Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Did You Know? Guest Post by Rick Duffy


The following is a guest article by Rick Duffy, he is one of the newest members of the English team.  He created pages for Stan Romanek, Skepticamp and Jeff Peckman as well as the Bryan & Baxter Wikipedia page that he just got on the front page of Wikipedia yesterday.

Want to also mention that in the 8 hour window Bryan & Baxter was on the front page it received 1,933 views.   These are mostly just the curious not necessarily skeptics.  This is not preaching to the choir, this is real outreach. 

The last page I submitted to DYK was for James Underdown.  That page hit over 5K views during the 8 hour window.  In that case I got a picture as well as the hook to appear on the main page.  You never know what kind of hits your going to receive.  It depends on other articles that are competing at that time, news events happening in the world, and the time of day the page hits.

I always forget how to go through this process, so I will be referring to this next time I launch a page.  Our goal is to try to get a DYK for every article we launch.  Also all of Wikipedia uses DYK, so no matter what language your writing in, we need to try and get the DYK.

Rick was very successful this week, he is also a wonderful editor and a much better writer as you will see. 

Susan


Did You Know …

The Wikipedia main page (at least the English one) features news, history, and various Wikipedia articles, and receives about seven million hits a day. Beneath the main article is a section called Did You Know (DYK), which contains links to a handful of interesting new content. These links are cycled to new links every eight hours.

You can nominate articles, even your own, to be included in DYK. This can help not only increase its exposure, but people may follow the links within your article, and find out more about the other subjects and people you talk about. This high visibility and propagating wave of browsing makes DYK a great tool for spreading skepticism to the world.

I recently had an article included in DYK, and this write-up explains the steps I followed to do it. At the end of the article I include links to the official DYK rules and procedures on Wikipedia. But overall, my steps were:

Step 1: Write new content
Step 2: Write a Hook
Step 3: Create DYK Nomination
Step 4: Add this new template to the big DYK Nominations page
Step 5: Work with the reviewer’s comments
Step 6: Watch the DYK Queue
Step 7: Tell Everyone


Step 1: Write new content

Only new articles of at least 1,500 characters are eligible for DYK. This means either a brand new article, or an article that has been so expanded that it is at least five times bigger that it was.

For DYK, “new” means the content was published within five day prior to its DYK nomination. So when creating your new article, develop it in your private space. And only publish it when you are done, and ready to nominate it for DYK within five days. But take your time and get it right, especially all the necessary citations, since once in the review process editors will be on the lookout for any violation or deviation from the standard content policies and guidelines. My first DYK attempt was rejected because I quoted too much content verbatim in my article, rather than summarizing or rewriting it.

Step 2: Write a Hook

The links under the DYK section have this format:

Did you know… <hook>?

For example:

Did you know… that paranormal claims investigators Bryan & Baxter do not investigate the paranormal, but rather the legitimacy of the paranormal claims made by others?

The hook is some interesting fact about your article that will ‘hook’ people into looking at it. It should be concise, under 200 characters, and contain the article name linked in bold. The hook also must be contained within the article itself, with a reputable citation.

Step 3: Create DYK Nomination

Once you’ve published your content, and have the hook in mind, you are ready to nominate your article. Usually Wikipedia requires everything be done from a neutral point of view (NPOV), so it might seem like a conflict of interest to nominate your own article. But in this case, it is ok, and is actually encouraged.

A lot of Wikipedia pages look like big articles where someone typed a bunch of text into the page. But actually some (maybe most) are assembled by Wikipedia itself by pulling in smaller templates of content and building a bigger page. The DYK process does this a lot, so you will be working on what seem like isolated page templates, but they all later get pulled into a bigger page.

To nominate your article, you go to this page:


This page really has everything you need to know about the DYK process, and you should probably read it all, but I’ll continue relating below how I worked through it.


Here you will fill in your article’s title, and when you press the Create nomination button it will begin to create a nomination template. For this example, I typed in the article name Test. It then displays a new page, with a bunch of explanatory text, titled:

Creating Template:Did you know nominations/Test

You will scroll down and find the page edit box:



And fill it in (you don’t need to fill in everything, just the following)

Notice in your hook, you make sure you bold and link your article name. In this case, I am pretending I created an article called Test. (Obviously you would use your hook, not my test hook about being deleted).

Enter an edit summary below the edit box like you normally would before saving any Wikipedia edit (e.g., Nominated TEST at DYK) and save the page as you normally save a page edit. You should then see a new page, something like this:


This is your nomination template for your article, where all the action will happen, and where reviewers will make comments. Notice at the top the tab says UNWATCH. This means you are watching the page, and any changes here will appear in your watch list. If it doesn’t say UNWATCH, then WATCH it. As editors come over and make comments, you need to notice them, and respond. If you don’t respond in a timely fashion, the page will not make it through the DYK process.

The review process could at this point go on longer than five days, so that limit only applies to nominating your page after you publish it, not how long it may take to get through the DYK process.

Step 4: Add this new template to the big DYK Nominations page

The big DYK Nominations page is:


Before reviewers will notice your nomination, you now must edit the above page (it’s actually the same page where you pressed that Create nomination button) and insert your new template under the date when your article was made public (which is not necessarily today’s date.)

So for our Test page, we add this line:

{{Template:Did you know nominations/Test}}


And then add an edit summary before saving (e.g., Listed Test DYK nomination for discussion).

Notice in the figure, it shows I scrolled down to the July 18 section, and inserted the Test template at the top of the section.

Like all things in Wikipedia, it helps to look at how others did something, and this big page is a great place to peek in on other nominations in progress.

Step 5: Work with the reviewer’s comments

If all goes well, reviewers will begin to view and perhaps add comments to your nomination template, which since you watched that page, will appear in your watch list as changes to the template you created:


From this point on, this is the only page you’ll be editing.

