We Got Your Wiki Back! The Numbers from Nightline's Beyond Belief

You have all heard me go on and on about the need to improve the Wikipedia pages of our skeptical spokespeople.  This I call the "We Got Your Wiki Back!" project.  I've mentioned not only the reasons for doing so but whose pages desperately need help, and how you can help edit.

Today I want to talk about the numbers.  We can use our handy Wikipedia Statistics tool brought to us by Tim Farley.  http://stats.grok.se.  I want to point out that this website is not exact to the day, because of time zones ect I believe that the stats are off by a day.  (again not sure)

I'm going to work just with the ABC Primetime Nightline "Beyond Belief" show that aired August 17, 2011.

The first segment featured a reporter investigating James Van Praagh, and being unimpressed with him, pretty much saying that he thinks he is cheating when he says he talks to dead people. Van Praagh did a reading on the reporter, giving some amazing hits.  But after the fact the reporter was able to pull up an interview he gave two years ago listing all the details that Van Praagh supposedly got.  This SWIFT blog pretty much sums everything up.

James Randi was also featured on the show, lets look at his Wikipedia hit statistics.



There is a clear jump with about 550 hits over what he had been trending that week.  Because Randi is all over the media it is unclear if the July 18th jump was because of Nightline or not. 

I think that the next featured skeptical spokesperson will give us better clearer results.  Banachek was very prominent in the show, using the stats tool we can see what his hit rate looked like for months even years before the Nightline show aired.  This next graph is from July 2011.

We see that he averages about 56 hits a day.  Because of TAM9 July 15-17 this might be the reason why the jump in numbers on July 17-18th. 

Banachek July 2011

Here is August 2011.  We clearly see a major jump in numbers hitting about an 800% increase over normal. 

Banachek August 1 - 18,  2011

 

Something Van Praagh did in the media caused an upsurge of hits.  Looks like he normally gets about 200 hits a day, then suddenly in the 900's?  As I said I don't really follow his schedule (and don't watch TV) so these could be from the Nightline show.  I'm sure someone will clear this up for me.


What about other people featured on the show?  ABC reporter Josh Elliot is the one who interviewed Van Praagh.  By the way I think he did a terrific job and maybe the skeptical movement should approach him for future media coverage.


 Major jump.  Averaging 423 hits a day during August 2011, he has a 600% increase when the show aired.


Lets try one more.  The JREF was mentioned a few times on the show, did it see an increase in hits?




An increase, but not a significant amount like with Banachek.

Another person mentioned on the show (and his name appeared on the screen) was Dr. Gary Schwartz.  Lets look at his stats for August.



A small increase in hits, but nothing significant. 

Here is Allison DuBois's page stats for August.  The other psychic interviewed was Rebecca Rosen who does not have a Wikipedia page, but according to Nightline has a 2 year waiting list for readings.  Odd that if she has changed that many lives that she is not noteworthy enough to have her own page.  Remember Georgia O'Conner?  She has testimonies from thousands of people she has helped, you got it, no Wikipedia page. 



What does this all mean?

These are just the raw numbers, there are a lot of factors that could effect who gets hits and who does not.  Was the name written on the screen?  Van Praagh and Schwartz names were.

I think overall that I have made my point.  When our skeptical spokespeople are in the media, they are going to get an upswing in hits to their Wikipedia page.  People want to know who these people are.   What are we presenting to the world? 

Not only our spokespeople's pages need updating but so do the pages of people like Gary Schwartz.  Nightline went to a lot of trouble to mention that he was a Harvard Professor now working at the University of Arizona.  Major creds right?  Allison DuBois's page also needs some serious cleanup.

I'm sure the page for Psychic Kids could use some updating.  I think Banachek's powerful words would really help to spruce it up.  In fact I think Banachek's comments could be used all over these psychic's pages.  Hint Hint

What about this Nightline Show?  We need to get it up on the pages of all these people and onto the JREF page.  That's keeping things updated.

Get Editing!

