Wednesday, February 7, 2024

Disclosure Warriors Uncover a Vast UFO Coverup Conspiracy: Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia!

We have just recently witnessed one of the funniest episodes of UFOlogical stupidity in recent memory: Some of UFO's top Disclosure Warriors dramatically announce they have uncovered a "secret cabal" manipulating Wikipedia articles about UFOs. Matt Ford of the Good Trouble Show posted this dramatic announcement on TwitX on January 21:

 
TODAY 530pm Pacific. @RobHeatherly1
joins us as he exposes the Secret Cabal of debunker Wikipedia Editors run by a non-profit 501(c)3 targeting Wikipedia pages on UFOs with a written statement by @LueElizondo
.
 

 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
So there we have it - these Disclosure Warriors, including the esteemed Lue Elizondo himself, dramatically announce to official Washington, and  to the world, that they have uncovered a major "Cabal"  covering up UFO truth! So dramatic!!! Elizondo claims to have headed up the Pentagon's AATIP UFO investigation program, which unfortunately never had any budget. He later worked with Tom DeLonge, who promised to build spacecraft that would go "To The Stars." Here is what Lue had to say about GSoW:

Guerrilla Wikipedians must be good saucer pilots, since they are "wreckless."

The only problem is: this is a "Cabal" that was never "secret" in the first place! Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia (GSoW), headed up by skeptic Susan Gerbic, has been around since 2010. I wrote about it in this Blog in 2012, and again in 2013. It was the subject of a major article in Wired magazine in 2018, among other places. So anyone who thinks they have uncovered a "Wikipedia secret cabal" has the investigative skills not of a Sherlock Holmes, but of a Mr. Magoo. Here is a video from 2020 of Susan explaining what GSoW is all about
 
Disclosure: Technically I am a member of GSoW, although I have not participated in it very much. I did add some info to a few pages, and I have uploaded a number of my photos to Wikimedia Commons that might have relevance to UFO history.
 

  


Susan Gerbic, with her camera as always, making friends with the Dinosaur in the Creation Museum in Santee, California in 2012.
 
These UFO warriors seem to think that the skeptical Wikipedians are just arbitrarily changing article texts, and creating misleading articles. What they don't seem to understand is that Wikipedia has rules. You need to have citations, you also need to avoid copyright infringements, self-promotion, etc:
To maintain the highest standards possible, Wikipedia has a strict inclusion policy that demands verifiability. This is best established by attributing each statement in Wikipedia to a reliable, published source (but see Rules 7 and 8 on excessive self-citing).... All articles in Wikipedia should be impartial in tone and content. When writing, do state facts and facts about notable opinions, but do not offer your opinion as fact. Many newcomers to Wikipedia gravitate to articles on controversial issues about which people hold strong opposing viewpoints.

There is a "talk" page for many articles, to discuss or debate the application of these rules to the contents of that page. These sometimes turn into big debates for controversial articles, so if you have a problem with something you read in a Wikipedia article and want to change it, you'd better be able to solidly back up your claim. Given many UFOlogists' propensity for making exciting but unfounded claims, it is frankly no surprise that the articles they write would run afoul of Wikipedia rules, and end up removed or re-written.
 
Meanwhile, for any UFOlogist who believes that GSoW has been inaccurate or unfair in what it wrote in a Wikipedia article - then challenge them on the article's Talk page. If you can make a good case that they are not correct, it will get changed, and the change will remain. Plus, you can brag to all your friends about how you defeated the nasty Debunkers on Wikipedia.  But I don't see this happening, and I think we can figure out why. 😉



 
 

7 comments:

  1. Thank you Robert! I don't remember that photo but it sure is fun. BTW they don't seem to see the irony of these people calling me out for hiding my edits, when everything is public ... every single edit ... and I use my real name Sgerbic. Yet the majority of the people fussing about this are hiding behind their fake user names.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As I recall, the birthplace of patriot and rebel Lou Elizondo was unable to get his birthplace by state correctly named on Wikipedia. Maybe it was Chris Mellon, just check your target list it was one of them, but that doesn't matter; such a large actively engaged group undoubtedly there are going to be some honest mistakes. Fine, fix it and keep track of corrections for public perusal. That would build up your reputation, although guerillas usually don't require a positive public image. For now, you are not trustworthy.
    How does it feel being lumped in a group and slandered wholesale? For more information see Stanford Medical and Nolan Labs' new "SOL Foundation." Something anomalous is repeating worldwide.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Even if Wikipedia was in the business of being a cabal nowadays on UFOs, there are other UFO sites that treat the so-called "UFO Mystery" in a fair way, sites that don't love every UFO that they bumped into. However, I would not worry about this, for as soon as I saw "wagging tongue" Lou Elizondo being part of this I knew that what he stated was a bunch of fibs, to be nice about it. The only cabal there is consists of people like Elizondo, and other whistleblowers, who wag their tongues without showing one piece of UFO evidence, and then they expect the world to believe their story telling!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon - why are you and your friends so fixated on Elizondo's birthplace? Do you think Wikipedia should just add random bits of information about people just because? The next time he is in front of a reputable journalist publishing in a reputable place (there are rules for this that can be looked up) he should just state where he was born. Then put that citation on the talk page and I assure you, one of the editors will add the birthplace. We can't accept word-of-mouth or websites or social media, we need it in an actual citation. He might have said it on some video interview somewhere but editors aren't in the habit of watching interviews with him on some youtube channel. Why would Wikipedia editors be trying to hide his birthplace? That just doesn't make sense. It's not that important to the article and wasn't something easily found, so no one really thought much about it. Quit looking for conspiracy when there isn't one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By the definition this truly is a conspiracy. Doesn’t mean it’s a malevolent conspiracy, but certainly a conspiracy.

      Delete
  5. I thought Lou was just trying to update his birthplace because someone else listed it incorrectly. If true, then I’d say the “cabal” is being a bit petty on that edit.

    Also if editors are removing legitimate information like PhD information to make some of the UFO folk seem less credible, then that’s also pretty suspect.

    I’m a confirmed skeptic but omitting information to lesson the educational legitimacy of some of the UFO glitterati isn’t the way forward.

    ReplyDelete
  6. From what I understand the birthplace was incorrect and he was just trying to put in the correct birthplace. I thought that was the point of Wikipedia; accurate information.

    This all comes across as more ideological capture from left leaning authoritarianism in yet another tech related institution.

    ReplyDelete

Keep your comments relevant, and keep them civil! That means no personal attacks will be allowed, by anyone, on anyone. Commenters are welcome to disagree with me, or with other comments, but state your arguments using logic, and with a civil tone. Comments in violation of these rules will be deleted, and offenders banned.

Comments should be in English, although quotes from foreign-language sources are fine as long as they're relevant, and you explain them. Anonymous postings are not permitted. If you don't want to use your real name, then make up a name for yourself, and use it consistently.