Power Balance on Wikipedia

I've written about my experiences editing the Power Balance Wikipedia page and how important it is to get the message out to people who need to hear it.  Nothing has changed, Power Balance is still one of the top search terms that bring people to this blog, and the WP page still gets over 25K hits a month.  I don't know if those people are following the link from Lamar Odom's WP page, or maybe they just purchased the product and are curious how it "works" or possibly searchers are trying to remind themselves how thoroughly the product was debunked. For whatever reason we still need to make sure the Wikipedia page correctly reflects the best definition and citations possible.

My friend Steve Muscarella shared a new link on Facebook about Mark Cuban's opinion of the product.  He's upset that the NBA is still endorsing the bracelets.  Nathan Miller added the quote to the growing list of criticisms on the WP page. (citation #25)

This made me take another look at the Power Balance Wikipedia page.  I must say that I'm still impressed with the amount of coverage and citations.  I discovered a second period at the end of a sentence but left it for one of you to find and correct.  (One way to get you all to discover how easy it is to edit)

What amazes me is that with all this amazing evidence gathered in one easy to use place, that people still are endorsing and purchasing the product.  I expect that probably with the demise of Power Balance, the spin-offs are taking up where PB left off.  Creating a WP page for each of these companies will happen if they become noteworthy enough, but at the moment that hasn't happened.

So just want to take a moment and thank each and every person/group that has done their research and written (filmed or tested) about this product.  This allowed several Wikipedia editors (not all are from my guerrilla skepticism group) to place these citations (with quotes) onto the WP page for the use of over 300,000 readers each year.  Imagine that. 

One more point.  I'm always a little thrilled to see the familiar red WOT symbol on pages like this.  (see citation #5) This means that if you are one of the 40 million people who have WOT (Web of Trust) installed on your computer, you can rate Internet pages based on your opinion of trustfulness.  Here is one of several articles by Tim Farley explaining WOT much better than I can. Obviously enough people rated Power Balance's website negativity, which is why you see a red warning screen if you try to access their page. Try it!  www.powerbalance.com  

Hurricane Sandy - Wikipedia - Global Climate Change

Thank you Tim Farley for bringing this article to my attention this morning.  BTW Tim, I love your blog Skeptical Software Tools.  I receive it right in my inbox and know I'm going to learn something new that will make advancing the skeptical movement cause even easier.  Just hope the good guys are reading also.

Anyway.

This article by POPSCI's reporter Dan Nosowitz tells one of the stories of the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project.  We do not advocate vandalism, we advocate getting the message of science into the hands of people who need it, the readers of Wikipedia. 

I know very very little about global warming, so would be VERY uncomfortable editing a page about hurricanes or global climate change.  That is why we need a diversified team of editors who understand the rules of Wikipedia, what is allowed and what is not.  How to cite and how to work with other editors to make the best page possible.  Wikipedia is not a joke, it is where the majority of people get their information.  Even if they do not go directly to the Wikipedia page, we know that the reporters that are creating the media (radio, TV, print) are getting their information from the Wikipedia page.  Maybe not always cut and paste, but are influenced by the write-up, citations and hyperlinks to other pages.

Here is one paragraph from the above article that I cut and pasted here.   (my bolding)

When I told Jay Walsh about the back-and-forth regarding climate change, he said, "It doesn't surprise me to hear that. Climate change is a bastard--it's one of those really complicated topics within Wikipedia, because the [editors] are so science-focused." But he wasn't upset that one point of view had been steamrollered on a Wikipedia page that received more than half a million hits in three days--he was intrigued about how the process went, and about how it was eventually ironed out, in a way. "The article doesn't not do its work because of that," he said. Walsh talked about a "good faith" versus "bad faith" edit: Ken Mampel really thinks he is improving that page by eliminating an unclear passage about climate change, so that's a "good faith" edit. Which, for Wikipedians, means the system is working. But what about for those 500,000 readers who didn't get the full story?

Make sure you look at that Wikipedia article traffic statistics link in the middle of the paragraph, I use this tool several times a day and I know you will find it interesting to play around with too.  Just make sure that the name you insert in the search box is exactly the name on the page you want to look up.  Also you can see the hit count for different languages (again you have to put the name exactly as it is on that other language page)

So if you want to help out with the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project, please contact me at susangerbic@yahoo.com.  You don't have to be an expert on anything, I need doers more than I need experts.  I do train. 

The Conspiracy of Wikipedia

Received a tweet from my friend and fellow "skeptical activist" Bob Blaskiewicz.  If you don't already know Bob, you should, he is on my "people to watch" list along with a short list of other names.   Amongst other projects, Bob writes a conspiracy theory column for Skeptical Inquirer magazine as the "The Conspiracy Guy"  I'm sure he's on a lot of other people's watch lists also, probably grouped in the shadow government category. 
Bob was telling me about some UFO conspiracy person who is complaining about Wikipedia.  I ventured over to the blog and was pretty amazed to read all about motivations I didn't even know I had. 
Here is the link to the article I'm about to talk about.  I've broken it in half, and you can restore it in the address bar.  Tim Farley uses a no-follow code to make it so that when you are posting to a paranormal site, they won't be able to follow the URL back to where you posted it.  I don't really know how to do this, but Tim's blog skeptical software tools explains it and much much more. 

http://www.philip     coppens.com/wikiworld.html

 Below are some of the highlights of Coppen's blog along with my comments.

Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown as the online phenomenon that apparently allows the truth to be managed democratically; but over the past year it has also been exposed as a real-life "Ministry of Truth". Worse: people have been arrested and terrorised due to incorrect information being posted on this free Internet encyclopaedia.

True, Wikipedia has become an online phenomenon.  At its best it is a repository for the facts.  We do try to work with editors who have other agendas, there is a lot of back and forth on controversial topics, but eventually the citations should win out.  Usually this leaves supporters of the paranormal frustrated and angry. 
The "arrested and terrorised" comment he refers to is about a gentleman who was stopped from freely traveling because his Wikipedia article had a reference to him being a terrorist.  Obviously we guerrilla skeptics are against vandalism in all forms.  We also understand that we are dealing with real people and don't want reputations harmed.  I'm not sure how likely it is that travel is really being halted because of what is read on Wikipedia, Coppen is a man known for conspiracy theories, he probably knows better than I, so I'll just give him this one.

On 15 December 2005, various media sources reported that the open-access encyclopaedia Wikipedia was about as accurate as the online Encyclopaedia Britannica, at least for science-based articles. This was the result of a study by the journal Nature, which chose scientific articles from both encyclopaedias across a wide range of topics and sent them for peer review. The reviewers found just eight serious errors. Of those, four came from each site. They also found a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, there were 123 such problems with Britannica and 162 with Wikipedia. That in itself is a staggering conclusion, which translates as averaging out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia, or three versus four mistakes. That, of course, is not "as accurate" as the newspapers reported – thus showing misleading statements in the newspapers' headlines.

 Well I guess this might be a win for Wikipedia if true.  I have problems when people compare Wikipedia to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  Maybe to the Britannica on-line site but not the book version.  Wikipedia can change hourly whereas Britannica only yearly.  

Also I think this might be a problem with small sample size, he does not state how many articles were selected, but only finding 8 errors.  And no idea what is meant by "serious".  Finding errors, omissions and misleading statements of 162 Wikipedia articles, again how many articles were reviewed, and what criteria was used to determine errors?  Are we talking about spelling, math, citations or what?

Coppen infers that these errors equal 3.86 errors (per subject?  or did they count all the errors on the page? To Coppen it is "staggering", without clearer examples I don't know if he and I have the same definition of that word.

