A window into Guerrilla Skeptics of Wikipedia

On the Skeptical Inquirer website, Susan Gerbic has collected a number of short pieces by members of her group, in which they give their thoughts about the fight against "pseudoscience". I found it quite interesting reading:
https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/...into-gsow/

On the Skeptical Inquirer website, Susan Gerbic has collected a number of short pieces by members of her group, in which they give their thoughts about the fight against "pseudoscience". I found it quite interesting reading:
https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/...into-gsow/

 
nothing beats a zealot eh? Lol

 
nothing beats a zealot eh? Lol

Well, on the one hand I think trying to make Wikipedia more factually accurate is an admirable aim, and I daresay I would approve of quite a lot of the actual editing they are doing (probably not very much of which concerns parapsychology, though I did see one mention of it in that article).

But on the other, the tone of some of those comments did make me feel a bit uncomfortable. Some of them do seem to picture themselves as a band of the righteous battling dark forces (religious comparisons are hard to resist). And several times there were statements about hating certain groups, feeling angry at their activities and finding the Wikipedia editing therapeutic. I don't think that kind of emotional motivation is conducive to objectivity. And it doesn't sound as though they're particularly alert to the risk that they may be affected themselves by bias.

Book burners through and through. They are typically not the sort of character that should be allowed around gentlefolk.

Well, on the one hand I think trying to make Wikipedia more factually accurate is an admirable aim, and I daresay I would approve of quite a lot of the actual editing they are doing (probably not very much of which concerns parapsychology, though I did see one mention of it in that article).

But on the other, the tone of some of those comments did make me feel a bit uncomfortable. Some of them do seem to picture themselves as a band of the righteous battling dark forces (religious comparisons are hard to resist). And several times there were statements about hating certain groups, feeling angry at their activities and finding the Wikipedia editing therapeutic. I don't think that kind of emotional motivation is conducive to objectivity. And it doesn't sound as though they're particularly alert to the risk that they may be affected themselves by bias.

Well quite. The road to hell etc..

The Guerrilla Skeptics is an interesting group.

Their activities were highlighted back in 2013 https://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/wikipedia

Rome Viharo's website Wikipedia We Have a Problem can still be read through Wayback machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/201705080723...oblem.com/

The Guerrilla Skeptics is an interesting group.

Their activities were highlighted back in 2013 https://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/wikipedia

Rome Viharo's website Wikipedia We Have a Problem can still be read through Wayback machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/201705080723...oblem.com/

Thanks for this. I do think that Wikipedia's coverage of parapsychology is systematically biased, and that a symptom of that bias is a very uncritical acceptance of any information that tends to discredit the hypothesis that psi is a real phenomenon. Another symptom is the insistence that parapsychology is only a "pseudoscience" - despite the self-evident fact that any phenomenon, real or imagined, can be studied scientifically, and that the question of science versus pseudoscience hinges only on the quality of the methodology, and not on the area of study.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the main thrust of the Guerrilla Skeptics is much broader, and that parapsychology is relatively incidental to it. That's why I said I thought I would approve of quite a lot of the editing they are actually doing. But I think they tend to have a blind spot with regard to parapsychology, which leads them to dismiss the whole field of study out of hand. Of course, what they should do is accept it as a valid field of study as a whole, while offering criticisms of particular parapsychological studies that they feel are flawed.

Chris, from my editor's perspective, tactics used by the skeptic editors have been refined over the years. There was a lot of talk about Wikipedia Bullying Editors and the poisoned atmosphere in the early days. There is an absolute ban on fringe, paranormal and pseudoscience unless it serves the dominant group. See https://ethericstudies.org/wikipedia-arbitration/.

They have become a little more careful about their terminology. Now, they are very good at seeming to provide a balanced article but on closer read, one can see many subtle inferences. The Sheldrake article is a good example. There were endless battles over whether to include the fact that he has a degree in science. By keeping that out, they cast subtle doubt on everything he claims.

This "kinder, gentler, seemingly more honest" editing is possible because they have run off more balanced editors. Just as I am no longer allowed to edit the Sheldrake article because I talked positively about pseudoscience, they have banned for one reason or another every balanced editor I knew.

As a propaganda tool for the conservative movement, Wikipedia is one of the most powerful opinion setters in existence. Don't look for the skeptics to be attacking just one area. They will attack any area that does not comply with the conservative worldview. That, and their view of scientism.

Chris, from my editor's perspective, tactics used by the skeptic editors have been refined over the years. There was a lot of talk about Wikipedia Bullying Editors and the poisoned atmosphere in the early days. There is an absolute ban on fringe, paranormal and pseudoscience unless it serves the dominant group. See https://ethericstudies.org/wikipedia-arbitration/.

They have become a little more careful about their terminology. Now, they are very good at seeming to provide a balanced article but on closer read, one can see many subtle inferences. The Sheldrake article is a good example. There were endless battles over whether to include the fact that he has a degree in science. By keeping that out, they cast subtle doubt on everything he claims.

This "kinder, gentler, seemingly more honest" editing is possible because they have run off more balanced editors. Just as I am no longer allowed to edit the Sheldrake article because I talked positively about pseudoscience, they have banned for one reason or another every balanced editor I knew.

As a propaganda tool for the conservative movement, Wikipedia is one of the most powerful opinion setters in existence. Don't look for the skeptics to be attacking just one area. They will attack any area that does not comply with the conservative worldview. That, and their view of scientism.

Thanks. When you say Wikipedia is a propaganda tool for the conservative movement, do you mean that politically, or are you speaking more generally of a conventional view of the world?

This is one of those subjects I have formed an opinion about as an interested observer with a vested interest. People do not run around with signs on their forehead and news media tends to report in fads as much as in proper English. The consequence is that I sometimes have difficulty finding the right term.

Here, I mean conservative to the collective worldview of people who tend to be at odds with such concepts as self-determination, freedom from religious overreach, personal safety and economic stability:

• In science, it is scientism at the cost of new thought
  
• In religion, it is usually radical Biblical interpretation informing the Holy directive to dominate "others."
  
• In economics, it is unbridled capitalism in which citizens are consumers and paying a fair share is seen as the CEO's failure.
  
• In safety, it is capitalism over rational pricing of health care and interpretation of "God-given rights" over the right of the individual to feel safe in the community.
  
• In governance, it is service to the lobbyist at the cost of individual protection and refusal to accept that the whole owes its existence to the well-being of the individual.
  

Whatever textbook meaning "conservative" may have, its practical meaning has become about as anti-constitution, anti-humanitarianism as it comes.

https://ethericstudies.org/humanist-2018/