How to catch a skeptic. activism on Wikipedia

[WWHP]

Hi everyone,

I thought it would be fair to get commentary from the skeptic community regarding Wikipedia, We Have a Problem.

Specifically, the reporting of 'editor suppression' tactics used often on Wikipedia by skeptic activist editors.

Even more specifically, on a piece of real estate that is a heavy target of skeptic concerns, the biography article on Deepak Chopra.

How to catch a skeptic

I'm not here to flame, annoy, aggravate or tease. I think it is responsible for me to include commentary or rebuttals if the community can responsibly communicate them.

Cheers,
WWHP

 

[blutoski]

Hi everyone,

I thought it would be fair to get commentary from the skeptic community regarding Wikipedia, We Have a Problem.

Specifically, the reporting of 'editor suppression' tactics used often on Wikipedia by skeptic activist editors.

Even more specifically, on a piece of real estate that is a heavy target of skeptic concerns, the biography article on Deepak Chopra.

How to catch a skeptic

I'm not here to flame, annoy, aggravate or tease. I think it is responsible for me to include commentary or rebuttals if the community can responsibly communicate them.

Cheers,
WWHP

I think we should see if GSoW hasn't already identified the problem and established a response plan. You can join them, if you're motivated.

Here's their blog: [Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia]


ETA: here's their entry in RationalWiki: [Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia]

 

[blutoski]

General observations:

One of the 'features' of skepticism is that nobody's in charge. This means that anybody can 'represent' skepticism. It also means that two skeptics can 100% disagree on topic X, but each one is allowed to strike out and 'educate' the public that their version is 'the skeptical position'.

Such disagreements include when and how to use guerrilla tactics.

Case in point: I had a skeptical colleague whose project for about a year was to go into bookstores and libraries and 'properly shelve bibles into the fiction section'. I can see his point, but not sure pissing off librarians is how Skeptics want to make our mark.

But he wasn't concerned about what we thought, he was going to do it, and if he got caught, great! He could be on TV explaining to everybody what Skepticism is all about. Surely we wanted publicity, right?

 

[William Parcher]

I'm not here to flame, annoy, aggravate or tease.

Why is this statement in your post?

 

[blutoski]

Why is this statement in your post?

I suspect because it's critical of skeptics' behavior, and skeptics have a habit of lashing out even when criticism is in good faith.

 

[marplots]

Gee whiz, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia and the crowd can't agree? This has got to be more than a skeptics' problem. Deepak Chopra is a bit of a controversial figure, not just on Wiki, but all over the Internet - I think there's plenty of evidence on YouTube to support that point.

Good luck.

 

[Belz...]

Why is this statement in your post?

Plausible deniability.

 

[WWHP]

I think we should see if GSoW hasn't already identified the problem and established a response plan. You can join them, if you're motivated.

Here's their blog: [Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia]


ETA: here's their entry in RationalWiki: [Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia]

hi - thx for your reply and taking the time.

I haven't seen any evidence of involvement (in my case studies) of GSoW involvement.

I just think GSoW is apart of a larger trend of skeptic activists on Wikipedia.

General observations:

One of the 'features' of skepticism is that nobody's in charge. This means that anybody can 'represent' skepticism. It also means that two skeptics can 100% disagree on topic X, but each one is allowed to strike out and 'educate' the public that their version is 'the skeptical position'.

Such disagreements include when and how to use guerrilla tactics.

sure - that makes sense. It's also something I point out, this type of behavior has nothing to do with the ideology of skepticism, in any of its' forms or even skeptical activism proper.

Case in point: I had a skeptical colleague whose project for about a year was to go into bookstores and libraries and 'properly shelve bibles into the fiction section'. I can see his point, but not sure pissing off librarians is how Skeptics want to make our mark.

sure - and one could argue that those type of 'tactics' could be laying down the ground work for a long tail result of skeptic activists actually losing credibility, so also unwise form of persuasion.

But he wasn't concerned about what we thought, he was going to do it, and if he got caught, great! He could be on TV explaining to everybody what Skepticism is all about. Surely we wanted publicity, right?

That is a dynamic I detail a bit in the study. "Skeptic activism" within Wikipedia involves its own PR channels, using skeptic influencers, and even platforms like RationalWiki to control a narrative about events occurring on Wikipedia.

It is good to know that other skeptics can criticize this type of behavior and activity.

Cheers
WWHP

 

[WWHP]

Why is this statement in your post?

Should it not be?

WWHP

 

[WWHP]

Gee whiz, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia and the crowd can't agree? This has got to be more than a skeptics' problem. Deepak Chopra is a bit of a controversial figure, not just on Wiki, but all over the Internet - I think there's plenty of evidence on YouTube to support that point.

Good luck.