Jack Sarfatti considers himself to be a victim of the service and even considered litigation at one point. He found that certain libellous information had been posted about him. Of course, he, like anyone else, can go in and alter that information, which is what he tried to do. He tried posting at various times of the day, but each time, within minutes, the changes were undone – suggesting that the Wikipedia moderators were constantly monitoring certain pages. When he dug further, he came to the conclusion that Wikipedia seemed to be in the hands of a group of sceptical minds, intent on making sure there were no mysteries and no conspiracies.

No, Coopen's is incorrect.  Biased people can not just go into a page and edit.  I mean they can do it, but it is frowned on.   There are several good reasons for this, I'll use Jack Sarfatti as an example.  Firstly we do not want Sarfatti to hide, embellish or exaggerate part of his biography.  Secondly, even if what Sarfatti is correcting is legit, like his birthdate, birthplace or where he got his degree, how do we know it is the real Sarfatti doing the editing?  Should Wikipedia contain a registration screen for new accounts that includes you're Social Security number and a team of editors to check it? Thirdly, we can't just add or change info unless there is a citation proving the edit. Otherwise we would just have nonsense pages.
I guess to someone wrapped up in conspiracies, having someone revert you're edits in “minutes” at “various times of the day” would look like they were being watched. I don't know about constantly monitoring a page, but most non-editors are unaware that we can with one click add a page to a watchlist, that when refreshed tells us when a change is made. It only takes two clicks to undo a change, I guess that looks magical also. I suppose Sarfatti envisioned a team of Wikipedia editors wearing all black with dark sunglasses gathered around iron tables in a unused warehouse somewhere. They would have to move around the country to avoid I.P. Addresses being traced I suppose.


The reality is more mundane I'm sorry to say. Editors all across the world (who probably don't even know each other) sitting at their office desk at work, venture over to their Wikipedia account during a lull in the workday, click on their watchlist and say “Damn, not again”. They might even be trying to leave notes on his user page but it does not exist. Maybe on the talk page is a conversation between editors about how best to keep the page in good shape. I haven't looked, so this is all just speculation. It also is likely that one of the Wikipedia bots (robot) changed the page.

This last sentence “Wikipedia seemed to be in the hands of a group of sceptical minds, intent on making sure there were no mysteries and no conspiracies. “ makes me suspicious that the edits that Sarfatti was making were not corrections to his birthdate, but tying to add in material that should not be there.

“Indeed, when you consult a variety of subjects on Wikipedia, you will notice a certain "mindset" that excludes certain opinions.”

If he means a mindset that includes making sure vandalism does not exist, and that only correctly cited material is allowed, then I plead guilty, I also plead guilty to having an agenda of wanting to make sure the articles are factual. I and my team choose to work on the pages of our skeptical spokespeople, in the same way that a chess or bowling enthusiast wants to work on their people's pages.

Rennes-le-Chateau and Priory of Sion mysteries (which are at the core of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code) and is responsible for most of the Wikipedia entries on the subject. Some of these entries are blatantly biased and others contain serious factual errors. In both instances, I adjusted the wording and removed the errors. At no point did this mean that the Priory was depicted as genuine – far from it. In fact, I felt that an error-free posting would actually bring enhanced value to the entry. In this case, the entries remained up for a number of months, but then were returned to their negative, erroneous entries. The "Wikipedia Police" should have seen that the new entry was less neutral and more biased than what was on there, but they did not revert to the previous version. The question is: why prefer erroneous information over more neutral wordings? No wonder that experts find numerous errors in every article on Wikipedia...when Wikipedia seems to prefer to promote errors over factual statements.

“Wikipedia Police” really? Is he talking about the 100 admins that are trying to watch the hundreds of thousands of pages? What Coppen considers “blantly biased... serious factual errors” may be just his opinion and no one elses.
“ No wonder that experts find numerous errors in every article on Wikipedia” (need citation)

Concerning Corpus Hermeticum, “Wikipedia moderators removed the section themselves, stating that I needed to give "more sources" – though I had actually given more sources than most of the other statements that maintain the status quo in this entry”. You have to add in citations to prove you're statement.

“Paul Joseph Watson of Prison Planethas noted there is a concerted campaign to erase the 9/11 Truth Movement. Furthermore, pages which they and like-minded individuals created, such as "List of Republican sex scandals", "People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report" and "Movement to impeach George W. Bush" were all deleted. “

Really? I can't imagine why. Wonder if there are a lot of secondary sources to prove that these pages are relevant. Maybe they could have a category page instead?

The first-mentioned page might indeed not be seen as important in an encyclopaedic environment, but the "wiki" (a page in the encyclopaedia) for Dylan Avery, the producer of the most-watched documentary film in Internet history, clearly merits a biographical page on an online encyclopaedia. Wikipedia, however, thought otherwise.

Again he assumes that there is some kind of police out there trying to keep out pages of reputable, noteworthy people. I can assure him that there are all kinds of pages that exist for controversial non-skeptics. Many of which the skeptical community keeps vandalism free. If there are enough citations and secondary sources for an individual or organization to prove the noteworthiness then no one will be able to keep it out of Wikipedia. If someone wants to write a well-sourced page for Avery then I'll completely support that.

Sarfatti commented on a private email list: "They have set up a Virtual Shadow Government in which they now have their own courts to adjudicate 'litigation'." He made the point that the theory is that whoever controls the Web controls the Earth – and there is indeed that potential. Perform a Google websearch and if Wikipedia has a result on what you search for, the Wikipedia entry will come up on top. So whatever you want to know, you will probably Google it and find it in Wikipedia. "Googlepedia" thus has a virtual monopoly on information and does indeed, as Sarfatti said, control the Web – and knowledge.

Wow! A Shadow Government! Damn where do I sign up? Other than that I mostly agree with the rest of this statement. Wikipedia is powerful. Having well-written and correctly cited pages is a major influence on human knowledge world-wide. No argument from me.

Googlepedia offers a one-stop shop for teachers and anyone else who wants to find information.

Again no argument from me.

Teachers have stated that this is exactly the case. What is in Wikipedia – and the opinions expressed therein – is almost directly passed on to students. It begs the question as to why there is still a need for teachers, as students are equally able to do a websearch...
And students are more likely to check other hits, perhaps being more realistic about the expectations of Wikipedia – which for many teachers seems to have become gospel.

No idea on teacher's opinions of Wikipedia other than my years in college when the professor instructed us to not use it as a citation. I'm positive that students use Wikipedia as the first place to check when trying to get background on a subject, also to find relevant links needed to do better research. And I'm sure there are students that are just copying and pasting. (probably some teachers also) This is why we need to make sure that Wikipedia is in excellent shape. We can not control human nature.

Coppen goes on to explain that some people and organizations sometimes edit pages to make themselves look good. Well duh. Does it mean there is a conspiracy? Would like to see the citation on that.

So, welcome to WikiWorld, a realm where inconvenient truths can easily be removed, while erroneous information – convenient lies and disinformation – can be entered in the encyclopaedia with emotionally upsetting and even worse consequences for the people involved.
This is the modern Ministry of Truth which, together with the liars and no doubt some mentally unstable people, has been put in charge of rewriting history. It labels itself as the "Free Encyclopaedia", but perhaps the world should be freed from this encyclopaedia before the old proverb is converted thus: "There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and then there's Wikipedia."
The problem with Wikipedia is not that it exists, but that it has become the cornerstone for researchers scanning the Internet for information and blindly copying from Wikipedia entries, wrongfully assuming that they are neutral and correct. It has become the "Ministry of Information", the "one-stop information shop" of the Internet, but no one should fall for the "Newspeak" of a title. Wikipedia has made the task for those seeding disinformation and removing dissenting views easier, more direct and even more anonymous. Lies and Wikipedia, indeed...

