Rational Wiki deletes essay criticizing Rational Wiki

Before responding to what FCP did say, let's take a look at what s/he didn't say. I challenged him/her:

Laird said:
See, you're big on terse, dismissive declarations, but utterly bankrupt when it comes to backing them up. What are these links which "strongly show otherwise"? What was attempted to be shown and how was it shown "otherwise", and why should we believe you? See, it's easy to sling around pat assertions, but can you back them up?

So, how did FCP respond to this particular challenge? Did s/he iterate over each link Rome and I have supposedly provided, as well as each supposedly contrary link, carefully explaining in each case how the contrary link "strongly shows otherwise"? Did s/he offer even any reason to believe s/he even knew what s/he was talking about in the first place? What exactly was his/her response to this challenge to his/her assertion that "those few links [which Rome and I have provided] have been contested with other links, which more strongly show otherwise"?


Silence.


That's right. S/he refuses to even back up his/her own words. Yet every time anyone else says anything remotely factual, his/her go-to is "Evidence, please".

I've responded to every single post on the article talkpage, and either added the change or questioned its merits.

In fact, you did not respond to my edit. You responded to Rome's criticism of the edit that replaced it. The only person who did respond was "Castaigne", who claimed that the edit was unacceptable because I am a "promoter" of Rome. So, firstly we have the genetic fallacy, and, secondly, we have a direct contradiction of your implicit claim that I was welcome to edit. But did you say anything? Maybe a "Oh, hey, Castaigne, you know, that's not quite fair - after all, I invited Laird to edit in the first place"? Nope. Again, silence from you.

"Castaigne" also asked for "independent verification" of the "claims" made in my edit and its justification. I pointed out that all necessary verification can be found in the video of the talk and the direct quotes I provided from it. I further asked which "claims" in particular s/he contested. So, what compelling response did you and others come up with?


More silence.



Your proposed edit [1], in particular, was lacking in substance

Evidence please. (How does it feel, dude?). In fact, it added substance: it explained the entire point of the Google Consciousness meme: as "a snarky rebuttal" to Daniel Dennett, and it explained that (and why) it wasn't intended seriously.

it, in fact, removed hyperlinks.

Yes, links that were on the level of tabloid journalism gossip.

"Ooo, did you see what that Rome Viharo did?"

"No! Oh gosh, what did he do *this* time?"

"You're not going to believe this, he's really done it now!"

"Oh, go on then, tell me!"

"Well, you know that talk he did?"

"Yes, yes, I know it, the one where he said that Google is conscious - I mean, how ridiculous. Now, what's he done?"

"Would you believe that he actually went to a forum and promoted it?"

"NO! Oh, he DIDN'T, did he?"

"I kid you not, that's exactly what he did!"

"Oh, that man! He'll be the death of us".

I've already put up.

Clearly not.

Have you?

Yes, and I've been waiting for a response for days now.

Harassment? RW has an article that documents Mr. Viharo's actions.

Whitewashing, dude...

Some of said actions have unfortunately aided pseudoscience.

OK, this is a kicker quote. It's pretty amusing. Earlier in this thread you admitted that you haven't researched psi at all, and that you defer to other people's judgement of it. Yet here you come out and definitively declare it as "pseudoscience". So, you haven't researched it, and admit that you don't know enough to have an opinion, yet quite happily advance one (categorically) anyway. Then you have the nerve to question why posters on this forum refer to you and others on RW as closeminded!

Seriously, you could make this stuff up, but it doesn't seem to be fiction this time (or is it? Is this a creative trolling campaign? If so: congrats, dude, you really know how to get a rise out of people).

Your block is two days gone; feel free to tell RW why the article is wrong.

Give me a reason to expect I'll be listened to, and that what I say will be acted on - and not just in a "make the most minor adjustments necessary whilst continuing to spin Rome in the worst possible light" way, but in a meaningful, substantive way. I mean it. Give me a real, solid, honest-to-God reason. Then I'll consider it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
Ok I apologise, I am maybe in over my head here and don't really know or understand the full depth of what's going on, between you guys so I can't really comment.

Hey Johnny, you seem to have a good sense of what's going on already; I'd recommend Craig's book, PSI Wars: TED, Wikipedia and the Battle for the Internet to get the bigger picture. (P.S. He's paying me a very healthy commission, so maybe buy three or four of them).

