SGU24 ~ What were their Wikipedia Stats?

I'm sure after they get a extra long night of sleep the crew of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe‎ podcast will be evaluating their first ever 24-hour podcast extravaganza.  Steven Novella stated that their goal was to raise critical thinking levels with a dose of skepticism and science (I'm paraphrasing here).  They had a meter that they checked every so often that went from red to green.  I have no idea how they were measuring this gauge or if it was just a prop for the show, but what Novella is advocating is exactly what I have been blogging about for the last few months.

Increasing awareness of skepticism/critical thinking/science is good for society.  A win-win for everyone!

There are many ways to achieve this goal, the SGU felt it could help out our cause by staying awake for 24 hours and letting the world watch them do it.  Maybe it helped?  There were thousands of views, and tons of tweets everywhere. It certainly made people talk and engage with each other, thats all a good thing strengthening our community.  I managed to make it through about 4 hours on Friday night and about 3 hours before and after work on Saturday.

During the hours I watched I managed to get some quick Wikipedia editing done (as I noted in the comments of this blog) Dustin scored a couple great updates to Boiron‎ and  Oscillococcinum‎'s pages.  Lei finished up Vashti McCollum‎'s page, and I'm hoping others were editing away while listening also. I tweeted the Wikipedia edits as they were being finished on the SGU24 tweet, the JREF and Tim Farley re-tweeted a few times.  All good.  I didn't get any comments from the watchers or the SGU (as far as I know) who were following the tweets.  I'll try not to be cynical, but the chat room and the tweets seemed more concerned with the social aspect of the whole event (like how much bacon they could eat) and as I said, bringing us together is a good thing.  Personally I would have liked to see them suggest things for the community to do...write letters, tutor a child, sponsor a classroom... edit Wikipedia for skeptical content... you know things that really improve critical thinking. 

I believe that when someone is in the media's eye and the listener is not sure who they are, or wants to refresh their memory of the person, they are going to turn to the Internet to fill them in.  When typing in that name, usually within the first few hits they will see a link to a Wikipedia page (if that person is noteworthy enough to have a page).  For many reasons (people are familiar with Wikipedia, no popups, no virus, easy to use, neutral and usually sums up the person in a few paragraphs) most people will click on the Wikipedia link before they go to a "personal" website.  Maybe after reading the Wikipedia page they will follow the links to other websites.  I don't have access to their websites sats, but if they are curious about their hits from Wiki most webservices will tell them where they are receiving "referrals" from. 

I thought it might be interesting to see what kind of hits came in to the "skeptical spokespeople"'s Wikipedia pages for 9/23.  The site I'm using is something you can use also.  http://stats.grok.se/  There is a delay in recording the numbers and I might be premature blogging too early. The delay might be as much as a day, depending on time zones and maybe other things.  We can look at these same Wiki pages in a day or so and see that we can see.

I'm not going to give the real numbers (don't want to turn this into a popularity contest, if you want to know how many hits a site gets, you can plug them into the Wikipedia article traffic statistics tool.  Everything is in percentage based on what is considered normal for Sept 2011.

SGU - +300%
Rebecca Watson - +216%
Steven Novella - +300%
Jamy Ian Swiss - +430%
Richard Saunders - +180%
George Hrab - +34%
Adam Savage - +152%
Tim Minchin - no increase (may be too early to look at his results)

Is this totally scientific? No.  Lots of things might be affecting these numbers.  But it is interesting.

I mention all this not just because I want more people to get involved in doing something to help out the skeptical cause by editing Wikipedia for skeptical content.  But because we need to make sure we have the backs of our skeptical spokespeople.  They represent us!  When people go to their pages, they will be exposed to other skeptical/science/critical thinking hyperlinks that they may follow and read.  They may also click on the links at the bottom of the Wikipedia page (the external links and further reading links).

This is a part of guerrilla skepticism and just plain common sense.  We need to make sure these pages are in order, well written, current, engaging and so on.  You can help, please help, there is so much that needs to be done.  Open a Wikipedia account, ask for help, read this blog for ideas, whatever it takes.  Just join the cause and help.