Well some of what he is saying is true, we need to remain vigilant and check out watchlists. Also when reverting a unsorced edit or something biased, remember that most people do not understand the rules. To them, it does look like a conspiracy of “mentally unstable people... rewriting history”. Always remain polite and state you're reasons for you're revert. And always assume “good faith”.

Escéptica Blog - World Wikipedia Project

Today Escéptica wrote an article about the World Wikipedia project.    Daniela Mili has summed up the project up nicely and I want to share it with you.

You know my thoughts, the sooner we get used to the fact that other languages exist outside of English the better. 

Escéptica is affiliated with SkeptChick and I have just added it into my Google Reader as I hope you will also.

The World Wikipedia project is always looking for these "sponsors" that will publish our successes and struggles to encourage more editors/photographers/video interviewers and so on to get involved.  All hands are needed if we are going to be successful.

If you can help by spreading the word, please let me know.  susangerbic@yahoo.com

http://esceptica.org/2012/10/02/es-hora-de-editar/

And don't forget this amazing tool.

http://translate.google.com

Half-Dozen New Releases - Skeptic's Toolbox Faculty

The day has finally arrived!  I'm super excited to launch two brand new pages and four rewrites to Wikipedia today.  I'm really hoping that everyone reading this will read through each page and follow the links.

If you thought you knew these people, you're about to get to know them better.  If you have never heard of these people, then frankly you need to brush up on the history of the modern scientific skeptical movement.  Get back to basics. 

The Skeptic's Toolbox is the longest running skeptic conference in our history, bet you never heard of it! 

Beyerstein and Andrus are no longer physically with us, but their memories and work continues.  I'm very proud to have met them both.  

When you meed Alcock, Hyman and Pankratz at a conference, make sure you introduce yourself, thank them for making the skeptical movement possible and then ask them what they got up their sleeves next.  Cause they aren't even slowing down. 


Before I get to the launchings, I might add that faculty member Harriet Hall already has a beautiful Wikipedia page that Tim Farley launched over a  year ago.  I have just been keeping it updated for this release.

HERE YOU GO

Skeptic's Toolbox - brand new

Loren Pankratz - brand new

James Alcock - before

James Alcock - current

Ray Hyman - before

Ray Hyman - current

Jerry Andrus - before

Jerry Andrus - current

Barry Beyerstein - before

Barry Beyerstein - current

One more random thing I want to mention.  The Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia team has decided that moving forward when we link to the term skeptic we are going to start linking to the WP page for scientific skepticism. If you find pages where this has not happened, please make the change for us.  If you are not comfortable doing this,  and don't want to be trained, please just drop me a email.

Like what you see.  think you want to get involved?  Please contact me at susangerbic@yahoo.com and I will keep you busy. 

Creationists frustrated and give up editing Wikipedia

Thought I would share these Wikipedia links with you all.  (I probably discovered them from one of Tim Farley's links).

The first one Wicked Glitch writes that creationists are throwing in the towel (according to Evolution News and Views) as far as Wikipedia goes.  They just can't get their edits to stay on the page they are editing.  Wonder why?

Love how they envision us editors... 

Evolution News and Views, (an intelligent design blog) recently did a post whining about how ID proponents can’t force Wikipedia to represent them in a favorable light because a few “unemployed” evolutionists with too much time on their hands vigilantly monitor Wikipedia and immediately remove/modify any pro-ID edits. The post mentions a “highly technical” study...

Must make sure to get this good news to Dr. Eugenie Scott.  Now I guess she can relax!  Just kidding folks.  As was just recently reported by our very own Tim Farley, we can't just relax just because we are in the right.  Science and critical thinking needs us and letting down our guard is not a good thing.
 
The second URL is to a study someone did on  the Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia.  Very interesting reading.


 I'm always on the lookout for good Wikipedia related articles, so pass them on if you find them.

BTW - I have turned off the ability for anonymous people to leave comments on this blog.  I was forever getting spammed and it was annoying.  The last person to leave an anonymous comment was James Randi, on this blog.  I don't think it will get better than that.





As always you can comment here, or send me an email susangerbic@yahoo.com

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

Google Knowledge Tool - Breaking News!

Our resident skeptical crowd-sourcing genius Tim Farley has just released a blog about the Google Knowledge Tool.  I had not heard of it, and even if I had it probably would have taken months before I realized its importance on this project. 


Tim Farley's "Google Knowledge Graph benefits from skeptic Wikipedia efforts"

Still early news, we are not sure how the image is selected.  Or how the suggested pages are selected. 

Play around with this, the relationships are so interesting. 

Not only does this raise the We Got Your Wiki Back! project to amazing importance levels.  We need to make sure to provide skeptical citations on all the paranormal pages.  James Randi must be a suggested hit for every psychic.  Steven Novella should be a hit for Dr. Oz.  Sikivu Hutchinson has a great Wikipedia page, but nothing appears for her on the Google Knowledge Graph.

Still awaiting more information about how this new Google tool works.

But its still extremely exciting!

So you want to get involved - now what?

I do a lot of outreach all over the skeptical world, trying to explain this project.  I'm always surprised to find people who have never heard of this project, and why editing Wikipedia is even important.  But I'm sure there is a lot of educating I need to do.

So every few days or so I get an email from someone who asks "how can I help?" and each time I write up a special email just for them telling them how to help.  I haven't been keeping really good count but it seems that at least half never respond again.  And of those that do respond maybe a half again only get as far as making a Wikipedia account, then they drop off the face of the Earth.

I'm left with about 25% of people who follow through.  And that is really cool because that is really want we need, people who don't flake and are here because they want to be here, understand the project and are enjoying themselves.

To all the people who don't pan out, thanks for your interest. Please remember us with a kind heart and maybe someday you will have the desire to become involved.

- One woman that is a member of CFI, heard about this project because she saw a notice about a Cafe Inquiry lecture I was about to give.  She wasn't interested, but remembered it.  Then she went to an event (that shall not be named because I don't want to draw attention to it right now).  She was amazed at what was happening to the Wikipedia page for that event, she tried to edit it but quickly got over her head and was nearly banned.  She remembered me,  Lei and I got onto it and managed to eventually get the page into shape.  The woo crowd was using it as a platform to support their side.  The woman who first drew my attention to the page still writes to me with updates and totally supports us.  She does not have to become an editor to totally "get it" and has done a lot to help. 

So you think you want to help with the project as an editor.  Here are the steps you need to take, as well as what to expect.

1. you need to open up a Wikipedia account.  Here is an excellent blog from Tim Farley giving easy instructions. 

2. Read this blog.  You don't have to read everything, but I expect that you will "get it" and should understand the project.

3. Go to Wikipedia and click on everything blue you see.  All the links at the top, bottom and sides.  You don't have to completely understand what you see, but you should be aware of these options.

4. Write back to me with your Wikipedia account name.  You should also friend me on Facebook (Susan Gerbic)  I'm going to ask you what you want to do.  I don't tell people what to edit, you need to decide. This is another reason why you need to read the blog.  There are a ton of ideas all over the place.

If you just want to hang out and edit here and there, that is useful and great training.  Here is another blog by Tim Farley that teaches you how to do this. 

When you are ready to start editing more difficult pieces, and/or re-write a page then you will know when you are ready.  No one is going to assign a task for you (if you really push we might steer you somewhere) and I or some of my other editors will step in if you are overwelmed, and provide assistance whenever you need.

What we do not want you trying to do is to write a new Wikipedia page, that can take months to do correctly and will need thought and feedback.  Yes, it is possible to throw up a page in a few minutes, but that is not what we advocate.  We launch our pages and re-writes all in one swoop to create excitement and get people interested in the before and afters.  We also try to get the newly launched page on the front page of Wikipedia as a Did You Know? project.  We have also found that sometimes people think they will come back to the page they published, and then do not.  No one wants more orphans roaming Wikipedia, we have enough stubs as it is. 