Fringe Theories Noticeboard

Hi Sgerbic, I just watched your TAM9 video talking about getting skeptics involved in Wikipedia (from this week's Signpost, which I sometimes help edit). I'd avoid the term "guerilla" in discussing skeptics getting involved in Wikipedia, as it is likely to cause experienced editors to think that you are advocating underhanded means (sock puppetry etc.) to edit Wikipedia which would be counterproductive.
In your blog, you mention Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism. It is indeed rather dormant, but that's because of WP:FTN. This is an important thing to point out to all skeptics: even if people aren't interested in editing Wikipedia directly, it is very useful to know that WP:FTN exists. I'm not interested in getting into edit wars with the fringe community, but if I come across places where there are problems with lack of skepticism in an article or set of articles or problematic edits, I report it on WP:FTN, the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. I'm not sure whether you are aware of it, but it's something that we should be proud of. WP:FTN is there to help enforce the WP:FRINGE policy.
The other thing is to make sure that when reaching out to skeptics, to point out how policy works. This is a frequent problem for many who come to Wikipedia. There are three things I think every skeptic needs to know about Wikipedia policy beyond the absolute basics. First is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia isn't about "The Truth", it's about describing what is verifiable according to the sources (rather than, say, original research or original synthesis). Second is undue weight: mainstream views aren't given parity with crazy views. Third is WP:FRINGE and WP:FTN.
Anyway, if you want any help or advice with Wikipedia or want someone to bounce ideas off, do shout. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Tom! I was unaware of FTN until you mentioned it. I've looked it over and it might be a good resource in the future. My problem with WP is the language and culture, things have to be done in certain ways that are very intimidating and confusing to new editors. Once you jump into it you either sink or swim, I keep encountering people who have tried to get involved but a senior editor snapped at them and or reverted their edits without explaining in clear language why (not in WP language).

Have you read my blog? I'm still not sure what the Signpost writer meant by me not following the rules? He said he would write back in a couple hours to explain but its been many more hours than that. I use the term guerrilla skepticism to rally people and get the non-editing world to think about how important WP is. The attitude that someone else will fix it, is overwhelming at times, very frustrating. If an editor thought I was advocating sock puppets or astroturffing then they would just need a quick read of my blog to see that I'm not advocating anything like that.
I think I might just write a blog about our conversation, I think the three items that a skeptic should know about editing WP is worth mentioning. Thank you. Sgerbic (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Do feel free to write a blog post about anything I've said!

I had a read of the comment from Signpost: it kind of got a bit lost, the commenter was criticising an earlier version of the article while it was still being developed. The criticism in the final published version of the Signpost was softened a lot after you responded.

I think there are always concerns when people rally others to go and edit because Wikipedians have seen that before: hence our policy on WP:CANVASSING, WP:MEATPUPPET and things like the idea that we don't vote, we have a consensus-based discussion (for instance, when an article is up for deletion, there is zero benefit in recruiting one's friends and allies to turn up and vote to keep the article; much better to actually provide good reasons and arguments—it's sort of like we think democracy is just one giant argument from popularity). Over the years, Wikipedians have seen lots of people saying they are going to turn up and fix all the woes: sometimes that comes from mostly reasonable people (like, say, the American Psychological Society or indeed skeptics), sometimes not so much (white power Nazi types, marketing/PR people etc). Even when it is well-intentioned, it has to be done with a great deal of care.

Some of the response on Signpost has been essentially "but skeptical content is good enough already!" Here is where I think things get more interesting. There are some really good articles, but they tend to be things which are very high-level topics where scientists have jumped in to the debate, like intelligent design or homeopathy. Those don't really need to be more skeptical: they are pretty damn withering already! If you need proof of that, the fact that after he was kicked off Wikipedia, homeopathy advocate Dana Ullman moved over to Citizendium and coerced the policy situation there to get a very pro-homeopathy article published which homeopaths then crowed about. They slated Wikipedia for not being "neutral" like the Citizendium article, which was heavily written mostly by two fervent pro-homeopathy editors full-time tag-teaming it to oblivion with only me and some other people who don't really care all that much about homeopathy trying and failing to inject some sanity into it. Yeah, compared to that, Wikipedia is pretty damn skeptical of some of the bigger name delusions like homeopathy, alternative medicine and stuff like that.

Where your blog seems to point out problems is more with more minor topics like psychics and so on as well as coverage of skeptics themselves. The reaction of long-time Wikipedians to the thought of more "POV warriors" turning up to rehash things like intelligent design would be quite negative, but having more editors with declared conflicts of interest, turning up to ensure balance on minor articles... that's not such a big concern for people.

