deirdre
Senior Member
not all ufo articles, ive seen some old cases that are fair and balanced.
Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
You're right, the average person on the street would totes agree with debunking if it weren't for those dastardly wiki editors they're always hearing about.
Please provide an example.
NoParty
Senior Member.
Thanks for going back and fixing "inaccurate"...it was a bit on the nose.
I don't know about your average person, but millions of people are interested in the UFO phenomenon (skeptics and believers included). Any of them who study a UFO case, and then read the Wikipedia article on that case will notice.
Even if most people weren't informed enough, or didn't care, to notice. It's not a good thing to rely on public ignorance, for what you view as your contribution to stand. Wikipedia articles should be legitimate, not just apparently legitimate if you don't know any better.
NoParty
Senior Member.
Many times I've been sucked in to a wild UFO/UAP headline, clicked, read, & thought: "Wow! That is amazing!"
Then I've called up the topic on Wikipedia, only to be hit with tons of evidence, that makes it pretty obvious
that the "amazing" incident was a massive, over-hyped nothingburger.
Oddly, I've never had my disappointment lead me to be cranky at W over it.
p.s. Like Landru, I'd love to see some of your examples!
Giddierone
Senior Member.
There's clearly a tension between trying to follow the Wikipedia rules to make articles well sourced and efforts to "ref bomb" articles —either adding too many citations or lots of very weak ones, to make an article conform to standards. The problem I'd noticed is that articles, such as that for Jenny Randles, and Raymond E. Fowler which are actually both supported by numerous good sources, get caught up in the time limited deletion nominations and little to no effort is put in by nominating editors to save those babies.
Ufology does have a related problem (which gets a mention in this thread #1) where apparently academically sound articles associated with reputable institutions (E.g. Harvard) reference multiple figures in ufology which serves to give them false legitimacy. But when looked at carefully, when you follow the citations, these references might be to, stories lacking evidence, speculation or even opinion by Tweet.
Ufology does have a related problem (which gets a mention in this thread #1) where apparently academically sound articles associated with reputable institutions (E.g. Harvard) reference multiple figures in ufology which serves to give them false legitimacy. But when looked at carefully, when you follow the citations, these references might be to, stories lacking evidence, speculation or even opinion by Tweet.
deirdre
Senior Member
so i would totes agree with ufo claims if it weren't for the elizondos? um... i might be misunderstanding your intent here.
One of the issues, is with UFO cases, the relevant facts are what the witnesses reported, or what was reported by investigators subsequently. If you remove that information from the Wikipedia articles because they are primary sources, part of the fringe sourcing ecosystem, or sensationalized (and with biased agenda driven parties making these determinations), then you're left with nothing to go on. So you get these articles stripped of all of the important information, but full of dismissive interpretations. The article ends up resembling an informal, personal opinion-based and biased blog post. No article at all would be better than that.
In order to fix the problem, you would need a powerful group of editors collaborating to more fairly classify sources, and enforce rules.
In order to fix the problem, you would need a powerful group of editors collaborating to more fairly classify sources, and enforce rules.
Last edited:
If your two sources of information are clickbait articles and Wikipedia, then you're probably nowhere near informed enough to determine if a given case was a nothing burger or not. Plus, the Wikipedia articles you read were crafted based on an agenda to make you think its a nothing burger.
NoParty
Senior Member.
Well, I won't bother asking how you decided that those might be my only "two sources of information"...
especially as you implied it to me here
...a place that constantly discusses UAP in a level-headed manner...I'm guessing I probably also shouldn't ask what your double-secret info is about the Wikipedia "agenda."
Sadly, it looks like I'm "nowhere near informed enough" to keep up with you! As you were!
Ann K
Senior Member.
...but only in the eyes of those members of the public that either will not or cannot understand the logical reasoning behind a skeptical critique. Pandering to those people is unlikely to raise their level of understanding.
It's not about reasoning, it's about information being selectively suppressed, and sometimes fabricated, in support of a particular interpretation, and an explicit open agenda.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
Well, there's your problem. If all we have to go on is an eyewitness account, knowing from past experience that witnesses are often mistaken, often unreliable as to estimations of distance or speed, often unfamiliar with the other possibilities for what they've seen, often defensive about their information to the point that they will entertain no other possibilities, often lacking in sufficient scientific knowledge to understand what the skeptics are telling them, and (alas!) sometimes make the whole thing up to get attention, then what are we left with? All that can be reported on, in most cases, is an unverifiable claim, and that is not enough to declare that some earth-shattering alien visitation "must be true".