Here's my take on the particular case of Rome, roughly in time order:

  1. A loosely-organised group of skeptics was actively inserting unwarranted negativity into Rupert Sheldrake's article (along the lines of what you noticed on Ian Stephenson's article), and whilst they were opposed, they were generally winning the edit war.
  2. Rupert reached out to Rome as a media guy for assistance in combating them.
  3. Rome agreed to help, and "joined the fray", trying to argue calmly for neutrality.
  4. The skeptics did not appreciate this, they wanted it to continue to go all their way, and so they manipulated Wikipedia procedures to get him banned.
  5. They or others sympathetic to their position then set up a page about Rome on RationalWiki in retaliation. Being based in vengeance, the page has never been objective, but has instead been aimed at casting Rome in the worst light possible.
  6. The page became the top Google search result on Rome's name. Because Rome's professional life is based on the internet, this has had a detrimental effect on his business and potential clients.
  7. Rome has taken to the talk page of the RationalWiki article about him to fight it. He has been remarkably patient and peaceable in the face of the most egregious baiting, harassment, arrogance and victim-blaming. I've tried a little to assist him there but have ended up (twice now) deciding that it's a futile battle.
  8. Despite the fact that the article's origins are in vindictiveness, some RationalWiki editors have recognised that it is an inappropriate article (a "hit piece" in the words of one, "Evolutionist"), and, in fact, in the early days, I counted more editors in favour of deleting it than keeping it. So, they're not all totally unreasonable. There are some sane folk there. Unfortunately, when it came time for a vote (for deletion), the "keeps" won. Twice now.

I hope this helps. Welcome, from one Skeptico newbie to another. :)
 
[citation needed] (as usual)

[lacks a sense of irony] (holistic thinking? Well gee whiz, Craig, what's that? I want a link instead!)

Craig, I think your answer to my question ultimately is "No, they're not conscious of what they're doing, because their ability to think holistically is greatly diminished". Which raises the (to me) interesting question: is it possible to make them aware of it, and what are the psychological consequences for them of becoming aware of it?
 
[lacks a sense of irony] (holistic thinking? Well gee whiz, Craig, what's that? I want a link instead!)

Craig, I think your answer to my question ultimately is "No, they're not conscious of what they're doing, because their ability to think holistically is greatly diminished". Which raises the (to me) interesting question: is it possible to make them aware of it, and what are the psychological consequences for them of becoming aware of it?
I have an idea that lots of people do what they do out of sheer habit and routine. For someone to become aware of anything they do, it is necessary to pause and observe, rather than just continuing in the same repetitive actions.
 
I have an idea that lots of people do what they do out of sheer habit and routine. For someone to become aware of anything they do, it is necessary to pause and observe, rather than just continuing in the same repetitive actions.

Makes a lot of sense. But can you trigger a "pause and observe" (and come to realisation) moment in someone or is that a vain hope; does it have to be spontaneous?
 
Makes a lot of sense. But can you trigger a "pause and observe" (and come to realisation) moment in someone or is that a vain hope; does it have to be spontaneous?
I don't want to make what would seem to be personal comments about anyone. So I can express this only in generalities. Sometimes people may just outgrow patterns which are no longer useful to them. Or one may trigger something if it is already there, just below the surface. Other times it may be much harder, and in any case it involves individual choice, not something imposed by another.
 
General but helpful all the same. Thanks for sharing. Maybe a paraphrasing (which you might or might not accept) is: best not to go into things expecting to be able to change anybody: maybe you will trigger something; maybe you won't, but at the core is human free will, and the other's is as significant as your own.
 
General but helpful all the same. Thanks for sharing. Maybe a paraphrasing (which you might or might not accept) is: best not to go into things expecting to be able to change anybody: maybe you will trigger something; maybe you won't, but at the core is human free will, and the other's is as significant as your own.
Free will is an interesting one. Not everyone accepts there is such a thing. But holding such an idea may be self-fulfilling, in that if one believes one is unable to change, then one won't.

My apologies for the diversion from the main topic of this thread.
 
Massive edit:

In this post, I responded to Typoz in a way that diverts from the thread's purpose: please see a few posts down for the diversionary post in a new, appropriate thread which I created to contain that diversion.
 
Last edited:
E
Or maybe you confuse Denial with Skepticism and are to stupid to know the difference.

My Best,
Bertha


Hey Johnny, you seem to have a good sense of what's going on already; I'd recommend Craig's book, PSI Wars: TED, Wikipedia and the Battle for the Internet to get the bigger picture. (P.S. He's paying me a very healthy commission, so maybe buy three or four of them).