As editors make comments there, they will add four tildes ~~~~ at the end of each comment. As you edit this page and respond to them, you must also add ~~~~ at the end of each of your comments. This simply signs your name with a timestamp. So when you see a comment with something like this at the end:

Created/expanded by Rjmail (talk). Self nom at 20:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You don’t actually type out all that text. Just append the four tildes ~~~~ and it will be replaced automatically with all that timestamp text.

Also, as you respond, you can prefix your responses with :, or ::, or :::, or :::::, etc. These colons simply indent your reply so it sort of creates a thread-looking discussion.

If the editor suggests a change to your hook, you can propose new hook text anywhere in the discussion, but prefix it with an Alt, like *'''Alt!''', or *’’’Alt2’’’, etc

You can see examples of these things in progress, and how my own discussion with an editor proceeded here:


If all goes well (which for me it did this for this article, but it didn’t for my first article), a reviewer will mark it as reviewed. And then another reviewer will hopefully promote it to the DYK Queue, which puts it on the real track to appearing on the Wikipedia front page.

Step 6: Watch the DYK Queue

If it gets promoted (which you’ll see on your watch list), your work with the hook is probably done. In fact, you can no longer edit your template. It is now in one of the queues on this page:


There is a PREP section (where your hook arrives first), and a QUEUE section, to which it will later (mysteriously) move. Once in a Queue, the hook will automatically be added to the Wikipedia main page according to the schedule listed on this Queue page:



In this sample schedule, if our hook had dropped into Queue 1, it would appear on the main Wikipedia page July 19 at 1AM Los Angeles time. And it will remain there 8 hours, at which point that section will be replaced by the hooks in Queue2, and so on.

Step 7: Tell Everyone

When your hook makes it to a Queue, it seems to be guaranteed to move to the main Wikipedia page (though, there is always the chance that some admin will notice something horribly wrong and decide to pull your article). But if things are looking good, you might want to spread the word that your article will be featured on the Did You Know section, between its given hours, and so try to drum up some additional traffic.

Any DYK article that gets over 5,000 hits in the time it is in the DYK section will be added to the high rollers page DYKSTATS:



Final Comments

This was based on my second try, and first success, in getting an article into the DYK section. I’m sure there are other circumstances and issues you may run into that I did not, but the reviewers seem very helpful and willing to shepherd the newbie.

Once you have submitted your fifth DTK, you can’t submit anymore, until you become a reviewer yourself. But you don’t have to worry about that for your first couple DYK nominations.

Finally, the following links seem to contain everything you’d ever want to know about the DYK process:



Good luck, and happy editing.

James Randi and Madonna

There are two names I doubt you will see in the same blog title.  Been having a great day/night.  Fresh from TAM 2012 I've got all my pictures uploaded as well as videos.  And I'm all organized with the Wikipedia World project.  People are starting to arrive, I'm placing them in the World group where only English is spoken, and we have groups set up for each language.  At the moment we have; English, Spanish, German, Russian, Turkish, Portuguese and French.  People are still arriving home from their vacation in Las Vegas, so we will probably see a lot more activity in a week or so.

So, the first edit we were going to work on was to get the IIG tribute to James Randi photo over onto all the Randi pages we could.  I asked people at TAM to translate one sentence.  "The Independent Investigations Group [[IIG]] tribute to James Randi TAM9, July 2011".  I didn't plan this very well as I asked people to translate onto a piece of paper.  Once they gave them back to me, I realized that I do not know how to write all that out, plus I had a very hard time reading handwriting.

Some people emailed me the translation and that allowed me to copy and paste.

So how did I do this when I can barely speak English, and what does it have to do with Madonna?

First I opened up the Edit page of the English James Randi page.  And copied the edit for the picture that I left months ago.  It looks like this in English.

[[Image:JREF TAM9 Beard Photo.jpg|thumb|300px|The Independent Investigations Group [[IIG]] tribute to James Randi TAM9]]

Once the picture is loaded to WikiCommons any language can use the image.  So this part is what the photographer (me) named it.

 JREF TAM9 Beard Photo.jpg

Okay then I went to the Spanish James Randi page.   Clicked on the "editar" tab which is in the exact same place as "edit" in English.

I found the place I wanted it to be located and then pasted in the English (above) edit.  Then changed the caption to what someone sent me on email.  I think it was Patrick Mahoney, but not sure at the moment as several people sent me this caption.

It looks like this

[[Image:JREF TAM9 Beard Photo.jpg|thumb|350px|Un tributo a James Randi, dado por el grupo independiente de investigación durante TAM9 (La Junta Asombrosa, edición 9) en julio del 2011]]

I hit preview which is located in the same place as it is in English.  Here it is called mostrar previsualizacion.

Then I wrote "photo" in the reason for edit area and hit save (grabar la pagana).

I was feeling pretty proud of myself but only slightly because I already speak Spanish, so wanted to try something more difficult.

Noticed I have a translation from Ken Archbold in Russian, sitting on my email.

I went to the Russian James Randi page (took me a while to figure out what the word Russian looks like when written in Russian, but I have a son and they always want to appear smart so he pointed it out to me "Русский".  I clicked on the edit page tab which is labeled in a way that I would only know was correct because it was in the same place in English.  And because when I clicked on it, the edit page opened up.

Now I was really in trouble.  I have no idea how to write "image" in Russian.  Possibly it would have worked if I just did it in English, but I decided to find a page that would have pictures on it in the body of the page.  So I went to the Russian page for Madonna, opened up her "edit" page and found an edit for a picture.  Looks like this

[[Файл:Madonna 1990 cropped.jpg|thumb|180px|Мадонна во время [[Blond Ambition World Tour]] в [[1990 год]]у]]

So as you can see the format is the same as in English.  I simply removed the Madonna picture (Madonna 1990 cropped.jpg) and pasted in the Randi Beard jpg.  Then I removed the writing about Madonna that would be the caption area.  Мадонна во время [[Blond Ambition World Tour]] в [[1990 год]]у

Then pasted in Ken's text, and was left with this.