As for the cultural stuff, yes, there is a problem with biting the newbies and so on, and it's hard to learn how to participate. It's a learning process, and it takes time. I think the most important thing is humility and willingness to accept criticism, willingness to accept being wrong (kinda like science really!). If you've got any particular bugbears or things you think the community could fix about welcoming newbies and the like, it'd be great to hear them. Both the community and the Wikimedia Foundation are trying hard to fix "newbie retention" issues, so if you've got any ideas...

Anyway, keep up the great skeptical work on Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost Newsletter on Wikipedia

This week a editor on Wikipedia wrote this about me and this site on a Wikipedia newsletter called "The Signpost"  

Guerrilla skepticism on Wikipedia?

At The Amaz!ng Meeting 2011 (an annual US conference on science, skepticism, and atheism), Susan Gerbic gave a talk on "guerrilla skepticism on Wikipedia and how important that is as skeptics for us to get the message out there". She suggested that skeptics should seek to redress a perceived imbalance in the presentation of the skepticism–religion divide on Wikipedia.
Despite assurances from Gerbic that "it's not vandalism, which it kinds of sounds like, because we are totally following the rules", concern has already been expressed that editors may attempt to give otherwise neutral articles a pro-skeptic slant. Although in the past there have been crackdowns on religious POV-pushing (most notably the Scientology arbitration case), Gerbic was clear that what has been left behind is not sufficiently pro-skeptic, describing the "skeptical content" on Wikipedia as "not very good". A YouTube video of Gerbic's talk
and an accompanying blog post

are available.

I was very surprised, didn't realize that anyone at Wikipedia was aware of my efforts to get more editors. The article I'm responding to in the comments was worded differently.  He had said that I was "not following the rules" and encouraging others to do the same.  Once I wrote my comments the newsletter was softened to what you see now.

These are the comments from the article.

Thank you for your frankness. My agenda is obvious, I want to improve pages, reflecting cited articles that focus on critically thinking about subjects. Many pseudoscience articles rely on vagueness and only giving a slight nod to anything that is factual. I'm thinking about the blog I published last night on psychic Archaeology http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.com/2011/08/psychic-archaeology-on-wikipedia.html

as a great example.


I also advocate that the pages of our spokespeople are clearly lacking. I do not want to cover up anything negative (see Brian Dunning (skeptic) for a great example of leaving negative where it was put. I know that Wikipedia is the single most important tool readers have to understand the world around them. When they are searching for one of our spokespeople, we need to make sure we have their backs, and frankly I do think that overall our representation is horrible. I wish that wasn't so, but with a few exceptions of the really popular people we have mostly stubs representing us. Shame!

As far as your assertion that I am not "following the rules" I would like to see that clarified so it can be discussed. Maybe I am doing something wrong but until I know what that is I can't change my behavior. I'm a self taught editor learning as I go. I'm passing on my thoughts, frustrations and tips to people on a blog (off-site Wikipedia) and hoping for help from others.
I look forward to your comments.
Sgerbic (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I fail to understand how removing bias on pages promoting pseudoscience by introducing a balanced POV is not following the rules. In fact, it is desired by Wikipedia. Yes, this makes some topics more controversial and targets for cultish editing to remove such balanced POV, but this is nothing new to Wikipedia and an ongoing battle. --FreedominThought (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm at work right now —I will answer your objections in three hours. jorgenev 20:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: The above conversation appears to refer to earlier versions of the story, e.g. this one, which differ from the published version. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

See Inteligent Design for an article that is completely dominated by a clique of self-righteous skeptics. You can hurt the project while still "following rules": The regulars there preferred to have the article to loose it's Good Article status than fix balance the coverage. The article should be about a concept, but it's actually about a legal case in the U.S.. --damiens.rf 17:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "lose its Good Article status"? It's a Featured Article! --69.26.46.169 (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Following the rules" is neither necessary nor sufficient for the purposes of Wikipedia. The goal is to produce encyclopaedic articles, not to push the agenda of either "true believers" or "skeptics". For this reason the balance will vary from article to article, a comprehensive description of an "alternative system of medicine" for example, might be extensively citable, while there may be very little citable either supporting or opposing the treatments, and if there were it might well be better spun out as a separate article. The dangers of public calls to action, however well intentioned, are something that Wikipedia has been subject too many times and has, so far as we know, weathered, but not without creating a lot of needless conflict. Rich Farmbrough, 17:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC).