Note!
Our very own Karen Stollznow will be appearing on Anderson Cooper's talk show on October 10th.  She says that she was only one of several people all talking about the harm that psychics cause.  She didn't get to say a lot, but she is going to be our spokesperson for those few comments.  And when people google her (and you know they will) they will find that we have her skeptic back!

FYI this blog discusses the stats after the NBC Nightline "Beyond Belief" show that the JREF recently did. 

More very very basic Editing ~ Pet Psychics page as example

If you haven't already read This Blog, you might want to visit there first.  We worked on correcting spelling, adding and removing hyperlinks and how to use Watchlists. I'm going to continue editing the Pet Psychic Page as our example.  I do have an article by Karen Stollznow that I want to incorporate into the pet psychic page, I will try to explain my thinking as I edit the page as well as the "how-to" of doing so.  (NOTE: the hyperlink above to the pet psychic page is the one you should use if you are following along with this blog, it contains the page before making these changes. In other words the Before, if you just want to jump to the After then click here.)

As I said before, this is just a wall-o-text, most readers are going to be bogged down trying to read through it.  We need to get a bit more organized before proceeding with Karen's article.  I'm going to insert headings to help.

I don't want to re-write the article, just better organize it.  If you want to have a go at it after reading this blog, please do so.  That is part of the joy of Wikipedia.

We are looking at 7 paragraphs.  The lede (first paragraph) is okay, but I think that the criticism part where it starts "The scientific community has rejected all claims of psychic phenomena..." should be in its own section.  Also the 7th paragraph is about the history of pet psychics and should go towards the beginning. 

At the end of paragraph 3 there is this sentence "In recent years quantum physics has been able to redress the balance with experiments and meta-analyses of work on thought transfer".  I followed the citation at the bottom of the Wiki article and the author is this person.  Dean Radin, the citation is a book that he wrote in 2006, but it gives you no way of following the cite, no page numbers ect.  So this sentence will be removed from the pet psychic article.  If the original editor wants to put it back in then he/she will have to better reference it. 

The last sentence of paragraph 7 is badly worded, "The number of businesses offering pet psychic services has steadily increased but the industry remains unregulated and its claims unverifiable scientifically".  I think that sounds better. 

Love this line, "They claimed they could communicate telepathically,[28] then came the discovery that they could also communicate with animals...even animals that have died." What "discovery"?  Again referencing a paranormal book with no page number where this knowledge is coming from.  I Think this sentence will also change.  "They claimed they could communicate telepathically with animals living or dead."

This whole paragraph needs to go.  "Reasons for consulting a pet psychic vary, but typically center on bringing a troubled human and animal companion relationship to mutual satisfaction.[23][26] Bernadine Cruz, a veterinarian in Laguna Hills, California, states, "animal owners sometimes seek to center themselves through their pets, and whisperers make it easy."[2] Others pet psychics specialize in helping develop a better relationship with a household pet or competitive partnership with a horse." The veterinarian is not noteworthy, and the whole paragraph does nothing for the article. 

I'm going to clean this up further by adding paragraph headings.  This is done by typing ==name of heading==  the more = signs you use, the bigger the font the heading becomes.  So if you are adding a heading to an article that already exists use the same amount of = signs as are in the rest of the article. 

I'm going to insert headings called ==In the media== and ==Criticism of pet psychics== I've been told by other editors who keep changing my edits that Wikipedia does not capitalize every word in a heading even though I think it looks better that way. 

This paragraph seems to be getting a total pass... "

Parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake claims that he has shown in experiments that some pets are psychic. A parrot, N'kisi, in New York uttered statistically more words that had to do with random cards her owner were looking at in another room in one series of experiments,^[16] and in another series of experiments a dog, Jaytee, spent statistically more time at the window during the time his owner was on her way home (at random times) than other times when Jaytees owner was out^"

I'm going to have to look into this article and see if there has been any investigation into it.  I just can't let these statements saying there is evidence for psychic pets go unchallenged.  But in true Wikipedia fashion I won't delete the paragraph, but look for something to add to it.  I know Richard Wiseman has done some experiments similar to Jaytee.  But what I would like to find is someone writing about Sheldrake's experiments. 

Okay, some time has passed and I've been reading about Sheldrake's dog coming home tests.  I found an article by Joe Nickell about pet psychics and he mentions Wichard Wiseman's replication of Sheldrake's experiment. Here is the part of Nickell's article that I'm going to glean from. 

