Wikipedia "Psychic" article needs workup. Who will help?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The current article for the entry "Psychic" on wikipedia needs major workup. It currently seems like nothing more than a point of view filled bias rant in support of psychics. It doesn't explain the vast criticism of psychics or the lack of scientific support psychics have in mainstream science. Can anyone who is wikipedia privy possibly contribute to this article or at least provide me with some sources that I can use for it? Scientific studies showing "psychic phenomenon" does not exist,assertions from scientists skeptical of "psychics" etc. I am very busy and I can't hunt down sources and edit that article along with numerous other articles at the same time. Who can help me out?

Here is the link..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic


Thank you.

[geni]

reworked the opening two paragraphs a bit.

[CLD]

That's very interesting. I notice a guy who rewrote the article from the perpective that (a) parapsychology is a highly respected field comprised of Nobel laureates which forms the majority scientific opinion about psi (b) Randi, P&T, Hyman, etc. are mere debunkers who form the minority aberrant opinion about psi (c) The majority of the population believes in psi.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That's why it needs major work. There are so few skeptical contributors willing to make the article neutral point of view and represent the facts. Anyone who is privy to wikipedia needs to help out.

[JLam]

What do you mean by "privy to Wikipedia"? Any jackass can sign up for an account.

[Luke T.]

What do you mean by "privy to Wikipedia"? Any jackass can sign up for an account.

Judging by the above comments, that is apparently true.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Privy to wikipedia means someone who knows how to negotiate themselves around wikipedia and knows it's policies and how to deal with people who try to violate them. Anyone who cares about wikipedia articles having neutral point of view should sign up and contribute to these 'paranormal' articles or else they will be overrun by woo-woo's. And that is a bad thing since wikipedia is gaining popularity and becoming more of a source of information for laypeople.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Someone? Anyone?

[Aussie Thinker]

Doesn't seem too bad to me.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That's because I've been editing it. It's only a matter of time until the Woo-Woo's revert it to claim "parapsychology" is a "field of science" and that psychics are "scientific established".

[geni]

Doesn't seem too bad to me.

See the talk page. The battle lines are being drawn

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I want to make a plea to anyone who values critical thinking to please sign up to Wikipedia and start helping out. Millions of people read wikipedia a day and many of them are gullible enough to get their final information from it. If the articles are bias towards BS perspectives then more and more people will be duped by nonsense. Please sign up and help out.



P.S. Those of you who are already members to wikipedia and know my user name(The guy who has posted the post in the "Psychic" article and who's name starts with "wiki") please drop me a 'barnstar'.(wiki it) I'm collecting them!

[UnrepentantSinner]

This is why I don't like open sourced "information." All it takes is a few people with an agenda, or say, Stephen Colbert, to make up a Wikiality. I'd be more in favor of Wikipedia being cited if there were neutral editors who would be willing to lock contentious topics or keep the editing to a minimum after an amount of agreed upon content.

[geni]

This is why I don't like open sourced "information." All it takes is a few people with an agenda, or say, Stephen Colbert, to make up a Wikiality.

The Colbert sheep were delt with.

[UnrepentantSinner]

The Colbert sheep were delt with.

Has Wikiality been dealt with?

[geni]

Has Wikiality been dealt with?

Based on the repeated failure of the Colbert sheep I'm going for yes.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Based on the repeated failure of the Colbert sheep I'm going for yes.

I'm sorry, I meant the ability of any group with an agenda (woo woos, Creationists, racists, etc.) to collectively and continually edit incorrect, unverified or downright false information into entries (like the John Siegenthaler Sr. imbruglio)?

[cyborg]

One hopes, that much like science, that all agendas will cancel each other out and we will be left with the truth.

One cannot 'fix' this problem - it is inherent to the nature of how we disseminate information.

As long as those with good intentions outweigh those with bad Wiki can work. If that inequality does not hold then there is not much hope for anything.

[blutoski]

I'm sorry, I meant the ability of any group with an agenda (woo woos, Creationists, racists, etc.) to collectively and continually edit incorrect, unverified or downright false information into entries (like the John Siegenthaler Sr. imbruglio)?

Even on Wikipedia, many Skeptical subjects have simply had to be locked, because even though the woos are few in number, they're mentally unbalanced and disproprtionately motivated. An example is Drs. Stephen Barrett and Terry Polevoy, who have basically given up defending against slander in their Wikipedia entries because its a fulltime job.

I had hoped that the purpose of our Skeptic Wiki was to create a wiki that provides more control to skeptics than Wikipedia, providing a more effective skeptical resource, eliminating the need for Skeptics to get embroiled in these timewasting Wikipedia efforts.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Geni, cyborg and bluto,

I had been a Wiki snob for a long time, but over the last year or so became ammenable to it because of less contentious subjects. I still am concerned about open sourced references because of the concerns raised above. There should be some level of editing that at some point says either enough or that "X" is factual and "Y" has no basis. Dueling editors amounts to little more than flame wars or a contest to be the last person to make an entry.

[blutoski]

Geni, cyborg and bluto,

I had been a Wiki snob for a long time, but over the last year or so became ammenable to it because of less contentious subjects. I still am concerned about open sourced references because of the concerns raised above. There should be some level of editing that at some point says either enough or that "X" is factual and "Y" has no basis. Dueling editors amounts to little more than flame wars or a contest to be the last person to make an entry.

