Wikipedia, ISHAR update

#1
Dear Skeptiko community,

There has been a radical shift regarding the ISHAR project, which I was heavily involved in. This update is published here: http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com The main issue effecting Wikipedia is that Tumbleman, aka me, has been revealed as being SAS81, which successfully resolved Deepak Chopra's Wiki war and successfully stopped agenda based skeptic editors from running amok on that page, even winning every attempt to ban SAS81.

Although this is disappointing - some very positive things came out of the ISHAR/Wikipedia operation, primarily being that YES Wikipedia CAN work. The skeptic organizations who have their agenda based editors on Wikipedia do NOT have the full support of the Wikipedia community. In this case study, the skeptics LOST on Wikipedia this time - and a responsible editorial page was achieved.

Additionally, this can be replicated and achieved by anyone. I will be publishing on the site soon the steps needed to achieve this on Wikipedia and how SAS81 was able to be successful.

Thank you everyone for your support, and thank you Alex for the forum and the ear!

Rome
 
#4
Although this is disappointing - some very positive things came out of the ISHAR/Wikipedia operation, primarily being that YES Wikipedia CAN work. The skeptic organizations who have their agenda based editors on Wikipedia do NOT have the full support of the Wikipedia community. In this case study, the skeptics LOST on Wikipedia this time - and a responsible editorial page was achieved.
??? You got banned for doing the same thing the Guerrilla Naysayers do. How is that a win? Also as the founder of Wikipedia has publicly stated his support for the naysayers, why and how do you think things will change?
 
#5
??? You got banned for doing the same thing the Guerrilla Naysayers do. How is that a win? Also as the founder of Wikipedia has publicly stated his support for the naysayers, why and how do you think things will change?
good question. Yes, I got banned as SAS81 - but not for the activity that SAS81 was doing on Wikipedia and the actual article on Wikipedia is where the 'win' occurred. Whereas with Tumbleman - Rupert Sheldrake's article did improve, but the skeptics wound up controlling the article and especially the lead sentence. With Deepak's article, it was a 100% reversal and every attempt to harass failed when going through the proper channels on Wikipedia. So regardless if my account was banned, the actual strategy did work and this strategy in principle can be replicated.
 
#6
also, I did not get banned for the 'same thing' the 'wikipedia naysayers' do. SAS81 was banned because the account was linked to Tumbleman. Additionally, I was in the process of getting Tumbleman 'unbanned' as part of the ISHAR launch announcement and using it as an example case study. Now we have two example case studies. Additionally, all the activity on Wikipedia we have a problem.com has actually made cultural changes on Wikipedia. It's not as easy for the skeptics to get away with things as they have been called out a number of times and even their own organizations have spoken out against how they are operating on Wikipedia.
 
#7
also, I did not get banned for the 'same thing' the 'wikipedia naysayers' do. SAS81 was banned because the account was linked to Tumbleman. Additionally, I was in the process of getting Tumbleman 'unbanned' as part of the ISHAR launch announcement and using it as an example case study. Now we have two example case studies. Additionally, all the activity on Wikipedia we have a problem.com has actually made cultural changes on Wikipedia. It's not as easy for the skeptics to get away with things as they have been called out a number of times and even their own organizations have spoken out against how they are operating on Wikipedia.
Okay. Let me leave this issue with:
Congrats on the two successes. Hopefully you are correct and Wikipedia will move in the direction of more accurate articles on stuff beyond the status quo.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#8
Okay. Let me leave this issue with:
Congrats on the two successes. Hopefully you are correct and Wikipedia will move in the direction of more accurate articles on stuff beyond the status quo.
Nah, I think you're right. It's a small step in the right direction but anyone who wasn't contributing to Wikipedia over this has no good reason to think the system is changed anymore than one small victory against police abuse means the system works.
 
#9
Hello Rome! I'd like to say, amazing website you created with a great title "Wikipedia, We Have a Problem" - if only Wikipedia's response to it were as forthcoming as Houston was with the Apollo XIII astronauts.

I've been following the debates on many of the different Wikipedia pages as well, and like yourself, have been repulsed and disgusted by the extreme bias, the rampant dishonesty, and willingness to manipulate the Wikipedia rules in ways that were clearly not intended originally. There is, as you point out, and which can be easily corroborated, a relatively small group of editors who clearly have an agenda that is anti-science and ideologically suited to their neo-atheist, materialist Richard Dawkins, James Randi fundamentalist beliefs.

I have no problem with different viewpoints, and having some balance in articles purporting to be knowledgeable on a subject or a person, even if that balance may not really in truth be so balanced or accurate. However, the problem here goes way beyond the boundaries of what one might considerable reasonable give and take. In addition, not only have articles on the paranormal and other related topics been doctored by this small group of radical neo-atheist/materialists, but biographies have also been harshly edited in a manner so horrendous, I am surprised none of the people (who are still alive) have yet to file a lawsuit against Wikipedia and the perpetrators of the blatant and biased libel against them.

Regarding Deepak Chopra's page. Yes, there has been some improvement, but honestly, marginal at best. IMO, any reader clicking on his webpage there who is unaware of Deepak's background, and his philosophy and advocacy, will be immediately be presented, in the very first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry - words and ideas like "false hope", "new age guru" (whatever the f**k that means), wealthiest, etc. And that's just in the first paragraph alone. I will not go into the rest. But really, I don't consider the page much of a success, but I do admire you immensely for all the effort you put into it.

But man, just take a look at Russell Targ's page (or even the most recent talk discussion there). Look at other pages, such as Leonora Piper, or Ian Stevenson, or Frederic Myers, or Rupert Sheldrake's page. There is such blatant bias and the willingness to misinform the general public with one-sided biographical detail, that has deliberately and willfully left out 1) any reasonable and respectful neutrality 2) actual facts that seriously bring into question statements made on these people's biographies 3) deliberate insinuations that are not necessarily false but would lead ordinary people accessing Wikipedia to have a negative impression of the person in question, 4) broad unchallengeable statements that are misleading and not actually true when you come right down to it.

But then, you know all about this, and I'm preaching to the choir here. But am I optimistic for more change? Do I believe anything will be changing anytime soon on Wikipedia, given your immense efforts (and others) which have led at best to some minor changes on these doctored pages by a small group of dishonest radicals? I think the real problem here is Jimmy Wales, and the editors at the top of the food chain on Wikipedia. They know what's going on and are looking the other way. So the entire structure and ideology of wikipedia, that was built originally to avoid just this kind of activity these Skeptics are now engaged in, is being ignored by Wales and whatever top editors are in collusion with him right now. The hypocrisy is remarkable.

I don't think any change will occur until a real challenge and accountability is provided for the despicable actions of these guys. And in my mind, that will only come legally.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
Top