The researchers responded to a suggestion by Rupert Sheldrake that just such a study be undertaken, and it followed a formal test of the alleged phenomenon by an Austrian television company. That test focused on an English woman and her dog and seemed successful. Wiseman et al. (1998) conducted four experiments designed to rule out the pet’s responding to routine or picking up sensory cues (either from the returning owner or from others aware of the expected time of return), as well as people’s selective memories and selective matching, and other possible normal explanations.

In all four experiments the dog failed to detect accurately when her owner set off for home, contradicting claims made on the basis of the previous (Austrian TV) study. The experiments suggested "that selective memory, multiple guesses and selective matching could often have sufficient scope to give an owner the impression of a paranormal effect."

Each editor of Wikipedia does this differently, I like to quote.  Wikipedia would rather you write it in your own words and quote only a bit, so lets give it a go here.  

"Replicating Sheldrake's experiment with Jaytee,  [[Richard Wiseman]] in 1998 designed four tests for a dog a Austrian television show felt had been successful knowing when its owner would return home.  Wiseman ruled out all cues and routines the dog could previously have been picking up.  When tested with these controls the dog failed all four tests.  [[JREF]] investigator [[Joe Nickell]] writes that "the experiments suggested "that selective memory, multiple guesses and selective matching could often have sufficient scope to give an owner the impression of a paranormal effect."

Can you improve on my writing? Probably!  Your welcome to edit the blurb on Wikipedia.

Now we need to cite it.  Here is the link to the article again.  http://www.csicop.org/si/show/psychic_pets_and_pet_psychics/  The author is Joe Nickell, for Skeptical Inquirer Magazine,Volume 26.6, November / December 2002, article is called "Psychic Pets and Pet Psychics". Investigative Files is the name of his column This should be all we need to cite the article.  I'm placing this blurb right after the third paragraph where they reference Sheldrake.  I know that what I'm writing is criticism and should go under the criticism heading, but I want it to flow from the previous paragraph.  We can always change it. 

I find it easier to look for another journal reference located on the page I'm editing, copy and paste it where I want it to go (or on a word document somewhere else) then change all the details.  Lets try it.  I found this reference (called "cite web" there were other references that were called "cite book").

<ref name=Gracely>{{cite web |last=Gracely, Ph.D. |first=Ed J. |authorlink= |title=Why Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof |work=PhACT |year=1998 |url= http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/extraproof.html|accessdate=2007-07-31}}</ref>

Here is what it looks like in the References area.  ^ Gracely, Ph.D., Ed J. (1998). "Why Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof". PhACT. Retrieved 2007-07-31.

Pretty intimidating looking isn't it?  If you want something to appear as a footnote then you must use something that starts with <ref and ends with </ref>    Everything must be changed exactly, so when you are doing something like this, try not to get distracted.  Do it at one sitting.

<ref name=Nickell>{{cite web |last=Nickell |first=Joe |authorlink= |title=Psychic Pets and Pet Psychics |work=Investigative Files |year=November-December 2002 |url=http://www.csicop.org/si/show/psychic_pets_and_pet_psychics/ |accessdate=2011-08-27}}</ref>

This is what it looks like on "Preview"

^ Nickell, Joe (November-December 2002). "Psychic Pets and Pet Psychics". Investigative Files. Retrieved 2011-08-27.

Lets use Joe Nickell's article for another area on the page.   Here is what Joe writes about pet psychics.

People who are both devoted to their pets and credulous about the paranormal may easily fall prey to unsubstantiated claims of pet psychics. Some profess to treat animals’ emotional problems, for example, after supposedly communicating with them by ESP or other paranormal means, such as through astrology or assistance from the seer’s "spirit guides" (MacDougall 1983; Cooper and Noble 1996).

Having studied pet psychics at work—including Gerri Leigh (with whom I appeared on Springer) and Sonya Fitzpatrick (star of the Animal Planet channel’s The Pet Psychic)—I find that they impress audiences with some very simple ploys. Consciously or not, they are essentially using the same fortunetellers’ technique—"cold reading"—that is used for human subjects. This is an artful method of gleaning information from someone while giving the impression it is obtained mystically (Hyman 1977). After all, it is the pet owners, not the pets themselves, who "validate" the pronouncements. Here is a look at some of the common cold-reading techniques used by pet psychics.

