Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

[Mick West]

Wikipedia gets something of a bad rap. It's user-created and user-edited, and pretty much anyone can just go on there and make a change to any article. So some think this means it's generally unreliable.

But in fact the most popular articles are generally very reliable. This is because of a number of reasons. Firstly there's an extensive set of policies in place to ensure the content meets a certain level. You can't simply write what you believe to be true, it actually needs to be backed up with references from reliable sources. Secondly there are "many eyes" looking over most articles, and so inaccuracies or biases are quickly spotted and removed.

But it's far from perfect. Especially in the more fringe topics there's frequently not enough interest to actually get enough eyes on the page for the system to work. So things often end up with a rather peculiar bias, based on whoever decided to adopt a particular page.

A bunch of people trying to improve this is the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia movement, run by Susan Gerbic.

The mission of the Guerrilla Skepticism editing team is to improve skeptical content of Wikipedia. We do this by improving pages of our skeptic spokespeople, providing noteworthy citations, and removing the unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific pages. Why? Because evidence is cool. We train – We mentor – Join us.

Besides simply fixing things that are wrong, the GSW folk also try to improve the quality of pages about skepticism, so they edit pages about people like Phil Plait, and Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Somewhat similarly there's a project with Wikipedia itself, the WikiProject Skepticism,

WikiProject Skepticism is a WikiProject dedicated to creating, improving, and monitoring articles related to Scientific skepticism, including articles about claims related to science and philosophy which are contrary to the current body of scientific evidence, or which involve the paranormal. The project ensures that these articles are written from a neutral point of view, and do not put forward invalid claims as truth.

If you are interested in debunking, you might consider spending a bit more time helping to fix Wikipedia, and less simply arguing with believers in bunk. There's a magnifying effect from Wikipedia. If you edit something there, then it's going to be seen by vastly more people than something buried on the fifth page of a rambling thread.

 

[AluminumTheory]

I've taken it upon myself to make a few minor changes. One of them was something that you pointed out in a post regarding the 1993 WTC bombing.


Original Article:

In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad Salem. Salem informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the World Trade Center towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of hundreds of possible suspects.

Revised Article

In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad Salem. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to build a bomb that would eventually be used in the World Trade Center towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of hundreds of possible suspects.

The transcripts do not make clear the extent to which Federal Authorities knew that there was a plan to bomb the World Trade Center, merely that a bombing of some sort was being discussed.

 

[Leifer]

How much content do you "edit* " on Wiki, Mick ?
Do your edits need to be maintained ?
I'm not sure how it works.

*add, suggest, correct, supercede, etc.

 

[Mick West]

I hardly ever edit Wikipedia any more. I made perhaps five edits this year. Right now I prefer to devote my online time to Metabunk and social media.

 

[JRBids]

I hardly ever edit Wikipedia any more. I made perhaps five edits this year. Right now I prefer to devote my online time to Metabunk and social media.

And Snopes? (Just kidding.)

 

[Mick West]

People do sometime lump Metabunk in with Snopes in a kind of blanket ignoring of of contradictory evidence. But of course Snopes is nothing at all to do with me.

 

[JRBids]

People do sometime lump Metabunk in with Snopes in a kind of blanket ignoring of of contradictory evidence. But of course Snopes is nothing at all to do with me.

I know

They brush aside ANY debunking website, Wiki, Snopes, this one.....it is very sad.

 

[Mick West]

I know

They brush aside ANY debunking website, Wiki, Snopes, this one.....it is very sad.

It's getting to the stage now where the true believers will dismiss any source at all. Not just web sites, they will also dismiss books, scientific papers, scientists, officials, pilots, documentaries.

Wikipedia is still very important though, as it's the first place that many more neutral people go to look things up (or they get sent there by Google).

 

[Landru]

It's getting to the stage now where the true believers will dismiss any source at all. Not just web sites, they will also dismiss books, scientific papers, scientists, officials, pilots, documentaries.

Wikipedia is still very important though, as it's the first place that many more neutral people go to look things up (or they get sent there by Google).

