Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Wikipedia deletes ANUS, again

Re: Wikipedia deletes ANUS, again
December 15, 2008, 05:25:08 PM
Here goes another more discussed in the media one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
http://www.pcworld.com/article/155112/wikipedia_article_censored_in_uk_for_the_first_time.html

From the article:
"Virgin Media funnels traffic from domains with pages listed on IWF's blacklist through a transparent proxy server, which blocks the offending page, according to a spokesman."

No it doesn't. At least not yet anyway, that is odd and amusing.

Re: Wikipedia deletes ANUS, again
December 16, 2008, 06:14:48 AM
Here goes another more discussed in the media one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
http://www.pcworld.com/article/155112/wikipedia_article_censored_in_uk_for_the_first_time.html

From the article:
"Virgin Media funnels traffic from domains with pages listed on IWF's blacklist through a transparent proxy server, which blocks the offending page, according to a spokesman."

No it doesn't. At least not yet anyway, that is odd and amusing.
Even heard about some people in norway who gets the message IWF-Restricted when trying to view that page at work or school.

Re: Wikipedia deletes ANUS, again
December 19, 2008, 05:02:25 PM
I haven't used Wikipedia very much but if you want this to work, you'll have to want to work with them. They shouldn't be able to keep the ANUS article deleted. If you're sick of it, contact the higher-ups at Wikipedia and have them lock it so no further changes can be made.

Wikipedia is ahierarchical. Idiots do enough there, get promoted to editor, and if three of them agree, the ANUS article gets deleted.

This was their seventh attempt after all :)

Re: Wikipedia deletes ANUS, again
March 13, 2009, 03:37:14 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Nihilist_Underground_Society#Media_Mention

New mention, new argument. Can others help me out here arguing for our presence?

Re: Wikipedia deletes ANUS, again
March 15, 2009, 01:12:45 PM
Quote
I appreciate your effort, and I'd like to see a Wikipedia article on ANUS, but the Blabbermouth report does absolutely nothing to establish the notability of ANUS, because it doesn't say anything about ANUS at all. The reason we have a general notability guideline is to ensure at minimum, that we can write a decent-length article that covers the basics of the topic and is also completely verifiable to reliable sources. A few mentions (or citations) in reliable sources are not enough because they rarely aggregate to covering the basics of the topic.

Are they saying that ANUS being used as a reference doesn't count towards it's importance?  If so, what the fuck does make a site like this important, going on the Montel William's Show?

Re: Wikipedia deletes ANUS, again
March 16, 2009, 03:47:16 AM
They want drama about the site itself.

So... if you run a blog, or a zine, or work for one... do an article on ANUS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Nihilist_Underground_Society#Media_Mention

Of course, we have traditionally not sought publicity FOR the organization as much as for the topics and people we cover, so this hipster world of self-promotion is baffling to me.

Re: Wikipedia deletes ANUS, again
March 16, 2009, 09:37:19 PM
I think the best bet would be to take on the wikipedia site itself  by damaging its reputation. I recently read an article on googlebombing, which is where people spam links to certain sites with certain text so that a desired result would come when the topic is searched. For example, a search for "miserable failure" brings up a biography of George Bush because people spammed links to the site with the test "miserable failure." Although Google claims to have solved the problem, other search engines, such as Yahoo, are still susceptible. I don't know if there is a feasible way to bring to do anything though. The first thing that comes to mind is to post links with the phrase "child porn" that link to http://www.anus.com/etc/wikipedia/ or something like that.

Re: Wikipedia deletes ANUS, again
March 18, 2009, 10:36:43 AM
Wikipedia damages its own reputation, but has powerful allies, and no one is listening to whether or not it damages itself.

My advice is that instead we get some news service to cover the ANUS.

Re: Wikipedia deletes ANUS, again
March 27, 2009, 11:34:08 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism

Quote
The actual number of organisations that could properly be described as ecofascist is extremely small. In the United States, the online trolling group "ANUS.com" promotes its own spoof vision of ecofascism along with heavy metal music culture, although this group might simply be a parody.




Re: Wikipedia deletes ANUS, again
November 16, 2010, 04:56:42 PM
Is there some sort of serious beef here, or is wikipedia really just run by a bunch of childish egomaniacs?

toys for 'tards needs your help

Re: Wikipedia deletes ANUS, again
November 17, 2010, 06:22:03 AM
They want drama about the site itself.

So... if you run a blog, or a zine, or work for one... do an article on ANUS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Nihilist_Underground_Society#Media_Mention

Of course, we have traditionally not sought publicity FOR the organization as much as for the topics and people we cover, so this hipster world of self-promotion is baffling to me.
You could quote vijay prozak's interview to The Right Hand Path, if you want to.

Re: Wikipedia deletes ANUS, again
November 18, 2010, 07:48:55 AM
That is a great idea.

The problem, sadly, is not a lack of notable sources, but bias by Wikipedians.

They invented a thousand reasons why ANUS was bad... if one reason got debunked, they went to another.

Basically, hand basement-dwellers too much power and they become abusers. Notice their bias toward CounterOrder and other faux nihilist sites.

We have a solution for this in the future.

Re: Wikipedia deletes ANUS, again
November 19, 2010, 10:34:46 AM
We have a solution for this in the future.
Care to clue us in, or is it something that is better left unsaid?