[[Файл:JREF TAM9 Beard Photo.jpg|thumb|180px|Должное Джеймсу Рэнди от независимой группы исследования в TAM, июля 2011]]

I "previewed" the edit and didn't like how small it looked so I raised the px to 300.  I don't do things in a small way.

I didn't know what to put in the "reason for edit" area, so just left a ?  I suppose I could have written in English "photo added" and most editors would understand.

Anyway, Nix caught the bug and went ahead and took care of the Portuguese James Randi page.

Everyone involved in the World project is going to become VERY familiar with this tool.  http://stats.grok.se/

So lets just see for fun, how many people are going to be viewing the photo we just uploaded?

You must copy the name of the page you are trying to look at exactly, and you must pick the language.  Here is what July 2012 looks like in Russian  for James Randi.

I think you get the idea. 

Here is a link from Lei Pinter (who is at the English only WP page) she thought this would be helpful to everyone, Inline interlanguage links.  

There is nothing keeping others from adding pictures to other pages.  If you get in trouble just don't "save" the page.  Or if you mess it up really bad, someone who has that page on a watchlist will clean up your mess with only two clicks of the mouse.  


One more thought, wonder if I'm going to see an surge in hits to this blog because I mentioned Madonna?  If so I better add a few more


Lindsay Lohan, Kevin Bacon, George W. Bush, President Obama, Mitt Romeny

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia - World

The English guerrilla skepticism project has been amazingly successful in the last year.  With only a handful of active editors, we have created many new pages, re-written many more, and acted as police just about everywhere.  TAM 2012 has become a turning point for this project.  As I've been saying since March, we need to be global.  Wikipedia is the most important tool for skepticism that exists today, we can not keep ignoring that the vast majority of the world does not speak English.  Let's get over that, with current Internet tools we can easily communicate, organize and get this done.

The World project begins today.  We have already created a Portuguese, Spanish and French group that will work on WP in those languages.  All discussions (accept from English only editors like me) will happen in that group's language.  I want to encourage people who do not speak English to feel comfortable editing in their language to participate.

In the World discussion group we will discuss all the who/what/how of editing.  I have a bunch of volunteers (and still need more) with all levels of editing experience.  We will learn from each other, looking over edits and correcting grammar and so on.  I'm sure your reading/writing skills will really improve.

The World project will mainly follow the structure of the English project.  Improve pages of our skeptical spokespeople, add photographs, promote science and skepticism, remove vandalism, promote science/skeptic groups and tons more.

What this is not, a group promoting vandalism, or ganging up on other editors.  You have to still follow the rules of Wikipedia, we are going to turn around the reputation WP has amongst our community.   We aren't writing this for our own group, this is for the world.

How this is going to happen.  As I said if you talked to me at TAM, we are going to begin with some simple edits as a group.  First we are going to insert one JREF picture into James Randi's WP in all languages that the page exists in.  I have no idea what all those languages are.  So that is one of the first steps, 27 are listed. This is the area on the far left of the page.  This is the picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JREF_TAM9_Beard_Photo.jpg and I already have the caption translated in many languages and hopefully will get this done tonight.

Months ago I tried to get people interested in editing the word Evolution in all languages, but it is an intimidating subject, very technical and too advanced to start with. 

So we are going to start with Jerry Andrus.  I have almost finished his page in English and we are not going to translate it, but write a new one in every language possible.  We are going to do this mainly by translating existing videos.  There are many Andrus videos already existing in other languages, we just need to know what they are.  We will all be using the same captioning software recommended by Tim Farley.  We need a ton of volunteers to subtitle in English as well.

Keep in mind that you do not have to only work on Jerry's page, you have free reign to edit everything, I highly encourage you to do so.  That kind of thing will happen naturally, once you learn how to add a picture to one page, you will go and add to others.  I'm using the Andrus page as a training tool, also it will make sure we all are together with a rich history of modern skepticism under our belts.  Once Andrus  is done we can link to Randi's, JREF, CFI, optical illusions, Uri, cold-reading, Ray Hyman and on and on.  So we do need to know what exists and what we need to create.

Please contact me if you would like to become involved in this project.  susangerbic@yahoo.com  You will also need to friend me on Facebook. (I apologize in advance if you refuse to use Facebook, you can use an alias and call it Bookface, but all communication about the projects are going to happen there in closed groups)

Thank you in advance, looking forward to getting to know you all and making real changes to critical thinking happen world-wide.

Susan

Video of Ray Hyman discussing Jerry Andrus and Wikipedia with me at TAM 2012

Video of Wendy Hughes explaining the We Got Your Wiki Back! project

Instructions on how to get started editing.

Blog on the speakers at the 6th World Skeptic Congress.

Monday, July 9, 2012

Starting from Scratch

We have 3 new additions to Wikipedia all launched today.  They are all pages for skeptics and all were created from scratch.  Trust me, starting with nothing is a lot of work, at least when you rewrite a page you have a template. 

So here they are, just in time for TAM 2012.

Bryan & Baxter - written by Rick Duffy

Jennifer Ouellette - written by Lei Pinter

Tim Farley - written by Susan Gerbic

I asked  Lei if she had any insight or comments about writing new pages.  Lei answered that she realized the importance of the "what links here?" tab.  This is a blue link on the left side of every page.  It allows you to see what pages on Wikipedia have a hyperlink back to your page.  If you have seen a tag stating that the page is an "orphan" this is what they are talking about. 

One of the things I keep forgetting to do is to see if there is a family name page that needs to be added to.  In Tim Farley's case there is a page called Farley (family name).  I just edited his name into place and stated that he is a "blogger, podcaster and skeptic".  It seems that Baxter, Bonner and Ouellette needed to be added as well. 

Also just wanted to quickly mention that the Brian Dunning (skeptic) page is now the Brian Dunning (author) page. Also the Alan Melikdjanian page has new content available. 

