‘Nothing shady goes on in our secret forum, honest. You’ll have to take my word for it though, ‘cos it’s private. We’d let you join, but we can’t. Not even our friends get to join.’ The above is my personal summary of a rebuttal written by the team leader of the Dutch language group of the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project to recent criticism. Before I am accused of creating a straw-man argument I will point out that my summary is not a direct quote, but it comes pretty close. Continue reading
The TED Controversy took place between March and April 2013 when videos of talks delivered by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock at a TEDx event in London were removed by TED after complaints that the event was giving pseudoscience a platform. When Amazon recommended Craig Weiler’s ‘PSI Wars: TED, Wikipedia and the Battle for the Internet‘ I was intrigued as I am one of those skeptics who believed that the removal of the videos was wrong and I have been critical of Wikipedia editing in the past. I was bitterly disappointed because it would seem that to Weiler I am the enemy too. Continue reading
I feel that I need to clarify myself after a comment I made on Twitter about the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia Project has caused confusion.
Things like the Guerrilla Skepticism Campaign make the work of skeptic paranormal researchers bloody difficult by causing mistrust.
— Hayley M. Stevens (@Hayleystevens) October 13, 2013
The Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia Project (GSOW) aim to ‘improve skeptical content of Wikipedia … by improving pages of our skeptic spokespeople, providing noteworthy citations, and removing the unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudo-scientific pages.’ It’s a good idea at it’s core, and I hope that nobody would think I oppose the sourcing of claims about paranormal topics considering my approach to paranormal research and claims. Continue reading