Ann K
Senior Member.
That's worthy of no more credence than most other conspiracy theories that are knocking about the internet, and you should be ashamed of making such a slur without a good deal more evidence.
First, we have to stop with the use of the group labels, like the skeptics. Many of the people being labeled skeptics are promoting high-confidence yet unproven and illogical explanations.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
Citation needed.
deirdre
Senior Member
citation needed.
deirdre
Senior Member
an encyclopedia isnt a Center for Skeptical Inquiry article. i want the witness statements. It's up to me to determine if a witness can be blindly trusted or not.
Maybe schools can spend less time teaching social issues and teach things they dont learn already in movies and on tv, like "how reliable are witness statements".
NoParty
Senior Member.
Okay...I thought I was done with this...but then you announced that there is "an explicit open agenda."
Awesome! I thought that you were kind of making all that "agenda" stuff up, but now that we know that the
"agenda" is both "explicit" and "open," there's zero reason not to copy & paste it in here. Ultra easy! Thanks in advance!
Mendel
Senior Member.
The problem with UFO "research papers" is that most of them have not undergone peer review, and thus don't really count.
If you want to discuss the removal of a specific source from a specific article, we can do that. Wikipedia talk pages associated with a certain article often do. The conflict arises when believers think sources are worth more than the encyclopedists do. (For example, the evidentiary value of Harry Reid's letter regarding the role of Elizondo in a program for which no paperwork exists.)
Wikipedia is also very uninformative when it comes to Pokemon or the Spongebob universe. That's why these subjects have independent wikis that run to different standards than a general encyclopedia.
Let's look at some examples.
Clearly, the relevant witness statements have made it into https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_incident .
And https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_School_UFO_incident is all witness statements, with barely any skeptical perspective at all, or mention of debunking efforts.
These two articles contradict the claims you are making, and you have not cited any examples yourself. Please stick to facts.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
It's very clear what you don't say - as you repeatedly avoid saying anything to satisfy the polite and appropriate requests for evidence to back up your claims.
For example - the "body of evidence" claim @Mendel asked you to justify just a few posts back (relative to the post I respond to). What body of evidence? Stop being evasive.
Worse - you're now adding to your list of unsubstantiated assertions by making conspiratorial claims like "those who are dishonestly controlling the UFO narrative on wikipedia".
FatPhil
Senior Member.
If the agenda is "keep the encyclopedia factual", then suppressing information that would violate that would be the appropriate thing to do, no?
And what's the evidence of fabricating data? Another claim made with no evidence - your MO is starting to drag.
Mendel
Senior Member.
I think he's referring to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories .
Gaspa
Senior Member.
That's what every skeptic wikipedian who works on these articles tries to do.
Name one "informed, intelligent and unbiased" person who thinks this.
The only people who make "this community appear dishonest" are the UFO true believers who want their fairy tales to be presented as more credible than they are, so they come up with conspiracy theories and accuse others of "trying to hide the facts" or "be against disclosure" - both of which are positions that have lots of wrong assumptions.
NoParty
Senior Member.
I read through that. It's a lot! But I'm still confused.
I guess I was expecting "...an explicit open agenda" to be pretty obvious...
When you slog through all that, what do you think is supposed to be
(in a few words or a sentence) the "explicit open agenda" ?
JMartJr
Senior Member.
To be fair, the Elizondos of the world, pushing ceiling lamps reflected in windows and irrigation circles as amazing UFO pictures, and telling us about the orbs around their house which they never bothered to take a picture of, do indeed make it a bit harder to take UFO proponents' claims seriously... yeah, it would be easier to take them seriously as a group if the group did not include, and embrace, Elizondos!
If I understand beku-mant correctly (and I may not, I admit), their point is that some skeptics' shenanigans (in this thread focusing on things happening on Wikipedia UFO articles) similarly damage OUR collective reputation. Which is plausible, but as beku-mant has not yet given examples I am unable to evaluate if it goes beyond "plausible" into the realm of "correct." If the claimed behavior is there, simply saying it is "explicit and open" but not saying clearly what it is nor providing examples doesn't do much to make the case.
Gaspa
Senior Member.