If you like seeing the progress of Wikipedia improvements, please follow this blog or set as a part of your RSS feed.  Don't think just because many of us editors are off to TAM, Dragon*Con and the Skeptic's Toolbox doesn't mean we aren't still getting things done.

I know of many new improvements coming soon, so stay tuned!

Susan


Friday, June 22, 2012

Catch up with me this summer

Taking Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia on the road, catch up with me if you can.

July 6th - Silver Legacy - "End of Time" conference for MENSA (this is a closed conference unless you are a member of MENSA)  Skepticism in Action - I will be on a panel with Brad Lutts (Reno Skeptics), Ben Radford and Mark Edward.

That Friday night July 6th. Join the Reno Skeptics who are hosting a Skeptics in the Pub meetup.  Location to be determined but here is the FB group announcing it.

Saturday, July 7th - Reason4Reason will be featuring Mark Edward discussing his upcoming book Psychic Blues.  I will be there as well, so please if you are in the area of San Francisco that night come hang out with us.  

July 12 -16th find me wandering the venue with camera in hand at South Point (Las Vegas) during the TAM conference.  I will be gathering lots of data for Wikipedia.

August 9-12 find me in Eugene, OR for the Skeptic's Toolbox hosted at the University of Oregon.  I will be launching the re-writes of several faculty at the beginning of August.

August 30-Sept 4th - Dragon*Con in Atlanta, Georgia.  I'm told I might be able to arm-wrestle for a spot on a panel or two. 

September (Date to be determined) I will have my own lecture on Wikipedia for the Reason4Reason group in San Francisco.  Stay tuned for that.















Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Video Interviews and Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

I hear from people all the time they love this project, but they are looking for a non-editing way to help out. 

So, this blog is for you.

Editors of Wikipedia can not add in content that does not exist.  Most of us do not have the ability to create articles and publish them in noteworthy places, we badly need more content.  Editors can quote from podcast interviews (better if the podcast is noteworthy, but not necessary) but then again very few of us have the ability to create a podcast.

Blogs generally are a good way to stay informed and create community.  But Wikipedia editors are not supposed to cite blogs.

What most of us do have, is the ability to create video interviews of noteworthy people (not forgetting those who will soon become noteworthy).

I'm finding the use of video interviews increasingly valuable for the We Got Your Wiki Back! project.  You can't write a whole Wikipedia page based on YouTube video interviews, but it can work to supplement an article, shore up vagueness, and bring lots of personality back to a Wikipedia page that may otherwise seem dry.

The YouTube video just needs to be dated and location is also a good idea.  Any extra information you can add on the video is also helpful.

I am currently re-writing the Wikipedia pages for several of the founders of the skeptical movement.  As well as creating from scratch the Skeptic Toolbox page.  I've been having trouble finding citations about the formation of the Toolbox as well as the motivation for creating it.  So I sat down with the creator Ray Hyman on Father's day and on video asked him about the history and motivation.  Uploaded it to YouTube, quoted him and cited the video.  DONE!

While I was at it I managed to get 4 more videos about his history in science and skepticism.  His comments not only shore up citation holes on his page, but they work to confirm other citations on other people's pages.  When he mentions that the first workshop was with Jim Alcock and Steve Shaw (now Banachek) that strengthens citations on Alcock and Shaw's pages.  We have to constantly remember that back in the 70's and 80's people didn't carry around video cameras in their pockets, and no one realized how important those first meetings would be, the media surely wasn't paying attention.  We need to document our history moving forward, as well as recapture what we can of our past.

Some other examples of using videos for citations on Wikipedia.

I've met James Randi many times, and with my good friend Kitty Mervine we tag-team taping just about every story he tells.  You never know if it will be a magic trick or a personal story, or something about the history of skepticism, but it is always something worth capturing.

When I began editing in 2010 I went through my videos for some reason and came across this one.  Randi discusses Claiborne Pell.   (I was on a rocking cruise ship and missed the beginning of the story) and I had to ask Facebook friends who Randi was talking about because I had never heard the name before.  Here is the Pell page before I added a Paranormal belief section.  And now here is the page with the Randi interview. 

Another great example of using videos to support a page.  When the Reason Rally happened at the beginning of the year the WP page was heavily edited by religious editors trying to diminish the rally.  They quoted all the news sources they could find, which were noteworthy sources but they were all religious.

I didn't attend the rally, but a woman whom knew of this project but had never thought she would ever have a need for help, wrote to me.  The page was a mess, skeptics had not yet come out with any media supporting the rally.  As you can see from this link, the page had become very religious friendly.  According to all the newspaper articles, there were hundreds of Christians handing out flyers and free water to the bad Atheists.  The Atheists were holding really evil signs and saying bad things about religion.

One example was this one "Other atheist activists held more controversial signs such as “So many Christians, so few lions,” in reference to the Diocletianic Persecution, in which several Christians were tortured." That's right "one example", there were thousands of people there and one person holding a sign should be mentioned?  Funny that they said only "several Christians were tortured", I guess they didn't have the room to name each one individually?  Seriously, the bias of that editor was obvious.  

The page went under many changes with two people sitting on the page.  They were arguing and reverting edits like crazy.   See the talk page for more info on how crazy it was. 

It took me some time to finally take this page seriously and go in and change it to what it looks like now.  Finally skeptics started posting videos of the speakers, and people like Brian Engler uploaded images.  Once the videos were up, I searched for the ones with the best quality, and edited out the quotes that I thought represented the speaker best.  Then cited the video.  We never want to remove all criticism, but just get down to the facts.  


The video you get does not have to be fancy, don't wait until you have the perfect setting, turn on the camera and do the best with what you got.  When you upload it, tag it with everything you can think of, and again don't fuss on it too much, its more important that it is uploaded quickly than playing with it for months until you forget about it (or worse delete it)

As in the case of the Reason Rally, we do not always have time to wait for the "official" videos to come out.  Citations must be freely available to anyone who wants to follow the link and see whatever it is you saw when you wrote the citation. (note: this does not mean that you must have a URL, the reference has to be one that without a lot of effort they can also obtain)

So pull out your smart phone,  or video camera and get these interviews recorded.  I could also use some help finding these interviews that should be on these pages.  Please contact me with whatever you got stored on your YouTube feed that might be relevant. 