I think this helps the fence sitters. The more 'out there' the true believers are in terms of dismissing reasonable evidence the more likely they are to dismiss the CT.

 

[JRBids]

It's getting to the stage now where the true believers will dismiss any source at all. Not just web sites, they will also dismiss books, scientific papers, scientists, officials, pilots, documentaries.

Wikipedia is still very important though, as it's the first place that many more neutral people go to look things up (or they get sent there by Google).

Yes, if they do not see it with their own eyes, or "do their own research" they discount it. I do agree about Wikipedia, judging from the revolving door of members of most chemtrail group, there are a lot of fence sitters too.

 

[tadaaa]

I posted earlier this year re Wikipedia (I do think it is an excellent resource btw and is prob in my top 5 sites I visit)

my brother has a page dedicated to him (he is a well known chess player), it had his place of birth incorrect - wrong country (I only noticed a year or so ago)

I had never edited a page before - but decided to correct it (sort of for fun)

and changed it to his correct place of birth - it was promptly changed back!!!!! lol

anyway, it is not the biggest issue in my life so left it

 

[Elfenlied]

Some nice material to debunk: the harassment survey published by the WMF a week ago, about harassment experienced or observed on wikipedia and 16 other wiki projects:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Harassment_survey_2015
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harassment_Survey_2015_-_Results_Report.pdf

Of the respondents who were asked if they personally experienced harassment on wikipedia or because of their work on wikipedia, 38% said yes, 16% were unsure, 47% said no. The "yes" and "unsure" group were asked which forms of harassment (a list of 10) they had experienced. And the results were surprising... (page 17)

According to the report: No less than 61% were the victim of revenge porn, 63% were hacked, and 67% were outed (their real life identity revealed). If you calculate the absolute numbers based on the 1215 number of respondents mentioned, you get 740, 760 and 810. Of the ten options on the list, revenge porn was the one that fewest people selected btw, meaning that all ten forms were selected by a majority of people who answered the question.

The results have been questioned by some, for example on Wikipediocracy: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7329
Defended by others, like Gorillawarfare, admin and member of ArbCom.

In the survey, people had to select the number of times they experienced each type of harassment using a slider. Sliders that weren't touched were seen as skipped questions, and the first two days of the survey people couldn't proceed until they answered all of them. After complaints it was changed so they could skip the types they hadn't encountered.

If you look at the raw data of the survey, page 6: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Harassment_Survey_2015_-_Public_raw_data.pdf
It lists for each option the minimum value (0.00), maximum value (100.00), the average value, the standard deviation, and the number of responses, which correspond to the percentages given in the report. But nothing there suggests that it is anything else than what it seems: namely an overview of ALL the answers given. NOT a subset of the answers with value 1 or greater. And if you calculate the maximum standard deviation for distributions in range 1 to 100 with the listed averages, you find that in two cases the listed sdev is larger than the calculated one, meaning that the values can NOT all be within that range, in other words, they have to include zero values.

It was mentioned on the talk page of the survey on Friday morning, it was also mentioned on Jimbo's talk page. (a day earlier another explanation was offered which proved not correct) No answer from the WMF so far. They submitted an announcement of the report to the Signpost a week ago, but the planned Feb 3 edition is delayed so it will be some more days before it receives a larger audience.

Can't wait!

 

[Giddierone]

I hadn't been following the outrage about Wikipedia editors targeting certain UFO related pages until a couple of days ago when I saw that a couple of incredibly well known writers (Jenny Randles, Raymond E. Fowler) had their pages nominated for deletion.

Then when I looked into it there's a single editor, named Chetsford, who's been nominating what looks like any page related to UFOs: Harley Rutledge, Georgina Bruni, Karl Svozil, John Greenwald Jr. and others.
While some pages are badly written or have not been updated in years and need better sources it's difficult to not conclude that there is a campaign to deemphasize anything ufology related.

