Guerrillas in our midst

Michael Tymn points me to this interview with the founder of the "guerrilla skepticism" movement, which rewrites Wikipedia pages to remove "woo" and related abominations. I don't think these efforts amount to much; to the extent that Wiki becomes known for the one-sided presentation of controversies, it will simply become less of a resource for people who want to make up their own minds.

In fact, I think this is already happening. Increasingly, when people cite Wiki in an online argument, the riposte is that Wiki is too biased to be a credible source. This is true of controversies in general (politics, legal battles, scientific disputes, etc.), not just the paranormal.

An online encyclopedia edited by pretty much anybody does have some value, but it will never be authoritative, because the people behind it are not authorities.

One statement in the interview stood out for me:

I enjoy finding pages that look like the “psychic” wrote it themselves and then I come in with the delete button. It is really a powerful feeling.

Admittedly, it's a violation of Wiki policies for a person to write about himself, but notice that the Wiki editor merely thinks the page "looks like" it was written by the psychic. It may not have been; who knows?

Nevertheless, hitting that delete button is "really a powerful feeling."

Gorilla skeptic

Comments

[Luciano]

"When people are starting to question their beliefs, they are going to do some quiet research on their own. Usually the first link that their search engine is going to give them is a Wikipedia link. We had better be waiting for them when they show up. Changing your mind can be a very painful, slow process. We are there to help." - SG

Haha, thanks...? It's funny how they don't even consider the chance that they may be wrong: they are editing Wikipedia so they only show one side of the Story, I've seen a couple of Wiki articles that are written only on the skeptic's point of view, not even considering the veridic claims and evidence of the "psychics" they are trying to shut out. The Truth is only Theirs to tell...

[Paul]

It's all rather pathetic really isn't it?

[Michael Prescott]

"It's funny how they don't even consider the chance that they may be wrong: they are editing Wikipedia so they only show one side of the story."

I think they're acquainted with only one side. The lady in the interview says she was familiar with skeptic literature and even attended a skeptic cruise, which makes her something of a skeptic fanboi, I'd say. But has she read books by Dean Radin, Stephen Braude, Chris Carter, Greg Taylor, et al? Is she familiar with the literature published in the SPR Journal or other sources? I doubt it.

These militant skeptics remind me of the Objectivists I knew in my Ayn Rand days. We all thought we were independent thinkers, yet we ended up parroting Rand and each other, and we seldom if ever considered counterarguments in a serious way. Of course, Randism is a quasi-cult. But maybe militant skepticism, with its conferences and cruises, is something of a quasi-cult also. Both movements appeal to minuscule percentages of the population, enjoy their greatest popularity among teenage or young-adult males, and rely on charismatic leaders, simplistic arguments, and cherry-picked data.

The Objectivist who "knows" Immanuel Kant is evil and wrong even though he has never read Kant is not much different from the skeptic who "knows" ESP is impossible and irrational even though he has never read the works of parapsychologists.

The distance between Rand and Randi may not be very great.

[Roger Knights]

"We all thought we were independent thinkers, yet we ended up parroting Rand and each other . . . ."

"The herd of independent minds"

[Roger Knights]

Here are a couple of very recent anti-Wikipedia threads:

"Wikipedia: Where truth goes to die online" at http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/wikipedia-where-truth-dies-online/#.U1-aSqLqizd

"Article: Wikipedia is worthless and damaging" at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/29/you-only-need-to-read-a-few-climate-entries-on-wikipedia-to-know-this-spiked-online-article-rings-true/

[Matt Rouge]

Well put, Michael.

Yes, I think militant skepticism is a secular religion. Hitting the delete button, literally and metaphorically, is what gives them purpose.

[william]

These militant skeptics beliefs have become a form of religious fundamentalism and is based in doubt and fear. Think of what occurs if just one aspect of a paranormal event is seen as valid to their fragile ego.

History has shown the human ego will do some pretty harsh things to keep its beliefs intact. This lady in her ego-centered need for acceptance has found acceptance from a group and even meaning and purpose for her life.

Nikola Tesla's warning, "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena (*the paranormal), it will make more progress in one decade than in all previous centuries of its existence.”

I guess this group of militants does not agree with Tesla’s warning. Judging by appearances is a powerful aspect of the human mind.

[Rupert McWiseman]

Well well ..... it's the skeptic equivalent of the First Council of Nicaea!

Skeptics are only ever a hairs-breadth away from religious fundamentalists (indeed, a high proportion of them WERE religious fundamentalists), and their censorship of Forbidden Books via Wikipedia would have warmed the heart of Emperor Constantine!

But of course, they're doing it for our own good, because the average person can't be trusted to read both sides of the argument and think for themselves....

[Paul]

Good point Michael actually. I also find that often those who are ardently cynical about the issue only know one side of the argument (and often not even that).

[Steven Smith]

The cultist mindset of these folks is very obvious. It must be a tremendous burden to be the chosen truth-keepers they see themselves to be. The concept of open minded inquiry is lost on them, since they already know the answers to the important questions. The important work they pursue is the closing of minds.

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

I don't think these Wiki Guerrillas care about writing a neutral article. It's not that they haven't read parapsychological literature; they often quote from it. They know both sides of the argument but intentionally choose to cherry-pick information so that only their bias is represented.

Here is one example from the Patience Worth Wikipedia page. I have provided the rest of the quote in bold italics.

"Ian Stevenson noted that the majority of paranormal researchers consider Patience Worth to be evidence for a "multiple personality disorder (MPD) combined with paranormal abilities," however Stevenson acknowledged that "some observers regarded 'Patience Worth' as a discarnate personality communicating through Mrs. Curran. This is not an unreasonable interpretation of the case, one of the greatest of psychical researchers, W.F. Prince (1929), thought it the best explanation for the case; although he remained clearly aware of alternative ones."

What's the problem with providing an accurate representation of Ian Stevenson's thoughts?

[John Eddy]

Truth is its own gatekeeper. Wikipedia, while helpful, is just Wikipedia.

[Roddy Hays]

"Whether believing or disbelieving, the ignorance is shared. It is only the jumped to conclusions that are different".

Thomas Campbell - My Big Toe

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

I see that a Wiki Guerilla has deleted the entire statement attributed to Ian Stevenson. I guess they have decided that his views about Patience Worth are not relevant---now that they are confronted with what he really said.

[Steve Echard Musgrave]

Sent you a family picture of Jack Pierce, just a heads up. Well we get more than a few bipolar types who fit that description in Zen. I had one guy who tried to a take off from Lindbergh field in San Diego without the benefit of a plane, he was running on the Tarmac with his arms extended.