Wikipedia & Sceptics Versus Forteana

[Ghostisfort]

No-one can dispute that Wikipedia is a useful source of information in many areas. It's strong on mainstream science, computer programming, cult television, video games and anime. These are the subjects that get a typical Wikipedia editor's pulses racing. In other areas, such as history and the fine arts, they shrug their shoulders and leave it to people who are knowledgeable in these fields. Only Forteans are seriously persecuted... Wikipedia doesn't share their interests, but unlike classical music and Greek philosophy (which they don’t like either) they just won't leave us alone...Read more at:
http://forteana-blog.blogspot.com/2011/ ... teana.html

For deletion:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Paranormal/archive en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Conspiracy_theories/archive.
source:
http://forteana-blog.blogspot.com/2011/ ... teana.html

 

[Jerry_B]

Wikipedia shouldn't be taken at all seriously. It's really just a collection of possibly/doubtfully informed opinions on various subjects. As such, you're likely to get a more (or less) better take on information about Forteana from places such as this very forum

 

[EnolaGaia]

Wikipedia shouldn't be taken at all seriously. It's really just a collection of possibly/doubtfully informed opinions on various subjects. As such, you're likely to get a more (or less) better take on information about Forteana from places such as this very forum

Agreed ...

Back when Wikipedia was 'young' I registered and participated in editing articles on some topics for which I can claim substantial expertise. As time went on, I found myself constantly at odds with newer editors, many of whom modified or deleted basic information to suit particular positions or agendas. I finally quit investing effort in trying to support a reference work that was so vulnerable to mob whims (and mischievous pranking, etc.).

As a Wikipedia user, I've found the presumptive 'quality' of many entries is progressively degrading with time. In many instances, I've found errors, lies, and other 'crap' have seeped into articles. It's no surprise, then, that an increasing number of organizations have instituted policies limiting or forbidding reliance on Wikipedia as a reference source.

Overall, I've ceased considering Wikipedia a solid reference all but the most banal topics, and then only at a relatively low / introductory level of detail.

In all honesty, my biggest disappointment isn't the spotty quality of the assembled reference materials; it's the inability to avoid the implication that in this context democratization not only doesn't 'help', but apparently guarantees things will get worse ...

 

[Jerry_B]

It's just the digital version of hearing it from a bloke down the pub As for it being part of some conspiracy - well, no. And if there is, who cares? It's not as if Wikipedia is some sort of final arbiter of Forteana as a subject

In terms of a Fortean wiki, it has been discussed before on this forum here and here...

 

[Ghostisfort]

It seems that most of Wiki's deletions and edits are by a very small group with a big agenda:

"Wikibullies at work. The National Post exposes broad trust issues over Wikipedia climate information"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/w ... formation/

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/ec/William+M.+Connolley

It's better if you do it big scale:
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerig ... ki_tracker

I found this following example not long ago while researching the subject of remote viewing. The first paragraph has been doctored to give a negative slant to the rest of an article that is very positive about the results.

Scientific studies have been conducted, and although some earlier, less sophisticated experiments produced positive results, some more recent experiments failed to observe such results when conducted under properly controlled conditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

This is quite false when you consider that the US military program was carried out under strict scientific supervision and later positively assessed by an independent statistician.

All of this is, of course, grist to the sceptical mill, as debunking, often based on inaccurate or low grade data, then takes-on a life of its own and becomes the standard for sceptics.
I have some other examples.

 

[Jerry_B]

That assumes that sceptics take Wikipedia any more seriously than anyone else does. I don't think anyone with half a brain would consider Wikipedia an authoritive or informed source on anything. Put simply, it is not a reference source - it's just stuff organised into an on-line database (and I use the word 'data' in it's broadest possible form). It gives the illusion of being something more, but that's just a facade.

 

[Ghostisfort]

14.6 billion Page Requests for All Wikimedia Projects
http://stats.wikimedia.org/reportcard/

 

[Jerry_B]

And so... what? That still doesn't make Wikipedia a valid reference source. The best way to not be bothered by what it may say about Fortean subjects is to ignore it. It's an irrelevance.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Fix Wikipedia
Is it Worth Paying Attention to Wikipedia?
Yes, it absolutely is. This is a shining opportunity for the skeptical movement. Wikipedia is among the most important public sources for almost any scientific, pseudoscientific, or paranormal topic. A Wikipedia article is almost always the number one Google hit for that subject.
Amazingly, any grassroots skeptic can make responsible improvements to that source at any time, easily and for free.
http://www.skeptic.com/get_involved/fix_wikipedia.html

I think the sceptics find Wiki a worthwhile target?
A wonderful opportunity to proclaim their dubious philosophy to all those who don't want to spend time researching.
So far we have the global warmers and the sceptics who want to change history - a pattern is starting to form.

