Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

[NoParty]

...millions of people are interested in the UFO phenomenon (skeptics and believers included).

...the Statistica poll posted by @Gary C (post #76) might indicate that these aren't issues of great concern to most people.

I think that this is key. I think that people who really "want to believe" can easily lose perspective on just how much of the
average person's brain space goes to UFO-ology. I thinks millions & millions have some small, passing curiousity.
Personally, I don't care much about the subject, but just checking in with MB, on the regular, for a tiny slice of sanity, in 2025,
means that I've read waaaaay more about Rendlesham, the Phoenix Lights & Calvine, etc. than I normally would've.
If I just stopped an adult at random, and asked her if she thought Calvine was faked, my guess is that she'd say something like: "Calvine & Hobbs? I love those two!!"
But, as I said, MB has probably compromised my ability to relate to normal people. ;P

 

[Mendel]

There's nothing to stop anyone who includes a checkable reference to a contemporaneous source from adding that information.
Objectively, it wouldn't change much; it would still be dependent on a claimed eyewitness report. It doesn't make that claim more likely to be an accurate account.

The problem is the "no original research" rule. It's not enough to find an eyewitness account, you need to find a notable source. And if the notable sources say, "witness testimonies disagree" or "people who didn't see it at the time later said they did", then some other editor can put that in the article, and you have no remedy. "No orignal research" forestalls cherry-picking the evidence.

I think the "categories" issue is that putting a page in a category is normally not justified separately. Someone might look at something, think it belongs in "pseudoscience" or "conspiracy theories", and put it there, and then the "paranormal researchers" are offended at having their efforts thus labeled.

 

[deirdre]

I think that this is key. I think that people who really "want to believe" can easily lose perspective on just how much of the
average person's brain space goes to UFO-ology. I thinks millions & millions have some small, passing curiousity.
Personally, I don't care much about the subject, but just checking in with MB, on the regular, for a tiny slice of sanity, in 2025,
means that I've read waaaaay more about Rendlesham, the Phoenix Lights & Calvine, etc. than I normally would've.
If I just stopped an adult at random, and asked her if she thought Calvine was faked, my guess is that she'd say something like: "Calvine & Hobbs? I love those two!!"
But, as I said, MB has probably compromised my ability to relate to normal people. ;P

it's nice that we can be so consistently off topic, but bekumant gets a permanent ban for the same behavior*.

*it wasnt really the same behavior, he was still discussing a wikipedia example.

 

[Mendel]

it's nice that we can be so consistently off topic, but bekumant gets a permanent ban for the same behavior*.

*it wasnt really the same behavior, he was still discussing a wikipedia example.

@NoParty is speaking on the topic of how different people come to feel different subjects are more important than others. This also translates to which people's biographies wikipedia includes.

Mick posted a public warning not to make this about Westall. I've used Westall as an example of how Wikipedia policies and values apply. I don't know what @beku-mant got banned for, but he was arguing Westall facts. However, that's irrelevant to the subject, because whether something is true or not is not by itself an inclusion criterium. Arguing with us about what's true about Westall has no bearing on the subject of editing Wikipedia. He needed to do that on another thread, and that should have been obvious from the warning.

 

[deirdre]

but he was arguing

we can see what he was arguing because both you and i quoted his deleted comments. But youre right, silly of me to miss that No Party was talking about which biographies wikipedia includes.

 

[deirdre]

@Gaspa is editor BabbaQ a guerilla skeptic member? do you know?

 

[Gaspa]

@Gaspa is editor BabbaQ a guerilla skeptic member? do you know?

Not all of us are open about our participation, so I cannot answer.

And, to anyone who thinks I just did, you're mistaken.

 

[Gaspa]

@Gaspa is editor BabbaQ a guerilla skeptic member? do you know?

I'll give you this:

Glancing over their latest contributions (link), it certainly doesn't scream "focused on the topics of interest of skeptics".
Actually, nothing at all jumped out to me. And they do vote in a lot of "articles for deletion", if it was their vote in one that grabbed your attention.

Looks like a very active regular old wikipedian, and a well-respected one at that, having been chosen as editor of the week once in 2018.

 

[deirdre]

if it was their vote in one that grabbed your attention.

no it was theys editing of the cheshire home invasion article. i guess science, reason, facts, orthodoxy and no-agendas isnt all that big on wikipedia after all.

but thats ok, are there any websites or forums anywhere that have no agenda these days?

 

[Mendel]

no it was theys editing of the cheshire home invasion article. i guess science, reason, facts, orthodoxy and no-agendas isnt all that big on wikipedia after all.

but thats ok, are there any websites or forums anywhere that have no agenda these days?

I have literally no clue why you think these edits https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheshire_murders&diff=1304426211&oldid=1302910737 by BabbaQ represent a skeptical agenda. He simply implemented this:

Article:

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Gender_identity

because Linda Mai Lee's name change had been in the news.

 

[FatPhil]

i didnt say it was a skeptical agenda. it is absolutely a political agenda.

Then why did you ask "is editor BabbaQ a guerilla skeptic member?"?

 

[deirdre]

Then why did you ask "is editor BabbaQ a guerilla skeptic member?"?

Gaspa said "no". ergo...