Leah Remini - Scientology and Wikipedia Stats

I've long maintained that Wikipedia stats are the purest way of judging popularity.  Nothing interferes. Wikipedia pages are just Wikipedia pages, no advertisements, no followers, no one is tweeting or posting to drive people to the page, its just an encyclopedia.

I've been watching psychic Wikipedia pages for a couple years now, and the top dog was Sylvia Browne.
John Edward replaced her eventually, only to be out viewed by The Long Island Medium, Theresa Caputo when she got her own show.  Fascinating data, and available to everyone for free at this website.  http://stats.grok.se

So I've been following The Underground Bunker, which is a blog by Tony Ortega.  He writes about Scientology.  Apparently there is this actress, Leah Remini who very recently left Scientology, and there has been a lot of fuss made, I guess she is a popular actress and considered a big defection.  Tony Ortega announced that Remini was interviewed on The Ellen show which is the first public appearance where she mentions leaving the church.   He wondered if maybe this show and all the other media surrounding her lately has increased the public's attention to Scientology?

You all know how to handle that question, and it does not involve getting Scientology to release its website views to us.

The media learned she left the church about the 8th of July, 2013.  She appeared on The Ellen show on Sept 9th.  So lets see what the numbers look like. (keep in mind that these numbers might be 24 hours off)

This shows the page views for Scientology from June 15th to Sept 12th.

This shows the page views for Remini from June 15th to Sept 12th.

Daily average for Scientology during these 90 days is 6,955.  Note there are several peaks (Scientology is in the news a lot) but the biggest peaks are on July 12th with 35,160 views and on Aug 9th with 23,940 views.

Daily average for Remini is 4,246.  The page has two peaks, July 12th, with 43,770 and on Aug 9th with 20,469 views.

On July 8th The Underground Bunker broke the story that Remini left the church, it took a few days for the news to trickle to the media, but that corresponds with the Wikipedia hits on July 12th.  The Ellen Show broadcast Sept 9th, and there is a spike on both pages.  10,326 views of Scientology on Sept 10th.

All Summed up:
What does this all mean?  The question is, did Remini's defection from the church increase the public's attention to Scientology.  Using just Wikipedia page views I can firmly state...

July 12, 2013 when the defection hit the news media, Scientology's page views went up 500% over normal. 28,000 more views.

August 9th the views jumped (on both pages) 345% on Scientology (17K more views) and 482% for Remini over normal.  I don't know what happened on this day, but both pages received a massive hit, so I can only assume that they are associated.

Sept 10th (Ellen Show) Scientology's views went up 67% over normal.  About 3,000 more views.

So to answer Ortega's question.  Yes, Remini's defection has increased exposure to the Scientology Wikipedia page.

To be clear, I have been watching the Scientology Wikipedia page for several years, and don't think I have ever contributed to the page.  This is because that page is very closely watched by editors very dedicated to it not being changed, it is considered done, and I have nothing to add.  A page that receives over 200K views every month is a very powerful page, every sentence is carefully written, and backed up with a citation.  To further see how editors decide what will be allowed on the page, visit the Scientology talk page.  (every Wikipedia page has a Talk page)

Behold the power of Wikipedia.

If you would like to join the GSoW team, we are nearly ready with our super-duper cool secret lair.  Several of my team, have created a forum that allows all languages to interact as well as socialize, train and mentor. We are going to be more organized and focused, you will be seeing and hearing more from this project over the next year. We have simply outgrown Facebook (as far as using for work) and will be moving in the next few weeks.  I will be making an announcement when it happens.  You can always contact us at GSoWteam@gmail.com

Writing Neutral and Fair

I haven't touched this site but I think it is a wonderful example of neutral writing.  It shows how you can be clear and still get your skeptical point across.

In 2005, the Church of Scientology stated its worldwide membership to be eight million, although that number included people who took only the introductory course and did not continue on.^[82] In 2007 a Church official claimed 3.5 million members in the United States,^[83] but according to a 2001 survey published by the City University of New York, 55,000 people in the United States would, if asked to identify their religion, have stated Scientology.^[84] In 2008, the same survey team estimated that only 25,000 Americans identify as Scientologists.^[85]

Scientologists tend to disparage general religious surveys on the grounds that many members maintaining cultural and social ties to other religious groups will, when asked their religion, answer with their traditional and more socially acceptable affiliation. On the other hand, religious scholar J. Gordon Melton has said that the church's estimates of its membership numbers are significantly exaggerated.^[86]

^{Every point is well sited and nothing exaggerated.  The $cientologists argument is also well written.  The point is clear to any reader with some critical thinking skills left.  I love the part about "more socially acceptable affiliation."  LOL}

Editing Wikipedia ~ "How To Edit"

Found this comment from JMA on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe forum today.  I hear comments like this all the time and he/she makes some very valid points to which I will respond.

