red flags immediately. Last edited by Steven L. Akins; July 9th, 2012 at 11:11 PM. |
||
July 10th, 2012 | #26 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,110
|
Quote:
But really, you'd need teams of people to put to this task, if you wanted to do anything besides getting into petty 'edit wars' over the wording of obscure definitions of movement stuff that no-one outside the movement gives a shit about anyway. Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_n...le_individuals |
||
July 10th, 2012 | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,110
|
LOL, Akins. I saw your attempts to edit the 'Akins' page on Wikipedia, which were rejected on the grounds that they were 'copy-pasted from a Geocities site'
I guess you just hold a grudge against Wikipedia because they wouldn't accept your brand of plagiarised 'scholarship', huh? |
July 10th, 2012 | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,216
|
Here they are down playing any indication that jews have a collective agenda; all the while pointing out multiple agendas of WN.
How would you rewrite this statement? Some critics argue that white nationalists — while posturing as civil rights groups advocating the interests of their racial group — frequently draw on the nativist traditions of the KKK and the British National Front.[30] Critics have noted the anti-semitic rhetoric used by white nationalists, as highlighted by the promotion of conspiracy theories such as Zionist Occupation Government.[31] |
July 10th, 2012 | #29 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
|
Quote:
|
|
July 10th, 2012 | #30 |
Death Camp of Tolerance
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Europa
Posts: 539
|
Success of this would ultimately depend on the people running wikipedia, they can reverse any changes in a blink of the eye and ruin all your effort. The least you will be dragged into endless discussion about changes you have made. I think it's not bad idea but one should be aware that success of it is uncertain.
Meanwhile people can focus on the alternative sources like, http://www.metapedia.org/ http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Creating the knowledge base there and slowly incorporating it to main, mainstream wikipedia. |
July 10th, 2012 | #31 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
|
Quote:
|
|
July 10th, 2012 | #32 |
drinking tea
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
|
It's a good idea on the surface but as others have said, unless you have someone at the top, it''ll be an endless edit war. I've edited articles before and not even necessarily to spin them in our favour: just to present facts and correct misinformation, but they were edited back every time.
What might be an interesting idea is to register something like Wokipedia or Wikipodia and copy each entry but in the way we want the facts presented. It would take some time for people misspelling search engine queries to be redirected to ours, but it would eventually happen.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote. |
July 10th, 2012 | #33 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
|
Quote:
Conducting a coup d'etat of Wikipedia is the one thing that WN could potentially accomplish because anyone can get their foot in Wikipedia's door as an editor. It isn't like trying to take control of the New York Times, which would require millions of dollars; it wouldn't cost WN anything other than time and personal effort on the part of those who were doing the editing. For those reasons, I see this as being the best idea to date where WN is concerned; because of the simply fact that so many people turn to and rely upon Wikipedia for their information. If a guy like Jimmy Wales from Alabama of all places could make Wikipedia the sucess that it is, it is certainly not too much to ask that the best and the brightest in the WN community should put forth an effort to redirect the one aspect of the media that we could potentially gain control of. If WN can't do that, then WN is worth nothing in terms of effectiveness as a movement, |
|
July 10th, 2012 | #34 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 106
|
Yeah that pretty much sums it all up, right there....
__________________
Europe is the faith and the faith is Europe - Hilaire Belloc |
July 10th, 2012 | #35 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
|
Quote:
|
|
July 10th, 2012 | #36 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
|
|
July 10th, 2012 | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,216
|
Quote:
The only way to change wikipedia is to get your name on the list of Important Individuals as it relates to WN. |
|
July 10th, 2012 | #38 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
|
Quote:
By comparison, Whites of the past several generations have done very little compared to the Jews who only amount to 2% of the population but control probably 90% of the media and the retail industry, and with the money and influence acquired from that, the world of politics. Last edited by Steven L. Akins; July 10th, 2012 at 08:49 AM. |
|
July 10th, 2012 | #39 |
...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,744
|
Apparently you don't know how Wikipedia works, but it's very easy to rollback modifications. Due to the size of the site you can probably guarantee there are probably thousands of moderators and ordinary people monitoring the articles history page ready to undo anything you wasted your time in writing. Undoing your changes only takes 3 clicks and a few seconds to do. Once they're on your article all they have to do is go to History -> Compare -> Undo. If you keep making the same modifications mods would probably block you out from making any more changes.
I don't understand how this is a litmus test. You're talking about making changes to a site that has hundreds of thousands of people monitoring and modifying every article, thus making it difficult to sway readers towards WN even if you're being as subtle as possible. It would be interesting to see if we could pull anything off though. Even on less obvious articles. The problem though, is that you have to advertise the article you're making modifications on to get any sort of support, and since anyone can view this forum they'd know which articles to watch and undo. On a similar note: I've noticed not many WNs are tech savvy (probably due to the age demographics), and even then, they lack any interest in anything other than whining about "the good ole days" to the choir. I set up the E-Activism forum and it barely gets used. Hell, I even discovered a YouTube exploit early on (probably before anyone else online noticed) a few years ago that allowed us to vote our comments up to the top page, even on videos with millions of views, and only a few people decided to take advantage of it. If there was more support, we could have wreaked havoc online and have reached more white people than all of jewish TV in the month or so that it was available to us. Fact is, most successful activism is carried out by younger people with less to lose. In almost every political movement that's true. You don't reach young people by whining about jews from Happy Days, how much a can of coke used to cost, or about your AARP coverage to a forum of already converted whites. You reach them by targeting them through the things that are relevant to them and not 50 year olds. That said, the Wikipedia idea is a thought in the right direction, but it's difficult because it's so heavily censored. Last edited by varg; July 10th, 2012 at 09:12 AM. Reason: .. |
July 10th, 2012 | #40 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
|
Quote:
Almost every example of WN activitism to date has backfired on us, making our cause a pariah in the eyes of the public. |
|
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|