We also do not advocate jumping into a thorny editing mess that is highly watched by believers and skeptics.  Some pages are careful balancing acts that though months of discussion have reached a consistence with the editors.  No one wants a new zealot editor to charge in and start changing things around.  If you want to edit pages like $cientology, Mormans, medicine, astrology, global warming, evolution and Jesus Christ, well more power to you.  Please approach me first and lets talk about having realistic expectations.

I do want everyone to know that a lot is going on behind the scenes, several highy-trafficked pages that are carefully watched by both sides are even now being changed to reflect more scientific thinking.  I can't write about the changes as this blog is very public and I don't want edit wars.  Just know that we really need all kinds of help, and though this project is only one-year old, a ton has already been done and lots more planned.  This is an exciting time to help.

Single Purpose Accounts and Editor Assistance

Wanted to wait a bit before bringing this all up.  I don't want to influence people into getting involved in discussions or edit wars unless they already were editing that page.  So it appears to have run its course and I want to discuss it here.  You don't have to know all about the history of the page, or even understand the topic to learn some valuable lessons.

This is going to be about Vassula Ryden whom you might remember was one of the first pages I had added skeptical content to.  I've used her edits as an example of working backwards, when I found an article in Skeptical Inquirer Magazine by Joe Nickell and added it to her Wikipedia page. 

A month ago I received a letter from an anti-Ryden blogger who had read this blog and appealed to me for help.  She had been trying to edit the Ryden Wikipedia page and kept getting her edits reverted.  I went to Vassula's page and realized that my Joe Nickell edits had been removed.  So I put it back in, this nearly started an edit war (something you do not want).

The talk page got heated up with a person or two (they weren't signing their posts so I'm not sure who said what) I'm going to sum this all up for you, but include the links if you want to read all the details.

They said that they removed my edits because Ryden is a living person and you can't put anything negative (or opinion) about a living person.  Also Nickell had never met Ryden so he could not comment on her spiritual writings from God.

I said "oh yeah! I don't think so, that is stupid" (actually I was much more professional)

They said, "Yeah!  and if you don't like it we are going to tell on you"

So I said "Fine!  I just asked an editor to assist us in this disagreement"

And I did.  I had never done this before but made a request on the Editor Assistance page, I stated my case and then provided the link to the people who I was arguing with back on the Ryden talk page.  The other editors went to the Assistance page and made their argument too. 

Then senior editor looked over the page and said.

Not only should the Nickell edit be put back on, but there should be more criticism like that on the page.  The page is fringe and it is slanted too far towards Ryden.  Editors can not leave their opinion on a page, but the person we quote can leave their opinion, and clearly Nickell was qualified to do so.

The editor then looked at the contributions of all the editors that work on the page and found that these people mostly only work on Ryden's page. Opps!  It appears that they are supporters of Ryden and are not interested in improving Wikipedia, only improving Ryden and they need to knock it off.

So time has passed, my Nickell edit has now been moved up to the beginning of the page and not nearer the end where it was before.  These people I think have stopped editing.

Lessons to be learned here?  Stay calm.  Be professional.  Clearly state your facts.  Allow your opponent to have their say.  You might be completely wrong, step back and see the edits from their point of view.  Also ask for help, sometimes you are right and they are wrong.

Tim Farley is a very smart man.  He has suggested many times that editors need to branch out from editing skeptical sites and edit other topics like your home town page, or your college page.  You don't want to be accused of having a single user account.

Link to Ryden talk page (search for sgerbic)
Link to Editor Assistance page (search for sgerbic)

You can see another editor's contributions by clicking on the blue "contribs" after their name. 

Project Skeptoid

Like I need another project.

In my seeming never ending quest to understand how important Wikipedia is to the skeptic community and to the world,  I selected Brian Dunning's Skeptoid podcast for an experiment. 

I choose Skeptoid for several reasons, first, I have probably listened to every episode at least once, find them informative and know that Wikipedia readers will enjoy them as well. (editing Wikipedia is all about editing pages you enjoy after all).  They are available as a podcast as well as in written form which makes it really easy to quote from.  Also Dunning is very organized with a podcast every week, and the way he has the episode guide laid out with dates and titles I was able to quickly organize in a Google Document for my own use. 

Also when I explained what I was trying to do, Dunning immediately grasped the importance and has allowed me access to his web site stats, without which I could not analyze the impact of Wikipedia posts.

Let me summarize what I'm trying to prove and then get to the numbers.

Skeptoid is a podcast/blog that analyzes many topics that usually correspond with Wikipedia pages.  Mostly they are paranormal topics (some very obscure) and a few like Darwinism are not.  He even has a few pages that discuss historical topics (which are some of my favorites). 

I discovered in a long conversation with other Wikipedia editors that Skeptiod is considered a reputable source for citations (way to go Dunning, not many podcasts can say that) when it comes to fringe topics.  But not for more common topics like the "scientist", "raw food" "SUV" and "pitbull" ones.  We actually got into it a bit and several Wikipedia editors sprang to his aid (I did not bring attention to the conversation) and championed his podcast.  One editor had the nerve to say that podcasts can't be citations because the deaf could not listen to the podcasts.  One person jumped on her comment saying how ridiculous that was and there was no policy for that, besides they pointed out Skeptoid has print as well as audio.  It was quite obvious that some of his fans are also Wikipedia editors, very heart-warming.

Several Wikipedia pages like the ones mentioned above, I tried to just add an external link to the Skeptoid article which normally was reverted by other editors.  Tim Farley explains that you should rarely leave external links, but instead add the article as a citation somehow, which are rarely reverted.  External links are notorious for Spam.  Well live and learn!  There were a few pages that already had external links, I just cleaned up the citation and left it there. Also several of his podcasts do not have a corresponding Wikipedia page to leave a citation on (like several humorous ones). 

So I copied his entire episode list into a Google document.  On one page it has every episode and date as well as the corresponding Wikipedia page that has a link.  Some of the episodes have more than one Wikipedia page, for example this episode "Orbs: The Ghost in the Camera (Skeptoid #29) - Are orbs really ghosts, or a common artifact of photography?" is mentioned on the Ghost Hunting page as well as the Orb (optics) page.  

Someone had already left some links before I entered into the picture, looks like 2006 was the last time that editor was active.  And while the citations were correct, I didn't think they looked as good as they could and maximize the amount of hits that were possible.  So I started cleaning up the links and even used a couple as examples for the Cafe Inquiry workshop to repair. 

For example the Bible Code Wikipedia page now has this...

• The Bible Code: Enigmas for Dummies - Do messages hidden within the Bible really predict the future?
   
  Skeptoid: Critical Analysis of Pop Phenomena

Whereas before it looked like this...

The Bible Code: Enigmas for Dummies

 

The Bible Code: Enigmas for Dummies

See how much more inviting this looks to the reader?  There were many examples of these short edits dating back to 2006, some were even shorter.  Not only does this look more appealing, but a reader can click on the link about the Skeptoid article as well as to the Wikipedia page for Skeptoid.

When I started Project Skeptoid in November 2011 there were 206 episodes to link to.  By the end of November there were 38 references to the podcast on the corresponding Wikipedia pages.  His hit results were 1.4% of the total views to www.skeptoid.com coming from Wikipedia.  I'm not going to tell you how many hits 1.4% is because I'm measuring this purely by percentages.  Lets just say it is several thousand views.

So I cleaned up a few of the already existing citations and added 10 more Wikipedia pages to the hit count which by the end of January 2012 became 48 Wikipedia pages.  He had been adding more episodes all this time bringing his count up to 296 episodes.  A look at his stats again and the month of January 2012 hit 1.82%. 