It must be remembered that the modern brand of scepticism is something you do down the pub with mates who agree with your every word.
The idea that refusing to believe in a subject benefits science in some obscure way is just a diversionary tactic to hide the fact that scepticism is something that anyone can do, without any prior knowledge whatsoever.

 

[Jerry_B]

All this shows is that some in skeptical circles think they should use it in a certain way - in that sense they are no different from anyone else who uses it. Wikipedia is just really a mass of opinions with some data tacked onto it. So even if you get skeptics trying to get their ideas onto, it'll just be one part of the greater mass. It would still never make Wikipedia a viable reference source.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
...For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.

In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.

That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as ... z1QCbFCCi9

Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., a privately held corporation. Articles are aimed at educated adults, and written by about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 expert contributors. It is regarded as the most scholarly of encyclopaedias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C ... Britannica

 

[Yithian]

Wikipedia's a far uglier read that Britannica.
The biggest advantage of the former is that it is free to access.

 

[Jerry_B]

Both are subject to inaccuracies - this has always been the case. They will only ever be some sort of database with limited uses. They are not viable beyond that, and as such cannot be used or be seen as the place from which to glean information. If you want actual information in any depth on any given subject, you'd have to dig alot deeper - i.e. find the relevant books, papers, articles, etc..

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

It's only as good as the sources which it cites. For subjects which attract a great deal of interest there's a higher level of referencing. However, for some niche or lesser explored topics it often tends to be of a lower quality, usually due to the pages being put together by partisans, obsessives and propagandists.

The best way to treat Wikipedia is an index rather as a source in itself.

 

[DieDieMyDarling]

Wki hasn't been taken seriously in a long time. The information on there is full of agenda-driven inaccuracies, and downright stupidity. In pretty much every subject and perpetrated by both sides of every argument.

I tend to use it as a starting point if I'm looking something up, then based on that basic information I can go elsewhere and search for other information.

As stated above, it's a bit like hearing someone discussing a subject in the pub, being interested by it, and deciding to go home and look up more details on it, from more reputable sources.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Wki hasn't been taken seriously in a long time. The information on there is full of agenda-driven inaccuracies, and downright stupidity. In pretty much every subject and perpetrated by both sides of every argument.

I tend to use it as a starting point if I'm looking something up, then based on that basic information I can go elsewhere and search for other information.

As stated above, it's a bit like hearing someone discussing a subject in the pub, being interested by it, and deciding to go home and look up more details on it, from more reputable sources.

ted_bloody_maul
It's only as good as the sources which it cites. For subjects which attract a great deal of interest there's a higher level of referencing. However, for some niche or lesser explored topics it often tends to be of a lower quality, usually due to the pages being put together by partisans, obsessives and propagandists.

The best way to treat Wikipedia is an index rather as a source in itself.

I agree with both of these posts, this is just how I use it myself - as a jumping off point.
Where else would you go to find the meaning of Fnord?

 

[rev_dino]

Wikipedia is a great place to look something up casually. Good articles will cite their sources, and you can start "real" research there if you like. Those deltions do seem a bit harsh if you ask me.

Going back to the thread title, though, since when did scepticism and forteanism become mutually exclusive?

 

[Jerry_B]

Going back to the thread title, though, since when did scepticism and forteanism become mutually exclusive?

You'd have to check Ghostisfort's other threads to find that out

 

[Ghostisfort]

Wikipedia is a great place to look something up casually. Good articles will cite their sources, and you can start "real" research there if you like. Those deltions do seem a bit harsh if you ask me.

Going back to the thread title, though, since when did scepticism and forteanism become mutually exclusive?

The words Fortean and sceptic have changed over recent years.
Fort denied the classifications and labelling of science, preferring that everything blend into everything else in a universal oneness. He was only sceptical about science and other authorities.
The sceptics of our time insist that there is nothing outside of the labels, deconstruction and classifications of science.

I do realise that there are some who claim to be both sceptical and Fortean. They also tend towards the delusion that someday all Fortean phenomena with be explainable in scientific terms. This is not possible for various reasons, the most obvious being that science doesn't bother to study Fortean phenomena.

 

[rev_dino]

That's divisive, I think.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I've always tended to a rather benevolent skepticism, myself.

I have no problem with true believers on either side of the argument and I'm happy to flit between them as suits my mood. I do tend to avoid the extremists, though, if I can. Although I find even them pretty interesting!

 

[Jerry_B]

I do realise that there are some who claim to be both sceptical and Fortean. They also tend towards the delusion that someday all Fortean phenomena with be explainable in scientific terms.

