Announcement

Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

The Wikipedia Skeptics Problem

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Open Mind View Post
    It is now quite clear the 'skeptic movement' is going out of control ... even their leaders like Phil Plait a few years ago was worried about their fans aggressive behaviour.

    The 'skeptic movement' are becoming a visible troll on the bridge blocking the passage of contrary information...it is no longer CSIcop fellows pretending to represent the whole of science and keeping their prejudices and affiliations under the bridge ...the 'scientific skepticism' facade is failing, out of control with fanatically named groups like 'Geurilla Skeptcism' .... finally the public can recognize it for what it always was, organized prejudice.
    LOL I had one the other day leaving a youtube comment on a John Edward video of mine saying they were a medium themselves and spiritual and that John Edward is well known "within the circle" as being a fraud.

    Before I approved the comment from appearing I checked out the profile of the person who wrote it... to see in their video subscriptions that they were subscribed to Derren Brown and Richard Dawkins and were liking all their videos

    They'll stoop to any level of lies to give their opinions credibility.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Frankmat View Post
      LOL I had one the other day leaving a youtube comment on a John Edward video of mine saying they were a medium themselves and spiritual and that John Edward is well known "within the circle" as being a fraud.

      Before I approved the comment from appearing I checked out the profile of the person who wrote it... to see in their video subscriptions that they were subscribed to Derren Brown and Richard Dawkins and were liking all their videos

      They'll stoop to any level of lies to give their opinions credibility.
      The most unpleasant people I've known have been religious fanatics and I put these Wikipedia pseudoskeptics in the same category. They're obsessed with pushing their belief system on others, at the cost of being decent to others. They behave as if they think nothing of being deceitful if it's for the "greater good", that being a world where everyone believes the same as them. Just look at the terribly unfair way they've been treating Tumbleman, all because he dared to try and restore some balance to the Sheldrake article. An open mind is anathema to these fanatical bullies.

      Comment


      • #33
        These guys are the worst sort of ideologues. The bias and hypocrisy is simply off the charts.

        Comment


        • #34
          Hi Craig,

          Saw some familiar ideas in your blog post!

          But one thing I don't understand is while I agree with you 100% about consensus building on wikipedia (after all, that's exactly what I said) I'm not sure why you've opposed my efforts to build such a consensus here!

          That has been my vision for what Skeptiko could become - a bridge between skeptics and proponents. A place where all sides work together to try and identify areas of agreement, to burrow down into these topics to find those nuggets. Once the nuggets are there it is possible that some of these gaps can be bridged. If we can bridge them here it might be a launching pad to bridge them in the greater community!

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Arouet View Post
            Hi Craig,

            Saw some familiar ideas in your blog post!

            But one thing I don't understand is while I agree with you 100% about consensus building on wikipedia (after all, that's exactly what I said) I'm not sure why you've opposed my efforts to build such a consensus here!

            That has been my vision for what Skeptiko could become - a bridge between skeptics and proponents. A place where all sides work together to try and identify areas of agreement, to burrow down into these topics to find those nuggets. Once the nuggets are there it is possible that some of these gaps can be bridged. If we can bridge them here it might be a launching pad to bridge them in the greater community!
            Those are noble aspirations, but I think you are overly optimistic. From what I've seen skeptics who are convinced by the evidence suddenly transform into "woomeister beleebers." That doesn't leave much middle ground.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Craig Weiler View Post
              Those are noble aspirations, but I think you are overly optimistic. From what I've seen skeptics who are convinced by the evidence suddenly transform into "woomeister beleebers." That doesn't leave much middle ground.
              If you agree the aspirations are noble then why oppose and denigrate my efforts? And even if it doesn't result in a consensus outside of skeptiko if we reach some sort of consensus inside Skeptiko haven't we achieved something worthwhile?

              And even if we fail, in the end - don't we guarantee failure by not even trying? And even if we fail, don't you think we'll have gained some sort of better understanding of both the issues and one another in the process and thus still be ahead?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Arouet View Post
                If you agree the aspirations are noble then why oppose and denigrate my efforts? And even if it doesn't result in a consensus outside of skeptiko if we reach some sort of consensus inside Skeptiko haven't we achieved something worthwhile?

                And even if we fail, in the end - don't we guarantee failure by not even trying? And even if we fail, don't you think we'll have gained some sort of better understanding of both the issues and one another in the process and thus still be ahead?
                We see this issue in much different ways. I regard skepticism as a form of bigotry that most people can cure themselves of. But some people are hard core bigots and they cannot be cured.

                As you might guess, my goal is the end of this bigotry, not compromise.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Craig Weiler View Post
                  We see this issue in much different ways. I regard skepticism as a form of bigotry that most people can cure themselves of. But some people are hard core bigots and they cannot be cured.
                  Please tell me how the approach I laid out is in any way bigoted.

                  As you might guess, my goal is the end of this bigotry, not compromise.
                  So when you wrote:

                  However, editors are supposed to work together to achieve a consensus and then edit the Wikipedia page, but instead there appears to be a concerted effort by some skeptics to avoid consensus.
                  Was it just empty rhetoric?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Arouet View Post
                    Please tell me how the approach I laid out is in any way bigoted.



