Talk:Controversy: ITC Articles by Imants Barušs

From WikiSynergy

The idea of having it "my opinion" was to allow me to express an opinion without making it appear to be a consensus view. Some of the things I say in this article are not supported by evidence or references ... they are just my point of view. I am not sure how to go about that otherwise, although I certainly like having grammar and poorly written material made right.

There will be times when someone like me might try to use the wiki for attack articles. On the other hand, if other editors think comments are too strong for what they would like to see here, they could make changes. Perhaps that is the best way.

Any ideas of how you all would like to go about this? Tom Butler 23:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Journal of Scientific Exploration

The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a pseudoscientific publication, and authors who contribute to it might be willing to contribute to this wiki. Why not contact him and get him to comment on this article? Tarandus 01:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This kind of sweeping, negative generalization without supporting evidence contributes to the collegiality or non-collegiality of the atmosphere on this wiki. I would also frown on someone saying the same thing about the Skeptical Inquirer. Please keep such comments specific. On wikipedia they say "talk about the edit, not the editor." Please talk about the specific content, not the overall presumed orientation, of groups and publications. The key here is "unsupported." If you want to write an essay on how the journal publishes pseudoscience, showing that it is in fact pseudoscience, then that is very acceptable. P^uR^{ple scissor}_talk 02:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but it's rather moot considering the way the word "pseudoskeptic" is being used around here. You're (collective "you") not in a position to point fingers. This happens to be a talk page, not an article page, so different rules apply. Wikipedia would allow my comment, but you have a weird and inconsistent way of making policy decisions on the fly. I wasn't talking about any person or editor, just noting my opinion of the JSE, which is important to my reasoning of why they might be (more) inclined to contribute here (than, for example, editors at the Skeptical Inquirer). My opinion was a vital part of my reasoning. Are you expecting me to hide the fact that I'm a skeptic, when you do so much to make sure the whole world knows? In the business world they say that even bad advertising is better than no advertising, but I'm not interested in any advertising. I'm not a business, I'm a person. If you would allow me to delete it, I'd rather not have an article here or any mention here. I'm not that important. Your focus on the personal lives of skeptics is only distracting this project and damaging its reputation. -- Tarandus (Talk) 02:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism is used much more by those you disagree with than those you agree with. I probably should not give examples, but I could at least mention tobacco. We are giving pseudoskepticism a real definition so that when it is used against you, you can ask for proof. We are making it into a fact claim rather than an insult. In the process, we are encouraging people to be scientific. There is a real problem on Wikipedia: skeptics are allowed to do nearly anything on a talk page, such as call groups kooks, but if you use the word "pseudoskeptic" you are in trouble. They even deleted the article.

As far as making policy on the fly, collegiality has been there from the beginning, see Policy. And I was just warning you to keep it collegial. You didn't go much over the line, if at all. However, keeping up along that line you would have ended up making the environment uncollegial. As far as the reputation of this project, it was doomed from the start with skeptics, as you know. The attitude is that of Shot info, who said that unreality should not be allowed. Well, any project which puts skepticism and non on an equal footing looks utterly biased to skeptics. So, we were doomed from the start on that. The only thing we can do is be open to skeptical opinion if any skeptic is brave enough to meet on equal intellectual and rhetorical ground; which few are.

And yes: any advertising is better than none. If we cannot have equal participation with skeptics because they are used to editing only in controlled environments, then we will be forced to engage in dialogue as with the EVP controversy article, and assume that if they really thought we were wrong they would come and correct us. If there is nothing we can do to gain their trust, that is the fallback. But I assure you, that skepticism, and even pseudoskepticism, is perfectly welcome here. P^uR^{ple scissor}_talk 03:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Skeptics could have take over this wiki and made it look just as skewed toward skepticism as it now looks skewed toward the opposite. It's all a matter of who edits. P^uR^{ple scissor}_talk 03:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

