Keep Wikipedia Vandalism Free - Its up to us

Trolls are no-longer under bridges and on Internet discussion boards.  Sometimes they reside on Wikipedia.  I believe that these trolls really think they are clever because they add their rants right into the article that everyone reads.   Sometimes it isn't trolls but graffiti and other times it is someone thinking they are really clever.  Its really annoying, but something we have to deal with in order to keep Wikipedia the place where everyone can edit.

Tonight I'm going to show you step by step how to revert an edit.  Some of the steps can look intimidating to newer editors but never fear I'm going to use pictures so you can see how its done, then turn you loose to clean up the crap.

Firstly it is really important to understand Watchlists.  Here are two blogs I've written about the topic.
Very Very Basic Editing 
Watchlists Again Busy Busy Me

Adding pages to your watchlist is the first step towards reverting vandalism.  You can only revert edits if you are made aware there is a problem with the page.  In order to do that you have to have a watchlist.  Adding pages to your watchlist is fairly simple.  First you need to be logged into Wikipedia.  Then every page that you think you might be interested in watching you need to actually go to.  You will see an empty star on the right side of the page.
Click on the empty star and it will turn blue and give you a message that you have just added this page to your watch list.  Click on the blue star and it will remove it from your watchlist.  Okay?

Here is what the right top page looks like for me.


Click on the "my watchlist" and you will see every page that has been changed appear on a daily list.  Here is a snapshot of what I'm looking at.



The lower case "m" means that it is a "minor edit".  You can remove all the minor edits from the watchlist cue.  I don't want that option because the person who is making the edit selects "minor edit" before saving.  I'm suspicious that someone trying to sneak through vandalism will check the minor edit box so that very few people notice.


Also whenever someone edits a page they give a reason why they edited it.  Sometimes it is simple like "typo" or "added reference" something simple that you might not even check.  Again what is written in that reason box was written by someone who might be wanting to sneak something in.


So I check everything on my watchlist, even if it looks innocent.  Another reason I do this is that I can learn from the better editors.


The color + and - numbers in the ( ) I believe mean how many characters were added or removed.  That's another clue to whether you should check the edit or not.


On the left side it says "diff" that means the difference before/after.

I'm trying to find some vandalism, but of course I can't find any at the moment.  Here is an edit I made a couple days ago for Mark Edward's page.  It shows up like this on my watchlist.


When you click on the "diff" you will see the page I linked to below.


Mark Edward WP page with slight change


 The right side is yellow and the left side is green.  Every change is in red print.  So you can see I changed the word "a" to "as"

On the top right side above all the green you will see this area.


 See the "undo" box.  If you click that you will see the following... 










Scary message telling you that if it is vandalism you are reverting you don't have to leave a reason for the revert.  If not, then you must explain why you are reverting.

Personally I like to leave a reason that might help the editor.  If it is something that I can't sum up in a few words then I will go to the discussion page and leave a more detailed reason why I reverted their edit.

Near the bottom you will see this area...



See where you can click the "minor edit" box?  You write in the area that starts out with "undid revision 466...." the reason why you are reverting the edit.  Then click "show preview" to make sure you did it correct.  Then "save page".

Okay, now your free to help keep Wikipedia vandalism free.

Susan

Watchlists Again ~ Busy Busy Me

Are you checking your Watchlist? 

I sit down several times a day and try to make an edit somewhere so I can cross something off my ever-growing to-do list.  There is no end in sight of pages that need updating.  My email inbox overflows with conversations I'm having with people to improve WP pages.  (Don't let that discourage you, keep sending those emails) But I would LOVE to have some extra hands helping out.  The small group we have out there editing have more of a life than I do, and can't spend as much time as is needed.  This task is really big, but super important. 

As I was saying, are you checking your watchlist?  I mean to do a edit, then refresh the screen and notice someone has edited something onto a page incorrectly.  I guess they mean well, but usually it is from someone anonymous (just a ISP number) which tells me they aren't someone planning on sticking around long enough to get an account (Its free folks!).