I was just asked yesterday to recommend a good book talking about the modern skeptical movement's history.  Other than a few mentions in journals, there isn't one that I know of.  We are still waiting on the biographies (or auto-biographies) for our founders.  In the meantime, some of us over on Wikipedia are doing our best to get the citations, pictures and videos all in one place.  Future historians will thank us!

As usual, if you would like to help out with this project contact me at susangerbic@yahoo.com

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

The Accuracy of non-Wikipedia articles vs Wikipedia

As if we need another good reason to make sure Wikipedia's pages are up to speed, another one showed up in my email a few minutes ago. 

I have Google alerts set for many people and subjects, but one of the oldest alerts I have set is for Barry Beyerstein.  If I could show you my desktop at this moment you would see a Barry Beyerstein edit page tab wide open awaiting a grammar check before I hit save.  (you can't see it yet as I'm working on this in my user space, but very soon I hope to be done)

And noticed that a new email in my inbox is a Google alert for Beyerstein.  Wonderful and timely!  I follow the alert to  this article for Business Insider. I use the "find" feature to find the mention of Barry and sure enough the author is quoting an article done years ago about myths concerning using only 10% of your brain.  I notice that the author has footnotes scattered around the article, but they don't seem to be hyperlinked to anything. 

I explore a little further and realize that he is citing Wikipeidia, a page called Ten percent of brain myth.  I'm always amazed at the Wikipedia pages I didn't know exist, so I go over to that page to see if Beyerstein has a mention on it.  Again I use the find feature on my computer to see if he is cited. 

To my amazement almost the entire Business Insider article is copied word for word (along with the footnote numbers, but not the citations) from the Wikipedia page.   He has done no research to check the Wikipedia article, just assumed that it was correct. 

I'm not going to comment on plagiarism or the accuracy of Wikipedia.  I'm just pointing out that this is a common practice for reporters and bloggers.  The information we are leaving on Wikipedia influences many more people than just the readers of Wikipedia.  I believe Lei pointed this out to me a few months ago but I hadn't come across such an extreme example as this before. 

Sometimes I hear from anti-Wikipedia users that they refuse to use Wikipedia because they have had run-ins with editors when they tried to edit or because they think Wikipedia contains incorrect information.  Well I now have news for them, what they think they are reading in their non-Wikipedia source may still be Wikipedia. 

Thursday, May 31, 2012

WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2 (and my views on gender)

 Been having an on-going conversation with Sarah Stierch from the Wikimedia Foundation Community.  You might remember her from her work at the Smithsonian archives where she had the first WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon. 
She is having another, this time on the west coast at Wikipedia headquarters in San Francisco.  All the information you need is available at this link.  

I'm unsure if I will be able to attend, I may be out of town that weekend.  But I will be there in spirit if nothing else.  

I've been pretty public that I don't care if the editor is male or female, I just want people on board that do a good job, follow the rules, ask for feedback, accept helpful criticism with a smile, and oh yeah, don't flake.  The quality of their edits is more important than their gender. 

Sarah mostly agrees with me, but raises one really important point.  "I do believe though that if we do want to write the sum of all the world's knowledge we have to do it with all genders participating."

She is exactly right, I'm sure someone will find the percentages pretty quickly for me, but I think only 9% of Wikipedia editors are women.  That's pretty sad.  Women want to be represented as equals yet they aren't stepping up?  I know Wikipedia is concerned with these numbers, and are willing to listen.

Some say that women don't edit Wikipedia because they have been harassed by men.  (citation needed)

The following is my opinion.  I've never been harassed, discouraged or reverted by anyone on Wikipedia because I'm a woman.  It is very possible that it is unknown that I'm a woman unless they go to my user page when they will quickly discover from all the pictures of me that I'm very much female.  

Keep in mind that just because it has not happened to me, does not mean it doesn't happen.  In my experience I can say that this holds true in the skeptic world as well, I've never had any negative experiences with-in our community because of my gender.

I've been giving this a lot of thought and I'm not sure how valuable my opinion is on this subject, but I'm wondering if I have a different threshold of what is harassment and discrimination than younger women?  I'm about to be 50 this summer and have lived through some not so nice times where I was shut up, talked over and worse because I was a woman trying to get my point across.  I attended school where it was required for me to take homemaking (sewing and cooking) classes.  I wanted to take drafting but it was filled with boys and I knew I would have been uncomfortable.  The world I grew up in is NOT the world I'm experiencing now.

I know what sexual harassment feels like.  I have a Harley, I play pool.  Those worlds are still a bit behind, but they have improved a lot.   

Then again, my mother would probably laugh at what I call harassment.  She wasn't even allowed to wear pants, the idea of riding a motorcycle was impossible to her.  What I have gone through was nothing compared to what she went through.  And if we looked back to my grandmothers life she would think my mom was totally liberated compared to what she went through.  So I'm wondering if these on-going discussions about gender might just be a matter of relativity.  

If women are being harassed on Wikipedia because they are female then on a case by case basis that should be dealt with.  As well as in the skeptic universe.  No one should feel uncomfortable at a conference, male or female, but we need to be clear.  Talking behind the backs of our male speakers or attendees does not give the man a chance to clear his name.  If there is a problem, get it out in front and discuss it.  He should be able to defend himself.  Same on Wikipedia, if there seems to be harassment then they should be called on it.  Give them a change to apologize and explain themselves.  Then move on.  If the behavior continues then the discussion and consequences should escalate.

So there is my two-cents for what its worth.  I would love to see more women editors.  I would also love to see more diversity in age, culture, language, people with children and anything else that makes for a well-rounded group of people.  

We need a lot more female Wiki editors.  But even more, we need people who care, who do good work and won't flake.  Please join us today, contact me at susangerbic@yahoo.com. 