unreality should not be allowed - You probably should have reread of what I actually wrote - rather than what you think I wrote. And the fact that you are thinking this way is the reason why "we" won't be able to have a successful wiki - mainly as there is already a real one, with better rules with a Community of "we" that is greater than one. Shot info 05:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If that is not what you were saying "LOL - can put up both sides - the weak way out. ...By giving weak evidence equal validity with strong evidence, you are going to fail the aims of your website being authoritative." then at least you fail to understand that we are not giving anyone anything. We're putting up both sides without giving validity, period. In that sense we are NPOV. P^uR^{ple scissor}_talk 06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Again you fall into your false dictomy of "both sides". But rest assured, your website (why you persist with the royal "we") is failing from the start. Given that you have edited elsewhere in teh intertubes with your pyschological ramblings, I can now see why you have a problem to comprehend simple english. BTW if you wish people to come and edit this website - going to their blogs and attacking them, then pleading with them to come and edit isn't going to work. For starters there is that whole issue of the other wiki viewed by millions :-). As for this website, I came here to see if I could help out - only to see it used as an attack site against so-called "skeptical editors" on Wikipedia. Of course you have the power to make this change, but you are very reluctant to take down the information - now why is that. What vested interest do you have in getting VU's info out onto the intertubes. But until you do that, you will be viewed by the science community as yet another "woo-pushing" site umongst thousands of others. And heck, you couldn't even have picked an original Wiki site name [1] :-). Maybe you need to get out of your own protected editing enviroment (ie/ your website) and back into an enviroment where you have to follow the rules - like Wikipedia? Shot info 06:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Amusing, "the science community." We are not known in the scientific community. If we took down Cuerden's information -which might be possible given a big enough carrot- what would happen? I think very little, and I think you came here because I informed you, not to help out. In the meantime, that page helps our prominence on the net. Here is a deal: you get the skeptical community to use this site for an ongoing effort to make serious articles directly debunking things (same format as the Controversy: Electronic Voice Phenomena article), and I will try and get agreement to stop doing biographies of those who would not be notable on Wikipedia, and take down the ones we have (this may be opposed by at least one other editor). I would think the idea of letting both sides edit in order that reality should win out would appeal to you? But I do not think this will happen, as the skeptical community does not wish to edit where the playing field is not tipped (which is a shame, because very likely we could get the other side to edit). In other language, I do not think that this project can appeal to the skeptical community except by "attacking" them and getting a response. We will do what we must. P^uR^{ple scissor}_talk 07:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, what is amusing is at the moment you wish to be taken seriously - and you're starting to become a mild amusement out in blogland (I suspect this is what you term the "skeptical community"). Given that it's your website and reputation that is not being elevated and you out there trying to drum up support - then the onus is on you to make the changes necessary to facilitate the input. So how about you let that reality bizzo get in the way - especially since you enjoy physology you should know "How to win friends and influence people". But you just don't seem to get it?

I think you came here because I informed you - really, I guess I really don't know my history then - feel free to continue with your particular delusion. In the mean time your "serious" website has a large article not about "Fringe Topics" or even about your pet theory about "Dark Powers behind Wikipedia". Instead it has some info about an obscure editor on WP, amongst poorly written manifestoes about why you don't like Skeptics. Why don't you follow the example of Tom and actually write about ... I dunno .... your stated goals perhaps?. In the meantime your featured articles don't actually dwell on that subject. Of course you will defend it - but those articles aren't really the goal of this project. So while you can have whatever you want on your website - don't kid yourself by thinking your following your own published goals. In the meantime there is no "pro" versus "con". There is only what there is - which is that evidence thingyo I told you about. I notice that even Tom realises that with EVP and has bene endeavouring to write his articles that way. Shot info 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] About first person

Ah, if I can but in here for a minute....

I removed the "I" in the intro and have tried to make it more "this or that" rather than "I think this or that" so that others can contribute. For a starter, it would be good for references other than from the AA-EVP to be used as they are found.

