Meet the Guerrilla Skeptics, the "fact checkers" rewriting thousands of UFO wikipedia articles

This is really disturbing. The Guerrilla Skeptics is a nonprofit organization of 100-some authors that has rewritten thousands of wikipedia pages relating to UFOs and other topics they deem to be "pseudoscience."

They have rewritten the pages for scientists, academics, and many UFO events, to "debunk" them or discredit them.

This is a 3 hour video so I am not all the way through yet. I wonder who they are getting their funding from. Who is behind them? Apparently, the organizer of the Guerrilla Skeptics is a convicted felon, too.

a reply to: Mulder11

As I lean both ways, skeptic and conspiracy theorist, regarding this subject matter having read a little about them in the link below strikes me as it's a good thing to question everything.

The Guerrilla Skeptics team is an international group of 100 or so volunteers working in many languages.Our mission is to improve skeptical content on Wikipedia by writing or improving skepticism and science related articles, as well as the biographical articles of notable people involved in the skeptical movement. We add valid material and citations, and we remove unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific articles. We do everything from making small improvements, like improving existing text and references, to writing entire articles from scratch. The team’s topics of interest are varied and include purported psychic mediums, an international suicide hoax game, the supposed “sonic attack” on the U.S. Embassy in Cuba, documentaries (pro- and antiscience), scientists (both active and deceased), alt-med topics, skeptical movement spokespeople and organizations, and even an astronaut. In fact, we did the re-write of the article for the first and only (underappreciated) astro-cat, Félicette (check it out)! Sometimes we add facts, and sometimes we subtract misinformation (or disallowed information per Wikipedia rules); most often it is a mix of both.

Most importantly, we do all this by following the encyclopedia’s strict rules and guidelines. We are trained to work within the “corporate culture” of Wikipedia—which is extremely collaborative and very pro-science and anti-pseudoscience. (More on that later.)

And if Palmer was convicted previously and served his time? so what does that have to do with his abilities and achievement to become an aerospace engineer and perhaps have a say in some matters related to same?

A column by aerospace engineer and Guerrilla Skeptic, Rob Palmer. It features articles on contemporary skeptical issues, and interviews with skeptical movement notables including conference speakers, scientists, skeptical activists, and popular skeptical podcasters.

Other Articles from The Well-Known Skeptic
Beyond the Echo Chamber: A Conversation with AIPT’s Russ Dobler

The Making of a Skeptical Activist: A Conversation with Adrienne Hill

CSICon 2023: Meet the First-Timers

skepticalinquirer.org...

skepticalinquirer.org...

We can listen, do our own research and accept it or reject it, it's our choice.

And another thing, for all you wikipedia nay sayers: ( your audience-targeted social media and news source may well have come from wikipedia )

Now let me make it clear why Wikipedia, and the quality of the information there, is important in the first place. If no one sees the material, who cares how much woo, alt-med, and other nonsense sneaks in, right? Well, according to Alexa, Wikipedia is the fourth most visited website in the English-speaking world. It is only behind the three giants: Google, YouTube, and Facebook (archive.is...). When you realize that in that group only Wikipedia is, well, an encyclopedia, the importance of getting the details correct on that site becomes clear. And, as both Google (and lately YouTube) point their users to Wikipedia, the importance of the encyclopedia having valid information available to people searching for it is absolutely critical. In many Google searches, the Wikipedia article on the searched-for topic is at or near the top of the list. For a search on a woo claim, sometimes it is the only rational, skeptical hit returned. Someone on the fence about a woo claim may be dissuaded from taking on an irrational belief just by stumbling across a well written Wikipedia article on the subject they were Googling.

One more important point: Journalists use Wikipedia. And in the course of research for a story, if a reporter finds skeptical information in an article on a woo topic, they might use that as the basis for a story rather than disseminate nonsense to their reading or viewing public. And this isn’t just a hypothesis.

This is BS.

After watching some of the video, I'm just more pissed.
Why is this ok?
But it isn't surprising.
We will tell you what to believe. Don't think for yourself, and don't investigate for yourself.

But if you do, we are going to change the info, so you believe as we tell you.

Yep, BS.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Mulder11

As I lean both ways, skeptic and conspiracy theorist, regarding this subject matter having read a little about them in the link below strikes me as it's a good thing to question everything.