Here's my take on the particular case of Rome, roughly in time order:

  1. A loosely-organised group of skeptics was actively inserting unwarranted negativity into Rupert Sheldrake's article (along the lines of what you noticed on Ian Stephenson's article), and whilst they were opposed, they were generally winning the edit war.
  2. Rupert reached out to Rome as a media guy for assistance in combating them.
  3. Rome agreed to help, and "joined the fray", trying to argue calmly for neutrality.
  4. The skeptics did not appreciate this, they wanted it to continue to go all their way, and so they manipulated Wikipedia procedures to get him banned.
  5. They or others sympathetic to their position then set up a page about Rome on RationalWiki in retaliation. Being based in vengeance, the page has never been objective, but has instead been aimed at casting Rome in the worst light possible.
  6. The page became the top Google search result on Rome's name. Because Rome's professional life is based on the internet, this has had a detrimental effect on his business and potential clients.
  7. Rome has taken to the talk page of the RationalWiki article about him to fight it. He has been remarkably patient and peaceable in the face of the most egregious baiting, harassment, arrogance and victim-blaming. I've tried a little to assist him there but have ended up (twice now) deciding that it's a futile battle.
  8. Despite the fact that the article's origins are in vindictiveness, some RationalWiki editors have recognised that it is an inappropriate article (a "hit piece" in the words of one, "Evolutionist"), and, in fact, in the early days, I counted more editors in favour of deleting it than keeping it. So, they're not all totally unreasonable. There are some sane folk there. Unfortunately, when it came time for a vote (for deletion), the "keeps" won. Twice now.

I hope this helps. Welcome, from one Skeptico newbie to another. :)

I'm haven't got quite used to this forums format yet, But I had a look at Rome Virharo's Rationalwiki page, and it's seems concerned with making his involvement with Rupert Sheldrake the most prominent and noticeable information about him. Obviously Rome doesn't think this is what he should be flagged as most known for. It seems to me like an attempt to defame or mar his character, On the other hand, If Rupert Sheldrake is able to prove his position as viable, it could stand in Rome's favour. Being known for defending someone who is right, isn't a bad thing, is it. But I guess that isn't what's really bothering Mr Virharos, What I think is bothering Rome, is the fact that the spotlight is intensified in one aspect about him, whilst the other greater aspects receive little by way of light.

To be honest, this is way above my head, But that's what I can tell from my side.
 
@johnny:

Before you read Weiler's book, I recommend a look at RW's Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia article. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Guerrilla_Skepticism_on_Wikipedia)

@Laird:

You wanted a response? Enjoy. I must've forgotten your edit, among the dozen ones Rome proposed. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Rome_Viharo#Response)

I glanced through the article. Very amusing. Weiler as crazy conspiracy theorist spinning vast fabrications of evil skeptic plots. What I found most amusing about the whole affair is that the sole proof that anyone ever offered that GS was not involved was them saying they weren't. No disclosure of the members list, no opening up the private Facebook pages to show everyone, no nothing. Just their say so. "We didn't do it." is all you've got.

I don't have proof that they were involved beyond circumstantial evidence, which you can find on my first Wikipedia article which you cite, but never read carefully nor followed the citations. You have no proof that they weren't. Or do you now allow anecdotal evidence?

And the other part of this. It's all a straw man that deflects away from the real problem: the takeover of sections of Wikipedia by a select group in order to push their own agenda.

Wikipedia, by the way, is only one chapter in my book.
 
@johnny:

Before you read Weiler's book, I recommend a look at RW's Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia article. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Guerrilla_Skepticism_on_Wikipedia)

@Laird:

You wanted a response? Enjoy. I must've forgotten your edit, among the dozen ones Rome proposed. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Rome_Viharo#Response)


That was a really in-depth article Fuzzy, Thanks for sharing, I think rationalwiki's take on it was pretty extensive and gave both parties a fair hearing. Although I think GsoW came out of it unscathed,

I pretty much already had an inherent and sympathetic agreement in views with Mr Weiler, before I had even read that article, I feel now more than ever that the right word to employ, is agenda, there is an underlying theme by GsoW, and that is to undermine anything against their agenda, and to downplay anything that is remotely suggestive of the paranormal, and it is even as audacious to admit this, under the banner of skepticism.

My argument is that Wikipedia has become a major source of reference, and through nuance people are becoming conditioned to accept the negative skeptical side of strong suggestive paranormal phenomena.

These people are editing the most prominent study's and downplaying them and thus causing humanity a disservice, if Dr Ian Stevenson has evidence of suggestive cases of re-incarnation where people who carry with them a birth defect suffered from an injury in a previous life and who's memories correlate to that persons life. I want to hear about it, and know some believed he carried out his studies with scientific rigour, not have some GSoW sensor that out, and replace it with, he was regarded as earnest or guilable.

