Starting from Scratch

We have 3 new additions to Wikipedia all launched today.  They are all pages for skeptics and all were created from scratch.  Trust me, starting with nothing is a lot of work, at least when you rewrite a page you have a template. 

So here they are, just in time for TAM 2012.

Bryan & Baxter - written by Rick Duffy

Jennifer Ouellette - written by Lei Pinter

Tim Farley - written by Susan Gerbic

I asked  Lei if she had any insight or comments about writing new pages.  Lei answered that she realized the importance of the "what links here?" tab.  This is a blue link on the left side of every page.  It allows you to see what pages on Wikipedia have a hyperlink back to your page.  If you have seen a tag stating that the page is an "orphan" this is what they are talking about. 

One of the things I keep forgetting to do is to see if there is a family name page that needs to be added to.  In Tim Farley's case there is a page called Farley (family name).  I just edited his name into place and stated that he is a "blogger, podcaster and skeptic".  It seems that Baxter, Bonner and Ouellette needed to be added as well. 

Also just wanted to quickly mention that the Brian Dunning (skeptic) page is now the Brian Dunning (author) page. Also the Alan Melikdjanian page has new content available. 

If you like seeing the progress of Wikipedia improvements, please follow this blog or set as a part of your RSS feed.  Don't think just because many of us editors are off to TAM, Dragon*Con and the Skeptic's Toolbox doesn't mean we aren't still getting things done.

I know of many new improvements coming soon, so stay tuned!

Susan

Should Skeptics write pages for Paranormal People?

Really hoping for a great discussion on this topic.  You all know my motivation, I want to improve skeptical content on Wikipedia, but always by following the rules of Wikipedia.  I also want to hold all paranormal topics and people to those same rules.  They can't make a claim on their page unless it is completely backed up with correct citations.

But what about skeptics writing pages for topics and people that are clearly on the other side of skepticism?  Aren't we exposing readers to the opposition?  Maybe even giving them more notoriety than they deserve?  Shouldn't we concentrate on our own skeptical spokespeople?  I mean I'm forever going on and on about how badly our people's pages need help. 

Lets take a look at a few pages that already existed and we have spent quite a bit of time keeping up-to-date.  Sylvia Browne, Chip Coffey, John Edward and James Van Praagh. 

Sylvia received 11,454 hits in February 2012.  Her star is really fading as she is either being replaced by others or because she isn't in the news as much anymore, I seem to remember seeing numbers in the 30K area each month.  Looking over her page a reader will find that nearly the entire page is devoted to her downfalls.  Whenever someone has tried to post something positive about her it is ripped down.  Why?  Because the positive things can't be backed up by good citations, noteworthy sources aren't writing about her, and editors aren't allowed to put up excerpts from her books and her blog saying how "nice she is".  Sorry.  The only things allowed are the facts, which includes the court transcripts of her indictment of fraud. 

Chip Coffey is another story, the page as you can see is a mess.  There is at least a picture of him.  Where is the skeptical side of the story?  We can only add in edits if the story is already written.  Either the articles don't exist or we haven't added them in yet.  This page was once on the list for deletion but it was saved mainly because of uninterest by other editors.  In Feb 2012 it received 4,026 hits.  That's quite a lot for a stub.  I think this page needs quite a bit of attention. 

John Edward is the new hot psychic thing now that Sylvia isn't as active.  His page received 25,464 hits in Feb 2012.  This page is far from ignored by skeptics, several of my edits are on this page as well as from others.  At least once a week one of us has to revert vandalism of someone calling him the Biggest Douche in the Universe somewhere on the page.  The reference already exists in its correct place on the page. 

James Van Praagh is in the middle of Sylvia and John as far as attention.  With 4,598 hits, the page is an advertisement for a bad psychic.  The criticism section is longer than most Wikipedia pages in total. 

Now why are we maintaining these pages?  Because readers are visiting them and we want to make sure there is a neutral place to leave the articles written from the skeptic world. 

Here are a couple more examples I bet you have never heard of.  Newly joined to the Guerrilla Skepticism world is Rick Duffy from Colorado.  Rick wrote a couple pages for two men who are rising in prominence in Colorado.  Voters there will recognize Jeff Peckman and Stan Romanek.  Rick told me he wrote these pages because they have become noteworthy enough to warrant them, and this way readers can get the whole story and not just the bits and pieces from TV news clips. 

Peckman received 530 hits and Romanek 902. 

I'm all for Rick's work, the pages are neutral from the perspective of the reader.  I'm sure Romanek and Peckman would love to remove some of the edits, but we can only add in what is out there already.  If positive information hits the media, we will add it in also. 