Hi, thanks for replying. You are correct, it is not a "skeptic" based problem on Wikipedia, editor suppression can occur anywhere and everywhere. My case study just happened to fall into this particular culture.

However, there is a very robust presence on Wikipedia from within the skeptic community, and they hold influence over a large swathe of topics.

So while the problem is truly a phenomenon of Wikipedia culture - I would gather this particular niche has a larger than normal sample size that other forms of activism.

cheers
WWHP

 

[surreptitious57]

One can try to eliminate conscious or sub conscious bias in scepticism as much as possible but complete elimination is however impossible
Humans are emotional beings as well as logical ones and so bias will always exist at all levels both individual and organisational and every
thing in between. So the way to therefore address the problem is to acknowledge that it exists then try to keep it to an absolute minimum

 

[WWHP]

One can try to eliminate conscious or sub conscious bias in scepticism as much as possible but complete elimination is however impossible
Humans are emotional beings as well as logical ones and so bias will always exist at all levels both individual and organisational and every
thing in between. So the way to therefore address the problem is to acknowledge that it exists then try to keep it to an absolute minimum

Wise wise words. and the only way to keep it an a minimum it to engage in rational consensus building directly with those who have completely different viewpoints than the ones we share.

Yours was not the quote I was expecting, but if you don't mind I would like to use it in the study.

Thank you!

WWHP

 

[CORed]

General observations:

One of the 'features' of skepticism is that nobody's in charge. This means that anybody can 'represent' skepticism. It also means that two skeptics can 100% disagree on topic X, but each one is allowed to strike out and 'educate' the public that their version is 'the skeptical position'.

Such disagreements include when and how to use guerrilla tactics.

Case in point: I had a skeptical colleague whose project for about a year was to go into bookstores and libraries and 'properly shelve bibles into the fiction section'. I can see his point, but not sure pissing off librarians is how Skeptics want to make our mark.

But he wasn't concerned about what we thought, he was going to do it, and if he got caught, great! He could be on TV explaining to everybody what Skepticism is all about. Surely we wanted publicity, right?

I think it's sufficient to simply consider "Religion" and "Fiction" to be synonymous.

 

[Spindrift]

Wise wise words. and the only way to keep it an a minimum it to engage in rational consensus building directly with those who have completely different viewpoints than the ones we share.

Yours was not the quote I was expecting, but if you don't mind I would like to use it in the study.

Thank you!

WWHP

Rational consensus building? Being the most popular answer doesn't make something the right answer. Some viewpoints are just wrong and should not be considered. Everyone has a right to an opinion but that doesn't make their opinion right.

 

[blutoski]

hi - thx for your reply and taking the time.

I haven't seen any evidence of involvement (in my case studies) of GSoW involvement.

I just think GSoW is apart of a larger trend of skeptic activists on Wikipedia.

Yes, I guess what I meant was that they may consider policing vandalism in the name of Skeptics to be within their mandate. They do have a 'take inexperienced skeptics under our wing to educate in the ways of Wiki' approach. I think they would regard most of these examples as abuse, and if the perpetrators were members of GSoW they may have a coaching model that would be interesting to learn about.

sure - and one could argue that those type of 'tactics' could be laying down the ground work for a long tail result of skeptic activists actually losing credibility, so also unwise form of persuasion.

This has always been a rationale for establishing limits for Skeptical public outreach efforts. I think generally, the dissenters do not agree or do not care about credibility.

That is a dynamic I detail a bit in the study. "Skeptic activism" within Wikipedia involves its own PR channels, using skeptic influencers, and even platforms like RationalWiki to control a narrative about events occurring on Wikipedia.

It is good to know that other skeptics can criticize this type of behavior and activity.

If there's one thing skeptics excel at, it's criticizing each other.

 

[ddt]

I'm not here to flame, annoy, aggravate or tease. I think it is responsible for me to include commentary or rebuttals if the community can responsibly communicate them.

Why is this statement in your post?

I suspect it's there because WWHP (or as he was formerly known: Bubblefish) has some history on this site as well. I just guess he doesn't want you to peruse older threads like this one on a JREF challenge involving Qi and Dr. Shui-Yin Lo, or this one with "OS 012" in the title, but in post #6 he says he doesn't start the thread to discuss OS 012.

Having read a few of those threads, let me say I'm skeptical of WWHP's claims regarding how he's been treated at Wikipedia. For one simple thing, WWHP had been banned before from Wikipedia. His setting up a new account, paid representative or not, is an infraction of Wikipedia policies AFAIK.

 

[fuelair]

All anyone needs to know is that like Dr. Oz and so many other frauds and quacks, Chopra is a fraud and a drag on humanity. If everyone could get that through to the pointy headed ones of the world, life would be way better for all!!!!!Eliminate liars and frauds and