Things about Wikipedia that frustrate me

From what I understand on here, many here may agree with me in saying that Wikipedia is not that reliable, or well-updated, when it comes to parapsychological and paranormal topics. I understand that it's not meant to include every single fact and detail, just a comprehensive overview, but I've nevertheless been appalled by the blatant bias on display on Wikipedia. Here are some notable examples I've personally seen, including some not relevant to parapsychology/the paranormal but evidence of biased editors nonethless:

• 'Some other Christian scholars independently came to similar conclusions, but his book (an expansion of an earlier scholarly work of his) is the most thorough and detailed presentation of this important argument.'  That is a sliver of what used to be an incredibly biased article on the theological historian John Dominic Crossan (who I had to study in school for my Philosophy and Ethics course). The original article endlessly praised him, glorifying his works as masterpieces without citations, implying these statements were objective, while degrading other theologians who had differing views. 
  
• I've mentioned this elsewhere, but Jerry Coyne's article is also very one-sided. You can't actually find any of the criticisms, recent or older, that have been levelled against him on his main page (from what I read). You'd need to read the article on his book for that. 
  
• Meanwhile, I am almost certain that there used to be an article for Bernardo Kastrup on Wikipedia, but I have been unable to find it. He has, like Coyne, also written many works that have received praise, and has his own blog and forum with many viewers. So why has Wikipedia not written an article on him, especially given that he is also a prominent writer for IAI and the Scientific American?
  
• Why is there no article of even a mention of the Edgar Vandy Case, in which Gladys Osborne Leonard (who has a rather scathing article herself on Wikipedia) was featured, whereas the Psi Encyclopedia provides great details about the cross-correspondences and data involved? For those curious, I personally find it to be quite a convincing case of mediumship: https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/edgar-vandy
  
• Bruce Greyson's page features none of his selected publications since 2004, which is frankly shocking. His work is barely explored in much detail at all, and it of course does not mention that he is an NDE proponent. The same can be said for Jim Tucker, glossing over the sheer magnitude of cases he has apparently investigates, many of which have been verified. Instead, it claims (with no citations) that:
  
  
• These ideas are not supported by the present understanding of quantum mechanics by physicists, which no longer relies on the philosophically unclear notion of individual conscious observers to explain wave function collapse.
  
• Peak-In-Darien experiences aren't even a referenced term. 
  
• The Pam Reynolds' case has a very poorly researched article. It makes no mention of the fact that there have been many refutations and debunkings of Gerald Woerlee's claims, including from the surgeons themselves. 
  
• Sam Parnia's article is hilariously outdated. It cites a criticism from some random 'science writer' from Skeptic.com just because Parnia expressed the view that the mind is more than the brain. It also quotes a random neurologist who uses the 'materialism of the gaps argument' in his response to a documentary featuring Parnia and Peter Fenwick. It also has flat-out false information on the Aware II study that has not been updated whatsoever: 
  
  
• As of May 2016, a posting at the UK Clinical Trials Gateway website describes plans for AWARE II, a two-year multicenter observational study of 900-1,500 patients experiencing cardiac arrest, with subjects being recruited as 1 August 2014 and a trial end date of 31 May 2017.
  
  
• Despite the fact that it has been investigated and found to be a phenomenon potentially supportive of survival, terminal lucidity has a shockingly short article that only references Nahm. 
  
• Peter Fenwick's article also does not mention any of his more recent publications or works. It also does not go into further details about any of his cases, despite the fact this might be easy to find given the fact he has a YouTube channel. 
  
• No criticisms whatsoever can be found of the work and claims of Susan Blackmore, such as her dubious assertions about NDEs, experience and that her own hypothesis is flawed. 
  
• Ietsism, recently introduced term akin to 'spiritual but non-religious' or 'somethingism', may be a label that could apply to my beliefs, but I no longer choose to use it. It effectively is the unspecified belief in a higher power or transcendental reality. Wikipedia makes a claim that is rather offensive and has no citations or references supporting it whatsoever: 'Ietsism often coincides with belief in pseudoscience or paranormal phenomena'. There have been no studies performed to my knowledge that back up this claim at all. There are also no citations given, and in fact, one editor actually complained about this nearly a year ago but nothing has been done since.
  
• Guerilla Skepticism has apparently been confirmed to be a real thing, as has bullying and harassment by authorities on Wikipedia. 
  

[*]On a side note, I'm a comic book fan. I've always told friends and folks online never to use Wikipedia as a reference or reliable source on comics, since it's reductionist, vague, makes inaccurate statements and takes far too long to be updated.

I understand that Max, hence the lack of details on some areas. But I don't appreciate the bias in presenting certain figures that we have discussed here. I do not approve of their treatment of the Pam Reynolds' case for example, which is simply inaccurate. They cite random skeptical critics and place all of them on seemingly higher pedestals than proponents, even when their arguments are weaker or outdated. Raymond Moody's page seems to be more concerned with bashing and discrediting the man than actually describing his work, as another example.