Just reverted an edit for psychic Sally Morgan.  The person was quoting her personal website (incorrectly cited BTW) and spent more time talking about Gary Schwartz than Morgan.  They also tried to cite his WP page by doing this... [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Schwartz|Gary E Schwartz]] instead of by doing this... [[Gary Schwartz]].  See the difference?  Well maybe not here on this page but anyway.

In this case I went to the discussion page and explained my reasons for reverting the edit.  I welcomed the person to WP and was totally polite.  I hope, but doubt that the person will read what I left.  They probably don't know about watchlists. 

Here is another revert I did.  I had left this quote from Ben Radford on the spontaneous human combustion page.   “If SHC is a real phenomenon (and not the result of an elderly or infirm person being too close to a flame source), why doesn't it happen more often? There are 5 billion people in the world, and yet we don't see reports of people bursting into flame while walking down the street, attending football games, or sipping a coffee at a local Starbucks.” 

Someone had changed the "5 billion" to "7 billion".  Ahhh no.  So I nicely responded by saying "yes, I know they are now saying that there are 7 billion people in the world, but I am QUOTING someone, and that is what he said".  (actually I responded nicer than this, due to limited space)

Don't know if this person just searched for the phrase "billion people" and changed it to "7 billion people" everywhere they found it.  Must be a lot of "reverting" going on today.

Checking my watchlist shows that there are a lot of other editors out there, reverting edits before I get to it.  Thank you people!  But we do need a lot more eyes out there.

We need to stay on this, because once the change is made, and no one notices, then it just tends to linger.  And we know we are changing these pages so that when the general public wanders over to have a look, they will find a well written WP page explaining it, and hopefully they will find some critical thinking link left behind as well. 

Today I re-listened to myself talk on the Rational Alchemy podcast (this was before I joined their cast) and I got the question from Brian Walsh "do you spend a lot of time reverting edits from paranormal people?"  My answer was, "no, I spend most of my time reverting edits from skeptics".  I don't think  he expected that answer at all.  

Checking Sources

I often here the excuse why "I don't edit Wikipedia anymore is because the paranormal people just change everything that I write and put up whatever links to support their point of view".  Well that might be a valid argument for someone who is looking for a reason to not edit.  If you follow that same logic then there seems to be little reason to clean up litter or graffiti as it is just going to occur again.

If this is genuinely happening then we need to know how to combat it.

Firstly you can't just change an article and expect it to remain that way, unless no one is watching the page (see watchlists blog) Or the changes you make needs to be well written and cited.  The paranormal point of view has every right to be mentioned when done correctly.  Wikipedia isn't trying to be balanced, but it does try to be neutral.

If a secondary source is written giving a positive slant to the article then good!  Lets put that in and cite it.  The reader should be able to follow the link (if given) and/or be able to go to the document (at a library or write to the publisher) and obtain the reference.

When done correctly the cite should be left for all to read, but if there is counter-evidence that refutes the cite then that should also be referenced.  And it should not come down to a argument, just state the facts of each article and try to remain neutral. 

This blog is about guerrilla skepticism, my bias is obvious, but I do support good research from both sides.  Not only is it important for the skeptical community to find critical thinking articles and insert them into paranormal Wikipedia pages, but it is also important to make sure that all cites are "real" and truly represent the original article in the secondary source. 

Working on the Psychic Detective page today I noticed these blurbs and thought "that's odd, I've never heard of a psychic ever finding a body, I should read that cite". 

