Jump to content

Talk:Web Bot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 09:40, 12 July 2010 (Signing comment by 85.2.192.114 - "→Accuracy of Listed Misses/Hits: "). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

References

Some of the sources for the predictions are from blog sites or from the site urbansurvival.com (which was created by the "promoter" of the web bot project George Ure) because specific details about the predictions could not be found. However, some are from legitimate news sites such as The Daily Telegraph, The Jerusalem Post, and Express India. If someone knows of a more reliable source which discusses the predictions, please include it as a reference. Kylelovesyou (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience

This falls under pseudoscience, and in some instances such as the ability to predict future catastrophes, outright fraud. There are descriptions of pseudoscientific claims in this article which are not labelled as such. --TS 19:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, however, many of the web bot claims are properly referenced as being the opinions of either the creators or believers of the Web Bot claims, what this article really needs is commentary by sources critical of this topic. I am adding nnpov tags. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What purpose is there to slapping on the NPOV tag? The article is hardly lauding the project as it stands. If you want sources, go find sources. I agree that this is pseudoscience, but we work using sources and not our own opinions, remember? Fences&Windows 01:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is no science, that's correct. But I have followed their project and they were correct many times (although many also wrong), to be simply dismissed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.120.45 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the Colombia accident wasn't a "prediction" it was only "deduced" after the fact and the link used to support it actually proves me right! Here is an excerpt from the link, "More recently, in January of 2003 the web bots were going on and on about a "maritime disaster" - which didn't make any sense to us, UNTIL the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster hit. Columbia wasn't a gem of the ocean, it was a space ship". The prediction was revealed after the fact not before! I don't care if a machine pops out some gobblety goop before something happens if you can't interpret it until after the fact then it isn't a prediction! The reason they couldn't figure it out is because the Space Shuttle isn't the first thing that comes to mind when you say maritime disaster. And to the best of my knowledge the Colombia disaster wasn't investigated as a maritime disaster nor is NASA a maritime organization. And yes, I do know many Astronauts were former naval aviators (Colombia pilot included) but if they are flying a civilian space vehicle that disintegrated over land it hardly rates as a maritime disaster. What happens if the same man wrecked a school bus would that be a "maritime disaster" by virtue of his rank? Web Bot is BS it can't help humans predict the future it can only predict the past and it can only do that if you have a VERY open mind. I challenge anyone to produce a web link or video dated before 9/11 with Web Bot predictions about 9/11. The first mention I could find about this "prediction" is 2003. In my opinion the "Claimed Hits" section should be counter-pointed when the claims are found not to be actual predictions. I will begin to do this myself with my Space Shuttle example unless someone can give me a good reason why I shouldn't within the next 30 days.Impact Hazard (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need good sources for the "claims" section, and this kind of 'prediction' is exactly why. You're right, this sort of claim to prediction that can only be worked out once the event has occurred is the same kind of nonsense that Nostradamus fans come out with. Fences&Windows 23:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2012 phenomenon