This is silly. As a skeptical researcher it's important we can turn to a well sourced page for the people in ufology or the paranormal so that we can connect the dots between who they are and what their claims are. For example it seemed necessary to me that Brandon Fugel have a page, simply because he owns Skinwalker Ranch, and has publicly made some incredible claims about what goes on there. Having a page where we can see who he is, what is background is, how his ownership of SWR is proceeds from Robert Bigelow's, what his political / faith is, etc, all seems to be the purpose of Wikipedia to have all the information in one place.

So, by the same logic having pages for noted ufologists and writers about the paranormal seems necessary.

You can see whatever the current list of articles nominated for deletion by going to wikipedia and searching Category:Articles for deletion. Many seem to deserve it because they are poorly sourced - but amongst them are numerous UFO adjacent people who we should know about.

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

I hadn't been following the outrage about Wikipedia editors targeting certain UFO related pages until a couple of days ago when I saw that a couple of incredibly well known writers (Jenny Randles, Raymond E. Fowler) had their pages nominated for deletion.

Then when I looked into it there's a single editor, named Chetsford, who's been nominating what looks like any page related to UFOs: Harley Rutledge, Georgina Bruni, Karl Svozil, John Greenwald Jr. and others.
While some pages are badly written or have not been updated in years and need better sources it's difficult to not conclude that there is a campaign to deemphasize anything ufology related.

This is silly. As a skeptical researcher it's important we can turn to a well sourced page for the people in ufology or the paranormal so that we can connect the dots between who they are and what their claims are. For example it seemed necessary to me that Brandon Fugel have a page, simply because he owns Skinwalker Ranch, and has publicly made some incredible claims about what goes on there. Having a page where we can see who he is, what is background is, how his ownership of SWR is proceeds from Robert Bigelow's, what his political / faith is, etc, all seems to be the purpose of Wikipedia to have all the information in one place.

So, by the same logic having pages for noted ufologists and writers about the paranormal seems necessary.

You can see whatever the current list of articles nominated for deletion by going to wikipedia and searching Category:Articles for deletion. Many seem to deserve it because they are poorly sourced - but amongst them are numerous UFO adjacent people who we should know about.

Interesting point on this. A lot of the pages being deleted are people the average "debunker" audience type likely wouldn't know. There is of course about equal chance it's just keyword hitting, but they could actually be doing this on behalf of behalf of the "believer" crowd to make it look like a "debunker" or some secret cabal agent is doing it - wouldn't be the first time. Interesting also the "believer" types identified this pretty much as it was happening. No doubt some sit and watch wikipedia edits so that alone isn't a tell but the full sequence is interesting.

On "Chetsford" also, it's funny watching people get got by that on twitter. If we toy with the theory they are doing something more malign, it is entirely worth noting that they have actually been in snafus before over editing in disinformation about American politicians, and also enabling anti-semitism and anti-jewish conspiracy theories. If that hypothesis tracks, they're definitely not some spooky American intelligence agent. If anything close to that even, they'd far more likely be acting on behalf of a foreign interest.

 

[Giddierone]

It's pretty clear that the "notability requirements" are being abused. An editor puts a page up for deletion and if it's not edited in time it quietly disappears. I can imagine that many infrequently edited pages disappear this way without anyone noticing.

There also seems to be some bad faith occurring here. For example this exchange between Chetsford and and other editor who's voting keep and provided 11 links of supporting evidence that Raymond E. Fowler should be considered notable.

Chetsfords response is to say they did "a random sample" of the 11 links and didn't find them to be of good enough quality. (So presumably ignored the others).

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raymond_E._Fowler

 

[Mick West]

Then when I looked into it there's a single editor, named Chetsford, who's been nominating what looks like any page related to UFOs: Harley Rutledge, Georgina Bruni, Karl Svozil, John Greenwald Jr. and others.
While some pages are badly written or have not been updated in years and need better sources it's difficult to not conclude that there is a campaign to deemphasize anything ufology related.

I somewhat agree. Greenwald certainly should have a page. But as I understand it the criteria for notability mean the person needed to have other people writing about them, and not just have written a bunch of books. That list of links wasn't really very good, but I'm an inclusionist, and there seems to be enough there for him to have a page.