By the way Shot, you are characterizing a nascent wiki. Give it time to develop. I for one think there is a need for a forum in which an open discussion can be conducted to produce a long lasting article that expresses those ideas in a coherent way. I know you will never understand the point, but Wikipedia is a hostile place for people who want to keep subjects balanced. yes, yes, I know. We do not agree on what is balanced. But you see, in Wikisynergy, we are more willing to put ideas first. Tom Butler 01:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Tom, actually Wikipedia is "robust" not necessarily hostile - especially given the block counts and how they are applied. But getting onto here, you seem to be the only editor who is following the stated goals of Wikisynergy. Which (as they are published) are not about non-notable Wikipedian editors who is labeled a "skeptic" by others. I fail to understand why all of you spend so much energy trying to advance "fringe subjects" when in fact you don't. Most activity on this wiki to date has been about two Wikipedians and a manefesto(s) about Wikipedia and Skeptics. How this mets the stated goals of this wiki requires an enormous leap of faith. So those "ideas" you mention. Do they equate to writing articles about non-notable people? Or is the goal of this website to achieve it's published goals? You see at the moment, it doesn't meet it's goals and if it continues down this path it won't. So why bother with the goals? Can you see what I'm getting at. This site is currently a chimaera and one of two things need to change. Either the goals are altered to met the content, or the content altered to met the goals. Which shall it be? Shot info 01:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There is little wrong with Wikipedia except that it does not follow the rules it has in place (so SI is correct about the block records). There is also the problem of the NPOV policy making it necessary for people to hide their opinions and bias articles in other subtle ways. Shot, you need to look through our pages and note that we have very little information on Wikipedia by comparison to other subjects. There is no conflict between the content and the goals. The goals have not been met, but that does not mean there is a conflict. Also, perhaps you are unaware of the widespread dissatisfaction with Wikipedia. If you were aware of it, you would know why it is important to discuss who writes it and what their orientations and goals are. You do not acknowledge that problem, but perhaps that is why you are on our list of skeptics. P^uR^{ple scissor}_talk 02:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So there is again, this problem that you are failing to comprehend (willfully?). Is the issue "would know why it is important to discuss who writes it and what their orientations and goals are." covered in VU's bio. No. So why do you keep insisting on this strawman? Does any discussion on WP met your goals? No. Does a bio on a Wikipedia editor (and a minor one to boot) met your goals. No. So why do you persist with your falsity. Just change your goals so that you don't have to keep lying about it. It's really simple. Shot info 04:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As for being on the list of skeptics, well given that the list has no merit and the fact that you really have no idea how Wikipedian Editors make it on there just exposes it for what it is. Shot info 04:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

See Goals. P^uR^{ple scissor}_talk 04:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant - Is the issue "would know why it is important to discuss who writes it and what their orientations and goals are." covered in VU's bio? Simple question really. Shot info 05:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. P^uR^{ple scissor}_talk 05:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Where? Shot info 05:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Everywhere. P^uR^{ple scissor}_talk 07:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for not being able to answer the question. Shot info 07:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Shot, I appreciate the compliment, but it may not be deserved. You may notice in my writing that I have a low tolerance for dealing with virtual people. There are several in Wikipedia I would love to see magically turned into real people so that they might take responsibility for their comments. ScienceApologist's minion, Minderbinder and his sidekick, LuckyLouie come to mind. See here for an example. I do not edit in the pages you dislike so much because I am not as knowledgeable in that area and I simply do not have the time. However, I see real value to my community in making sure people know when they are dealing with a skeptic that is not too concerned about balanced presentation of their subject. You need to look at the whole community of people trying to study new subjects. I write for them. The rest are just going to ignore or complain, anyway.

I am confused about you focus on the Wikipedia editor articles. it is a little like a "sidewalk superintendent" complaining to the builder that the house does not look like it is supposed to when the foundation is still being formed. Give it time.