Sunday, May 27, 2012

Jerry Andrus - a Universal Icon - Lets get started!

Jerry Andrus - Skeptic's Toolbox 2004 - from my camera

My current project is to improve/rewrite the faculty pages for the Eugene, Oregon Skeptic's Toolbox pages, as well as to create the Toolbox page.  I've discovered during my research on re-writing the Jerry Andrus page that there exists many YouTube videos about or by Andrus in languages other than English.  Yet Jerry's current page is only available in English.

What a shame.

I have discussed many times that the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project is far too important to remain in English only.  Yet, I lack the skills necessary to read/write in other languages.  You don't know how frustrating that is for me, but it just shows how important it is to find editors who can.

In the call-out linked above where I discuss the need to expand our outreach to controversial topics outside English, I've not received a single email volunteering to help.  When I've approached Facebook "friends" who have other languages other than English (I tried a personal message to 30 people) when I got a response (7 people) I was mainly told "sorry, but I don't read/write well enough in that language."  (insert deep sigh here)  I think they were worried that they lacked the technical knowledge to translate a page on like "evolution" into their native language.

Possibly so.  So now I'm trying an easier subject to focus on. 

I'm thinking that Jerry Andrus may be a great place to focus our efforts when we do find those editors.  For those of you who did not know Jerry, he was a genius.  A gentle man, who could not tell a lie and wanted more than anything to show others his amazing optical illusions.  These illusions are universal, made with simple household objects, string, cardboard and tape.  Something a child anywhere in the world could copy and improve on with little instruction other than that spark to get them started.

And what a spark!  Teaching people about optical illusions teaches them how easily the brain can be fooled, which may inspire them to begin to think critically in other areas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SErHThEGTDc

What I'm suggesting is that we find people willing to edit in their language and start with the existing videos.  All the articles I'm finding on Andrus would need to be translated into that language as well, possibly they have already been created?  The Did You Know? front page of Wikipedia project exists in all languages as well, and it would be a great push to get people who would normally not search out his page, to discover it. 

This would be a time consuming effort, but I guarantee an important project in bringing the skeptical message to anywhere an Internet connection exists.

Here are just a few of the videos I've found of Andrus performing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwxWtK0uHxw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyTfgFoRnZI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJTQHWDgieI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1_fKf-GLgc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKZHPAKLOUo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAJr6sFFQC4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBKmszziEGM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1hkU6k80ew

We have just finished the 6th Skeptic World Congress last week in Berlin.  Surely we had attendees wanting to get involved in improving skepticism in their native languages?

So I'm suggesting if you personally don't read/write in a second language can you pass this on to someone you think might want to get involved?  Help me find a way to get this project out to skeptic groups outside the English speaking world.  And lets get started.

BTW - really could use some help finding sources for the Skeptic's Toolbox page (in English).

Please contact me at susangerbic@yahoo.com

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Google Knowledge Tool - Breaking News!

Our resident skeptical crowd-sourcing genius Tim Farley has just released a blog about the Google Knowledge Tool.  I had not heard of it, and even if I had it probably would have taken months before I realized its importance on this project. 


Tim Farley's "Google Knowledge Graph benefits from skeptic Wikipedia efforts"

Still early news, we are not sure how the image is selected.  Or how the suggested pages are selected. 

Play around with this, the relationships are so interesting. 

Not only does this raise the We Got Your Wiki Back! project to amazing importance levels.  We need to make sure to provide skeptical citations on all the paranormal pages.  James Randi must be a suggested hit for every psychic.  Steven Novella should be a hit for Dr. Oz.  Sikivu Hutchinson has a great Wikipedia page, but nothing appears for her on the Google Knowledge Graph.

Still awaiting more information about how this new Google tool works.

But its still extremely exciting!

Monday, May 14, 2012

So you want your own Wikipedia page - Now What?

I get a lot of requests from people who think they should have a Wikipedia page, or their project or whatever.  Instead of writing out one more email explaining how to go about it, I'll just write it down once and save it as a post that I can forward every week.

I'm going to try and keep this general and will use the word "pickles" instead of the words; podcast, blog, person, place, thing, book, radio show, artwork, magazine or whatever else.

Firstly pickles must be noteworthy.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  It is designed for people to go and look up whatever is on their mind, globally.  Being in Wikipedia is pretty darn cool, and can be pretty powerful (that goes both ways, see below about criticism).  If everyone was allowed to have a Wikipedia page, where friends could write about pickles and you could control what information went up about pickles then that would not be Wikipedia.  It would be Facebook.  The last time I checked, they were still two different things.

Wikipedia is very strict about what is noteworthy.  They get to write the rules.  I could do what most WP editors do and just link to the WP noteworthy page.  But I'm not, I doubt you will read it, otherwise you would be approaching me with "I've read the noteworthy page on Wikipedia already, and pickles fits all those requirements, can you help me?"

Noteworthy means that you have secondary citations from other noteworthy (that means they already have WP pages themselves) pickles.  And you need many citations.  Speaking out at the city council meeting, reading a poem at a meeting, having a popular business are not going to cut it.

I hear the "pickles has a ton of FB followers, blog hits, subscribers" argument all the time.  I've read this on talk pages for psychics too, "why are you being so mean to Sylvia Browne, she has so many fans?"

The answer is simple, just being popular won't cut it on WP, again that would be twitter and Facebook.  I'm sure porn sites get a ton of views also, but they don't have a WP page.  WP is an encyclopedia for noteworthy topics, not a fan club.

THEN

We are the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia team.  If you want our attention, pickles needs to satisfy the skepticism angle.  You would be surprised at the things people want help with.

Also, we are extremely busy people. I'm sure you are also, otherwise you would be on the GSoW team. Please do not insult us by assuming that we are just sitting around twiddling our thumbs waiting for a suggestion to come in.  We are all unpaid volunteers trying to do the job that needs to be done for skepticism.  Yes, it is that important.  Your pickles does not have the outreach GSoW has, not even close. We reach Millions of readers World-Wide in a year, can pickles say that?