                    So when you wrote:



                    Was it just empty rhetoric?
                    I don't understand what you're getting at.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Arouet View Post
                      Please tell me how the approach I laid out is in any way bigoted.
                      Arouet... you have been on this forum for over 3 years now... so let me ask you this.

                      After 3 years do you now believe PSI exists and do you believe Mediums can talk to the dead?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Frankmat View Post
                        Arouet... you have been on this forum for over 3 years now... so let me ask you this.

                        After 3 years do you now believe PSI exists and do you believe Mediums can talk to the dead?
                        I know I'm not Arouet, but that doesn't seem a fair question; even some parapsychologists took years to come around on these phenomena, and sceptisism or agnosticism on them (I fit the latter) shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand.

                        That said, it'd be nice to keep the topic to Wikipedia. Sheldrake's page hasn't undergone any major changes lately, but small tweeks keep coming and going. Some of the sources used for negative comments lead to interesting and thoughtful articles (such as his entry in "Why I am still an Anglican"). Most people will read the Wiki page, however, not the sources. If I might make a suggestion on how to improve his page - why not start small by expanding what from the sources is quoted or stated?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by edragone View Post
                          I know I'm not Arouet, but that doesn't seem a fair question; even some parapsychologists took years to come around on these phenomena, and sceptisism or agnosticism on them (I fit the latter) shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand.

                          That said, it'd be nice to keep the topic to Wikipedia. Sheldrake's page hasn't undergone any major changes lately, but small tweeks keep coming and going. Some of the sources used for negative comments lead to interesting and thoughtful articles (such as his entry in "Why I am still an Anglican"). Most people will read the Wiki page, however, not the sources. If I might make a suggestion on how to improve his page - why not start small by expanding what from the sources is quoted or stated?
                          Some things are best shown, not described. This link is to Sheldrake's talk page where I tried to get consensus on the change of one single citation. It starts at: Removing reference source 17: Consensus sought

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:R...nsensus_sought

                          The conversation is all over the map and about practically everything EXCEPT the reference. In the middle of it the skeptics tried to have me banned. When I threatened them they finally discuss it at the bottom of the page but they're still not really dealing with it.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Craig Weiler View Post
                            Some things are best shown, not described. This link is to Sheldrake's talk page where I tried to get consensus on the change of one single citation. It starts at: Removing reference source 17: Consensus sought

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:R...nsensus_sought

                            The conversation is all over the map and about practically everything EXCEPT the reference. In the middle of it the skeptics tried to have me banned. When I threatened them they finally discuss it at the bottom of the page but they're still not really dealing with it.
                            I agree with your opening sentence, but when the best isn't available, why not go for the best possible?

                            On the specific issue of the Rose article: has anyone tried expanding that section of the article to include information on what the experiment was, why Rose considered morphic resonance disconfirmed, and what Sheldrake's rebuttal was?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Frankmat View Post
                              Arouet... you have been on this forum for over 3 years now... so let me ask you this.

                              After 3 years do you now believe PSI exists and do you believe Mediums can talk to the dead?
                              I've answered this question many times. I've said clearly that I'm more open to the psi hypothesis than I was when I first joined but that I'm not yet convinced. My views on all of this stuff have become more refined and nuanced. I do think something interesting is going on and I'd like to figure out what it is. I find these discussions intellectually stimulating and the topic fascinating.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Craig, regarding your position regarding giving up Wikipedia to scholars: thisis a good idea, but one should be careful not to reach the opposite extreme of the academic exclusivism and snobbery, which means that nobody can add anything valuable until/unless one is a PhD/MD. I think, we can find a good balance here... I want to present my ideas on the issue of the potential editors.

                                I think, Wikipedia editors should be non-anonymous (only real names allowed) and consist of two equal groups.

                                1) The first group should be the editors with the formal expertise (FEXP) in a particular field. They must present their CV to verify their expertise; after their CV is verified, the FEXP editor should be granted an editor page with a real name and the CV, and are given a right to edit articles related to this particular field.

                                2) The second group should be the editors with informal experience and knowledge (IFEK) in a particular field. To verify such experience and knowledge, potential IFEK editor should meet at least 2 of the 3 requirements:

                                - to have been publishing popular articles and/or maintaining a non-anonymous blog related to a particular field no less than for 3 recent years. Such articles and/or blog should have received multiple postive evaluations and recomendations from the formal expersts in the respective field.

                                - to publish at least one popular book related to a particular field and based on a personal research and/or practice of a potential editor. Such book(s) should have received multiple postive reviews and recomendations from the formal expersts in the respective field.

                                - to make a presentation, based on a personal research and/or practice of a potential editor, on at least one scholarly conference.

                                After all of these is verified, IFEK editor should be granted an editor page with a real name and the list of links and/or references to the items mentioned above, and are given a right to edit articles related to this particular field.

                                I think, such approach should give a people who are knowledgeable and in some field, but devoid of a formal degree, a deserved possibility to participate in editing along with the formal experts. It will make Wikipedia a real "people's encyclopedia", where academicians and intelligent, well-informed laymen may work together, while keeping away ones without necessary knowledge.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X