These and other techniques help convince the credulous that pet psychics have telepathic or clairvoyant or other powers.

Lets glean something from this to use in the criticism section. 

[[Joe Nickell]] believes that [[cold reading]] is the reason why so many pet psychics look like they are communicating with animals.  Watching pet psychics like Gerri Leigh and [[Animal Planet]]'s [[Sonya Fitzpatrick]] work in front of an audience, their conversations with the animals appear to be impressive until you understand that "it is the pet owners, not the pets themselves, who "validate" the pronouncements."

We can use the exact same citation.   At first I didn't hyperlink to Joe Nickell, but looking at the "show preview" as I'm adding this on to the page, it seems it has been many paragraphs since Joe was linked, so I'm going to do it.  Also because I'm checking the "preview" each time I noticed that Gerri Leigh whom I had first tried to hyperlink to is giving me only red print.  I searched for her on Wikipedia and she does not have a page, so I'm removing the [[ ]] around her name. 

There might be more I can glean from Nickell's article, but lets move on.  Here is Karen Stollznow's article that brought me to use the pet psychic page as the example on how to edit.  http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/ballad_of_jed_and_the_pet_psychic  Article called "The Ballad of Jed (and the Pet Psychic)" March 2003 for Skeptical Inquirer Magazine. 

Here are the parts that sum up the article (the conclusion), I will need to glean two or three sentences that will represent the article on the pet psychic page. 

On the basis of this session, Ann didn’t provide any evidence of psychic abilities but instead appeared to employ similar techniques, either consciously or not. As confirmed by Jed’s owners, Ann was completely inaccurate in her reading of Jed’s age, place of birth, background, behavior, health, and my health. The shelter “hit” was more miss, posed as a question, and then an uncertain claim with the caveat “think.” Most damning of all, Jed is not my cat, and my home is not his!
It’s an easy gig to speak on behalf of the voiceless. Animal communication, of a paranormal nature, presupposes that the pet is telepathic, is able to understand human language and thought, and able to “respond” in kind. “Interspecies communication” appears to be a visual and subjective or imaginative interpretation of the physical and behavioral traits of non-human animals. No matter how many commands your dog responds to, no matter how many words Koko can sign, no matter how many words your parrot can mimic, language is human-species specific. We don’t and can’t “know” what animals think. Despite our own linguistic abilities, it’s difficult enough to know what people think. 

I've already read the article several times, so writing it in my own words with very few quotes shouldn't be a problem.  

Linguistic professor [[Karen Stollznow]] writing for [[Australian Skeptics|The Skeptic]] magazine tested a pet psychic with a cat named Jed.  Not only was the psychic "completely inaccurate in her reading of Jed’s age, place of birth, background, behavior, health, and my health..." she was unable to tell that Jed was not her cat.  Stollznow concludes that "language is human-species specific. We don’t and can’t “know” what animals think."

Now our citation.  Lets just use Nickell's cite as a starting point, change out everything to apply to Karen's article.  

<ref name=Stollznow>{{cite web |last=Stollznow |first=Karen |authorlink= |title=The Ballad of Jed (and the Pet Psychic) |work= |year=March 2003 |url=http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/ballad_of_jed_and_the_pet_psychic |accessdate=2011-08-27}}</ref>

^ Stollznow, Karen (March 2003). "The Ballad of Jed (and the Pet Psychic)". Retrieved 2011-08-27.

Notice on the reference cite I left blank the "work=" area.  On Nickell's article I wrote "Investigative Files" on Karen's I didn't know what to write so I just left it blank.  The same thing was done on both Karen and Joe's cites where it says "authorlink=".  I didn't know what to write there so I left it blank.  The citation still footnotes and looks wonderful!   

So now I'm going to preview the page one more time, it is already on my watchlist.  I'm going to write "added two articles and reorganized the page" in the edit summary.  Then when I'm sure I'm completely done I will "publish" the page. 

So I'm done working on this page.  Please feel free to expand the article, rewrite it, fix grammar or whatever you think is needed.  Remember we are looking for neutral tones, let the reference you are citing speak for you.  I left almost everything that was in the page when I got to it, just moved things around and added the two articles. 