I do not consider the surgeons who operated on Pam Reynolds to be unreliable sources, nor do most people who have investigated the case. Gerald Woerlee is not reliable, because he has made unsupported assertions and has been refuted by many others enough for his arguments to not be credible, yet Wikipedia acts like they are acceptable. I understand that if it isn't 'mainstream' and leaning towards materialism then it won't be viewed that favourably, but Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, objective and neutral. It has lost that stance in my eyes. There is also no excuse for demeaning Ietsism like it does when even other editors are complaining. They do not cite any source for that statement I highlighted in bold whatsoever. The same can be said for some other claims and statements made on there. It's been discussed on here before, specifically about how editors on Wikipedia were arguing over whether or not to mention that Rupert Sheldrake has a scientific qualification, knowing that it would make him more credible if they included it. That shouldn't be something up for debate. 

I am not, of course, addressing you Max. I'm sure your activities on Wikipedia are not like this. I doubt you, for example, are giving credit to some random skeptic who genuinely claimed that Sam Parnia believing something about the mind that isn't materialist in nature makes him a 'borderline pseudoscientist', an insulting accusation which I find hasn't aged well at all. 

If I want a brief overview, I'll use Wikipedia. If I want the full details in a more comprehensive, up-to-date and arguably less biased manner, I think I'll stick with the Psi Encyclopedia, IAI, Near-Death.com etc.

I'm just re-posting a comment I made in a different thread:

It's worth adding a reminder that Wikipedia isn't a neutral resource. There may be references found there which themselves can be useful, but the commentary permitted in Wikipedia pages is inevitably biassed, pretty much by definition.

In terms of the topics we cover at Psience Quest, I'd suggest Wikipedia only as a possible starting point to help find some other resources, and not as a reference in itself.

Wiki has to be conservative, people should not overreach, and should only claim on what is certain, and mainstream... and I mean certain, if the subject is in dispute, and not a mainstream position, and has no reliable sources (all which apply to Pam Reynolds case) what really can you expect... of a mainstream encyclopedia... if everyone could put their non-mainstream opinions on there it would become utterly useless as a source of reliable information on subjects which are not in dispute...

No reliable source ? Are you having a laugh, Max ?

I am at least pleased knowing that most people know better than to solely research something based off Wikipedia, especially after checking the citations and if there is little content on offer. It is insulting to read many of the articles I mention once one has done further research. I mean seriously. The AWARE II study not being updated in seemingly 3 years? A lack of details on the works of proponents? More criticism than praise given of their works, largely from biased sources that lack the impressive credentials to earn such recognition by Wikipedia? Nothing on the fact that IANDs have largely debunked the Eben Alexander accusations? Nothing on the debunking of Gerald Woerlee's arguments (hell I found a YouTube video over 4 years old with decent views and supportive comments that briefly described the Reynolds case and mentions how Woerlee's arguments have been heavily refuted and criticised)? No article for Bernado Kastrup, who is probably just as well known and well-qualified, if not moreso, than Jerry Coyne?

I am at least pleased knowing that most people know better than to solely research something based off Wikipedia, especially after checking the citations and if there is little content on offer. It is insulting to read many of the articles I mention once one has done further research. I mean seriously. The AWARE II study not being updated in seemingly 3 years? A lack of details on the works of proponents? More criticism than praise given of their works, largely from biased sources that lack the impressive credentials to earn such recognition by Wikipedia? Nothing on the fact that IANDs have largely debunked the Eben Alexander accusations? Nothing on the debunking of Gerald Woerlee's arguments (hell I found a YouTube video over 4 years old with decent views and supportive comments that briefly described the Reynolds case and mentions how Woerlee's arguments have been heavily refuted and criticised)? No article for Bernado Kastrup, who is probably just as well known and well-qualified, if not moreso, than Jerry Coyne?

Spreading misinformation is very effective. Even when you try to correct it, they won't change it.  I informed Keith Augustine that Pam Reynolds was defibrillated at 27 degrees and not 32 degrees, as was previously thought. He told me Sabom published the figure of 32 degrees and he sees no reason to change it now. Even though it's a fact that she was defibrillated at 27 degrees. Facts don't seem to matter.

Susan Blackmore was very good at this. She's never conducted any prospective scientific NDE research herself. All her work on the subject is just various ideas she put together (to try to debunk NDE's) under what she styled "the dying brain theory". She actually isn't qualified to talk about such things (as an expert) in the same way that people like Peter Fenwick, a neuropsychiatrist, is. It never stopped her, though, and it never stopped others from quoting her as an accurate source of information. She also insinuated that Fenwick was an old fool (old Fenwick as she called him). To be fair, that could of course have been in response to him once stating that, "These psychologists talk absolute rubbish!"   