The other problem introduced by duelling editors is that since the big appeal of Wikipedia for the mass audience is its quick-hit, single-page format, we cannot expect them to absorb the content and context of the discussion section. So, even if Skeptics win the 'argument' - it has mostly no impact on the average reader.

[CLD]

The other problem introduced by duelling editors is that since the big appeal of Wikipedia for the mass audience is its quick-hit, single-page format, we cannot expect them to absorb the content and context of the discussion section. So, even if Skeptics win the 'argument' - it has mostly no impact on the average reader.

Although much of the dueling is increasingly focused on opening definitions, i.e. the initial paragraph, e.g. "John Edward is a psychic medium" vs. "John Edward is a self-proclaimed psychic medium" ...with proponents arguing for all sorts of miselading variations such as "John Edward performs as a psychic medium".

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Just sing up and see how it works out for you. It's not to difficult once you get the hang of it.



Also, Don't forget to give me barnstars..people. Those of you who know what my name is over there. The guy with the most edits in the "Parapsychology" and "psychic" articles who's name starts with "wiki".

[my_wan]

What is really sad is that given the lack of any evidence they resort to polls. This is apparently supposed to suffice as scientific consensus playing very loose with the definition of scientist. These public opinions are then used to self perpetuate results on more polls. Another trick is to divide the poll into three groups such as believers, maybes, and disbelief and then speak of disbelievers singly as if all others counted for woo. They certainly play a better PR game than skeptics.

[geni]

What is really sad is that given the lack of any evidence they resort to polls. This is apparently supposed to suffice as scientific consensus playing very loose with the definition of scientist. These public opinions are then used to self perpetuate results on more polls. Another trick is to divide the poll into three groups such as believers, maybes, and disbelief and then speak of disbelievers singly as if all others counted for woo. They certainly play a better PR game than skeptics.

Not exactly. You see they made a mistake in their science poll. It is an accepted principle that if you are going to servey the opinion of scientists only those called steve count.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I personally don't have time or willpower to constantly argue with these fanatical nut jobs. I can respond to their nonsense every now and then and revert some of their bias edits but that's about it. I don't have time to spend hours reverting everything they do and refuting everything they say.

Right now the article titled "Parapsychology" is nothing more than a biased rant in support of the paranormal and other such ghosts and goblins. Not only that, But one specific editor seems to like to erase citations other people put in and add "citation needed" to the most obvious facts to make it seem like they aren't correct. For instance claiming a citation is needed for the assertion people are skeptical of parapsychology...

If you care anything about the truth then please sign up to wikipedia and help me fight these nuts. I seem to be the ONLY one doing it in most of the articles.

[UnrepentantSinner]

If you care anything about the truth then please sign up to wikipedia and help me fight these nuts. I seem to be the ONLY one doing it in most of the articles.

Sorry to snip the other paragraphs, but do you understand my issue with open sourced sites like Wiki now? The problem with them ultimately isn't the content per se, but who is the last "editor" of the content. And geni, you know I love you man, but Colbert's point about "Wikiality" was spot on. It's just a matter of having enough woos of any particular viewpoint, be it the elephant population in Africa, whether hemoepathy is efficatious, if John Edwards is a psychic as opposed to a "supposed psychic", etc. to crash the deck of cards.

I cannot trust a source that doesn't have an ultimate editor at some point who says enough is enough with regard to changing the content of an entry.

[blutoski]

I like this cartoon:

partially clips (http://www.partiallyclips.com/index.php?id=1483)

[CLD]

This one's pretty good too:

NASA Kid (http://www.partiallyclips.com/index.php?id=1089)

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The only people who can stop wikipedia from descending into nonsense are people who fight the bias people who want to make all of the articles slanted towards one bias Point of view.



All that is needed for evil to prosper, is for good men to do nothing.

[geni]

And geni, you know I love you man, but Colbert's point about "Wikiality" was spot on.

His sheep followers were delt with.


I cannot trust a source that doesn't have an ultimate editor at some point who says enough is enough with regard to changing the content of an entry.

You would appear to be at least an order of magnitude more trusting than I am then.

[UnrepentantSinner]

His sheep followers were delt with.

Yeah, I get it.. sheep/followers. You're repeating it like a mantra now.

You would appear to be at least an order of magnitude more trusting than I am then.

Actually I'm going to disagree. Open source is never more trustworthy than vetted editing because there's no guarentee of who or what the last edit was.

I admire your passion, but I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.

[Thinktoomuch]

You would appear to be at least an order of magnitude more trusting than I am then.

Ditto. Let the buyers beware. Isn't this spiralling into a religious war? I do not like proselitising zealots, whatever their credo.

[geni]

Yeah, I get it.. sheep/followers. You're repeating it like a mantra now.

Eh I was watching his forums during the events. Sheep would appear tobe a reasonable description. Even the 4chan crowd at least manage to be more original.


Actually I'm going to disagree. Open source is never more trustworthy than vetted editing because there's no guarentee of who or what the last edit was.

That wasn't my claim (and technicaly OS and vettered editing are not mutaly exclusive).