There were several things I almost did to make the skeptic side sound better, but I removed them.  For your learning sake this is what I didn't include (but wanted to).  Professor [[Richard Wiseman]] or [[Richard Wiseman]] PhD. 

The same thing with Joe Nickell.  I wanted to write "after years of experience investigating pet psychics..." this would also have been non-neutral, I'm sure I could have come up with references to his "years of experience" but it wouldn't have anything to do with the article.

I did include the words "Linguistic professor" for Karen's blurb.  I suppose that could be removed, but as I was quoting her about human communication, I felt that in this case it was an important part of the blurb. 

Just in case you were wondering how many people we can expect will read our newly improved pet psychic page... About 350 a month or 4,200 a year.  Is that a lot?  If I, Susan Gerbic were to write a blog about those same two articles and place it somewhere on the Internet for the world to read, I doubt that I could get that many reads.  Keep in mind that whether or not I wrote the blog, people are still going to be visiting the Wikipedia page.  I'd rather those 350 people find the Wiki page. 

As I said, I'm moving on to other Wikipedia articles that need improvement as well.  This one isn't perfect, but it is way better.  I hope you learned from my thought process, and maybe it will make you a better editor.  Improve on what I'm teaching you, and the only way to do that is to get out there and EDIT! 

Susan

Did You Know? Front Page of Wikipedia ~ Karen Stollznow

What would you do if you were given a 24 hour notice that 5,000 strangers were going to come trampling in your house, looking through your drawers and cupboards, when your not there to greet them?   The catch is that you want them to visit, you want them to look under the bed and behind the couch.  These are total strangers who you are inviting in.  Kinda a scary idea isn't it?  How does your house look, is it ready?

This is about to happen to a Wikipedia page that Tim Farley created for Karen Stollznow.  I helped add a few links here and there, but the credit for the site and getting Karen on the front page of Wikipedia for 8 hours on Saturday July 23, 2011 is completely Tims.

First go to the main Wikipedia page (I've heard this is one of 3 leading pages on the Internet).  You will see several catagories...

Today's Featured Article
In the News
On this Day...
Did you know?

Tim Farley apparently figured out how we can use the "Did You Know?" section to our skeptical advantage.  This is right up there with the "Got Your Wiki Back" project.  I'm not exactly sure how this all works (and you can read about it right there on the Wiki site) but from what I've learned the featured pages are there because someone requested they be there.  The Wiki page has to be new and the quote that is left there must be something that can be linked to a really good source.

Why is this important?

Well because the 8 hours that the site is listed will generate about 5K extra hits.  And not only will Karen's page be accessed, but the ripple effect will cause all the links that are on her page to also be accessed (to a lesser degree). 

So there is a flurry of activity going on behind the scenes tonight, getting the last bit of crumbs off the counter and linking everything possible in order to get ready for the visitors.  Nothing like a looming deadline in your face to get things done.  This Wiki page was created today in anticipation of Karen's premier.  

For those interested in how things work, here is the queue for the Did You Know page.  

BTW today Tim Farley released this blog giving more reasons why skeptics should be editing Wikipedia. 

Check out the home page for Wikipedia Saturday July 22, 2011.

TAM9 ~ The Amaz!ing Meeting

Wow!  Just getting in from The Amaz!ing Meeting (which it was) and the first thing I'm doing is uploading pictures so I can get started adding them to Wikipedia.

I did not attend any lectures accept 10 minutes of Richard Wiseman's awesome lecture.  And the two Sunday paper presenters who followed me.  Ashley F. Miller was very well received with her lecture on "Emotions Aren’t the Enemy".  I followed Michael Hartwell's polished lecture on "The Media Isn't Calling Your Skeptics Group, and It's Your Fault".  Michael at one point in his presentation talked about how ridiculous would it look if an Alt Med Wikipedia page had no skeptical criticism on it.  It was a perfect lead in for my talk. While I was in the room for the other papers I was focused on my notes and sadly didn't get to hear any of the other presentations.  Guess I will have to wait for the DVD's.

I spent an enormous amount of time in the hallway mostly at the IIG table, meeting people and snapping pictures.  It was such a blast.  Besides hanging out with friends and the "Hug Me I'm Vaccinated" campaign (which was so well done, important and FREE) the best part about TAM was meeting people interested in talking about Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (and the Got your Wiki Back project).   