However, psychics in Australia have successfully located the bodies of victims, the disappearance of whom were under investigation, on three occasions. In 1996 The body of Paula Brown, who had gone missing, was found after her family contacted Simon Turnbull and two other psychics. They indicated that she had been killed and told the family the location of the body, in Sydney at Port Botany. An initial search missed the body, a second search found the body 15 meters from where the initial indication of the location was.^[22]

^ Kerry Anne Kennerly interviewing Psychics on "Midday Show" 1996 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpSRtBml_rY

 <sup>So I tried to follow these links to discover the original article.  The link is broken to the youtube site, it says that the owner has removed their account.  So then I tried to find the article somewhere else on the Internet, I've discovered this woman Kerri-Anne Kennerley who is a Australian news-anchor who had been given the "Bent Spoon" award by the Australian Skeptics.  Just because I can't find the reference to check it does not mean it does not exist.  But in the mean time I'm removing the citation to the discussion page where I will note that someone needs to find a citation for this claim.  

Lets just say that there was a citation we could read for ourselves, and the article did interview some psychics that said that they found the bodies.  What then?  A psychic on a news interview claiming to have found a body is not newsworthy enough alone as evidence.  Otherwise anyone could get an interview saying that they have traveled to the moon and ate some of the cheese they found there and that is why they are over-weight.  Saying something like that does not then get added to the cheese or moon Wikipedia pages.  That isn't noteworthy.  

If it is a prominent psychic that has a Wikipedia page of their own, then maybe the reference will go up, but with counter evidence from another secondary site saying that they are nuts.  (I'm sure they wouldn't actually say nuts, but you know what I mean).  Both references would be in the same blurb on the page.


Here is another reference from the same Wikipedia page.</sup>  

In 2001, the body of Thomas Braun was located by Perth based clairvoyant Leanna Adams in Western Australia. Police had initially been unable to find the body. They later confirmed the remains to be his using DNA testing.   ^ Butler, Paul Milton "DNA test proves body was Braun's" Centralian Advocate, 23/2/2003 p3

This is a bit harder to check.  They have given us the reference but there is no on-line link to the article.  That does not make it incorrect but it does make it more difficult to find.  I often site books or magazines that are not on-line.  But it is easy to find the publisher's website and order a copy of the article, or possible to go to a library and find the reference (or order it).  It is unlikely to that would do this, but it is possible.

But this isn't a simple statement that is being made.  The editor is making a giant claim that this body was found by a psychic.  This should be front page news all over the world, proof of psychic ability?  Yes!  Yet I'm searching all over the place and can find no reference to it.   I can't even find a way of contacting the "Centralian Advocate".  I did manage to find this site news.com.au and I did ask them if they can provide me some way of contacting the Centrailian Advocate or finding the article (I gave them the cite, it should be easy for them to search for the reference).  In the mean time I am also going to remove the reference to Leanna Adams (who is so not-noteworthy that she does not have her own Wiki page).

The title of the above article is "DNA test proves body was Braun's" not "Psychic Leanna Adams finds body of missing hiker, Thomas Braun".  That alone should say something important about the reference. 

Leanna Adams psychic does turn up these articles.  Fails to find body of Peter Falconio. And this reference to finding the before mentioned Thomas Braun.

A Perth-based psychic, Leanna Adams, who led the family of a missing Alice Springs man to his body last year, was convinced Mr Falconio was buried near a creek bed near Barrow Creek, after she had visions of his murder, the newspaper said.

Again she was not even helpful enough in finding Thomas Braun that this pro-paranormal site "The Age" doesn't give her much more credit other than a quick mention of a "missing Alice Springs man".  According to this article a family member took Adams to the place where Braun was last seen and they found his body there.  Wow!

Does this belong on a Wikipedia page for psychic detectives?  It is under the heading "Prominent Cases".  I'm sure that if the psychic had indeed found Mr. Braun then that might be prominent.  But this reference is just not up there with any kind of real evidence.  So off the page it goes.  If some other editor wants to put it back in, my watchlist will tell me that it happened and I can take issue with it, unless the reference is really good.

Lastly, there is one more reference that needs checking on the psychic detective page.

In August, 2010, Aboriginal Elder Cheryl Carroll-Lagerwey claimed to have seen the location of a missing child, Kiesha Abrahams, in her dream. The missing child's disappearance was being investigated by police. She took them to a location where a dead body was found, however it was of an adult woman and not the body of the child.