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor over at Talk:2012 phenomenon has found an article on the web bot project from the Daily Telegraph that goes into most of the salient points. I think this article can be reduced to one or two well-sourced sentences and moved over there, rather than kept in its current sprawling mess of a state reliant on primary sources. Serendipodous 14:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support On the one hand Web Bot has given more than just 2012 predictions, on the other hand Web Bot only seems to be notable for its 2012 predictions, there don't seem to be many reliable sources for the Web Bot article and everything I read about Web Bot makes it sound more and more like a scam. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the web bot is more than just something that predicted a 2012 phenomenon. I think it deserves its own article as it has been mentioned by reputable sources and has been discussed on the History Channel. Also it has gained some notoriety on the internet and especially in conspiracy circles. It does seem much like a scam and that should probably be mentioned somewhere in the article. Also, does the "unreliable sources" tag need to be in the article three times? Kylelovesyou (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that web bot is probably just riding off all the other 2012 predictions. Although, if the web bot is a real program that works as the creators say it does (tracking keywords on the internet), then it would predict the end of the world on 21 December 2012 because people are searching it and writing about 2012 online. Kylelovesyou (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find any new reliable sources. I have concerns with even our existing "reliable" sources. All three seem to have been written from the same source, I suspect they're all rewrites of an article or interview conducted by AP or another service that provides articles to newspapers. This seems especially likely due to the similarities in language used by all three, since all three use the same quotations and since the Daily Telegraph and India Express articles were published only one day apart. Further muddying the waters, the Jeruselem Post article is an op-ed piece. So instead of three reliable sources we really only have one. Which creates some notability issues. Adding to that the fact that the India Express and Daily Telegraph articles are mainly about 2012 I think merging this article may be in order. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to see this page die. 76.30.146.194 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a deletion request. Just a request for the material to be trimmed and merged into a larger article. Serendipodous 20:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this is enough consensus and you should go ahead and do it. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The History Channel, India Express, Globe and Mail, Jerusalem Post and Daily Telegraph have all given this project coverage. Whether it is a scam or not doesn't affect its notability. Things that are crackpot, crazy and downright wrong can and should be covered by Wikipedia. As for merging, the bulk of the article and what has been written about it isn't to do with the idea of the world ending on 2012, so much of the material would not sit easily if merged. Merging is a poor way to deal with this content, in my view. Fences&Windows 22:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. I am not sure how notable web bot is, but the History Channel does give it notability as well as the news articles (even if most of them are rewrites of other articles). And if the page were merged, the only things that could be kept would be the "methodology" section and the 2012 prediction. Nothing else in this article would fit in the "2012 Phenomenon" page.
I have no problem with keeping the page but it still needs some work and needs to be watched to keep the POV stuff off. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleted, closed off. Takes an admin to do that. Serendipodous 19:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the consensus seems to be with keeping the article, we're just waiting for an admin to close the merge. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this article needs to stand alone because the fraud perpetrated by this subject encompasses more than 2012 and it may last beyond the 2012 hysteria.Impact Hazard (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

time to prove that the 10-25-09 prediction is wrong

It predicted something bad would happen today but best to my knowledge nothing has happened it's just been an ordinally day —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesonicfanofalltime (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was a double car bombing in Iraq that killed nearly 150 people and injured 265 more.TheGary (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the Obama administration was supposed to be "thrown into disarray", which really didn't happen...75.67.47.56 (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I buy it personally, but see urbansurvival.com. [1] Also, it's my understanding that the actual "disarray" is supposed to occur within the next ten days. 69.139.175.204 (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


besides that was merely a condidence cause that wasn't the prediction the prediction was that either the h1n1 would become a national threat or the collapse of the u.s. dollar or Iran being Bombed not Iraq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.132.106 (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is still october 25 in many parts of the world. Swine flu was declared national emergency by Obama on 23rd(?), and this news is disseminated over the weekend of the 25th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.130.139.97 (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i wanna know where this webbot gets its info, does it browse conspiracy websites?, the CIA knew of the attackers intentions well before 9/11 but failed to tell anyone. (204.77.219.90 (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

the webbot gets its info by scouring the internet for keywords not reading conspiracy sites. its a computer program - read the methodology section. And the CIA knowing about 9/11 does not mean it was a conspiracy. See: Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US - Kylelovesyou (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can everyone stem the speculation and wait until reliable sources give a discussion of this prediction? Thanks. Fences&Windows 02:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many blogs have discussed it with some possible explanations of what it might be but most people writing on the blogs agree that nothing happened. I wouldn't hold your breath for any reliable sources - none mentioned it before. I think this will be limited to blogs and conspiracy sites. It is also important to mention that there have been many many predictions by the web bot that have not come true. The actual percentage of predictions represented here is very low in relation to the total number that it has made. More predictions can be found on conspiracy sites and blog sites and none have come true. blog post listing of predictions for 2009
In fact, this article seems to lead a reader that the web bot has more hits vs. misses when in fact it has predicted several several more predictions that have missed that are not in this article. This happens for two reasons: 1.reliable sources about the web bot are hard to find and 2.blog and conspiracy sites and the web bot actual sites (urbansurvival.com andhalfpasthuman.com) tend to show the correct predictions while downplaying the incorrect predictions.
There is also a major prediction for November 5th. Creator Cliff High says the US will find itself in "very dire set of circumstances" on Nov 5. youtube link to interview - Kylelovesyou (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well today is november 5th and notning hasd happened —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.185.57.19 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today's the Ninth, and nada. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

> In my opinion, October 25th was a hit. It was supposed to showcase something very subtle which would grow more and more into our consciousnesses till late November or whenever. I believe the data refers to H1N1 "pandemic" and the H1N1 "national emergency" Obama announced was the correlated story in the media that day. I believe there were references to "ill winds" in the webbot reports? Whatever Oct.25th held was supposed to emerge into the minds of GlobalPop so that within a week or so everyone would be talking about it... and in my experience living in Southern Ontario, the H1N1 meme & emotion related to it has simply grown and inflated all around me since that date. Not to mention ongoing issue in Ukraine. could be totally wrong.