Remember that not all of these episodes can have a Wikipedia page, they were humor episodes or were already rejected by editors, and some were student question or listener feedback episodes which I haven't bothered trying to link to. 

As you can see, there is potential for improvement.  Several thousand readers are following the links from Wikipedia to the episode on Skeptoid.com.  These readers probably aren't normal Skeptoid listeners otherwise they would have just gone to his site.  The goal is to improve Wikipedia as well as the skeptical/critical thinking exposure to NOT the choir (you and I) but to the general public.  In this example I think it shows we are making a difference. 

In February 2012 I added a few changes and new links but I'm going to take a break from reporting numbers at least till the March or April stats are available.  I want to really make some head-way on the Google document, my goal next time I check the stats I will see 3 or 4%.  I could really use some help, please contact me if you can, I will train.  susangerbic@yahoo.com

Its a bit of an uphill battle to keep measuring against percentage of total Skeptoid.com views as the site becomes more popular he will naturally have more hits without Wikipeida.  If someone can think of a better way of analyzing these numbers I would appreciate your thoughts.

By the way,

Regular Skeptoid fans you might be interested in which Wikipedia page is causing the majority of views back to his website.

HINTS - A very cold topic, this page only has an external link to follow and it has been overwhelmingly number one for both November and January with 5% of the total hits.  This Wikipedia page receives about 130K views a month  Click for Answer.

Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia a year in review

Reading Tim Farley's blog Skeptical Software Tools (SST) this morning really has me thinking about how we can measure the impact we have on the skeptical movement.  His blog today is "My Top Posts of 2011" where he lists the various blogs he has written for SST and on SWIFT and compares the hits to the Wikipedia pages he has created.  His conclusion was that if you don't count the very popular Mabus blog he wrote, then all of the Wikipedia pages he has created have been more popular than the blog posts, by far.

Do I dare write a blog stating the numbers I have for this blog?  Tim's far outdistance mine. And not by just a little bit.  This isn't a competition, Susan, Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia is even more a specialty blog than SST is.   I love numbers also, I also need to know where I've been and where I'm going, numbers really help make things clearer.

So here goes... my year-end recap.

Okay actually it is on a 6-months recap as the blog began in June 2010 because I knew I would be doing a paper presentation at TAM9.  Previously to that I had spoken at SkepticCamp: Fort Collins, CO and then SkeptiCal 2010 in Berkeley, CA.

I have been on a few podcasts talking about this project as well as my other hobby The Independent Investigations Group.  The Pod Delusion, The Token Skeptic (which is the same interview but a different compilation of other interviews) and Rational Alchemy (where a became a host after my first interview).

I have also been fortunate enough to have a blog on SWIFT that generated 5,841 hits.  That link got picked up by the Richard Dawkins Foundation and they featured it on their news site.

Tim Farley has been kind enough to give me shout-outs from time to time that have brought in traffic as well.  Farley, JREF and Brian Dunning have tweeted about me several times also bringing in hits.  William B. Davis on the Good Atheist Podcast discussed with the host his experience of getting his Wikipedia page made over (they didn't mention me by name though).

I and this project have become known as a place to go to when asking "what do I do if I want a WP page of my own"? or "someone vandalized my page, what do I do"? and the popular "there are a lot of wrong things written on my WP page, how do I get that changed"?  I answer these questions usually privately but I suppose I should get a blog together I can just refer people to.  I hear from people forwarding me blogs and articles that are written about Wikipedia.  And I love all of this, keep sending me these questions and forwarding me the articles, I can't be everywhere at once and unless it is in my inbox, I'm probably going to miss it.

Now to Wikipedia itself.  I've only created a few pages from scratch, Mark Edward (which probably needs to be rewritten now that I've learned so much more, James Underdown and The Steve Allen Theater (which is located inside CFI West). 

Mark Edward launched May 10, 2011 has generated 5,788 hits
The Steve Allen Theater launched Sept 18th, 2011 has 882 hits
James Underdown Sept 1, 2011 has 8,371 hits.  5.6K from one day when it was a Did You Know? article.

Besides these I worked on several existing pages that needed re-writes.

Ben Radford's Playing Gods game
Sean Faircloth
William B. Davis
Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture
Brian Dunning

plus many more pages that I've worked on.  I'm very happy that nearly all of the pictures I've added to WP are still on the pages.  Over 40 images have been used on skeptical sites this year.  And at least 10 are up because I've asked the photographer to up load their images.  This will become a focus in 2012.

I had no idea how many edits would be a lot for 2011, so I kept track on a spread sheet every time I did something that had an impact for skepticism (not just corrected spelling or grammar).  I count 241 edits, 105 of those were to sites I considered "skepticial" like Kylie Sturgess, Barry Beyerstein, CFI, James Randi.  59 sites are "normal" pages that the general public wouldn't think skepticism when looking at the page, like Ya-Man Chan, Seth Shostak, J. Stewart Burns and The Stanley Hotel.  Then there are the "woo" sites that I hit 77 pages.  Examples are Haunting Evidence, Pet Psychics, Ghost Hunting, Power Balance and Sally Morgan pages.

Because of this blog I've been able to connect with several awesome editors that totally "get-it" thank you Dustin and Lei who continue to edit regularly.  Many others have made contributions irregularly but that is completely awesome as I know they have the skills and can pop in and work on projects as they feel the urge.  This project is perfect for people who can't completely dedicate themselves to writing a blog, or recording a podcast or anything that needs a commitment.  A no-guilt project!

Now for this blog.  What were the most popular posts?  The very first post I wrote has generated the most hits, 1,903.  Which seems odd because I wrote 10 blogs before announcing the blog to anyone, so when I started publicizing the blog people would have been directed to the most recent post, not the first post. 

Wikipedia and Sylvia Browne 
SGU-24hour show - What were their stats? - 582
We Got your Wiki Back! project - 286
Lamar Odom and Power Balance Bracelets - 267
We Got your Wiki Back! The Numbers from Nightline - 228

My blog hit 17K hits by the end of 2011, which is only a little bit more than the hits that were created from the 3 Wikipedia pages I created (which was about 14K). 

2012 should be an interesting year.  I have several Rational Alchemy podcasts coming out, and a SI article someday.  I have earned the nickname WikiPediatrician from IIG friend Brian Hart, which is pretty awesome just by itself.  I will be doing a lecture in late February at CFI West on how to edit (they already understand why we need to edit).

By the way, I'm really approachable and am willing to lecture at any skeptical meetup or event that I am invited to.  I will be at Dragon*Con this year, but not as a speaker (at least no one has asked yet).  Also I will be at TAM10 and SkeptiCal in Berekely April 21st. (not lecturing as I did last year). 

My goals for 2012 are to continue to push for exposure hoping to generate more editors.  Also increasing the hands-on training to anyone willing to learn the basics. 

I've become more organized with my to-do list and am still focusing on improving pages I feel inspired to fix and not just the ones that reach the most people.

I will be including more information about other WP languages throughout as we have to get the message out to non-English language sites.  As more and more people across the world gain Internet access so will their reliance on Wikipedia.

Photography is also a focus, we really need to improve these pages of our skeptical spokespeople, and getting photographers involved is a great way to do so.  Plus it gets people excited to contribute more. 

Sooo many pages still need work, Kylie Sturgess's page was almost deleted by someone Hell-Bent on removing it, it does need a major rewrite (I have a lot of the references but not the time to do so).  Would love to see a page for the Skeptic's Toolbox, again the problem is time.

What has been done already is mostly still up.  We are making improvements and making a difference to people who are not in the choir.  We have to keep the movement moving forward.  It is a big task, but it is an important task.  We need you!  

