We’ve only in the near past witnessed one of many funniest episodes of UFOlogical stupidity in current reminiscence: A few of UFO’s high Disclosure Warriors dramatically announce they’ve uncovered a “secret cabal” manipulating Wikipedia articles about UFOs. Matt Ford of the Good Bother Present posted this dramatic announcement on TwitX on January 21:
TODAY 530pm Pacific. @RobHeatherly1
joins
us as he exposes the Secret Cabal of debunker Wikipedia Editors run by a
non-profit 501(c)3 focusing on Wikipedia pages on UFOs with a written
assertion by @LueElizondo
.
 |
| Guerrilla Wikipedians should be good saucer pilots, since they’re “wreckless.” |
Disclosure: Technically I’m a member of GSoW, though I’ve not participated in it very a lot. I did add some information to some pages, and I’ve uploaded quite a few my pictures to Wikimedia Commons that may have relevance to UFO historical past.
 | ||||
Susan Gerbic, along with her digital camera as at all times, making associates with the Dinosaur within the Creation Museum in Santee, California in 2012.
To take care of the best requirements attainable, Wikipedia has a strict inclusion coverage that calls for verifiability. That is finest established by attributing every assertion in Wikipedia to a dependable, printed supply (however see Guidelines 7 and eight on extreme self-citing)…. All articles in Wikipedia ought to be neutral in tone and content material. When writing, do state info and info about notable opinions, however don’t provide your opinion as reality. Many newcomers to Wikipedia gravitate to articles on controversial points about which individuals maintain sturdy opposing viewpoints.
There’s a “speak” web page for a lot of articles, to debate or debate the applying of those guidelines to the contents of that web page. These typically flip into huge debates for controversial articles, so when you’ve got an issue with one thing you learn in a Wikipedia article and need to change it, you’d higher have the ability to solidly again up your declare. Given many UFOlogists’ propensity for making thrilling however unfounded claims, it’s frankly no shock that the articles they write would run afoul of Wikipedia guidelines, and find yourself eliminated or re-written.
In the meantime, for any UFOlogist who believes that GSoW has been inaccurate or unfair in what it wrote in a Wikipedia article – then problem them on the article’s Speak web page. If you can also make a great case that they aren’t right, it can get modified, and the change will stay. Plus, you’ll be able to brag to all your folks about the way you defeated the nasty Debunkers on Wikipedia. However I do not see this occurring, and I feel we will work out why. 😉