We do not churn out pages overnight.  It can take weeks or months (generally 3-4 weeks if all goes well).  We do not turn out crappy stubs, we launch well-written carefully vetted pages.  We want to be proud of what we release, and we don't plan on doing something under pressure.  We read every citation we are given.  We put pickles on Google alert so we can find fresh material.  We also search all over the Internet for things you might have forgotten to mention. We write to organizations to back up citations, we go to a lot of work to get these written correctly.

We do not hide criticism.  In fact we want some criticism on pickle's page.  Wikipedia likes that, once the page is launched then other editors will edit the page,  trust me they will insert the criticism.  

We also hear that well meaning (but misinformed) people will try to encourage you to write your own page, guess what you aren't allowed to do that.  If so, every psychic and heehaw would have their own page.  WP does not want advertising on WP and that is what you would be doing, just another fan page.  If the GSoW team discovers that you are doing this, and you do not have the citations to prove you belong on WP then we are very likely going to take pickles page down.  We are looking out for what is best for WP and our community.  If everyone gets a page, then all of the pages are diminished.

Our other goal is to find more editors to help with this project.  Are you going to find me more editors?  Are you yourself going to join (and not work on your page, but others you are not connected with?)

Many times we search out pickles that do not ask for a re-write or a page.  That happens all the time, we have to talk them into helping us out, sometimes they are just shy about it.  They think of it as a ego thing.  Yes, in a way it is.  But we don't think of it that way.  We are looking at the big picture.  If pickles deserves a Wikipedia page, then pickles should have a page.  The world is watching us, looking at our pickles and wondering who and what we are.  Wikipedia is the perfect tool for skeptics because every claim must have proof.  It is not ego, it is common sense.  If our pickles don't have respectable pages, and they are in the media's eye, then what does that say about us?  Shame on us if we don't have our own backs!

All this said, we do encourage you to contact us with ideas for articles/rewrites or just things that are not correct on a page you have read.  We love that, we are here to help.  I know I probably sound snarky, if you only could read my email requests you would understand. ;-)  If what you are suggesting to be fixed is a small quick thing then I will find someone to fix it, or better yet, teach you how to do it yourself.  It isn't that difficult.

So please do not let my frustrations discourage you from writing to me.  But please research a bit first.  And consider that maybe you should be involved in this project.

Please join us in supporting our own community.

Write to me at susangerbic@yahoo.com - (but read this first)


Friday, May 11, 2012

Borley Rectory - Harry Price and Brian Dunning

I love ghost stories.  If you love ghost stories too, but also like getting the facts straight, then this is the project for you.

I came across this Skeptoid episode tonight "Borley Rectory: the World's Most Haunted House?
Were the events at Borley Rectory a real haunting, or the product of a hoaxster" and started looking into the Wikipedia pages for the Rectory as well as for Harry Price whom Dunning claims made it all up. 

 The Rectory Wikipedia page is full of stories and even a ghost picture.  The "hauntings" and "investigation" make up the majority of the article.  No mention of anything that Dunning discovered in his research.  

The Harry Price Wikipedia page is the same.  He is listed as a paranormal investigator and author.  The only mention of "hoax" was under his picture, and that was because the portrait was taken by William Hope who was a hoaxer.  (who is also listed as a paranormal investigator at his page)

There seems to be some disconnect with all these pages and the research Brian Dunning did on his article. 

Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia is just that, we need to make sure that Wikipedia is correct.  If Dunning's research is incorrect then he needs to be told and I'm sure he will retract.  If Dunning is correct then these Wikipedia pages are in bad need of an over-haul.  

I do remember listening to a much more recent episode of Skeptoid when Dunning answers the question of why he loves doing these podcasts week after week for so many years.  He mentioned the Borley Rectory episode as one of his favorites because he was able to discover that the "spirit writing on the wallpaper" was actually people writing on a roll of wallpaper spread out on a table.  He also discovered that there was no evidence of the stories prior to Harry Price.  

Reading through the comments on the Skeptoid website I noticed one from someone who lived near the Rectory that said that the current residents are sick and tired of people trampling all over their property looking for ghosts.  That is really true, these stories are fun, but real people are harmed by them.  Can you imagine living in a really neat old house and having people standing outside your windows at night with EVP recorders and tossing stones at your windows?  That just isn't right. 

Brian Dunning offers several citations on his blog showing where he got his research from.  Good skeptics should never accept anything at face value.  Science tells us we should replicate findings and see if we get the same results. 

Surely there is one lover of ghost stories out there that would like to make a project of this?  Look into Dunning's research and see what conclusion you come to, keep an open mind like all good scientists should.  If the Wikipedia pages need to be rewritten, then we will take care of that.  Just let me know what you discover. 

So you want to get involved - now what?

I do a lot of outreach all over the skeptical world, trying to explain this project.  I'm always surprised to find people who have never heard of this project, and why editing Wikipedia is even important.  But I'm sure there is a lot of educating I need to do.

So every few days or so I get an email from someone who asks "how can I help?" and each time I write up a special email just for them telling them how to help.  I haven't been keeping really good count but it seems that at least half never respond again.  And of those that do respond maybe a half again only get as far as making a Wikipedia account, then they drop off the face of the Earth.

I'm left with about 25% of people who follow through.  And that is really cool because that is really want we need, people who don't flake and are here because they want to be here, understand the project and are enjoying themselves.

To all the people who don't pan out, thanks for your interest. Please remember us with a kind heart and maybe someday you will have the desire to become involved.