I can't prove who changed it, but it hasn't escaped my attention that there is an underlying theme on Wikipedia that is bias against any thing spiritual and actually does boost materialistic views, to echo the views of Mr Weiler. Only I would say from intuition that there were not only 90 GSoW, I would say probably over a thousand, or at least.

The way I see it, if that's what the world wants, that's what it will get, or maybe the people will always search for their spiritual side, and the relentless efforts of the materialistic guerrillas will be meaningless, where eventually a tipping point and a change in paradigm will come were the infancy of Wikipedia will be outgrown and replaced with a more mature thinking.

But thanks for the link, it was quite informative. I wouldn't want to be on the GSoW hit list, lol could you imagine, if you are just a normal person, you would have to imagine how sinister it really all is. I am all for fair game, skepticism is good, but either I am crazy and woo to believe that there are no ordinary moments but only extraordinary moments. Or those GSoW's are scared of the dark.
 
I glanced through the article. Very amusing. Weiler as crazy conspiracy theorist spinning vast fabrications of evil skeptic plots. What I found most amusing about the whole affair is that the sole proof that anyone ever offered that GS was not involved was them saying they weren't. No disclosure of the members list, no opening up the private Facebook pages to show everyone, no nothing. Just their say so. "We didn't do it." is all you've got.

I don't have proof that they were involved beyond circumstantial evidence, which you can find on my first Wikipedia article which you cite, but never read carefully nor followed the citations. You have no proof that they weren't. Or do you now allow anecdotal evidence?

The problem here is that you have the burden of proof. It's simpler to assume that individual WP editors took offense with Viharo et al's edits, than that a skeptical conspiracy orchestrated the events. Your "circumstantial" evidence (which I didn't see much of present in your blog post, btw) isn't sufficient, especially when the claims that GSOW leaders make are factually based -- in the fossil record, GSOW wasn't involved. Its members didn't edit the page. Unless you can prove otherwise, we should assume against.

And the other part of this. It's all a straw man that deflects away from the real problem: the takeover of sections of Wikipedia by a select group in order to push their own agenda.

And evidence of this is?

Wikipedia, by the way, is only one chapter in my book.

Maybe someday RW will look at the rest.
 
I also picked up in the weakness of the argument that because Susan said she never had any intention to target Rupert Sheldrake, that, that should be a valid reason to dismiss Rupert Sheldrakes suspicion or assumption that he was being targeted.

I can't say Susan was lying, but the accused denial of involvement isn't a strong defence. Although it is an admission and maybe she really had nothing to do with it or her group, but I don't believe there is no smoke without fire, it could however be another group, who likes manipulating Wikipedia pages.
 
The problem here is that you have the burden of proof. It's simpler to assume that individual WP editors took offense with Viharo et al's edits, than that a skeptical conspiracy orchestrated the events. Your "circumstantial" evidence (which I didn't see much of present in your blog post, btw) isn't sufficient, especially when the claims that GSOW leaders make are factually based -- in the fossil record, GSOW wasn't involved. Its members didn't edit the page. Unless you can prove otherwise, we should assume against.



And evidence of this is?



Maybe someday RW will look at the rest.

People with nothing to hide are generally transparent in their actions. GS is very opaque. They don't want people to see what they're up to. And there's that video . . .


As far as Wikipedia and members acting as individuals: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHA!!!!! Got any more good ones? (I'm pretty sure you're not that stupid.)
 
People with nothing to hide are generally transparent in their actions. GS is very opaque. They don't want people to see what they're up to.

GS is opaque? They list their members. They list the articles they want to improve. What's opaque?

And there's that video . . .

What about it?

As far as Wikipedia and members acting as individuals: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHA!!!!! Got any more good ones? (I'm pretty sure you're not that stupid.)

Ha ha? I guess everyone just a part of some conspiracy, and nobody really just goes an edits Wikipedia for the hell of it.
 
I
GS is opaque? They list their members. They list the articles they want to improve. What's opaque?



What about it?



Ha ha? I guess everyone just a part of some conspiracy, and nobody really just goes an edits Wikipedia for the hell of it.


I think the idea that they list the articles they want to improve, is deceptive, they use the word 'improve' but by who's standard, their own I guess.

For instance, they could easily edit someone's Wikipedia page to portray things in a bias and negative light, and then they claim it's with the intention of improvement.

So much sophistry at play here, words are powerful things, but I don't think they should be so militant towards paranormal phenomena and so serving towards materialism.

Isn't that what this is all about?

But then again it could just be the view of the popular mainstream who are intent on defending a more materialist ideology. What can be done?
 
Back
Top