22 May 2010
Peter Presland writes:
Further to my email back in April, I'm about ready to go with WikiSpooks now.
I've just about burned out on Linux/Apache vps admin and security issues and have got to take the plunge sometime, so now it is.
There's less already up than I would have liked but I have a pretty solid framework in place with clear rules etc etc and everything I can think of has been tested. Feel free to have a poke around in it.
I'd appreciate any push you can give the project. It doesn't aspire to be either a Wikipedia or a Wikileaks but, as one of those 'old-timers who went off and got a concience' as you put it somewhere (and learned more about the calculated deceptions of the establishment in the last 5 years than in my entire previous life) I intend to plug away at it and do what I can. Your own dogged droll humor and persistence is something of an inspiration too.
Anyway, the following is from the Wiki 'About page' - with some plagiarism of your stuff but hopefully always aknowledged - that you could use. Otherwise just copy/paste whatever you think appropriate.
PS - Any advice/criticism will be well received too.
WikiSpooks is a collaborative project aimed at building a comprehensive reference source of deep political structures and events, together with the people and organisations connected to them. Constructive involvement with the project by anyone comfortable with the the site 'Registered User Undertakings' is invited
The purpose of WikiSpooks is to build a repository of documents about deep political structures and events, together with development of the information they contain through user contributed articles, additions, edits and discussion. Emphasis is on the period from about 150 years ago to the present, although analysis of events in earlier times, by way of illustration and understanding of how deep politics operates, is encouraged - a classic example would be the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 in England (see below).
WikiSpooks acknowledges a certain plagiarism of both 'Wikipedia' and 'WikiLeaks' - but we're sure they can live with it. 'Wiki' - something, has become a sort of naming convention for many successful wiki-based projects, notably the Wikimedia Foundation  sites and WikiSpooks seeks to emulate that success.
The term 'Spooks' is an anglicisation of the Dutch word for 'Ghosts', used colloquially as a synonym for 'Spies' (as for example in the BBC series 'Spooks' ). So far as WikiSpooks is concerned, both meanings are apposite. Historically, it is often only the ghosts of deep political motivations that remain once the official narrative has been anointed as fact by relentless repetition and the passage of time - the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 in England is a solid example. As for the 'Spies' meaning; anyone who studies deep political events for long is bound to conclude that Secret Intelligence Services are ALWAYS deeply involved one way or another and more often than not as puppet-masters.
So, after Wiki-This and Wiki-that, This-Wiki and That-Wiki - WikiSpooks it is.
The site is English Language only for now. The MediaWiki platform has comprehensive multi-language facilities but operating them effectively uses both scarce resources and currently unavailable language resources. In other words "English-only" is a resources issue. It does mean that Non-English language documents and articles are not suitable candidates for the site unless competently translated and applicable to the English-speaking world. It is acknowledged that this does restrict the site's scope.
Wikipedia -v- WikiSpooks
There are many examples where Wikipedia does a sterling job of marshaling facts relative to deep political issues. However, it's editorial policies, in keeping with pretty well all mainstream media, mean that analysis of them can rarely be more than superficial in the sense that the Sun must always be represented as revolving around the Earth per the example of Gallileo's dispute with the Authorities of the day over 'Heliocentrism'.
The "Gunpowder Plot" of 1605 in England is a good illustration of marshaling copious undisputed facts but nonetheless missing or minimising what is clearly a higher probability interpretation of the episode than "the official narrative" . Popular perception of that event remains consonant with the "official narrative" which has it that the good brave authorities were caught off-guard by a dastardly Popish conspiracy to blow up Parliament whilst in session, and that the plot was uncovered and foiled in the nick of time - sound familiar? That is also the way it is presented in the Wikipedia main article on the subject, where accusations of 'State conspiracy' are relegated to a single paragraph and copious evidence of agent-provocateuring and facilitating by the authorities of the day do not even warrant a mention. It is a good illustration of how WikiSpooks and Wikipedia editorial policies differ - see below.
WikiSpooks editorial policy
The fundamental premise of WikiSpooks' editorial policy is that anything deemed a threat by or to Authority is always more or less successfully opposed by that Authority; and that this is so largely because of the vastly greater resources which can be brought systematically to bear on the issue in question. This imbalance goes to the heart of the nature and exercise of power and becomes acute where matters of deep politics are involved. A good reference source on this syndrome in action is the small media-monitoring site 'Media Lens'
WikiSpooks completed articles are therefore required to comply with clear and distinct editorial guidelines which differ fundamentally from those of Wikipedia in respect of both the definition and application of a principle central to Wikipedia editorial policy; that of 'Neutral Point of View' which is seen as rendering Wikipedia relatively Power/Authority/Wealth friendly.
WikiSpooks editorial policy summary