There are layers of wrong in this that need to be peeled, here.
"The association people have in their minds."
And who put that association in people's minds? Only grifters and conspiracy theorists.
"those who are dishonestly" "controlling the UFO narrative on Wikipedia and skeptical communities"
Who is controlling what, exactly? That's not how any of this works.
And, to the point that some people are in positions of influence and steer the narrative - which is not the same as "controlling it", your claim that any of them are doing so dishonestly is utterly unfounded. Probably every skeptic would love to have evidence of actual alien life, and none of us would have anything to gain from "hiding it" - as if we were able to - if it existed.
Should skeptics change their standards of evidence, should wikipedians change how they treat sources, should wikipedia change its rules, policies and actual principles because some conspiracy theorists' made up narratives that the true believers eat up?
It's the UFO people - and I would assume that almost every single one of the are just people of faith who do it honestly, although I would claim that there are a few who are actually lying for profit, so in there lie examples of dishonesty - who come up with the story that there are people who are "dishonestly controlling the narrative" and who put the association of skeptics, GSoW/Susan Gerbic, and even Mick West personally, with that in people's heads.
Funnily enough, all of that is happening while there are UFO nutters who have enough influence over the US Congress to have all these hearings where "whistleblowers" go to make wild claims with zero evidence, most mainstream media publish UFO stories with a credulous slant (I'm looking at you, NYT, and let's not forget the drone flap from late last year). And Wikipedia, which is still an encyclopedia, is villified for maintaining basic sanity.
(edited out a repeat use of "let's not forget" in a single line that was driving me nuts. not change in meaning)
Last edited:
Gaspa
Senior Member.
You just described the rules, which are the same for all fringe topics, and are designed for having an encyclopedia - you know, a repository of actual knowledge, which doesn't encompass unfounded claims, fringe beliefs and conspiracy theories. These are presented as what they are.
The rules are not "abused pretty egregiously". Of course not everyone follows the rules every time, but most of the time when someone fails to follow the rules, it gets corrected by the community. It is a false narrative from disgruntled fringe pushers that the rules are abused.
There is no "persistent organized group of people working together" in the way the fringe pushers claim. There are a lot of people who work hard to enforce the rules, and people with a common interest who usually discuss things in the Fringe theory noticeboard (FTN). There are also a lot of people who think folks at FTN can get overzealous and also watch that space and chime in when they disagree. As for GSoW, it works very differently from what the UFO crowd believes in.
Name one WP article on a UFO topic that is "very uninformative and inaccurate", please.
Gaspa
Senior Member.
Now, that's just plain nonsense.
Gaspa
Senior Member.
It's fine that you want that. But that's not what WP is for.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Well, the policy prevents ufology from presenting itself as it wants to be presented, which they perceive as suppression.
All of these arguments are not new. This quote is from a policy arbitration from 2007 linked from WP:FRINGE:
The OP of this thread, from 2013, confirms that there's a "skeptical contingent".Article: This is not about an editor misbehaving in Wikipedia. This is just a turf war between people who think these subjects should be honestly presented and people who are offended by any suggestion of something outside of mainstream science.
We asked early on that the articles in dispute be made as simple as possible to avoid problems of point of view. We asked that just the fact be included and without characterization. Instead, there is a large and aggressive skeptical contingent of Wikipedia editors who seem determined to use Wikipedia as a platform to denounce anything that they see as not mainstream.
deirdre
Senior Member
i dont read about these things elsewhere, so i must have read somewhere on MB, wasnt there a youtube link here of a TED talk the woman who put the skeptic group together saying they were explicitly doing this? Remember? she talked about how the group came together, my fuzzy memory thinks she said something like most are housewife types (which i took to mean not professional skeptics)<very fuzzy so dont quote me when you find the link!! and their mission was to remove bunk from wikipedia?
it might not have been a ted talk and i cant remember her name right now unfortunately, but she was on a stage with a microphone. she wasnt ashamed of their work.(not that she should be, i agree with the premise but personally a bit wary of the implementation)
edit add: from Mendels OP reminder i got her name is Susan Gerbic.
Last edited:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Thanks, I'll go out and see if I can find that, it would conceivably count as evidence of what beku-mant has claimed.
Gary C
Senior Member.
