(Since this is the thread on the Girl with "X-ray" Vision, I'm going to be rude and interrupt this discussion on consciousness)
I'm totally abandoning my efforts to correct the false and misleading information that has been added to the Wikipedia article on Natasha Demkina. The editor, who has been trying to moderate the dispute, believes that he has done the right thing by simply rewriting the false and misleading statements that were added by Julio Siquiera -- the Victor Zammit-Wannabe from Brazil -- to give his "facts" and opinions a more neutral point of view (NPOV in Wiki-speak). Unfortunately, it seems Wikipedia editors and administrators, may believe that a neutral point of view sometimes should override the need to be factual and accurate.
About two weeks ago, Siquiera vandalized the Wikipedia Natasha Demkina article, filling it with outrageous falsehoods (i.e. Andrew Skolnick's M.S. from Columbia University is "phony"; the appendix and esophagus cannot be seen by X-rays; Skolnick is lying about the number of test cards -- there were seven, not six; -- ad nauseum). I protested his vandalism and formally requested moderation and that the article be locked in the version before Siqueira's attack, until the dispute can be settled. Well, the article is now locked, but not before an editor rewrote it to make the howlings of the rabid anti-skeptic sound more neutral and therefore accurate.
For example, Siqueira added a false statement to the article stating that the appendix and esophagus cannot be seen with X-rays. He then defended the falsehood by partially and deceptively quoting an online source, which only says that it's hard to DIAGNOSE APPENDICITIS, since the appendix can extend in a number of directions and the pain from an infected appendix may be mistaken as coming from the colon, uterus, etc. The reference does not say that the appendix is hard to find. It's not.. A first-month medical student should be able to find it. The reference says that
appendicitis -- INFLAMATION of the appendix -- is hard to DIAGNOSE because the end of the inflamed painful appendix may be lying in an unusual position.
I pointed all this out this attempt to deceive to the editor and what did he do to "correct" the dishonest text? He wrote:
"Furthermore, some point out, the location of the appendix with the body can vary, and this can cause difficulty in diagnosing appendicitis even by medical experts."
He took the fangs out of Siqueira's statement, but left in the claws that gut the truth.
I wrote the editor privately yesterday so as not to embarrass him and pointed out this and many other examples of where his rewrite had merely poured room deodorizer over the festering wounds of the corrupted article. (Almost a mixed metaphor, but not really.)
Without first asking me, the editor posted my email on the Wikipedia discussion page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&oldid=31272374 and addressed my points, rather unsatisfactory. (His lack of netiquette in publishing my email without first asking is the final nail in the coffin of my dealings with Wikipedia.) Here's part of his explanation why he added that misleading statement, confusing appendix with appendicitis and serving Siqueira's purpose to make readers think an appendix is hard to find even for experienced doctors (never mind a poor, young, innocent uneducated girl from the impoverished boondocks of Russia, who was under much stress from jet lag and having to deal with the negative energies put out by the manipulative and dishonest skeptics, yada yada):
"That is, in effect, the mechanics of reaching POV neutrality -- including both sides. I am sorry that you expected NPOV to be otherwise.
I should probably take this moment to impress upon you that Wikipedia is not a medical journal. Falsities are one thing; but to exclude a point of view from a topic article is another thing altogether. What I think you are having a problem with is expecting this to be a medical journal article, which you are accustomed to, and not something more layperson-accessible.
No, sir, I was expecting it to be an encyclopedia article. I have written several articles for Collier's and Encyclopaedia Brittanica. So I was under the assumption that articles in Wikipedia should also be truthful and as accurate as editors can make them, and not include statements that may mislead or misinform.
Siquiera defended this with a link to a page on Group Health Cooperative which specifically asked and answered the question "Why is appendicitis sometimes hard to diagnose"? So without opposing material, I find it difficult to reject this.
Clearly, he permitted Siqueira to put a good one over him -- even though I had explained on the discussion page why this citation is deliberately misleading. We had not asked Natasha to diagnose appendicitis. We had asked her to find the appendix or lack of one. So how did the editor justify including this misleading red herring?
[The editor's rewrite of] the article does not say that she was asked to diagnose appendicitis. The mention of appendicitis is to support the assertion that the appendix can be in a number of locations, and this can affect medical diagnoses related to it.
I throw up my hands. We asked Demkina to find the person who had no appendix. It can be difficult for doctors to diagnose appendicitis. However, it's not difficult for a them to FIND an appendix using x-rays or other suitable radiological procedures. A blind butcher with a scalpel can find the appendix without any problem. Any medical schools student should be able to find it on a competent X-ray. It's that pinky-sized pouch that's attached to the large intestine right next to where it joins the small intestine. That does not vary (except in people who don't have an appendix -- and apparently in Wikipedialand). The distal end of the appendix may lie in a number of positions (causing confusion if it becomes inflamed because the pain may seem like it's coming from a different organ), but the proximal end is always attached near the junction of the small and large intestines. And intestines -- described by Natasha as "vacuum cleaner hoses" -- were among the first organs she claims to have ever seen with her special vision.
In reply, the editor said:
But what about without radiology? Was radiological-analogous ability what you were testing Demkina for?
SWISSSSSSSSSH! Right over his head. We were not testing Natasha's "radiological" abilities. We were testing her claim to be able to see organs inside of people's bodies with the accuracy of doctors, if not better. And -- contrary to the obfuscation that is now in the Wikipedia entry -- doctors have no trouble finding the appendix using radiology.
Natasha on the other hand, claimed in our test to see an appendix in two people who had theirs removed, and claimed to not see one in a woman who still had hers. Hence Siqueria's successful effort to use Wikipedia to mislead readers into thinking that doctors, like Natasha, sometimes have a lot of trouble finding the appendix.
So here's the lesson I learned from all this. If I want to become a Wiki editor, this is how I probably should write a simple account of the Nazi Holocaust from a NPOV:
"While most historians believe the Holocaust exterminated most of the Jews in Europe, some others, including noted British historian David Irving, say that it's a cruel myth created by the power-hungry Jews as part of their conspiracy to rule the world."
See, I'm being very careful to include the views of both sides -- after all, the latter view is widely taught in elementary schools and schools of higher education in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and many other Islamic countries and it shouldn't be the job of encyclopedia editors to help readers distinguish truth from falsehoods.
Wikipedia is becoming the post-modernist encyclopedia of our times.
The above is just one of many examples of Siequeria's success in corrupting the Wikipedia article. If anyone thinks that I'm being hard on the editor, consider how happy the editor has made the Victor Zammit wannabe. This morning, Siqueira posted this on the Wiki discussion page:
:Keith, I have now read the entry the way you rewrote it. I think it is quite acceptable, some parts of it being nearly perfect indeed. Surely I will have very few suggestions. I will have some comments (feedbox) to it, and to this talk page too, later on. Best Regards. [[User:Julio Siqueira|Julio Siqueira]] 14:25, 14 December 2005
Clearly, Siqueira believes his efforts to rewrite history have been successful.
I do too.
But I'm curious as to why you defend it so vociferously. When people question its accuracy, you could just shrug and say "Yeah, I know. Its more for entertainment than anything else. We make no argument about that; check the disclaimer." But you instead try to convert people into believing that it is a more highly reliable resource than it actually is.