The Guerrilla Skeptics team is an international group of 100 or so volunteers working in many languages.Our mission is to improve skeptical content on Wikipedia by writing or improving skepticism and science related articles, as well as the biographical articles of notable people involved in the skeptical movement. We add valid material and citations, and we remove unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific articles. We do everything from making small improvements, like improving existing text and references, to writing entire articles from scratch. The team’s topics of interest are varied and include purported psychic mediums, an international suicide hoax game, the supposed “sonic attack” on the U.S. Embassy in Cuba, documentaries (pro- and antiscience), scientists (both active and deceased), alt-med topics, skeptical movement spokespeople and organizations, and even an astronaut. In fact, we did the re-write of the article for the first and only (underappreciated) astro-cat, Félicette (check it out)! Sometimes we add facts, and sometimes we subtract misinformation (or disallowed information per Wikipedia rules); most often it is a mix of both.

Most importantly, we do all this by following the encyclopedia’s strict rules and guidelines. We are trained to work within the “corporate culture” of Wikipedia—which is extremely collaborative and very pro-science and anti-pseudoscience. (More on that later.)

And if Palmer was convicted previously and served his time? so what does that have to do with his abilities and achievement to become an aerospace engineer and perhaps have a say in some matters related to same?

A column by aerospace engineer and Guerrilla Skeptic, Rob Palmer. It features articles on contemporary skeptical issues, and interviews with skeptical movement notables including conference speakers, scientists, skeptical activists, and popular skeptical podcasters.

Other Articles from The Well-Known Skeptic
Beyond the Echo Chamber: A Conversation with AIPT’s Russ Dobler

The Making of a Skeptical Activist: A Conversation with Adrienne Hill

CSICon 2023: Meet the First-Timers

skepticalinquirer.org...

skepticalinquirer.org...

We can listen, do our own research and accept it or reject it, it's our choice.

And another thing, for all you wikipedia nay sayers: ( your audience-targeted social media and news source may well have come from wikipedia )

Now let me make it clear why Wikipedia, and the quality of the information there, is important in the first place. If no one sees the material, who cares how much woo, alt-med, and other nonsense sneaks in, right? Well, according to Alexa, Wikipedia is the fourth most visited website in the English-speaking world. It is only behind the three giants: Google, YouTube, and Facebook (archive.is...). When you realize that in that group only Wikipedia is, well, an encyclopedia, the importance of getting the details correct on that site becomes clear. And, as both Google (and lately YouTube) point their users to Wikipedia, the importance of the encyclopedia having valid information available to people searching for it is absolutely critical. In many Google searches, the Wikipedia article on the searched-for topic is at or near the top of the list. For a search on a woo claim, sometimes it is the only rational, skeptical hit returned. Someone on the fence about a woo claim may be dissuaded from taking on an irrational belief just by stumbling across a well written Wikipedia article on the subject they were Googling.

One more important point: Journalists use Wikipedia. And in the course of research for a story, if a reporter finds skeptical information in an article on a woo topic, they might use that as the basis for a story rather than disseminate nonsense to their reading or viewing public. And this isn’t just a hypothesis.

Wow, you are very supportive of whitewashing an entire area of study, to rewrite everything in favor of your beliefs.

I’ll bet you wouldn’t support it if the end product favored a different outlook than yours. Of course this could never happen on wiki or youtube. It used to be impossible on Twitter, before Musk came along. It’s whey he’s so hated by the left.

a reply to: arcticshuffle

In other words, yes, I am supportive of science not pseudoscience and I am supportive of questioning everything and doing your own research. That research can, of course, be subjective due to one's bias, hence me being both a skeptic and conspiracy theorist. All I can say, is keep an open mind and carry on.

originally posted by: chiefsmom
This is BS.

After watching some of the video, I'm just more pissed.
Why is this ok?
But it isn't surprising.
We will tell you what to believe. Don't think for yourself, and don't investigate for yourself.

But if you do, we are going to change the info, so you believe as we tell you.

Yep, BS.

The left is on the job 24/7/365. They are always looking for yet another way to lie cheat and steal.
Couple that with their retarded / generally sick zeal, it’s not even surprising what they’re willing to do, and be seen doing.
They also have endless dregs of society that have nothing in their lives but activism and violence. No jobs, no families, no church or other positive affiliations. Only angry destruction and various cheats.

Just think, if they applied the "we dont understand it so it doesnt exist" anti-philosophy to say a field like neuroscience or gardening--they would be called out for being intellectually dishonest. But ist ok, because they smoked weed with a physicist once back in the 70s.

Who was it who said: Id rather questions we cant answer, than answers we cant question?