"Interesting blog. I'm looking forward to read more. I have been contributing skeptical contents on wikipedia (especially the French version, wikipédia) for years, but it's very frustrating and time consuming. I created my own blog because I was so tired to have woo-proponents editing my stuff away... Editing wikipedia is more easily said than done."

Mark Edward gets hit with the statement that his style of Guerrilla Skepticism (which is where the term came from) is too "in your face" and he can't expect others to follow his style.  Some say we need to be gentle when confronting the woo in the world and not call them out for their stupidity.  His response is that there are many ways to educate and confront.  The spectrum of skeptical activism is broad and we each need to find our own way.  The Penn & Teller approach isn't for everyone.  (BTW if you haven't already seen this video of Mark Edward punking grief vampire Sylvia Browne you should)

Mark is correct.  There are many avenues to take, you need to find the style that fits you comfortably and take advantage of the skills and opportunities you have.  I'm not a in-your-face kind of person but I'm always up for something behind the scenes.  Guerrilla Skepticism is VERY behind the scenes but subtly in-your-face. To be fair to Mark, he isn't really after the believers, and he has said many times to leave the little old lady card reader on the street corner alone.  The big fish like Praagh and John Edwards need our attention.  When he confronted Sylvia Browne he did so in a way that She Knew he was on to her, and that we skeptics could be invisible and get close to her, also that we were organized, creative and motivated and had no qualms to letting other people know.  Sylvia Browne very soon after this started cutting back on her live shows.

When someone is searching for more information about a person/place/thing or phrase on the Internet most often within the first 3 links they will receive will be a Wikipedia link (yes it is just that powerful and we need to take advantage of that power).  Which link will the researcher take?  I call it the Goldilocks effect.  Choosing the personal website of the person might be just too positive, a anti site like www.stopsylvia.com might be too negative.  But Wikipedia is just right, and the researcher knows this.  So that is where they are going to invest their time reading, from the Wikipedia page once they have some background, they can follow more links both positive and negative.

So going back to JMA's statement.  Personal blogs and websites are a wonderful avenue for people wanting to express opinions and make bold statements (your reading my blog after all). These serve a purpose in the skeptical movement and you have a specific audience.  I don't expect Sylvia Browne fans to find this blog, read it and change their minds, this blog is for the skeptical community people who want to get active and DO SOMETHING to move our movement forward into the public eye (and take back the word Skeptic to mean something other than the pejorative it has become in some minds).

Wikipedia is a totally different approach.  The power of this site has changed our vocabulary (who ever heard of Wikianything 11 years ago?)  Everyone on the Internet uses Wikipedia.  I find references to it everywhere and when someone in a blog or their website wants to explain a term they just link to the Wikipedia page instead of explaining the term.

Editing Wikipedia might seem frustrating and time consuming.  You Bet!  But it satisfies some part of my OCD mind, I love creating order.  When I've left a new blurb on a paranormal site it is an awesome feeling.  And when I see it still linked there months later, Wow!  I am involved with the IIG (Independent Investigative Group and have many references to IIG all over Wikipedia.  When I see the web stats come in for www.iigwest.org and find that we have 4 hits from Carla Baron's Wikipedia page, or 6 from See Clearly Method that is really a nice feeling.

If you have chosen this for a hobby as I have, you must enjoy what you are doing.  If you don't see the importance of what you are doing and it becomes a task then this isn't the project for you.

I have had very little problems with "woo-propondents editing" my posts.  I don't know if it is the topics I choose or my style of editing but I'm just not encountering it.  I find that in life if you make bold statements with confidence most people will not challenge you, this also seems to be true on Wikipedia.  I have a "user" page that other editors can see if they want, I also have a lot of edits which also gives confidence.

I am on the "first-responder" committee for the IIG and daily I see the emails come in from people looking to take our $50K paranormal challenge.  Mostly these people can't write a coherent sentence, let alone do it without being in ALL CAPS.  I'm not too worried about them managing to find their way to a Wikipedia edit page.

I'm sure you have heard this phrase before, "The nice thing about Wikipedia is that everyone can edit Wikipedia, which is also the sad part of Wikipedia."  And that is true, you can be anonymous and leave edits.  They aren't taken seriously by other editors and you can't leave it on a "watchlist" if you don't have an account.  So when that post is quickly removed (and it will be) they have no idea it is gone unless they just check back.  They can also get their IP address banned from Wikipedia if they do it often.

Some pages are semi-protected and only people who have "auto-confirmed" their user name can edit.  That's me!  Its a nice feeling when I see that note at the top of the page and know that I can edit.  Some pages are even more protected like the $cientologist page.  Followers of that cult have been aggressive about cleaning up any info that is anti-$cientology.  Editors have been able to research their IP addresses and found that they are coming from $cientology centers.  This was very bad media for them and it banned many from the site, also being a protected page means that only the facts appear on $cientology.  Anyone researching this group will be able to go to Wikipedia and get an honest look at them.  What a cool feeling that is.  (I take this back they are only semi-protected now)

So thank you JMA for your comment as it has allowed me to discuss some really important issues.