Meanwhile, how about starting an article explaining why a healthy skeptical view of frontier subjects is important? You can see that we are avoiding some of the more inflammatory terms like "fringe" and "wacko," so expect a little help editing. The one thing this wiki will always need is constructive input on both sides of the opinion. Arguing on the talk pages is just a sport. Tom Butler 17:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Tom, I'm not going to spend my time improving a website - when the first thing that happened to me was an attempted outing - which remains sanctioned by the website owner. As for you other comments - I have no issue with you editing here and forgive me if I seem to be attempting to defend WP or encourage you back. No, I'm lauding you as you are the only editor here that is following the goals as listed here in WikiSynergy. The others are only turning what should be a decent project into a "skeptic bashing" and "Wikipedia bashing" website. Of course if it magically turned into a project that did follow it's goals - then it would be worth contributing too. But this would mean that PurpleScissor would have to swallow her pride - delete the crap articles and follow her goals. Until then - the intended glourious message of WikiSynergy will be swallowed by the actual hate-filled message that WikiSynergy is transmitting. And this hate I'm not interested in. Shot info 22:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You failed to even respond to my offer to try and take the articles down if the skeptical community were to do debunking articles here. And our problem with wikipedia is not that it has a viewpoint that it is trying to push onto the world, but rather that it does not come out and say it has a viewpoint. We have a problem with wikipedia editors such as Cuerden being allowed to control Wikipedia. That is the environment fringe ideas live in, and so it is well within our mandate, our goals. If you cannot see that, I think you are being blind on purpose. We hate unscientific thought processes and we hate dishonesty. We do not hate people. But yes, we hate. P^uR^{ple scissor}_talk 22:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

@Tom - WRT to pseudonyms, they have been a respected and well used part of our society and culture since antiquity. The use of them using a modern communications media (ie/ say a wiki) is no different to previous usages down the ages.

@Purple - Cuerden controls Wikipedia - if you think that, then you should try putting in the article (not to mention that if you think that, you're losing focus on who actually controls Wikipedia).

O, if you want a certain class of people to edit your website - then try some of your amateur pop psychology and make your environment here friendly to those you crave to welcome... Until you change, you have no change. Your failure in your hands. Shot info 00:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, you are one of the people who was on my mind when I wrote Why skeptics lose. Our edits across the wiki are perfect examples of it. You mention that I do not answer all your questions and jabs, however I generally answer those which I think a person might need answered even if their mode of though was working with the flow toward understanding rather than against it. I ignore what I think you would understand if you were not acting hostile. P^uR^{ple scissor}_talk 00:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I do like how you enjoy rewriting your own history. 20/20 hindsight is like that.

And maybe you need to chat to your buddies who are lamenting How Skeptics are Winning?

And your manefesto has been taken onboard by the blogosphere as an example of poorly thought out arguments displayed by sites like yours [2], [3]. In fact everywhere you go, you just seem to miss the point that you are craving the acceptance of these people? Why - well you can use your pop psychology to answer that.

So how about you try just answering a question? Otherwise it's called being evasive. For some reason people don't like politicians and used-car salesmen for similar reasons.

Of course it has been speculated that the reason you don't like answering the questions is very simple: it means you have to deal with truths uncomfortable for yourself.

And if you think that you dodging questions makes you a hero to your viewing audience - then keep believing that :-)

But heck - don't take my advice, like I really care - your website will just join the long list of other hobby wikis that are only driven by a solo editor and who lament the fact that they are doing all by themselves [4].Shot info 01:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I just read the Actionskeptics post, and they (and their commentators) are agreeing with us under the guise of criticizing us. P^uR^{ple scissor}_talk 04:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Does it strike anyone else if Imants Barušs's hypothesis about experts commenting outside their area of expertise holds true, it applies to Imants Barušs's opinion about his own opinion? That's just my opinion, of course.

--UnicornTapestry 20:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)