One of her favourite sound bites is that she's quite aware of the well known cases where patients (it's claimed) have seen things they couldn't possibly have seen whilst unconscious. But when she's investigated these cases, they don't stand up to scrutiny etc etc.   

If my memory is correct, that statement was first used in response to the Maria's shoe case. Sceptics threw everything they could at it to debunk it and Blackmore accepted their objections. And that pattern has largely continued.

Statements like that become accepted as fact and there's very little that can be done to change it.

http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/w...chers.html

"In any event, my purpose in writing this analysis was simply to subject a skeptical account of an NDE to the same kind of skepticism that the authors themselves advocate. There seems to be a double standard in the world of organized skepticism. A skeptic can freely indulge in speculation, tossing around "could have" and "may have" and "it is possible," without providing any evidence that any such thing actually took place. A skeptic can impugn the motives, honesty, and mental stability of his opponents. A skeptic can rely on the fieldwork of untrained students. A skeptic can spin contradictory scenarios, offering first one "explanation," then another and another, with no attempt to determine if any of these stories is true or even plausible. A skeptic can draw momentous conclusions from the re-creation of an event that took place seventeen years earlier, even though the re-creation is quite possibly flawed.

A skeptic can do all these things and more, but if a parapsychologist were to employ similar tactics, there would be hell to pay. Skeptics routinely nitpick the writings of parapsychologists, looking for any real or imagined error, no matter how trivial, and eagerly pointing out any supposedly unjustified claim or unwarranted logical leap. They don't seem to apply the same rigorous standards to the evaluation of their own writings. These are accepted uncritically, almost as Holy Writ. And psi proponents, all too often, seem willing to accept this double standard.
Maybe it's time to put the shoe on the other foot."

Spreading misinformation is very effective. Even when you try to correct it, they won't change it.  I informed Keith Augustine that Pam Reynolds was defibrillated at 27 degrees and not 32 degrees, as was previously thought. He told me Sabom published the figure of 32 degrees and he sees no reason to change it now. Even though it's a fact that she was defibrillated at 27 degrees. Facts don't seem to matter.

Susan Blackmore was very good at this. She's never conducted any prospective scientific NDE research herself. All her work on the subject is just various ideas she put together (to try to debunk NDE's) under what she styled "the dying brain theory". She actually isn't qualified to talk about such things (as an expert) in the same way that people like Peter Fenwick, a neuropsychiatrist, is. It never stopped her, though, and it never stopped others from quoting her as an accurate source of information. She also insinuated that Fenwick was an old fool (old Fenwick as she called him). To be fair, that could of course have been in response to him once stating that, "These psychologists talk absolute rubbish!"   

One of her favourite sound bites is that she's quite aware of the well known cases where patients (it's claimed) have seen things they couldn't possibly have seen whilst unconscious. But when she's investigated these cases, they don't stand up to scrutiny etc etc.   

If my memory is correct, that statement was first used in response to the Maria's shoe case. Sceptics threw everything they could at it to debunk it and Blackmore accepted their objections. And that pattern has largely continued.

Statements like that become accepted as fact and there's very little that can be done to change it.

http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/w...chers.html

"In any event, my purpose in writing this analysis was simply to subject a skeptical account of an NDE to the same kind of skepticism that the authors themselves advocate. There seems to be a double standard in the world of organized skepticism. A skeptic can freely indulge in speculation, tossing around "could have" and "may have" and "it is possible," without providing any evidence that any such thing actually took place. A skeptic can impugn the motives, honesty, and mental stability of his opponents. A skeptic can rely on the fieldwork of untrained students. A skeptic can spin contradictory scenarios, offering first one "explanation," then another and another, with no attempt to determine if any of these stories is true or even plausible. A skeptic can draw momentous conclusions from the re-creation of an event that took place seventeen years earlier, even though the re-creation is quite possibly flawed.

A skeptic can do all these things and more, but if a parapsychologist were to employ similar tactics, there would be hell to pay. Skeptics routinely nitpick the writings of parapsychologists, looking for any real or imagined error, no matter how trivial, and eagerly pointing out any supposedly unjustified claim or unwarranted logical leap. They don't seem to apply the same rigorous standards to the evaluation of their own writings. These are accepted uncritically, almost as Holy Writ. And psi proponents, all too often, seem willing to accept this double standard.
Maybe it's time to put the shoe on the other foot."

The documented response Kimberly Clark Sharp gave to Augustine and other critics at the time I think can still be found on IANDs, I'm not sure. But it does show that Augustine is not credible. Based on what she says, those boys were downright manipulative, like spies, who disregarded the fact that they were trespassing into a room of patients. How so many people can take some of these skeptics seriously is beyond me, especially when their behaviour can be unethical at times.