Oh my gosh, what a blast it was to be up on stage and have all those people listening to me.  I could have gone on for hours giving examples and answering questions...but I only got 15 minutes.  I gave away maybe 200 business cards with the URL for here, so I can only hope.  If you are new to this blog, Welcome!  We really want you here, please look over the past posts, add us to your RSS feed and please, please, please comment.

About the presentation.  I really had to cut way back on everything, giving a general overview of a project this big is really difficult.  The examples I gave were Joe Nickell's article on Vassula Ryden (which Anna finished editing the same day I presented) and the JREF Pigasus Award to CVS Pharmacy.  I have the video of my lecture and will clean it up and load it to my YouTube site.  I'll let you know when that is finished but I suspect at least a week. 

So here is the Wikipedia lowdown, I'll try to keep it in some kind of chronological order.

Sean Faircloth & Secular Coalition for America:

Wednesday night Stirling and I arrive at South Park Casino in Las Vegas and head to the Del Mar Bar, that's where everyone hangs out.  I struck up a conversation with Sean Faircloth from the Secular Coalition for America, I have seen his lecture at least once before and I remember being very impressed.  He is a great speaker with a "go get em" kind of personality that I can relate to.  I had never visited his Wikipedia page nor the one for the SCA.  I told him about the "Got your Wiki Back" project and asked if he had a picture on his page already.

He said he hated having his picture taken because he rarely came out looking good in pictures.  So I sat him down and snapped one.  I think it turned out rather well, and just added it as the main picture to his page.  I moved the image that was already there to lower on the page (I thought it looked rather gray and dull, but it is one of those nice "action" shots that work well). 

Sean told me that he had heard that it was possible to somehow link the names on his page to other links.  He mentioned Richard Dawkins and several others.  I explained that this should be an easy change and I would look into it when I got home.  And this is exactly what I have done, if you look at the history of the page you will see the before and after. (click on the "view history" tab at the top of the page).  I also went through the page and added hyperlinks to all the proper nouns throughout.

To add hyperlinks go to "edit" at the top of the page next to "view history".  Then you will be looking at the HTML writing, every word or phrase that you want to hyperlink to you just put the [[ in front of the word, then ]] at the end of the word.  Write something in the "edit summary" like "added several hyperlinks".  Check the "watch this page" box so it can be added to your watchlist and you will know if someone has changed this page.  Then hit "preview changes" and look at what you changed.  If there is any red writing then something is wrong.  In the case of Faircloth I tried to hyperlink to name Woody Kaplin and it came out red.  Either Woody Kaplin does not have a Wikipedia page, or the name of his page is different than Woody Kaplin, maybe his real name is Robert Kaplin?  Anyway, I'll leave that for someone else.

I linked to all the names which should have been done when the page was created.  The page really needs a lot more work than I have time for.  Someone with more writing skill than I have needs to go into "edit" and rewrite the page.  This would take me hours to do correctly, but I'm sure one of you can finish it up in minutes.  For example nearly every paragraph starts with "Faircloth this..." or "In (insert year) Faircloth...that". 

Also if his page needs work I'm sure the SCA page needs the same kind of work.  I didn't really look at the page but someone please check into it.  (as usual if you are working on the page could you please comment).  Just checked out the "discussion" page for the SCA, totally funny. 

James McGaha:

I am shocked to discover that he does not have a Wiki page, only a mention.  I've got pictures waiting for a page to put them on...hint...hint...hint.  His TAM9 blurb looks pretty impressive, I've seen him lecture a few times at skeptical events and I would think he needs a page as a part of the "We Got your Wiki Back" project.

Richard Saunders: 

You don't know how bad I want to put this picture on Saunders Wikipedia page.  But I suppose I won't because he is really a good guy.  I think it would jazz up the page quite a bit and it is a tribute to Randi. 

Richard has one of those pages like Brian Dunnings that goes to a   disambiguation page.  Really would like to figure out how to fix this, but I don't have the skill.








While we are on the subject of changing pictures on sites that already have images, take a look at these two pictures I got.  Would love to hear some opinions if these images should go on their pages.