• We definitely need more skeptics and scientists involved. Hopefully this will attract more people to the community. Skepticism is a critical part of any academic work. We cannot let our articles be exclusively written by "believers" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Skeptics are believers just as well. And they believe to be the only one right just like any other fundamentalist. Believing in Papal infallibility: Dumb. Believing in Inductive reasoning infallibility: Smart. I don't see the difference. --damiens.rf 19:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    

    Err, yeah, that about sums up the basis of the scientific method. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Inteligent Design article is now featured and the lead is well written. Not sure to what damiens refers too.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Delayed response, but while I do agree that parts of the Psychic archaeology article could be written more bluntly ("The problem with psychic archaeology is that it has no verified accomplishments"), I think you're a little harsh on the article as a whole. The dowsing section has to give how dowsing works *according to the theory of the dowsers*. It doesn't help to add "and this doesn't actually work" every other sentence. This is probably more clear if you think of articles on old scientific theories that have been surpassed; it's entire legitimate to talk about "when the four humors are out of balance, the easiest way to restore them is to drain away the excessive humor, such as via leeches to the blood." We know that this isn't very helpful these days, and when leeching is helpful it's not for the claimed reasons, but in an article on the four humors, Wikipedia should present what practitioners believed and how they applied the system. Same here; let dowsing theory stand on its own, then mention in the lede and in the Validity section that it doesn't work. SnowFire (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What the pseudoscience skeptics, and anyone else, need to understand is how important the overall tone of an article is. That is one of the problems with the Inteligent Design article in that its overall tone is one of skepticism towards the entire idea of Inteligent Design. Someone reading a Wikipedia article should not be able to tell which side it is taking on the topic. In my experience, if you bring up the subject of "balance" with some skeptical editors, they will respond that the advocacy side for the topic, for example, those who promote Intelligent Design, is "fringe" and "undue". Cla68 (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC) 

One always has to take a sceptical approach to anything, otherwise one can't distinguish fact from fiction. This is how the "scientific method" works, it has led to the modern technological world, including Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And what's wrong with noting that something is a fringe belief? Or that a particular POV is receiving undue weight in an article? Nothing. Powers ^T 21:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Again, if an article is truly NPOV, the reader should not be able to tell which side it is taking on an issue or topic. If one side is labeled "fringe" it should be described as such in the voice of a reliable source, not Wikipedia's voice. Cla68 (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about identifying it within an article. You referred to "bring[ing] up the subject of 'balance' with some skeptical editors", which implies discussion about what is "fringe" and "undue", not placing such claims within the text of an article. There is nothing wrong with an editor, in discussion, properly and correctly identifying a fringe view as "fringe". Powers ^T 12:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Skeptic Awards

I've written here about the JREF Pigasus Awards, the name is really adorable and when it is left lying around on Wikipedia sites people can't help but click on the hyperlink to learn more about what a Pigasus Award might be. Its all about linking articles to each other and getting people to read articles isn't it?

As I stated in the Pigasus Award blog it is important to not only keep the award site current, but to make sure the "winners" pages are notified that they won the honor.  If relevant try to include the reason why they won the award, it gives a lot more attention to the blurb you are leaving and makes the article more relevant.

I just want to point out that there are other awards out there that have been presented over the years but we need to do a better job of making sure they are hyperlinked.

For example the Australian Skeptics give out a Bent Spoon Award each year.  On their page they have each "winner" listed (with the reason).  Yet not all of the winners pages have a hyperlink back to the award.  Dr. Kerryn Phelps has a mention...

In 2008 Phelps was awarded the "Bent Spoon" by the Australian Skeptics Association, an award "presented to the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudoscientific piffle"

And so do a few others, but not all.  On the Phelps page there is no hyperlink to the Bent Spoon Award, this needs to be done so that readers can quickly click on the cute name to be able to learn all about the award.  (click edit, put [[ and ]] around the words Bent Spoon Award, click preview to make sure you did it correctly, leave a reason in the citation like "added hyperlink to bent spoon award", add page to your watchlist and then click publish)

Other skeptic (and I suppose science groups) give out positive and negative awards.  The Independent Investigation Group (IIG) gives both each year.  The Truly Terrible Television (TTTV) Awards as well as normal awards giving to individuals for critical thinking and work in the field of skepticism.  All of these awards need to be linked to the winners, and a quick survey through them looks like it has been done. 

Here is one example for Psychic Detectives...