Thank you for your support!

Homeopathy and Wikipedia

I'm going to want you to read this page in a minute.  Try to read it as if you know almost nothing about the topic.  Maybe pretend you just encountered someone at work that tried to give you homeopathic pills for some ailment you have been complaining about.  Or possibly you are just getting involved in a romantic relationship with someone who espouses the benefits of homeopathy to you.  The person now has you curious, they speak wonders about how wonderful their health is now, how inexpensive the treatments are, and want you to set up an apt with their practitioner. 

You know you aren't getting a unbiased description from this person, maybe you have heard that homeopathy isn't real medicine, or something about the English Royals being totally supportive of it.  Heck, you even heard that the British medical system will pay for homeopathy treatments, and why would they do that if it does not work?  So you turn to the Internet.  Where do you look if you are just looking for a description?  Maybe a search engine?

"Homeopathy"
(23 million hits)

This is the order of links I received on Yahoo Search

Homeopathy on Wikipedia
ABCHomeopathy which is a pro-Homeopathy site
U.S. National Institutes of Health site
The National Center for Homeopathy
Quackwatch site
What's the Harm in Homepathy?  (Tim Farley's site)

Okay now read the first hit that the average person will also see.   

What do you think?  Does this page reflect a good definition of homeopathy?   If you didn't really understand the topic before hand, what would you think after reading it?  

Look at the external links.  Someone put the Merseyside Skeptics Society "Homeopathy, There is nothing in it" link as well as 14 minute video by James Randi.  Awesome!

Another cool link located near the external links is a box stating that there is a Wikipedia News Article related to homeopathy.  The headline... 

"Parents prosecuted after homeopathic treatment leads to daughter's death"

The homeopathy page didn't just happen with one editor working on it.  This took years and many many editors contributing to the page.  It is still evolving, with discussions all the time happening on the talk page.  

The reason why I'm pointing this out is to make you really understand why Wikipedia is so important to getting critical thinking to the people who need it.  I'm not advocating for people to start editing the homeopathy page, this is a recognized "natural science good article".  Please don't try to edit this page unless you discuss it on the talk page first.   


Now go to the talk page.  I want you to see what the editors see when they are thinking about changing the page.  Look at the FAQ section, these are decisions that have already been decided and letting everyone know that changes to the page aren't up for discussion.  

If you ever questioned whether or not Wikipedia is a skeptical site or not, this should leave no doubt in your mind that it is.  We might not be able to get people to read the skeptical blogs we keep releasing but we should recognize the importance of Wikipedia.  

Just in case you were wondering what kind of impact I am talking about, here are the stats for homeopathy for December 2011... 86,425.  For the 2011 year... 1,266,752 hits.  Name another single page website that generates those kind of numbers?

In this case the page for Homeopathy is really well written.  Not so for many other Wikipedia pages.  Won't you take a moment to help out with this project?  


further note - 

Homeopathy generally gets 2-5 thousand hits each day.  Once in a while there is a spike in the hit numbers, to me this is extremely intriguing as it shows how media attention (maybe something WE did?) sends people indirectly to Wikipedia.  (by indirectly I mean, the media didn't give them a URL to follow, but Homeopathy was in the news and people just sent to WP to learn more about the topic).

These spikes are usually off a couple days because of the way they are reported on http://stats.grok.se


A normal day is 2-5 thousand hits
Jan 4 -  32.4K
Jan 5 -  23.4K
Feb 7 - 6.4K
Feb 8 - 5.7K
June 5 - 6.5K
June 6 - 7.3K
Aug 13 - 11.5K
Oct 31 - 8.8K


It is quite possible that the surge in numbers for the early Feb was because of the 10:23 campaign.  


Lets not forget our non-English Wikipedia friends.  Personally I can't update other-language pages because I don't read/write in other languages.  This is where we have to get creative.  The project of improving Wikipedia pages for skeptical content is FAR to important to only focus on English.  If you can help in other languages please please contact me.  


Here are a few numbers for homeopathy in other languages...   All November 2011 (note: when the page has a ranking, that means the page was really popular, most terms are not ranked)


Homeopathy - English - 106,894 (ranked 4,498 most popular page on WP in English)
Homeopatia - Polish - 12,373 (ranked 1,156 most popular page on WP in Polish)

Omeopatia - Italian - 13,929 (ranked 1,873 most popular page on WP in Italian) 
Homeopatía - Spanish - 44,072 (ranked 1,794 most popular page on WP in Spanish)
   it reached 3,236 most popular page in Hebrew -  hits in Hebrew (it writes left to right)  1,231 הומאופתיה

I could go on and on but have no idea what language most of these are.  Hrvatski, Galego, Ελληνικά, Ido, 日本語, తెలుగు, and ייִדיש are just a few other Wikipedia languages that have homeopathy pages.  Wonder what their visitors will read?























 

William B. Davis ~ Page Makeover

Back in late October 2011 I wrote this article about improving William B. Davis's Wikipedia page.  I wouldn't really have cared about his stub page except for the fact that he is one of our skeptical spokespeople.  I hadn't known this before until I accidentally stumbled across an interview he gave where he credited skeptic Barry Beyerstein for introducing him to the skeptical community.  (I had Beyerstein on Google Alert which is how I discovered the interview) Once I discovered this fact, I knew I had to clean up his page.

So I looked around and added all the skeptical references I could find.  Then got my friend Brian Engler to upload a really nice image of Davis leaning on the CSICON podium.  I started making changes here and there and also contacted Davis on Facebook.

He was more than helpful.  I got all kinds of links from him as well as pictures.  Tonight I'm launching his page, along with the "before".  I think you will really be amazed at the changes.

Here is a bit of knowledge I picked up along the way.

One idea I had was to make his page a DYK page as they allow brand new pages as well as expanded stubs as candidates for the front page of Wikipedia.  What I didn't realize at the time was that by making changes to the "live" page and then waiting a few weeks and adding more and then a bit more I was taking the page out of the running.  The rule is that the page needs to expand "5 fold" and have at least 850 words (not counting citations, charts and captions).

If I had not made any changes to the page when I first approached it, and then did all the work on my user page (or sandbox) and then copied/paste/saved the page live I would have expanded the page 5-fold.  Adding bit by bit to the live page erased that condition.

Coping the page and pasting it on my user page enabled me to be able to work "off-line".  I was able to make changes to the page without having to give a reason for each change.  Also when I copy/paste/saved the page back "live" it will be with a fresh history.  Only showing the one edit where it is completely done.

Tim Farley looked the page over as well as Dustin and Lei and helped with some spelling and so on.  Tim changed the page from going to a redirect page for William Davis - Premier of Ontario page to a disambiguation page for William Davis people. 

Tim also wrote a code that kept my user page from being searchable whenever anyone typed in "William B. Davis" into a search engine.  Only people with the URL could now find the page.

I also wasn't familiar with IMDB, I looked at Martin Landau's WP page and discovered how that editor made a chart for all the film credits Landau had.  I went into "edit" and copied all the text on Landau, pasted them into Davis's page and through trial and error changed everything.  It took a long long time to type all that info into Davis's page.  In the end I learned a lot about making charts.  Learn by doing!

Another problem I ran into over and over with his film credits was that some shows had WP pages, others didn't and some "linked" to WP pages, but not the correct WP page.  I know there is a short-cut bot out there on WP that will fix these problems quickly.  But I don't know how to use it.  What I did for every title, person and place was to put the name into WP's search.  I could then make the edit for the hyperlink to go to the correct page.  (blog explaining how to do this in detail). 