To answer the last question, shouldn't we be working on pages for our skeptical spokespeople instead?  I would love to see more focus on the skeptical pages, but Duffy's work allowed citations from Bryan Bonner and Matthew Baxter's work in Rocky Mountain Paranormal.  I've already written about this group on the Stanley Hotel blog and Wikipedia page.  At the moment RMP is not noteworthy enough to have their own Wikipedia page, but that is quickly changing now that Rick has done his work.

Also, I think that it is really important to remember that we aren't getting paid for all this editing work.  This is a passion and a mission for me, it should be something you enjoy doing.  We should be working on the projects we enjoy, not crossing off items that Susan has assigned.  Find your passion.  I'll be happy to assist if you need some guidance but I think just spend some time on Wikipedia and start following the hyperlinks to other pages, in time you will be far away from your initial start and maybe you will bump into your mission. 

As always, if you want to become more involved in this project or need help learning how to edit please contact me at susangerbic@yahoo.com 

The Stanley Hotel & Rocky Mountain Paranormal

The Rocky Mountain Paranormal Society have been researching claims of the paranormal for many years, The Stanley Hotel located in Estes Park, CO is one of their bigger successful investigations.  There are thousands of "haunted" homes located across America that are struggling for tourist dollars.  Adding the haunted element to the hotel really gives them a edge, they can rent out haunted rooms, give haunted tours and sell all kinds of ghostly swag.  Ghosts are big business.

The Stanley Hotel is no exception, the tours are very lucrative.  I've been on two of the tours which sell for $10-15 per person, both tours have at least 20 people, last an hour and other than paying for a tour guide and some advertising there is little overhead.  Steven King supposedly got the idea for the book "The Shinning" when staying at the hotel one winter.  The guide even points outside to a flat area and states "that used to be a pet cemetery, Steven King could have seen that out of his window so maybe he got the idea for his book 'Pet Cemetery'?"  That's really reaching but times are tough.

Rocky Mountain Paranormal have conducted many investigations at the hotel and you can read all about their official report on their website.   Apparently the TAPS team has also investigated the hotel, so I decided to write all about the accounts on The Stanley Hotel's Wikipedia page.

Rocky Mountain Paranormal Research Society conducted a investigation into the various claims made about the property, they found nothing paranormal but many natural reasons for the claims, a raccoon climbed in a upper window during the night, loose window panes as well as many amateur "ghost-hunters" prowling around the property looking in windows during the wee hours of the morning. Page 23 of RMPRS's investigation into the Stanley Hotel shows the lightweight unstable table that the Ghost Hunters claim "jumped two feet in the air" during their investigation.
After hearing claims that paranormal activity at the hotel are due to the geological makeup of the property, Rocky Mountain Paranormal contacted the U.S.D.A. for information on the site. The scientists conclusion based on a satellite survey of Colorado showed "nothing unusual about the aeromagnetic data in the area of Estes Park as compared to that general area of the Rockies" After this request for geological information the Government sent soil scientists to do a thorough soil survey on the property. The results showed the soil is mainly "crumbled schist" nothing radioactive, no large deposits of quartz, limestone or magnetite.

In Skeptical Inquirer's “Naked Skeptic” column by Karen Stollznow she discusses RMPRS's investigation of The Stanley Hotel, “During the investigation, The Rocky Mountain Paranormal Research Society researched popular beliefs and claims; they solved some mysteries, they performed valuable outreach, and they maintained the historical integrity of the Stanley Hotel. However, they didn’t discover any anomalous phenomena. They found a leak in the ceiling but no ghosts. But this is no reason to give up the ghost (investigations). “

 <sup>Pretty interesting place.  I thought the history of the hotel was much more interesting than the lame ghost stories.  Two of the pictures on the page are mine that I took on my last visit.  (the snow ones)

Note:  Apparently there was some discussion in 2008 and 2009 about not having a "Haunted Section" on the page at all.  When I made my edits in Feb 2011 the Haunted section was there.  


From the "discussion page"...</sup>


why can't we add the things sceen on Ghost Hunters when they visited the Stanley both times? Tu-49 18:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You can. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You could, but why? It's completely irrelevant information that doesn't relate to the purpose of this article except mar it with stupid ghost stories that links to those other sites can handle just fine. Saying it was on Ghost Hunters is fine in it self, we don't need room-by-room details. The show could have faked all that to begin with and you guys wanna state it as fact. None of that belongs here. Cyberia23 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)