This is my second 9/11 topic i have made but i just did a quick look on wiki and could not find the answer. I remember reading somewhere, possible here that during the attacks after all the planes were grounded several middle eastern looking men jumped up and ran out of there seats and exited the aircraft. The reason why i may doubt this story is the timing. The terrorist planned this and would have made sure all aircraft would have been in the air at the same time. What’s the straight dope on the story
Anyone who acted suspiciously that day wouldn’t have gotten out of the airport. Once the planes were grounded, there was no way that five Arab-looking men running would have gotten anywhere.
And that’s only assuming that the plane was still connected to the airbridge and hadn’t closed the door yet. Once that door’s closed, no one is “running out” of the plane. They’d have to have a flight attendant open it.
I say it didn’t happen, just on the probabilities.
Hell, once all the planes were grounded nationwide, surely there was no way that any anything-looking anyone would have snuck off and gotten anywhere.
Why does anyone bother with that site? The content gets vandalized so much that it is useless.
It’s an incredibly convenient starting point for finding information. It’s totally unreliable as a primary reference, but it’s a really good place to find information on some really obscure topics that you can then fact-check elsewhere.
No, this is factually untrue: Most of the time, most of the content is at least a good starting point. Nature did a study, in fact, saying Wikipedia compares favorably to Britannica for the kinds of articles they have in common (the more serious, factual ones, as opposed to the pop-culture stuff). If you have doubts check the talk pages and the history but, by and large, it is a fairly good starting point, just like any other encyclopedia. (No encyclopedia should be your only reference. They all make mistakes, they all have bias, and they all have a lag between publication date and the present.)
Not everyone accepts Nature’s “study” as accurate.
I was present for a lecture by John Seigenthaler, Sr. in which he describes the nightmare that he went through when someone libelled his character on Wiki. This is one of the reasons that I use Wiki with caution.
(John Seigenthaler is the founder of the First Amendment Center.)
Excerpt from the linked article:
The libellous material stayed at Wiki for four months.
A) If you have any reason to suspect vandalism, use the History tabs to mitigate the problem significantly
B) Do you really believe Wikipedia is useless? Give me a topic to write about, put me on Jeopardy, engage me in a debate, spark my curiosity on a new subject, whatever, anything where I might find an encyclopedia helpful, and give me the choice between either having nothing or paying a small (hypothetical) fee to have access to Wikipedia, and I’ll opt without hesitation for the latter. It’s definitely worth something. In fact, my impression is that it’s worth quite a lot, particularly so if you know how to use it well (as with any tool). It has been an invaluable source of information for me and many others; this is simply a fact. Useless, my ass.
I don’t think the terrorists had any more control over flight delays than the rest of us.
Well, that was my first thought.
I don’t think all the 9/11 aircraft took off at the same time, did they?
I remember hearing about the “guys jumped off and ran off the airplane” story at the time, but I remember hearing a lot of other stuff that day that turned out to be bogus.
It’s interesting to note all lapses in encyclopedias, and Wikipedia’s lapses are much more public than Britannica’s and, therefore, bring much more scrutiny to the whole project. What is Britannica’s true record? How many outright lies has it had, and for how long did it have them? How many does it still have? I doubt the people who publish it (and reap a tidy profit from the name) would agree to any such accounting, but it’s what Wikipedia goes through every day. That is a big reason I find Wikipedia valuable.
I also heard at the time that carpet knives were found hidden in seats on another flight or some such jazz. Here’s what snopes has on September 11th, 2001 and the aftermath - September Th Archives | Snopes.com
And the kicker was Seigenthaler could have fixed it the very day he came across it. Instead he whined about it. :dubious:
I guess that the he could not get lecture fees if he had just fixed it.
It gets kind of murky. Moussaoui (who’s clearly nuts) claims that he would have piloted a fifth plane had he not been arrested. But, there certainly were accounts at the time suggesting that an actual fifth plane was either on the runway or in the air. Google fifth plane September 11, the below is exemplary of what comes up. Warning: lots of CT.
There are a lot of people who just can’t internalize the paradigm that anyone can edit Wikipedia. They may be aware of the simple fact of it, but they can’t quite get it embedded in their heads in a way that informs the actions they can take. Prior to the internet (prior to Wikipedia, for that matter), if it was in print, you had to communicate with the writer to change it, whether that communication was a simple letter or email informing the writer of the error or a lawsuit against the writer for libel. Siegenthaler may actually just be stuck in the pre-internet paradigm that changing such things yourself is either impossible or forbidden by law due to the original writer’s ownership of the writing.
One of the issues I recall is there are people who call themselves “experts” and subscribe to certain articles. Anyone who makes a change, these experts would just change it back.
This would seem to impede getting new info in about a topic.
The advantage of Wiki over most other resources is that you can click on the “discussion” tab and get a feel for what is controversial about a topic. The history page shows all the edits and you can determine for yourself what is frivolous. Try doing that with EB or newspapers.
All information sources are suspect in some way. Wiki’s reliance on cites and edit history makes it one of the best general references you can find.
Hence the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. If the expert keeps reverting the change, start a discussion on the change. Just don’t go scaling public buildings dressed as a superhero.
It’s likely the case that he’s screaming ‘libel’ because he couldn’t slant the article in his direction, or was trying to dump things in without any hint of citation. (Citing to a book he’d written would be enough if he’d clearly presented the insertion as something he was claiming. The citation is citing the fact he’d claimed it, nothing more.)
Would the Wikipedia people please start your own thread in GD or IMHO?
Thanks.