The reason I went to all this trouble was three-fold.  Firstly anyone who is going to credit Barry Beyerstein with anything is going to touch a soft spot in my heart.  Secondly the whole idea of the We Got your Wiki Back! project is to make sure that when people venture over to our spokespeople's pages they can see that they have well-written and cared for pages.  Thirdly William B. Davis is famous.  He receives about 4-5 thousand hits a month to his page.  That means potentially 4-5 thousand people will be reading about Beyerstein, Skepticism, CSICOP and the critical thinking quotes that I left.  A total win for skepticism!

Not all of our spokespeople are going to make such an impact, Davis we know for sure will.  Who knows who might be next?  I'm not privy to everyones schedules.  Tomorrow Ben Radford might score an amazing interview on CNN and the world will be looking at his page, will it be ready?  Does it reflect well on skepticism? Does it appear that Radford is respected in his community?  In his case, the answer is "yes".  But so many of our spokespeople are lacking great pages.

I'm not sure where I will be focusing my Wiki eye tomorrow, but if you have a suggestion or would like to help with this project and don't know where to start, please contact me.  susangerbic@yahoo.com


William B. Davis page the first time I saw it

William B. Davis page after the We Got Your Wiki Back! project

Added Dec 25, 2011
Just finished listening to Jacob Fortin's "The Good Atheist" podcast whom interviewed Davis a few days ago.  Very funny how this interview happened and its link to the page make-over.  I'm going to submit the story to the IIG's www.theoddsmustbecrazy.com site.  Take a look.

Also took the interview with Fortin and gleaned the best quotes about Dawkins and John Mack and created a citation back to the podcast.  This is how it is supposed to work folks.   Get as much information out there for the world to follow back to our skeptical content.  We need to have each other's backs as well.   http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2011/12/22/the-good-atheist-podcast-episode-154/

----------------------

This just in.  Received this message a few minutes ago on my "talk page"

"William B. Davis is fantastic, your edits made a huge difference in quality! Nicely done! You should put it up for Good Article status! Not sure if you're aware, but there are some great article checking tools here

 

Dreadstar ☥ 19:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)" 

That was a really welcome message.  Usually I cross my fingers whenever I see that I have a new message on my talk page, and say to myself "what did I do wrong now"?

So I followed the instructions Dreadstar gave and read everything I could find about what is a "good article" and how to nominate the page.  Apparently a Good Article is something that if approved will appear at the top of the discussion page.  Only one in every 250 WP articles are considered "good articles" (I would think that would be a bigger spread, but they are counting ALL WP pages, not just the paranormal pages I keep running into)

I nominated the page, now I wait as there is quite a back-log.  An editor will be in touch to review the page and offer suggestions to improve the page.  I guess I have 7 days from that time to make the changes.  It gets reviewed again and again and if approved then it will get the special attention as a "good article" They have a page devoted to "good articles" so it will join that.  I have the page listed under "the Arts" which is Davis's main claim to fame. 

There is an even higher honor apparently, one called the "featured article" page.  This is for pages that are the Best of Wikipedia. Only one in 100 pages are featured articles.  Guess I have some new goals for 2012.  I'm a competitive sort, and want my gold star!

Wikipedia Discussion Pages

My regular readers of this blog will be familiar with my encouragement of people reading the discussion pages behind the scenes of each Wikipedia page.  If you haven't already snooped around you might want to try it one of these cold rainy days.  Sometimes the discussions get very technical, but usually they are very entertaining.  You do not have to have a Wikipedia account or even edit.  Anyone can read these pages, and editors (novice and advanced can weigh in the discussion).



Discussion tab is located on the upper left side of the page you are reading.  Simply click on the tab and start reading.













If you want to contribute to the discussion then you need to "edit" the section you are responding to.  Simply type under the conversation a : so that your words are off-set from the response above.  You can add more ::'s to make it off-set even further.  This makes all the replies easy to follow.  When you are done with what you want to say you need to type 4 tildees like this ~~~~ and the computer will add your name, date and time of response to your reply.

Here is a interesting discussion on the Alien Abduction page.  Note that the editors name appears here.  The editor would not have typed that part in.  Just the 4 tildees.

"I might be mistaken, but it appears there's a Scientologist explanation on the part about possible explanations, second from the bottom, re: memories of birth. It is lacking citation. It also uses some weasel words like "(one that is gaining widespread acceptance"); this really isn't true. It's not scientifically viable, neo-nates don't have developed enough vision or senses, let alone memories, to encode something like that and recall it as traumatic. I have seen the theory before, but I believe it was a scientologist theory and should be both labeled as such and have the "widespread acceptance" tripe removed - it's psychologically ridiculous. I've deleted it on the grounds that upon rereading it, it's so slanted and unsupported that it simply doesn't belong. It touts itself as "one of the most comprehensive theories" as well, but without any support or scientific rigor. [[User:MrKeith2317|MrKeith2317]] 05:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)"

If you want to start a new topic on a discussion page then you click the "new section" tab. 



Where  it says "subject/headline" this is where you write the reason for your new topic.  I've seen all kinds of topics and discussions.  This may be open to the public to read but more are not aware of this option.  Write as if you were writing to a student or co-worker.  Try to be very specific about what you are asking, also be very polite.  Snarky sometimes happens on these pages, but other editors will call you out for it.  You have talk to these people like they are going to be your next-door neighbor for the next 20 years and you are trying to get them to pay for half the fence that is falling down.

When I remove bad edits, many times I will revert the edit and leave some kind of reason for it (please cite your source).  Sometimes I will actually open up the discussion page and make a new topic and address the person who made the edit. If it was spam then there is no reason to do this, but if the editor seemed to be well-meaning, a nice note why their edit is not staying on the page is polite.  We need more editors and scaring those newbies away isn't going to help.  Number one complaint I hear from people is "I edited a page and the next thing I knew it was reverted and no one said why they did so."  I've learned a lot about how to edit from the comments left for me.

I got one the other day, I had added a external link to Robert Sheaffer's book "Psychic Vibrations" then the edit was reverted.  Why?  They said, "for it to be an external link... there needs to be a link" Duh Susan!  I had just left the cite for a book nothing for people to click on and follow.

I'm going to share some cool discussions I've found lately...

This is from the faith healer W.V. Grant's discussion page.

I would like to know how using wiki's guidelines one could add information one saw as an eyewitness? If there were only people there, no news media etc. I see no issue in stating what you saw, and stating it was an eyewitness case. Using Wiki guidelines, if Wiki existed when Mosew parted the Red Sea you could not include the information because it was first hand information.
I would like to state for the record, that I do not personal know W.V. Grant, I recently attended a service he preached at. I saw actual miracles in front of my eyes within feet of where I was sitting. It was not like he was on a stage, the two people I saw healed were sitting next to me by what I believe was the power of God to glorify the name of Jesus Christ. If you were not there, it would be hard to believe. I was there and it was amazing. No one could have bulled off a stunt next to me. Not even Steven Spielberg could have done this. If this man made a mistake with his taxes or other things, it does not mean God could not use him. None of us are perfect. I would like to add what I saw to the article as an eyewitness. I would like to also point out that I arrived at the church before he did, no one one was there yet. He arrived after me and everything was brought in from his car. People will always say things are not from God, even the magicians told Pharaoh that Moses was using a simple trick and we see how truthful this state me was.
Now I understand that there will be editors that do not believe in God, those of other faiths and finally those that just don't believe miracle happen any today anymore. But with all the negative unbalanced writing that is in this article cannot something be added by a person who saw a miracle from God? Sorry to disappoint any of you that think I am an emotional nut. I know what I saw and it saw it next to me.
Please don't ask me what I saw on my talk page. Either let me add it or refuse, if I told you, you still would not believe.
But you could tell me if you agree to include it.
akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count}