August 2007 Psychic Detectives was awarded The Truly Terrible Television (TTTV) Award for peddling pseudoscience and superstition to its audience by the Independent Investigative Group IIG. Other winners have been Montel Williams for every episode that has showcased Sylvia Browne, Paranormal State and SciFi's Ghost Hunters. ^[1]

 
Nice hyperlinking done here.  The reader will be exposed to a lot of further reading if they should choose to do so. 

These are all easy edits to do, and someone should be able to get them all current with just a couple hours work.   If anyone knows of other awards sites please list in the comment area. 

Psychic Archaeology on Wikipedia

Struggling with how to edit this page on psychic archaeology, would welcome opinions.

I was thinking I would write a blog on how to use books as resources for Wikipedia citations, and pulled off my shelf a book by Kenneth Feder, Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. This book was required reading in an archaeology class I took at CSUMB several years ago.  Feder is also one of the first authors I ever approached and was stupefied that he wrote me back.  I wanted to know why he used the AD and BC dating method in his book when most archaeologists use CE and BCE.  I think his answer was that he wanted the book to be understood by students who were usually not archaeologists, he said he would consider changing it in further editions.

Anyway, I got to thinking about Feder and this book a few days ago as it is just one of those books that you can just breeze through, knowing that you are learning great things.  And I looked up his Wikipedia Page, just horrible.  Another stub and no picture, some days it is so discouraging.  I added his name to the American Skeptic category and put it on my watchlist hoping that someone will get his back. 

Reading through his book looking for quotes and such to edit into existing articles, I reread a chapter called "Good Vibrations: Psychics, Dowsers and Photo-Fields" all really great information.  He even follows up each chapter with a FAQ section, web links for more info and a critical thinking exercise section.  In this chapter he sums up the verdict of psychic archaeology by saying...

As an archaeologist, I wish psychic archaeology worked.  As an archaeologist committed to a scientific and skeptical approach, I can only say that wishing doesn't make it so.  The verdict on psychic archaeology based on experiments under controlled conditions is decidedly negative.  

I think those few lines are going to end up somewhere on the psychic archaeology page.  Need to reread the chapter again but my editing style is to quote, its a really nice sum up.

My problem lies in how to go about editing the psychic archaeology page.  As it exists now it seems from reading the discussion page that it was written by a student satisfying some kind of requirement.  The editors are trying for "balance" on the page, which as I've discussed before isn't really what Wikipedia is all about.  Overall it seems just too positive towards the pseudosciences.

The dowsing section does not reflect any science, it leaves the reader thinking that there is something to it.  I understand that the editor is trying to leave the reader with knowledge about how dowsing works in archaeology, but that is one of my problems, it does NOT WORK, and the section says nothing about that.

Dowsing in psychic archaeology can take on many forms. One of the better publicized methods and the subject of psychic archaeologist Karen Hunt’s 1981 Masters thesis at Indiana University involves dowsing for Electromagnetic Photo-Fields (EMPF) using two L-shaped [Ferrous] coat hangers bent about 17.8 cm from the end as electromagnetic photo sensors. Hunt stated that the electromagnetic photo sensors detect EMPF similar to a proton magnetometer detecting magnetic fields. Crossed dowsing rods indicated the crossing of an EMPF, which are three-dimensional patterns generated by man-made objects left in place for at least six-months^[2]. There are other methods of dowsing employed in psychic archaeology with less inherent scientism than EMPF. Often conventional dowsers will offer there services to archaeologist with varying explanation for there methods^[3]. Straddling the border of dowsing and channeling is a technique known as map dowsing, in which a medium or psychic dangles a pendulum over a map of the area of a potential dig to divine ideal locations for test pits or excavation.

Is it just me being all cranky tonight that thinks we need some critical thinking inserted here?

And then what about this section?

Validity

Advocates of psychic archaeology believe that at best it possesses the power to answer questions about the lives in the past not answerable using the archaeological record, and also to locating prime archaeological sites^[4]. They believe that, at worst, psychic archaeologists can locate and excavate important sites that may not be excavated without the motivation of psychic guidance^[9]. Skeptics, on the other hand, usually question the existence of psychic abilities, ascribing the occasional apparent successes of psychic archaeology to fallacious thinking on the part of practitioners and cite phenomena such as coincidence, confirmation bias, cherry picking or outright trickery^[11]. They compare psychic archaeologists to psychic detectives.

Doesn't Validity mean "truth"?  No where does it say anything about there being any evidence that psychic archaeology actually works.  Shouldn't that be an important part of the page?  At its worst...."psychic archaeologists can locate...?  What?!?