 

George Hrab

Brian Dunning

This next edit I did was completely the idea of Tim Farley.  I was invited to a speaker dinner on Saturday night and Tim pulled me aside and asked me to get a picture of the 4 latest JREF fellows.  Tim had already added a blurb on the JREF page in anticipation of getting an image to go there.

Here is the addition to the JREF page.  While I was in the adding picture mood I just copied the citation and added the image to Karen Stollznow and Steve Novella's pages.  Quick to do once you have it written correctly.  Its just a matter of knowing where to put the image in the page.  Here is what the reference looks like.  

[[Image:Four JREF fellows 2011.jpg|thumb|250px|Latest [[JREF]] fellows.  Tim Farley, Karen Stollznow, [[Steven Novella]] & Ray Hall.  Portrait taken at The Amaz!ng Meeting TAM9 from Outer Space July 16, 2011]]

The 250px that is listed here can be a larger or smaller number depending on how big you want the image to be when saved.  Play around with the number and keep hitting "preview" looking at what the page will look like.  When you have it correct then hit save.  

When Tim Farley's wiki page is launched (hopefully soon) we can add this exact same reference to his page.  Same for Ray Hall.

I had some really great conversations with some of the speakers that were kind enough to talk to me.  The questions I received were all pretty typical ones, "How do you get an edit to stay on the page?", "Can I edit my own page?" and so on.  They all sounded pretty excited about someone having their Wiki backs, even a little modest about having a page at all.  Most said they have seen their page and wish it could be updated. 

Carol Tavris asked if I could retake her picture when she was wearing something colorful. She was wearing a burgundy outfit at the time we were talking but she got scooted away too quickly.  Actually I really like the image I took of her that is on the page right now. 

I had so many things I wanted to get done those days, but really there was so much going on and by the third day I was exhausted. The same can be said for all the speakers that wanted help with their Wikipedia pages, they were overwhelmed and tired.

After I gave my paper presentation I had several people come up to me to talk about helping out.  This was one of my favorite parts of the whole weekend.  Everyone of them were intelligent and pumped on wanting to help out.  Most asked "what do you want me to do?" as you remember I only had 15 minutes on stage to get the plea out for help as well as describe what the project is all about.  I usually asked each one about their interests and also tried to determine what was their Wiki editing skill level.  I had beginners as well as advanced, but all willing to help out.  

I really wish I had done a better job of getting names from those that approached me, I got a few business cards but only a few.  The things I heard from them were great, one woman (her name was Britney but I think it was spelled differently than normal) told me that as a whole the skeptic community has more intellectual ability than it knows what to do with, editing Wikipedia is an obvious outlet for that.  She said that she hangs out with some really smart people who love to complain, but when she asks what they plan on doing about it, she just hears crickets.  (I'm sure I misquoted you a bit Britney, but that was the general overview of our conversation?)

Linda was another one that Got It!  She said that she could spend as little or as much time working on this project.  Exactly correct.  You can work on these projects when you have the desire and time to do so.  I ask that you please write on the "discussion page" of the article you are working on telling other editors what you had planned to do next, and so on, giving them a guide of how to finish what you were doing. 

I explained that we need help with everything.  Grammar, photos, re-writes, adding citations, adding references, getting people into categories, and on and on.  Editing Wikipedia for skeptical content should be a joy, I don't want to assign anything to anyone.  I might make a few suggestions for people who are beginning, but really I want editing done in an area that is of interest. 

Tim Farley suggests that an editor should not stay only on one subject matter as it is possible that the other editors will feel there is a conflict of interest.  Yes, I know, I have a  conflict of interest as I'm editing with the clear goal of adding skepticism to the articles.  But unless someone looks really closely at my edits they won't see that pattern.  What would turn up would look more like a list of edits I've made.  It would look something like this, Steve Novella, Power Balance, John Edward, The See Clearly Method, The Simpsons, IIG and Sean Faircloth.  No clear pattern for someone outside the skeptic community to see.  Tim suggests that if you are worried about creating a pattern, you should edit something completely different like your hometown's page or maybe your school. 

All in all, I'm exhausted but super thrilled that I was able to meet like-minded people out there who understand how important this project is.  We are the front line people.  We have the ability to change minds and really impact the skeptical community.  Pick the area that is of interest to you and get to editing!