Meet Centre for Inquiry's Kenny Biddle.

CIF is in cahoots with Guerrilla Skeptics and many other skeptics organizations.

Believers and skeptics have been clashing forever, nothing to see here folks.

a reply to: BeTheGoddess2

Actually, it isn't just the UFO and Paranormal they are going after. The guy in the beginning reads down some of the lists they are changing.

It also includes homeopathy and some other things.

So yeah, they need to be called out.

originally posted by: BeTheGoddess2
Just think, if they applied the "we dont understand it so it doesnt exist" anti-philosophy to say a field like neuroscience or gardening--they would be called out for being intellectually dishonest. But ist ok, because they smoked weed with a physicist once back in the 70s.

Who was it who said: Id rather questions we cant answer, than answers we cant question?

Who was it who said: "A wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence."

You can't prove a negative, so it's not science.

But if they are so scientific and such, why not go after something that can be proven with real science. Like men can not turn into women.

Good to know they also don't like the "alt right". Basically anything they disagree with. Chode huffers

a reply to: Mulder11

I knew this was coming in multiple forms. I saw it decades ago as I collect books on the UFO topic. I often visited used book stores and found any such titles missing when a few days before they would have several. --Somebody was clearing the shelves of informative books that helped verified the topic. I suspected local FBI agents were given that task in their areas.

I am a UFO abductee from 1964. My son and his GF experienced a bedside abduction in 1991. The so-called "medical exams" were in many ways real experiences for any abductee. There is far, far more to the UFO "experience" upon the entire world than any of you care to admit. And TPTB are dead-set on keeping you in the dark as they work their programs to soften the impact of the alien intrusion in all of our lives. Some aspects are good, and some are your worst nightmare. The shift is toward consciousness, far beyond the day-to-day, dog-eat-dog and "look at my new car/TV/thing that we all, now, aspire to have.

Governments MUST tighten their grips upon us, they, after all, do not want things to change much outside of their powers. So, remember:

You have only the "rights" that you are allowed to have.

a reply to: CosmicFocus

These skeptical "volunteers" have nothing to do with government.

originally posted by: chiefsmom
This is BS.

After watching some of the video, I'm just more pissed.
Why is this ok?
But it isn't surprising.
We will tell you what to believe. Don't think for yourself, and don't investigate for yourself.

But if you do, we are going to change the info, so you believe as we tell you.

Yep, BS.

It all goes back to this……

👽

a reply to: Mulder11

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” - George Orwell

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: BeTheGoddess2
Just think, if they applied the "we dont understand it so it doesnt exist" anti-philosophy to say a field like neuroscience or gardening--they would be called out for being intellectually dishonest. But ist ok, because they smoked weed with a physicist once back in the 70s.

Who was it who said: Id rather questions we cant answer, than answers we cant question?

Who was it who said: "A wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence."

If you truly believe this, you wouldn’t support wiki, youtube, the vast majority of fact checking, dis and mis information programs, and so on. The “outcomes”, data, and content are always so pro-left, that it’s ridiculous.
You’re already on record here with excusing whatever wiki may do, so there’s that.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: CosmicFocus

These skeptical "volunteers" have nothing to do with government.

They perform at the behest and whims of the wiki founders, top Mgt, and so on. All of whom are just silly with leftist fervor.
Compare Twitter pre and post Musk. Pre was 100 % savage leftist, post is more like 50-50. The left was PO’d with a white-hot hate at FINALLY not getting everything their way, in one little outlet.

Sometimes I go to their "Rational Wiki" on controversial topics just to find out the pedantic myopia BS.

Which beggs the question, if they already have their own wiki for septics, do they really need to troll wikipeadia?

Phenomenology is a legit field of study, but noooooooooo its all "woo" to them.

This has nothing to do with science. It's Propaganda pure and simple. Who is saying what they are saying is the truth.
Now science and scientists. What's the difference between science and pseudoscience to scientists and ordinary people? Answer, nothing. The vast majority of science and scientist cannot actually prove they are absolutely correct. They can only claim "correctness" till something else comes along to prove them wrong. Buuuttt, main stream scientists have a deep aversion to anybody, other scientists or god forbid a normal person, that prove them wrong.
All the way down history, scientists and ordinary people have proven the set scientific dogma to be wrong and in those instances the main stream scientists scream pseudoscience to close down investigation and blacken the names of their adversaries.

a reply to: Mulder11

As most ATS member have always regarded Wiki as not a reliable source for information, then who cares what they do.