Again is this just me?  Do you all see this as well?

There have been tons of investigations on dowsing, even Feder writes about testing the dowsers in his book.  This whole page seems really riddled with being overly gracious towards psychics.  The best part of the page is how "skeptics" compare psychic archaeologists to psychic detectives.  They are both frauds in our opinion.  But our psychic detective page still isn't re-edited, so when the pages are hyperlinked as they are that puts more pressure on getting the detective page finished.

BTW the psychic archaeology page averages about 700 hits a month. 

Paper Presentation of Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia at TAM9

Don't know what took me so long to get this out, but I'm finally getting this up on YouTube.


Paper Presentation at TAM9. Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpUd9uwVjqA


Its been a pretty exciting month, promoting Guerrilla Skepticism.  Thanks to John Farquhar and Tim Farley I'm going to volunteer (if they will have me) for the Wikipedia Ambassador Program.   As I learn more about this I will pass the info on. 

I was just on Rational Alchemy podcast last week with Jeff Wagg, Mark Edward and Brian Walsh.   I promise to let you all know when it airs.  It was really really exciting, they let me rant on and on for some reason, but the best part was when Jeff said something like "as much as we are talking about Wikipedia here tonight, I know we are are completely underestimating the importance of Wikipedia to skepticism".  Jeff was with the JREF for years and he has seen it all.  If Jeff says that this project is important then it is.

I'm also going to be featured on a few other skeptical blogs here hopefully soon.  I've been invited to do a couple more podcasts (just waiting to hear back on a date and time) and I'm totally open to doing more, it they will let me rant on and on about Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia.

Also Mark Edward came up with an exciting idea to get more people editing Wikipedia.  A 24-hour Edit-A-Thon.  The idea has changed several times in scope but I'm still loving the idea, and am working with Tim Farley on how to make this happen world-wide over a weekend.  Don't panic, it isn't the same person editing 24 hours, but groups and solo people editing and posting their edits to a single area so others can watch it happen in real time.  Pretty exciting, if you would like to get involved, please let me know, details will come soonish.

In the mean time, keep editing.  We are going to need far more than a weekend to finish this project.  

Susan

P.S. here is the link to the Rational Alchemy Podcast mentioned. 
http://rational-alchemy.com/home-page/1127-rational-alchemy-09132011-guerrilla-skepticism-released

CSI Page updated

Finally got a chance to take a good look at CSI's Wiki page tonight.  I didn't look at how long it has been since it was updated, but it must have been quite some time as I was able to add about 20 Fellows to the list they provide.  There are 32 more people who are Fellows but are missing Wikipedia pages.  We probably should take a look at that also.

Here is the "before" page.  And the "after" page. 

I talk about using lists, and creating hyperlinks on earlier blogs.  It is one of the simplest forms of editing besides correcting spelling and grammar.  I added at least 25 hyperlinks on the CSI page to link to other Wiki articles, and corrected the spelling of two words.

Why are adding hyperlinks so important?   We need to use each other as resources, gather hits from one site to another.  Each of the 20 new fellows I added to that list will gain hits just because their name was found on the page. CSICOP received 2,348 hits to its Wiki page in June 2011.  Not tons but we need to maximize each and every lead.  

I'm really torn about adding the people who are Fellows but don't have a Wiki page to the CSI page.  The names would appear in Black and not be linkable to anything, but I think I might just do it on the off-chance that they will get a page, and also that way the CSI Fellows page is complete.  

IIG was not represented on their page, and I soon fixed that.  Also had to update the normal IIG page to show that new affiliates in Washington DC, Atlanta and Denver are now IIG.  There are a couple others almost finished becoming affiliates and when that happens I (or someone) will need to update both CSICOP and the IIG page.

I'm leaving this project unfinished in the hope that someone will take up the ball and help out.

One of the things next to do is to go to each one of the Fellow's Wiki pages and make sure that the affiliation with CSICOP is mentioned.  

I've noticed that there is no mention on Asimov's page of his support (and I believe founding help) of CSICOP.  Whoever updates his page needs to find a citation proving his link to CSI.  Try www.csicop.org for the article(s) to link to. 

The page is on my watchlist, so really looking forward to seeing some editing going on.  As you find (note I didn't say "if") fellows whose pages are neglected and badly need updating, please comment here so others will know. 

Thanks in advance!