) 16:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As I told you on your talk page, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on reliable secondary sources, not personal observations. This has nothing to do with someone's personal beliefs. Unfortunately, you talking about what you saw isn't a reliable secondary source. If we open up every article for personal testimony, what's to stop people from coming here to relate their negative experiences with the subject? Dayewalker (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Daywalker, as I stated to you. I disagree with your interpretation of the rule. I posted what I believe on this talk page to get other editors opinions (not yours) I know yours already.
Your are incorrect in assuming that an eyewitness case cannot be include if it is not stated as such. In the same way the rule about photo's does not apply about a photo if there is absolutely no other alternative but to include the photo in question that is not in the public domain. For example the person is deseased.
By your interfering with me getting other opinions on this topic, I will assume you have a person bias in this matter and will ask you to remove yourself. You, a person who want to be and Admin should know the rules. I am asking for "Other" editors opinions. I feel that a one time event can be included in the article if there was an eyewitness saw it and I am a person that never met the man, but I will go to church services he attends because of what I saw. This does not mean I want to write pro, but the article is written one sided in a "con". It is not balanced at all, and I now think you are part of the problem. I respectfully let me get other opinions and I respectfully request you not try to influence their decisions. I am a Christan, I do not know what your faith is, but it is awesome to see something happen happen in from of your eyes that is unexplainable.
You are the one who asked me to post to talk page to get other opinions, are you now trying to impeded this? I really don't understand what your motivation is.
akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count}

) 17:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Me commenting on your post here is not preventing other people from also commenting. In fact, if you'll check the page log here, I moved your comment to the bottom of the page so more people would be able to see it and respond.

Sorry, I will not remove myself from this article. Merely disagreeing with you wanting to add your personal testimony to this page does not warrant me being banned from it. If you disagree, feel free to ask an admin or file a case on one of the notice boards.

If you're interested in hearing more from other editors, you might want to file an request for comment on this issue. That will alert other editors to the situation. Dayewalker (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Not gonna happen. We do not include eyewitness testimony; never have, never will. We require verifiable neutral, third-party references from reliable sources. Any police officer or criminal-practice attorney can tell you that eyewitnesses are notoriously not reliable sources, and stage magicians (among others) make a living from the inability of onlookers to accurately interpret the testimony of their own eyes. This is not reflective of a bias against you, or against religion in general, or against faith healers in general; this is policy and will not be waived just because of what you claim you believe you saw. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Orange Mike is correct about Wikipedia policy here. (We get used to it after a while... ) Seriously, even if eye-witness testimony were 100% reliable, we still couldn't include it in Wikipedia. Our policies are pretty strict on that. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

 =============================================

And from the same page but another topic...

The Bible Should be an authoritative 3rd party source

I am at a lose of what you two people are trying to do. Truly, This is my point, a person wrote a book stating this was all fake, That person is a magician, the Bible forbids Magic. You actual think that it is my "Opinion about" what I quoted? I have seen in many articles where notes were added. So you make me curious are you really trying to make this article fair and balanced? It seems each edit I make to try to make it fair, gets reverted.
Yes it is my opinion he has something to make by writing a book. Anyone writing a book will have a monetary motive, so exactly why cannot this be stated and if you have an issue with how I stated it, how may this point be made know to the reader?
I really don't have a lot of time quibbling over this, I just have some available time right now I think the POV I inserted balances the negative POV of Randi, is this not a correct assumption on my part? I must be missing something, I thought we were suppose to write from a neutral POV, I see a total negative, and I tried to offset this. Is this not correct?
akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count}

) 14:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

For a Christian like myself, the Holy Bible is an authoritative source of information on my Savior and his message. For many billions of people on this planet, it is not considered anything of the sort; and it is not considered an authoritative source in Wikipedia, which is a religiously-neutral project.

That's got nothing to do with what you are doing here. You are trying to insert your unsourced speculation about the motivations of a living person with a worldwide reputation in his field, based on your personal speculative interpretation of the Holy Bible, into an article about a third person. If you want to do that kind of thing, do it in your own blog or maybe Conservapedia; it has no place in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not speculation. Randi states that he bent a fork with pysic power, not an illusion or stage magic, he states that he is an atiest. As a Christian, I believe that these powers either come from God or Satan. Randi denies God, therefore the power he attests is from Satan.

Therefore, the quotes I used from the Bible are authoritative for the purpose of what I used it for, I intended to re-insert. Please see Wiki article on Randi for source of evidence.
Comments? I will wait one day for your additional excuses why I cannot quote what is said in the Bible as well as the Wiki article.
akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count}

) akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count}

) 00:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

===============================================

This is a discussion about Stanislaw Burzynski's page.  There is a lot of controversy about this clinic.  Tim Farley is coming out with a blog discussing the skeptic "take-down" of his URL using WOT (I will include the link to SkepticTools when it comes out).  You could spend a hour reading through the discussion page on Burzynski, I choose this tidbit because it shows really how editors discuss changes to the page.  From what I have read it seems that the Burzynski clinic hired some go-getter to change the criticism on the Burzynski Wikipedia page.  That was exposed and the man fired, the Burzynski people came out with a press release apologizing for the act. 

Please add that in a book called "Knockout", Suzanne Somers' wrote about her interviews with doctors who are successfully using the most innovative cancer treatments--treatments that build up the body rather than tear it down. She wrote about Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and how he has effectively treated more than fifty types of cancer.
Princess Freckles (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Suzanne Somers book is not a reliable source on the efficacy of Burzynski's alleged cancer therapy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore:

"The American Cancer Society is concerned. 'I am very afraid that people are going to listen to her message and follow what she says and be harmed by it,' says Dr. Otis Brawley, the organization's chief medical officer. 'We use current treatments because they've been proven to prolong life. They've gone through a logical, scientific method of evaluation. I don't know if Suzanne Somers even knows there IS a logical, scientific method.' More broadly, Brawley is concerned that in the United States, celebrities or sports stars feel they can use their fame to dispense medical advice. 'There's a tendency to oversimplify medical messages,' he says. 'Well, oversimplification can kill'."[22]

Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Agreed. It's certainly true that she wrote it, and it might arguably be a legitimate part of an article on Suzanne Somers (although "innovative" is I think a WP:Peacock word here), but not here. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

==============================================

Clicking on the blue links for WP terms can help you learn editing rules.  

Here is a bit of discussion on Noah's Ark

Anyway, if we think naturalistic explanations are necessary, where did all that water come from, and where did it go? --Macrakis (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Evidence-based investigation into bible stories is pointless and unnecessary in the sense that if a researcher applied for funding to study the possibility of a talking donkey the funding committee would probably tell them that it's pointless and unnececessary.

However, since the research has been published, it's useful to add depth to this encyclopædia article. Many readers may come here with the preconceived notion that noah's ark was just a story - an opinion that I share - but the article must try to take a step back and describe the subject neutrally, and an attempt at naturalistic explanation is much better than "Is true / is not". bobrayner (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The neutral position in wikipedia is the position of mainstream science on all things. Due unweight should not be given to fringe ideas. see WP:FRINGE. (edit: as per Grabergs) IRWolfie- (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Skeptical objections to the practicalities of building the ark are not fringe ideas.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

IRWolfie-, you meant UNdue weight, right?Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure; I probably misinterpreted your position. IRWolfie- (talk) 

17:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

 ==============================================

These are just a few of the discussions I have noticed in the last day or so.  My point here is that real people are discussing these topics.  Most want to improve the page and follow Wikipedia rules.  Sometimes the rules are vague and not clearly enforced.  Wikipedia is written by volunteers, some of which are brand new and still learning.  It does not help to attack editors, and always try to clearly explain what you are doing and why.  We are all still learning after all.