Wikipediocracy

[...] A team of activists under the label “Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia” are making concerted efforts to change science content on Wikipedia. Some are concerned this group could skew public perception of scientific principles and studies. The Guerrillas started their work not long after so-called “Climategate” scandal in 2009. Green Party activist William Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 articles on Wikipedia, including many related to the politics of global warming and scientists whose views did not correspond to his own on the issue, according to reporting by Lawrence Solomon of the National Post. When Connolley became a Wikipedia website administrator, he removed 500 articles and barred more than 2,000 contributors “who ran afoul of him,” wrote Solomon. [...] “Everyone knows that there are opposing views on politics and religion, and many people recognize a biased account when they see it. But in the realm of science, things are different,” wrote Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, a biochemist and author educated at Cambridge University and Harvard who is known for his controversial theories. [...]

He accuses the Guerrilla Skepticism team of systematically abusing the trust of the Wikipedia readership. Susan Gerbik runs the team of almost 100, said Sheldrake, and “their aim is to ‘control information’ … Ms Gerbik glories in the power that she and her warriors wield.” Guerrilla Skepticism’s website states: “The mission of the Guerrilla Skepticism editing team is to improve skeptical content on Wikipedia. We do this by improving pages of our skeptic spokespeople, providing noteworthy citations, and removing the unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific pages.” [...] In December 2013, two and a half years after starting its work, the group tallied the articles it had “either rewritten or created from scratch.” The group had almost 100 on its list (not counting duplicates for the same article in multiple languages), including topics such as “rationalism,” and “spontaneous human combustion.” They worked on the biographies of scientists, boosting those they approve of, said Sheldrake, and defaming those they don’t. Sheldrake’s biography was “captured” by “a commando squad of skeptics,” he said. [...]

Concerns remain about the quality of information. The Wikipedia entry on the topic “Wikipedia” states: “A 2005 investigation in Nature showed that the [Wikipedia] science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of ‘serious errors’. Britannica replied that the study’s methology [sic] and conclusions were flawed.” If people take Wikipedia for what it is, a quick reference resource that may not be entirely accurate, its potential flaws will not have as big an impact. “Skepticism is a normal, healthy attitude of doubt,” Sheldrake wrote. “Unfortunately it can also be used as a weapon to attack opponents. In scientific and medical contexts, organized skepticism is a crusade to propagate scientific materialism.” He said: “Fortunately, a few editors arguing for a more neutral point of view have not yet been bullied into silence. An editing war is raging as you read this.”

Johnny Au wrote:What is next? Young Earth Creationists under Ray Comfort systematically editing Wikipedia articles on biology, geology, and astronomy?

Mancunium wrote:

Johnny Au wrote:What is next? Young Earth Creationists under Ray Comfort systematically editing Wikipedia articles on biology, geology, and astronomy?

Per our colleague enwikibadscience, they couldn't do much worse than the current editors of these topics.

iii wrote:Hmm, The Epoch Times (T-H-L), you say?

What an interesting Wikipedia article on this source! Note that the lede does not indicate in any way that Falun Dafa groups are primarily responsible for funding this free periodical.

I wonder why that is.

Johnny Au wrote:

iii wrote:Hmm, The Epoch Times (T-H-L), you say?

What an interesting Wikipedia article on this source! Note that the lede does not indicate in any way that Falun Dafa groups are primarily responsible for funding this free periodical.

I wonder why that is.

It does not say where The Epoch Times belong on the political spectrum.

Johnny Au wrote:

Mancunium wrote:

Johnny Au wrote:What is next? Young Earth Creationists under Ray Comfort systematically editing Wikipedia articles on biology, geology, and astronomy?

Per our colleague enwikibadscience, they couldn't do much worse than the current editors of these topics.

That is both good and bad at the same time.

Johnny Au wrote:What is next? Young Earth Creationists under Ray Comfort systematically editing Wikipedia articles on biology, geology, and astronomy?

Mancunium wrote:Can You Trust What Wikipedia Tells You About Science?
Editing wars shape science ideologies spread to public
Epoch Times, 19 April 2014 link

[...] A team of activists under the label “Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia” are making concerted efforts to change science content on Wikipedia. Some are concerned this group could skew public perception of scientific principles and studies. is.”

Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia : link

Mancunium wrote:Concerns remain about the quality of information. The Wikipedia entry on the topic “Wikipedia” states: “A 2005 investigation in Nature showed that the [Wikipedia] science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of ‘serious errors’. Britannica replied that the study’s methology [sic] and conclusions were flawed.” If people take Wikipedia for what it is, a quick reference resource that may not be entirely accurate, its potential flaws will not have as big an impact. “Skepticism is a normal, healthy attitude of doubt,” Sheldrake wrote. “Unfortunately it can also be used as a weapon to attack opponents. In scientific and medical contexts, organized skepticism is a crusade to propagate scientific materialism.” He said: “Fortunately, a few editors arguing for a more neutral point of view have not yet been bullied into silence. An editing war is raging as you read this.”

justdroppedin wrote:

Mancunium wrote:Concerns remain about the quality of information. The Wikipedia entry on the topic “Wikipedia” states: “A 2005 investigation in Nature showed that the [Wikipedia] science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of ‘serious errors’. Britannica replied that the study’s methology [sic] and conclusions were flawed.” If people take Wikipedia for what it is, a quick reference resource that may not be entirely accurate, its potential flaws will not have as big an impact. “Skepticism is a normal, healthy attitude of doubt,” Sheldrake wrote. “Unfortunately it can also be used as a weapon to attack opponents. In scientific and medical contexts, organized skepticism is a crusade to propagate scientific materialism.” He said: “Fortunately, a few editors arguing for a more neutral point of view have not yet been bullied into silence. An editing war is raging as you read this.”

Emphasis added... because it sounds like this Sheldrake is concern trolling on behalf of superstitionists. I've yet to encounter any actual science that doesn't "propagate scientific materialism."

enwikibadscience wrote:

justdroppedin wrote:

Mancunium wrote:Concerns remain about the quality of information. The Wikipedia entry on the topic “Wikipedia” states: “A 2005 investigation in Nature showed that the [Wikipedia] science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of ‘serious errors’. Britannica replied that the study’s methology [sic] and conclusions were flawed.” If people take Wikipedia for what it is, a quick reference resource that may not be entirely accurate, its potential flaws will not have as big an impact. “Skepticism is a normal, healthy attitude of doubt,” Sheldrake wrote. “Unfortunately it can also be used as a weapon to attack opponents. In scientific and medical contexts, organized skepticism is a crusade to propagate scientific materialism.” He said: “Fortunately, a few editors arguing for a more neutral point of view have not yet been bullied into silence. An editing war is raging as you read this.”

Emphasis added... because it sounds like this Sheldrake is concern trolling on behalf of superstitionists. I've yet to encounter any actual science that doesn't "propagate scientific materialism."

These organized skeptics appear to be something else entirely, though--like the weird American atheist cult.

Jim wrote:

enwikibadscience wrote:

justdroppedin wrote:

Mancunium wrote:Concerns remain about the quality of information. The Wikipedia entry on the topic “Wikipedia” states: “A 2005 investigation in Nature showed that the [Wikipedia] science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of ‘serious errors’. Britannica replied that the study’s methology [sic] and conclusions were flawed.” If people take Wikipedia for what it is, a quick reference resource that may not be entirely accurate, its potential flaws will not have as big an impact. “Skepticism is a normal, healthy attitude of doubt,” Sheldrake wrote. “Unfortunately it can also be used as a weapon to attack opponents. In scientific and medical contexts, organized skepticism is a crusade to propagate scientific materialism.” He said: “Fortunately, a few editors arguing for a more neutral point of view have not yet been bullied into silence. An editing war is raging as you read this.”

Emphasis added... because it sounds like this Sheldrake is concern trolling on behalf of superstitionists. I've yet to encounter any actual science that doesn't "propagate scientific materialism."

These organized skeptics appear to be something else entirely, though--like the weird American atheist cult.

Yeah, the "organised" skeptics remind me a lot of the old "involved cop gone bad" meme, (like Pacino in Serpico, for old farts like me). They "become" the "enemy", to a degree, after long-term exposure. Maybe it's like cooties, and you can catch it.

Captain Occam wrote:The guerrilla skepticism group was also discussed in this thread.

I think Cla68 was considering writing a blog post about them. It looks like he eventually decided against it, but I still think it might be worthwhile.

enwikibadscience wrote:I think, overall, letting the world know, even if only a small way, just how susceptible to manipulation en.Wikipedia is, is a good thing and should always be at the forefront of Forum and Blog posts.

Wikipedia refuses to police its own; and they're incompetent to do so. Let's continue to talk about it.

Captain Occam wrote:

enwikibadscience wrote:I think, overall, letting the world know, even if only a small way, just how susceptible to manipulation en.Wikipedia is, is a good thing and should always be at the forefront of Forum and Blog posts.

Wikipedia refuses to police its own; and they're incompetent to do so. Let's continue to talk about it.

Would you be interested in writing a blog post about this group? Even though I think it ought to be done, I don't think I've been paying enough attention to the group to do a good job writing it myself. (I've also been slowly working on a draft for an unrelated blog post, about Wikipedia's inconsistent application of BLP policy.)