This is not a forum. The opinion of editors on hits or misses is not appropriate. Please do not add any further opinions or speculation. <spanstyle="color:red;">Fences&Windows 00:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of Listed Misses/Hits

Atleast two of the listed misses seem to be debatable. On the 30th of September there was a Tsunami that struck Samoa, killing many. This could be the "global costal event" referenced. And it seems too early to say that events occuring in 2009 will not be the start of a collapse of the U.S. dollar. Without the full text and dates of said predictions, one should not dismiss these predictions. At the least, the subsection title should be changed to 'Claimed Misses'.

I would argue that the "hits" are all much too vague to claim as actual predictions and the whole project is a shill to bilk gullible people of their money.
Web Bot is fringe and the article should be written skeptically. As long as there are sources to back the "misses" listed in the article they should remain there. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

___________________ I cannot agree with some of the "claimed hits". The predictions are so utterly vaguely formulated that there's too much possibility to interpret them in a way that the predictions match the actual event. It's a little bit like horoscopes. There are a couple of phrases witch you can almost always link in on or the other way to a whole bunch of possible events. In the scientific inquiry we endeavour to do on the accuracy of the web bot project, we should refrain however from interpreting the predictions in a way that they match; in a scientific analysis we should actually refrain from interpreting at all, we should only focus on clear hits and not alleged hits. For example among the "claimed hits", the BP oil spill is listed. In the (rather unprofessional seeming) source we can read: "The oceans are described as being not as before." "the supporting aspect/attributes sets for the oceans being unlike their former selves." Way too vague. That could be almost anything. Farther: Even tough the oil spill is a catastrophe, saying that the oceans are not as their former selves seems quite exaggerated "Ocean changes linked to volcanos" A volcano of oil.. that simply didn't happen, and comparing the spilling oil to a volcano is ridiculous "Indications are many of the problems are related to the core of the planet." Although we consider the depth in which the whole spill happened very deep, we must see that this WASNT even NEAR the earth core

"humans and other life directly impacted by large clouds of drifting complex methane..." Didn't happen

I think, considering the utterly vague formulation, the BP Oil spill cannot be considered a hit anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.192.114 (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alta Report

The actual name should be changed to the Alta report as the Web Bot is just the data machine, but the Alta report has the actual predictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendo92 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Web bot seems to be the more familiar and common name. Alta report now redirects to Web Bot. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of reptilians

Cliff High also seems to have an affinity towards the Reptilian theory, which by its very nature reeks of a tin-foil hat. Would I be allowed to make a note of that? He also seems to use the code-word "Zionist" for "The Jews;" may I make a note of these things? My evidence can be seen on http://www.halfpasthuman.com/wolf.html . 71.194.138.139 (talk)

July 8th

The original prediction said a massive terrorist attack on July 8, but a edit by user 67.162.103.142 on 22 May changed this to, the building of tension language. Do this make sense to anyone? What does that even mean? It is not referenced. Should it be reverted back to it's old edit? TurboGUY (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's been changed to July 11. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy?

Hi - I definitely think that this article should quote from the documents/statements that purport to be the actual "predictions", especially in the cases where the project members claim to have been correct (the incorrect guesses for obvious reasons are less important) so that readers can judge how specific/relevant the statements were to the occurrences they claim to have predicted. I would have attempted to make these modifications but all I could find - including in the links at the bottom of this page - were other people's summations/interpretations of the WB project founders' words, not the actual words themselves. It creates the impression that these prophecies are quite accurate, but gives the reader no way to form their own interpretation.

Because this technology is a bit "iffy" to begin with (to say the least, IMO), being able to read their words and see if/how they fit would seem essential. Maybe someone else knows of a better source to find the predictions? 170.20.11.116 (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)amy[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Web_Bot&oldid=373051604"