 

[Mendel]

I somewhat agree. Greenwald certainly should have a page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Vault exists.

I don't see how Greenwald is notable enough to have his biography in an encyclopedia.

I struggle to find mentions of Raymond Fowler even on Metabunk.

 

[MonkeeSage]

For reference, the Wikipedia notability requirements for articles are found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

 

[Mendel]

For reference, the Wikipedia notability requirements for articles are found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

specifically, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

 

[Giddierone]

struggle to find mentions of Raymond Fowler even on Metabunk.

Susan Gerbic made a similar comment about Jenny Randles, saying she'd not heard of her. Which isn't really a good measure of notability, and kind of why Wikipedia needs to keep the pages for people who meet their notability criteria, yet are niche (she voted to keep Randles' page after I sent her the required sources).

 

[John J.]

I hadn't been following the outrage about Wikipedia editors targeting certain UFO related pages until a couple of days ago when I saw that a couple of incredibly well known writers (Jenny Randles, Raymond E. Fowler) had their pages nominated for deletion.

By coincidence, I looked up Jenny Randles on Wikipedia last Sunday (06 September), and noticed the debate over proposed deletion of that page.

Susan Gerbic made a similar comment about Jenny Randles, saying she'd not heard of her. Which isn't really a good measure of notability, and kind of why Wikipedia needs to keep the pages for people who meet their notability criteria, yet are niche (she voted to keep Randles' page after I sent her the required sources).

Kudos to Giddierone for that action.

If there is an orchestrated attempt to remove Wikipedia entries about people due to their specific beliefs or fields of interest (I feel the notability criteria are being used as a rather disingenuous cover), it is at best deeply misguided. I think it is sinister.

Wikipedia has many pages about people or groups who have made contentious or unusual claims, but Wikipedia allows users/ editors to add suitably-referenced rebuttals, criticism or alternative explanations. Most of us who might be critical of the claims made by (e.g.) "UFOlogists" don't need self-appointed guardians to airbrush the people we disagree with out of the picture (and nor do the wider public).

(Edited: Example of editing pseudoscientific content on Wikipedia added, then removed.)

 

[Giddierone]

(I feel the notability criteria are being used as a rather disingenuous cover), it is at best deeply misguided. I think it is sinister.

I agree. Additionally at the moment the page has four paragraphs of negative reviews of her books. While there may not be reputable sources to link to for positive reviews she'd received you don't publish 50 books and sell millions of copies of them without them making a notable impact on people who presumably think she's pretty good at what she does. Yet, this is how Wikipedia works apparently.

Their inclusion of her gender transition is irrelevant to her career.

 

[Mendel]

While there may not be reputable sources to link to for positive reviews she'd received you don't publish 50 books and sell millions of copies of them without them making a notable impact on people who presumably think she's pretty good at what she does. Yet, this is how Wikipedia works apparently.

Yes, that's exactly how it works. They look for evidence of that "notable impact". If you can't show it directly, chances are it doesn't exist.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Yes, that's exactly how it works. They look for evidence of that "notable impact". If you can't show it directly, chances are it doesn't exist.

I'm by no means a wikipedia policy expert and I don't edit much these days, but I think the idea is that if a person's works are noteworthy they should be referenced in relevant articles about the topics (e.g., The Rendlesham Forest Incident article for Ms. Randles), but that doesn't make the person themselves "notable" in the wikipedia sense. I don't have any real familiarity with Randles to know if she is notable in that sense, just wanted to clarify that as per my understanding a person's works can be relevant to cite even if the person is not considered notable enough to have their own article.

 

[JMartJr]

Looking at Wikipedia and "notable" people, I see:

Peter Trevor Powell (29 June 1932 – 3 January 2016) was a British kite maker who developed a steerable kite in 1972, using dual lines.

George Pocock (1774–1843) was an English schoolteacher, the founder of Tent Methodism and an inventor, particularly known for having invented the 'Charvolant,' a kite-drawn carriage.

