Just a reminder of the maturity of the Guerilla Skeptics of Wikipedia

Parapsychology's battle for the Internet: https://t.co/f61zr3frGR https://twitter.com/SPR1882/status/14130...02945?s=20

The society for psychical research tweeted a picture about wikipedia bias, and Susan Gerbic herself tweeted in the replies. It blows me away that she could be that childish, so I thought I'd link it here.

Gotta say don't go on there and debate with her though, just in case. You don't wanna make the twitter post look like a battlefield or anything. Just gawk or laugh from afar.

Frustrating woman!  Bet she posts on tik tok as well.

She struck me as somewhat disingenuous.

No one on any side of any issue has ever looked good on Twitter.

More broadly, I'm disappointed at how often a search on Google, for any topic or subject tends to return a stream of Wikipedia pages as the first half-dozen entries. Regardless of topic, I tend to scroll past these and look for a direct access to the information itself. But search-engine choices are a whole additional topic.

It amuses me that Vice, CNN, even the BBC are casting paranormal research in a positive light - if only in brief spurts - but the Guerilla Skeptics are focused on Wikipedia.

Heck the UFO disclosures themselves are a body blow to the skeptics, as well as the APA publishing Transcendent Mind a few years back. Penrose winning the Nobel for Physics has caused Orch OR to get more publicity.

Manipulating Wikipedia doesn't seem to be helping their Physicalist religion much, given that stuff like astrology and witchcraft are gaining in popularity. Even Idealism is gaining in popularity, with guys like Donald Hoffman talking to skeptics like Sean Carrol and Sam Harris.

edit: And given it the was the number one show on Netflix last summer, Zac Efron talking to a doctor verifying healing miracles at Lourdes probably eclipses all this social media drama.

Wikipedia co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created

https://unherd.com/thepost/wikipedia-co-...i-created/