Talk:Wikiconspiracy

Comments on your idea

Do you want to write about actual convictions of those prosecuted for criminal conspiracies? Do you want to review civil judgments entered for civil conspiracies? Do you want to discuss settlements and plea bargains for illegal conspiracies?

Did you want to focus on conspiracies that are well documented but haven't been litigated through the court system?

Your project might be interesting but your goal is unclear.

Most crimes, other than everyday street crimes, are the results of planning by two or more persons. This is what defines a conspiracy (an agreement to commit a crime).

Of the four subjects you have cited leave doubts about your goal and understanding of conspiracy law:

• Secret Societies" There is nothing, in itself, conspiratorial about forming a "secret society." However, if those involved agree to commit a crime that would be a conspiracy. Therefore,it would be certainly wrong to presume a secret society engages in conspiratorial conduct and would be defamatory to accuse college fraternities, the Masons, and any other fraternal organization that has certain secret rituals to call them conspiratorial groups.

• "JFK" Was there an agreement between two or more people to kill the president? The polls show an overwhelming number of American believe there was more than one person involved and the House Select Committee on Assassinations also concluded there was a conspiracy. It is an issue covered extensively elsewhere.

• "9/11" No question that a group of terrorists entered into a conspiracy to hyjack planes and commit murder and mayhem. So that conspiracy is well documented.

• "Moon landing" I have no idea what this is. Did someone have an illegal agreement to land on the moon? What crime was being broken?
  • There are several claims that there was no moon landing. Among other things, the flag waving. There is a Wikipedia article on that somewhere. Jon Harald Søby 19:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Tip: Learn to spell, and to write in complete sentences before taking on such a major topic

Good questions. Of course, with the articles being written by volunteers the topics could quite easily cover any act considered a conspiracy. but for that same reason it could be limited in scope to the most appealing(and well known) topics. Personaly I was thinking of conspiracy theories and not every conspiracy ever. I first thought of this (though I wasn't the first too) while reading the talks page on the Skull and Bones article in wikipedia. It seemed that some people were coming for (and contributing) only verifiable facts. and others were coming for (and contributing) information that, shall I say, suggested that the skull and bones were part of a plot to take over the world (or whatever). Now, to be honest... I enjoy reading grand conspiracy theories, they intrest me. But to have them on wikipedia where everything is supposed to be solid fact causes too many disputes. Here we could focus solely on the theory and all aspects of it. But mostly this is Focusing on Conspiracy Theories (see the wikipedia article for an idea of what im talking about when I say that. though the article stereotypes). Bottom line I think conspiracy Theories are Interesting and a part of our culture and as such they should be recorded and cataloged--Olsdude 03:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiconspiracy"

Cleared Up A Bit?

Ok so I did a bit of a re-edit. I guess I did make my idea a bit unclear. Of course someone with terrible spelling and grammer such as my self could never take on a major topic like conspiracy law. I guess it was my terrible spelling and grammer that gave that impression.

Where this belongs

If you want to start something cohesive, why not try WikiProjects? 208.147.72.158 Her Pegship 18:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• I checked out the link you posted. It says: Generally you should have at least 5–10 people involved before a Wikiproject structure makes any sense and adds any value. If you don't think you'll get at least 5–10 people on board, then don't waste your effort—you'll be better off just writing your articles. If you are not sure: If you have a subject you are passionate about, but you aren't certain if anyone else is interested, then write a brief description of your project on your user page, and a link to it on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List of proposed projects. If interest is good, feel free to launch the project; otherwise you will probably find it more effective to focus your efforts on the articles themselves. so I think this actually belongs here for now.--Olsdude 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

alt.wikipedia.org

• Perhaps it might reflect badly on wikipedia, but I myself do not think so.
• The use of "alt" is, I believe, a traditional internet convention for such things.
• I recommend that verifiable sources are always mentioned, whereas ordinarily on wikipedia this is not convention, since most things are assumed to be beyond dispute.

Xiutwel 13:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)