Lawrence Hargrave, MRAeS, (29 January 1850 – 6 July 1915) was an Australian engineer, explorer, astronomer, inventor and aeronautical pioneer. He was perhaps best known for inventing the box kite, which was quickly adopted by other aircraft designers and subsequently formed the aerodynamic basis of early biplanes.

Peter Lynn (born 1946) is a New Zealand kitemaker, engineer and inventor. He is notable for his construction of the world's largest kites (Guinness book of records holders), giant inflatable (sparless) display kites (the most widely known is the 27 m octopus kite), the popularisation of kite buggying and contributions to the development of power kiting and kitesurfing.

David William Gomberg (born June 9, 1953) is a Democratic member of the Oregon House of Representatives, representing District 10 on the state's central coast since January 14, 2013. He served in political staff and lobbying positions in Oregon prior to his election to the legislature. He's the retired head of his own kite design and construction business. (JM -- Before he went into politics, his page was all about kite stuff, and was under discussion for deletion due to the question just how notable he was, but stayed up. He's probably safe for a bit now!)

These are folks plenty notable in the kite community, but probably largely unknown otherwise. If they are hanging in, and I think they should be, notable pro and anti UFO figures seem to me to be worth keeping.

(For fun, I checked my name --I see a Muppets puppeteer, a priest or two, a couple of politicians, a football players, a musician, a convict transported to Australia, a chef, and my Dad, among others... unaccountably, I seem to have been deemed insufficiently notable! Oh well, I do count David Gomberg, Peter Lynn and my Dad among my friends, so I am at least "notable-adjacent...)

 

[Mendel]

These are folks plenty notable in the kite community, but probably largely unknown otherwise. If they are hanging in, and I think they should be, notable pro and anti UFO figures seem to me to be worth keepin

"The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; " is in the criteria.

 

[beku-mant]

In the name of ameliorating the stereotype that skeptics are intentionally manipulating people and suppressing UFO information, more skeptics should try to improve the informativeness and accuracy of Wikipedia articles about UFOs. Because currently, it's very blatant, and anyone informed, intelligent enough, and unbiased, will look at these articles, and look at the body of knowledge outside of these articles and notice the discrepancy. It makes this community appear dishonest and agenda driven, even if only by association.

 

[Mendel]

In the name of ameliorating the stereotype that skeptics are intentionally manipulating people and suppressing UFO information, more skeptics should try to improve the informativeness and accuracy of Wikipedia articles about UFOs. Because currently, it's very blatant, and anyone informed, intelligent enough, and unbiased, will look at these articles, and look at the body of knowledge outside of these articles and notice the discrepancy. It makes this community appear dishonest and agenda driven, even if only by association.

a) we're not responsible for Wikipedia
b) what body of knowledge?

Wikipedia requires reputable sources. These are hard to come by, and we can't change that.

 

[John J.]

In the name of ameliorating the stereotype that skeptics are intentionally manipulating people and suppressing UFO information

I don't think that stereotype exists outside of groups of people who believe that UFOs represent exotic phenomena, and in the associated -and baseless- conspiracy theories that "the truth" is being hidden from the public.

 

[Mendel]

I don't think that stereotype exists outside of groups of people who believe that UFOs represent exotic phenomena, and in the associated -and baseless- conspiracy theories that "the truth" is being hidden from the public.

We definitely don't owe them anything, yes.

In the name of ameliorating the stereotype that UFOlogists are intentionally manipulating people and suppressing proven debunks, more believers should try to improve the informativeness and accuracy of UFO facts everywhere. Because currently, it's very blatant, and anyone informed, intelligent enough, and unbiased, will look at these articles, and look at the body of knowledge outside of these articles and notice the discrepancy. It makes this community appear dishonest and agenda driven, even if only by association.​

I'm thinking about the people who warm up old cases, or that don't check new cases against obvious explanations. (To be fair, some are starting to do that.)

But we've had this problem with @beku-mant before, that he claims there's all this evidence out there, and then I asked him to show examples for that, and no response. His "body of knowledge" does not exist.