So why your concern that skeptics try to work aginst Forteana? Surely, if they're never going to be able to explain it, then you have no need to worry about their stance or take a stand against it?

In another thread you've accused scientists of not doing anything worthwhile that's of practical use to everyone else. How would their investigation of Forteana be of any practical use either?

This is not possible for various reasons, the most obvious being that science doesn't bother to study Fortean phenomena.

So how do you explain scientific forays into such things as earthlights and ball lightning, or the work of Persinger?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Going back to the thread title, though, since when did scepticism and forteanism become mutually exclusive?

I think you'll find that in the great Venn diagram of life, the overlap of Forteans who are also sceptical, is probably considerably greater than overlap of sceptics who consider themselves Fortean.

I do realise that there are some who claim to be both sceptical and Fortean. They also tend towards the delusion that someday all Fortean phenomena with be explainable in scientific terms.

So why your concern that skeptics try to work aginst Forteana? Surely, if they're never going to be able to explain it, then you have no need to worry about their stance or take a stand against it?

...

I suspect that Ghostisfort is on firmer ground, here. There are some phenomena which will never really be the domain of science. Also, there probably are Wikipedia editing sceptics bumptious enough to think they can save the World from the irrational and 'woo'.

However, these are probably the same people who go out of their way to ensure that the Wikipedia's coverage of cult popular TV seres is anally accurate, to the smallest detail and universally comprehensive.

I've no real proof of this, of course, being to lazy to read the changes logs! :lol:

 

[rev_dino]

...

Going back to the thread title, though, since when did scepticism and forteanism become mutually exclusive?

I think you'll find that in the great Venn diagram of life, the overlap of Forteans who are also sceptical, is probably considerably greater than overlap of sceptics who consider themselves Fortean.

Oh, good point. I came to Skepticism via Forteanism, so I understand exactly what you're saying.

Quite a few people have expressed a healthy respect for Forteans on the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe forums, too, but I'm not even going to try and bring it up over at JREF!

I didn't make my initial comment to start a fight, we should remember that we all have something in common and we should try to be the best examples of Forteans, Skeptics, Pastafarians or whatever we can.

(Another Fortean mystery is how I seem to have become more reasonable as I get older, I thought it was meant to be the other way round!)

 

[Analis]

The sceptics of our time insist that there is nothing outside of the labels, deconstruction and classifications of science.

You should not confuse sceptics with those who usurp this name. A nd I doubt Fort rejected science. He only rejected the bureaucrats who claim to represent science, but who in fact don't understand what the word means.

That being said, it is true that some bogus scpetics try to "purify" Wikipedia from any reference to the unexplained.

 

[DieDieMyDarling]

Surely, such is the human condition that for every sceptic altering wiki articles for their own purpose, there's a believer doing exactly the same thing for their own cause?

The place is full of people using pseudo-facts to confirm their chosen brand of fortena as proven to be real.

I've certainly not seen any evidence to support the theory that sceptics are more difficult to persuade than believers, or vice-versa. People are people are people.

 

[Ghostisfort]

It's very refreshing to see that there are those who still think about the infinite possibilities!!!! of life?

 

[Jerry_B]

Surely, such is the human condition that for every sceptic altering wiki articles for their own purpose, there's a believer doing exactly the same thing for their own cause?

The place is full of people using pseudo-facts to confirm their chosen brand of fortena as proven to be real.

I've certainly not seen any evidence to support the theory that sceptics are more difficult to persuade than believers, or vice-versa. People are people are people.

True. I imagine any skeptical attempts at a purge of Wikipedia will only result in various other people bouncing back and adding counterpoints. Possibly the whole thing could be unravelled - which IMHO would be good, and would wean people off of the idea that Wikipedia is of much use beyond a very basic, flawed reference.

This still means that we are in dire need of a Fortopedia...!

 

[WhistlingJack]

You really think a Fortopedia would be less riven by arguments and edit wars than Wikipedia is?!

 

[Jerry_B]

I guess it depends on how it's run and whether the same problems that plague Wikipedia can ne avoided. Ideally, it would just be a database instead, and actually not like Wikipedia at all

 

[Spookdaddy]

...

Going back to the thread title, though, since when did scepticism and forteanism become mutually exclusive?

I think you'll find that in the great Venn diagram of life, the overlap of Forteans who are also sceptical, is probably considerably greater than overlap of sceptics who consider themselves Fortean.

rev dino - yes, I often wonder about that myself.

Personally, I've always thought that Fort's most famous maxim does not exclude the possibility of measurement, or indeed circles.

PM - nicely put, and I suspect very accurate.