1. ^ Arlington, Kim "Supernatural sleuths and the search for truth" The Sydney Morning Herald 30/12/2010, p4
2. ^ Cuneo, Clementine "Kiesha searches stumble on Corpse" The Daily Telegraph, August 13. URL = http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/kiesha-searchers-stumble-on-corpse/story-e6freuzi-1225904646931

Checked these sources and they are valid and correctly cited.  I'm not going to touch this reference at the moment.  I'm sure a case could be made that this is neither positive or negative psychic detective.  She made a claim, they followed up on it and indeed there was a body.  End of story. 

So in a nutshell, this blog is to remind anyone interested in editing Wikipedia for skeptical content that it isn't ONLY about inserting well written, well cited skeptical/scientific references.  Something just as important is to check existing sources, not only the pro-paranormal ones, but even references left by skeptical editors.  We can't be leaving litter or graffiti laying around either. 


P.S.
Found this interesting essay on Wikipedia today that was written by an editor.  I think his points are relevant to the psychic detective page.

  "All material added to articles must be attributable to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and one appropriate for the information in question. In practice you do not need to attribute everything; only quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed, through an inline citation that directly supports the material." 

Things "difficult to believe" are very important to make sure are cited.  That someone has graduated from a specific college with a certain degree in X year isn't really up there on the difficult to believe level.  If someone is claiming that they have regrown a limb, well then that needs to be referenced.  The source you are getting the info from also is important.  A tabloid newspaper might not be the best reference for celebrity updates that are likely truthful.  Thou I'm sure we can find exemptions, those would be further backed up by more reputable sources as the story breaks into the mainstream.

Also I want to add that the additions to the psychic detective page are all recent.  And probably are there because of a call out I made to the paranormal community to bring references to the article.  Here is the discussion thus far. 

I've just added a bit more Australian content, as psychics in Australia have located at least three bodies as far as my research shows. Like elsewhere, police in Australia do not seem to like to admit to officially using psychics, but in fact they actually do on occasion. In particularly NSW Police, a number of whom have sought advice from Debbie Malone. Interesting stuff, and wouldn't have believed she actually does as much as she does until I read some of these articles.... and I'm naturally a skeptic. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, your citation was already in use on this page, so I used the multiple reference tag for it. By the way, I'd like to consolidate this whole section of the article as I see the same thing being said multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.Farquhar (talk • contribs) 14:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing the articles below as there is no citation to the first paragraph and the second is not re searchable. If you would like me to give more detail why these articles are not noteworthy I will elaborate when asked. Sgerbic (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

David Lazarus ~ using watchlists and catagories

Watch lists and Categories are a very quick way to put people on your "to-do" Wiki list. Discovered a new skeptic today, David Lazarus while reading the LA Times.  This man writes a consumer action column two days a week for the newspaper and also appears daily on KTLA-TV Channel 5.  He had written another article I chanced upon a month ago that made me think "who is this guy and why isn't he a part of our skeptic world."? 

Today was the clincher when I found this article called "Diabetes cure? Finding out can cost you $15,000".  In this investigation he looks into the claims of "Doctor" Jeff Hockings and his scam to fleece people out money to cure their diabetes. 

So here I go into Guerrilla Skeptic mode, guess I need a cape or something.  Anyway I'm all set to get on Hocking's wiki page and start hammering him, but he doesn't have a page.  Or any reference I can find on Wikipedia.  That really says something, this man is supposed to be able to cure Type 1 diabetes with a few "cleansings of the system" and some diet changes and herbs you can buy from his company.  You would think if it worked that he would be world famous.  Sadly its a scam and people are lining up at his "workshops" to learn more.  Anyway read the article to see how Lazarus exposes this fraud.

So I do the next best thing and go to Lazarus's Wiki page.  He does have a page but it badly needs updating, something I don't have time for at the moment.  So I did a few quick things that I wanted to share with you all.