 

[deirdre]

In the name of ameliorating the stereotype that skeptics are intentionally manipulating people and suppressing UFO information, more skeptics should try to improve the informativeness and accuracy of Wikipedia articles about UFOs. Because currently, it's very blatant, and anyone informed, intelligent enough, and unbiased, will look at these articles, and look at the body of knowledge outside of these articles and notice the discrepancy. It makes this community appear dishonest and agenda driven, even if only by association.

you should post the bunk you see on wikipedia here. and if metabunkers refuse to acknowledge said bunk ( if it is indeed bunk) or thumbs up some song-and-dance dismissal attempt*, then you'd have documented proof to share in other forums that metabunkers are dishonest and agenda driven.

*or dont thumbs down the song-and-dance. i think that counts too, but dont count me as i dont read most ufo threads anymore.

 

[NoParty]

...the body of knowledge outside of these articles and notice the discrepancy. It makes this community appear dishonest and agenda driven, even if only by association.

fify: "...even if only by imagination"

 

[Gaspa]

Let me just point out that wikipedia editor Chetsford is not part of GSoW.

 

[beku-mant]

I didn't say Metabunk is to blame, but members of skeptical communities do lose credibility in the eyes of the public due to the association many people have in their minds between those who are dishonestly controlling the UFO narrative on Wikipedia and skeptical communities, just like the UFO community loses credibility in the eyes of the public because of grifters and UFO fraudsters.

 

[jdog]

I didn't say Metabunk is to blame, but members of skeptical communities do lose credibility in the eyes of the public due to the association many people have in their minds between those who are dishonestly controlling the UFO narrative on Wikipedia and skeptical communities, just like the UFO community loses credibility in the eyes of the public because of grifters and UFO fraudsters.

Funny thing is on Wikipedia you'd be required to have a citation backing up that claim.

 

[Mendel]

due to the association many people have in their minds between those who are dishonestly controlling the UFO narrative on Wikipedia and skeptical communities,

• nobody is "dishonestly controlling the UFO narrative on Wikipedia"
• the "they're after us" mindset comes with the conspiracy theory, and there's nothing we can do to change that

 

[beku-mant]

Funny thing is on Wikipedia you'd be required to have a citation backing up that claim.

It's a lot more complicated than that.

 

[Landru]

It's a lot more complicated than that.

Really? Can you provide any evidence?

 

[beku-mant]

Really? Can you provide any evidence?

There are special rules on Wikipedia for UFO articles because it classifies as a fringe topic. Information included in the articles "should" be sourced from sources outside of the "fringe sourcing ecosystem", and there is a preference for secondary sources. Due to the vagueness of what is in the sourcing ecosystem or not, there is a lot of flexibility to remove stuff on that basis. And the secondary sources outside of the ecosystem, can be filtered to support a narrative, and have little to no quality requirements.

Primary sources like news paper articles, AARO reports, research papers, etc. can be removed. And any secondary source not written with a strong "skeptical" bias can be removed on the basis it is outside of the sourcing ecosystem or sensationalized.

The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are reliable sources that are outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself, as such sources are necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of mainstream secondary sources. Points that are not discussed in these mainstream sources should not be given any space in articles. Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context in mainstream sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FRIND

Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting. Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting. Some editors may take into account perceived media bias, such as Missing white woman syndrome, when assessing notability. Note that this guideline applies to articles about a wide range of subjects beyond just events including articles about living people, celebrities, and fringe ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Sensationalism

Ultimately, the rules are abused pretty egregiously, and there is a persistent organized group of people working together. So even if you try to improve the article in good faith, within the rules, you'll be met with virtually impossible resistance.

The result is Wikipedia is very uninformative and inaccurate when it comes to UFO articles.

 

[deirdre]

Funny thing is on Wikipedia you'd be required to have a citation backing up that claim.

the " just like the UFO community loses credibility in the eyes of the public because of grifters and UFO fraudsters." claim? is MB a reputable source because i bet we can find a dozen or so citations of that here.