[Relevant phrases bolded for clarity]
This is a known problem among believers regardless of topic, there are always fewer of you than you believe there are. The public at large is exposed to little of this debate beyond reality TV and low-viewership C-SPAN events. They are not invested in this issue emotionally or otherwise.
What is missing from this list?
Source - https://www.statista.com/statistics...-on-the-most-important-problem-facing-the-us/
Going back the the original post (from 2013!), there was a link to their Blogger site, but they moved to WordPress as abouttimeproject.wordpress.com, and though that doesn't look to be updated very often, they do point to a currently active Facebook group for the About Time Project.
Which has a public-facing page that says their most recent projects are editing entries on Perry DeAngelis and Steven Novella and the project they're connected to, the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast and book.
They probably do qualify as a "skeptical contingent," but their focus doesn't seem to be solely UFOs.
Which has a public-facing page that says their most recent projects are editing entries on Perry DeAngelis and Steven Novella and the project they're connected to, the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast and book.
They probably do qualify as a "skeptical contingent," but their focus doesn't seem to be solely UFOs.
deirdre
Senior Member
it might have been one of the csi talks..or maybe even this one but skimming it i dont think this is the one i watched. she doesnt edit anymore she says in 2018, so her team does it. and the team is basically anyone, and like MB the anyones just pick what topics interest them.
which of course is true of all wiki pages even if one isnt affiliated with guerilla skepticism. ultimately it used to be known that Wiki is just a "jumping off point" and shouldnt be taken as a source. Even the sandy hook page still has inaccuracies (the one citation i checked last night with an inaccuracy, the source* did not say what was inaccurately written on the page.. point being wiki was never meant to be fully trusted by users and its easier to teach the public this than to try to argue about wikis rules
)*the source was NY Post. it always irked me on wiki and even here that if some joe schmo at Jezebel or Fox news says something it is somehow "proof". pfft. maybe in the days when journalists were actually journalists (our old school definition of the word) but obviously that is not hte case in today's world. "trusted sources" pfft. i digress
deirdre
Senior Member
1. is that nice?
and
2. based on some of the reactions of "skeptics" here on MB to the suggestion skeptical activists are being activists, i'd say we agree that bad apples (in any group) make the rest of the apples look bad. which is why people are trying so hard to argue the bad apples are not bad apples.
(i have a skeptical reaction to the word "activist" too.. and i didnt get that opinion from a ufo grifter or conspiracy theorist)
Gaspa
Senior Member.
They are explicitly doing what, exactly? I think she says things along the lines of "removing bunk" and "improving skeptical content". The training is in order for people to learn how to edit, and tips for finding things to edit and finding sources with the goals stated above - which is done according to WP policies.
There was a case made against GSoW (link - there was a lot more drama leading up to this, which can be found in the links in the "Prior dispute resolution" section - skip to Findings of fact and Remedies, if you want to get the gist and what came of it) where ArbCom (WP's arbitration committee) found that one of GSoW's editors (user Rp2006) had repeated instances of not following the rules, so he was blocked (he is the sole responsible for his actions, and I can say that I had personally warned him that he was breaking the rules and that he shouldn't do some of the things he later got blocked for doing - also, this is evidence that, when people break the rules, there are corrective measures. He hasn't edited in over a year (his contributions) and Susan (sgerbic) no longer edits pages where she suspects she might accused of having a COI. They are the only two involved parties that are members of GSoW.
It's lots of people, with diverse beliefs although, of course, a lot in common. Most are barely active in WP lately, such as myself, some are more motivated. Some people just write bio pages for scientists, some try to improve more topical pages on science or pseudoscience-related pages. Some are very active in WP, but haven't edited anything skeptic-related in years.
Sometimes people ask for help with fixing an error message they are getting in a page, sometimes they ask for help with how to deal with something specific that is going on - which can include conflicts with another user - and this help usually comes in the form of someone with more experience pointing them to relevant WP policy or explaining to them how they are wrong. There is always a request for people "not to pile on the discussion on WP" as that would be canvassing. Sometimes someone shows up with "hey, I found this info that I think could be added to so-and-so page, anyone wants to do it?", and if anyone wants and has the time, they'll do it in whatever way they see fit.
What you won't find is the sort of "coordinated editing" that the UFO folks accuse us of doing. Also, basically all of the time UFO reddit accuses GSoW of doing something, it's not GSoW, it's just some random wikipedian on their own doing what they think is right.
Similar threads