<quick story> - One woman that is a member of CFI, heard about this project because she saw a notice about a Cafe Inquiry lecture I was about to give.  She wasn't interested, but remembered it.  Then she went to an event (that shall not be named because I don't want to draw attention to it right now).  She was amazed at what was happening to the Wikipedia page for that event, she tried to edit it but quickly got over her head and was nearly banned.  She remembered me,  Lei and I got onto it and managed to eventually get the page into shape.  The woo crowd was using it as a platform to support their side.  The woman who first drew my attention to the page still writes to me with updates and totally supports us.  She does not have to become an editor to totally "get it" and has done a lot to help.  </end story>

So you think you want to help with the project as an editor.  Here are the steps you need to take, as well as what to expect.

1. you need to open up a Wikipedia account.  Here is an excellent blog from Tim Farley giving easy instructions. 

2. Read this blog.  You don't have to read everything, but I expect that you will "get it" and should understand the project.

3. Go to Wikipedia and click on everything blue you see.  All the links at the top, bottom and sides.  You don't have to completely understand what you see, but you should be aware of these options.

4. Write back to me with your Wikipedia account name.  You should also friend me on Facebook (Susan Gerbic)  I'm going to ask you what you want to do.  I don't tell people what to edit, you need to decide. This is another reason why you need to read the blog.  There are a ton of ideas all over the place.

If you just want to hang out and edit here and there, that is useful and great training.  Here is another blog by Tim Farley that teaches you how to do this. 

When you are ready to start editing more difficult pieces, and/or re-write a page then you will know when you are ready.  No one is going to assign a task for you (if you really push we might steer you somewhere) and I or some of my other editors will step in if you are overwelmed, and provide assistance whenever you need.

What we do not want you trying to do is to write a new Wikipedia page, that can take months to do correctly and will need thought and feedback.  Yes, it is possible to throw up a page in a few minutes, but that is not what we advocate.  We launch our pages and re-writes all in one swoop to create excitement and get people interested in the before and afters.  We also try to get the newly launched page on the front page of Wikipedia as a Did You Know? project.  We have also found that sometimes people think they will come back to the page they published, and then do not.  No one wants more orphans roaming Wikipedia, we have enough stubs as it is. 

We also do not advocate jumping into a thorny editing mess that is highly watched by believers and skeptics.  Some pages are careful balancing acts that though months of discussion have reached a consistence with the editors.  No one wants a new zealot editor to charge in and start changing things around.  If you want to edit pages like $cientology, Mormans, medicine, astrology, global warming, evolution and Jesus Christ, well more power to you.  Please approach me first and lets talk about having realistic expectations.

I do want everyone to know that a lot is going on behind the scenes, several highy-trafficked pages that are carefully watched by both sides are even now being changed to reflect more scientific thinking.  I can't write about the changes as this blog is very public and I don't want edit wars.  Just know that we really need all kinds of help, and though this project is only one-year old, a ton has already been done and lots more planned.  This is an exciting time to help.






Wednesday, May 9, 2012

We Got Your Wiki Back! - Kendrick Frazier

Make sure your sitting down.

I'm so proud of editor Lei Pinter I could shout.  This woman has Got It!  She totally understands what the We Got Your Wiki Back Project! is all about.

The whole goal is to improve the pages of our skeptical spokespeople in order to tell the world that our people are noteworthy, respected, intelligent and real people.  We aren't boring scientists working on the fringe of science.  When Mr. America asks his wife "who is this guy on TV and why should we care what he is saying?" we need to make sure that when the name is searched and they end up on Wikipedia (you know that is going to be the first place they go) they will discover quality.  Remember our spokespeople represent us too. 

The Wikipedia page that Lei started out with was bare bones.  Dull.  So vacant that I would expect a bum would be sleeping in one corner with a newspaper over his head, and not a clean newspaper either.

Here is what she found when she decided to re-write his page. Kendrick Frazier April 23, 2012.

The images she got Kendrick to upload tell a story all by themselves.  They are loving, intelligent and look like a man that any one of us would want to hang out with.

The text tells a rich story as well, this man has done so much in his life and is still more active than most of us.  Reading over the page I had no idea there was so much to this man.  How dare the old page say that he might not be notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page.  Shame on the skeptical community for allowing this to happen.  This flag went up November 2009! 

What kind of respect do we have for ourselves?

So I know your sitting down now.  Here is the brand new page.  Kendrick Frazier

Thank you Lei, you really came through in a big way.

If you are reading this and think that you would like to become involved.  There are hundreds of ways to do so.

First, open up an account on Wikipedia.
Second, read my entire blog
Third, contact me at susangerbic@yahoo.com

We will make it happen and you can be a hero like Kendrick and Lei.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

We Got Your Wiki Back - Robert Ingersoll!

One thing leads to another.  After spending so much time on the re-write of Tom Flynn's Wikipedia page, I realized that I was learning a lot about Robert Ingersoll.  Tom mentioned, too bad that the Birthplace museum's Wikipedia page is in such bad shape, I've never known that you could have a stub of a stub". 

I didn't even know there was a WP page for Ingersoll's birthplace.  Here is how the page appeared a few weeks ago. 

Tom gave me all kinds of pictures which took me the longest getting them all organized on the page.  I'm still not happy with the picture layout, but that is the beauty of Wikipedia, someone else can play with the images. 

I learned that Ingersoll only lived in this house 4 months.  But it is the only Ingersoll residence still existing. 

Another interesting piece of trivia.  When you watch the museum video you will see people getting off a bus, going inside and looking around at the artifacts.  As I was watching this video I said "hey I know that guy, and that one... and that one also... hey I know all these people, they were at the CFI summer conference I was at 2002!"  That is too funny.  I was supposed to be on that same tour but during the 2-week conference I discovered SURPRISE my husband had left me.  So I had to rush home to California and change the locks on the doors.  That would have been really funny if I had been watching the video and suddenly I appeared. 

Here is the freshly published version. 

And here is the stat tool to watch the hits for the page.

TThere is tons of work waiting to be done.  Just imagine how amazing I must be at Trivial Pursuit (if the topics are about anything concerning the skeptic world) 

Please join us

Write to me at susangerbic@yahoo.com after you have opened up a Wikipedia account, and read through this blog.  I'm willing to train and mentor.