I added him to the list of "American Skeptics" that appears at the bottom of his page.  I talk about this in another blog entry but here are the directions again.

I usually go to someone's page that I know is done correctly open up the "edit" page and you will see a ton of HTML writing.  Don't be overwhelmed.  Go all the way to the bottom and you will see something like this that I've taken from Dr. Eugenie Scott's edit page.
[[Category:Articles with inconsistent citation formats]]
[[Category:1945 births]]
[[Category:American anthropologists]]
[[Category:American humanists]]
[[Category:University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee alumni]]
[[Category:University of Missouri alumni]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:California State University, East Bay faculty]]
[[Category:National Academy of Sciences laureates]]
[[Category:American skeptics]]

Highlight and copy the last line here.  [[Category:American skeptics]] and then go to the edit page you are wanting to place this in and select the edit page.  Find where other Categories are listed and paste this link into the bottom of the list.  I suggest that you should always try to copy from a page where you know it is done correctly and not "type it in" on your own.  In this case if you had simply just typed it in and you capitalized the "S" in skeptic the you would not be getting the correct link.  Silly?  Well sorry that is the way Wikipedia works.

Anyway, next you want to "preview your changes" look at the bottom where it says "save page" and "watch this page".  Click on "preview" and you will see the edited page along with what looks like the real page.  Look it over.  If you see red writing where your change should be then you have not linked it correctly.  It might be something as simple as missing a [ or a Capital letter or something like that.  You need to review what you have done and keep looking at it making changes until you get it correct.  If you just can't figure it out you can ask here and I or someone will go in and see if we can help you out.  This is a learning process and it takes some confusing to get to where you figure out how to do things correctly.  I don't have a problem at all helping so don't be afraid to ask.

If you have gotten it correct and everything is either blue or black ink then hit "save" but first click the "watch this page" box and you MUST write in the "edit summary" box something about the change you made.  It could be as simple as saying I changed the spelling of a word, or added commas, or added the category.  Whatever it is, you aren't editing Wikipedia correctly if you don't write in that box.

When you are all done and pleased with yourself you might try clicking on the link you just inserted and making sure you did it correctly.  Clicking on American skeptics will bring you to this page.  Not very representative is it?  93 people on the list at the moment, I think that is a bit shy of the real number.  But as we get better at this the site will grow and we can use this list for all kinds of things.  Click on a few names and you can wander around seeing what needs to be done.  If you are really new at this and want something important to do, learn this step correctly and then go into every American Skeptic you can find on Wikipedia and add this category to their page.  This simple step will help a lot in the long run, and help you improve your confidence in editing.

Next I want to introduce you to the "watchlist" this can be found on the very top of any Wikipedia page.  Your user name should be on this line also.  If your name is in red type that means you have not yet set up a "user page" for yourself, which I would highly encourage.  It is a great way to give yourself some practice editing time and it allows others to get to know you.  Plus it gives you creds in the editing world.

Click on "my watchlist" and you will see all kinds of info from your past edits.  The top one should be the one you just finished editing.  The name of that site will be in blue (means it is linked correctly) and you can click on the "diff/hist" to see what was the difference from what was there before you edited and after.

Play around with these features to see what all you can do with this watchlist.  If someone makes a change on a page you have put on the list you will see it here.  This is an important helpful tool.  If someone is vandalizing a page you need to know right away so you can revert the edit (happens all the time to me) or respond to the edit or whatever.  Anyway once you play around with this and have a few pages on your watchlist you will get the hang of it.  Otherwise just post here and I'll answer your question.

Check out this group of categories.


[[Category: American skeptics]]
[[Category: Australian sceptics]]
[[Category: New Zealand sceptics]]
[[Category: Brazilian skeptics]]
[[Category: Indian skeptics]]
[[Category: Finnish sceptics]]
[[Category: British sceptics]]
[[Category: English skeptics]]
[[Category: Canadian skeptics]]