Mick West on Wikipedia Scandal, Jeremy Corbell & Gimbal Video
As the host of a popular channel dedicated to unraveling the mysteries of UFOs, I recently had the opportunity to sit down with Mick West, an individual widely recognized for his skepticism regarding UFO phenomena. The conversation revolved around Mick's involvement in a recent contentious issue, a situation that stirred quite a bit of interest among the online community. It's known colloquially as the "Wikipedia Scandal," and it prompted me to look deeper into the matter, granting Mick a platform to present his perspective. This dialogue, while robust in its back-and-forth, remained amicable and respectful throughout, reflecting the constructive nature of our discussion.
During the interview, among various topics, we explored the intricacies and challenges associated with editing Wikipedia, drawing from Mick’s personal experiences and broader observations about the platform. This included addressing the roles and actions of groups like the Guerilla Skeptics, their contributions to Wikipedia, and the ensuing criticisms of their editing practices. Part of the discourse also touched on Mick’s editing history and his transition from personal engagement to a more anonymous role on the information hub. Insight was provided into the complex ecosystem of Wikipedia editing, the difficulties it poses to newcomers, and the implications this has on the representation of information on the platform.
Key Takeaways
The interview discussed the complexities and challenges of Wikipedia editing, including Mick West's personal history with the platform.
The contributions and critiques of groups like the Guerilla Skeptics were a focal point, shedding light on community editing dynamics.
Audience engagement was incorporated, with selected questions being addressed, highlighting community interest and Mick's viewpoints.
Special Episode and Community Interaction
In an exciting development, I engaged with Mick West in an insightful discussion. His unique perspective as a renowned UFO skeptic brought an interesting dynamic, particularly against the backdrop of the recent Wikipedia controversy. The conversation was as lively as it was amicable.
For those unfamiliar with the issue or wanting to dive deeper, a previous video and an accompanying descriptive link are available— a recommended visit for additional context to our dialogue.
As the host, it's my pleasure to extend a warm welcome to newcomers who appreciate this genre of content. Subscribing is encouraged, with daily releases at noon CST and occasional surprises like the one today. Liking helps propel our content forward, and every bit of interaction is greatly valued.
Now, onto the topic of crowd engagement: What are your thoughts on Mick's position regarding Wikipedia, his role, and the platform as a whole? The floor is open for your insights in the comments section.
As the interview progressed, it was a delight to relay questions from the community. Not all made it through, but the majority did — so stick around for those towards the end.
Gratitude goes out to everyone who presented their queries in a civil manner. Your contributions make such discussions enriched and diversified.
To touch base on my personal association with Wikipedia: My origins with the site date back over a decade, though my active editing days are long past. An interesting tidbit is my transition from editing under my real name, Mick West, to an anonymous handle. That change led to a brief tangle with Wikipedia's sock puppet policies which was eventually resolved.
The edits under scrutiny belong to a collective known as the Guerilla Skeptics, managed by Susan Gerbic. While not a part of this group, I resonate with their pursuit of incorporating skeptical, scientific viewpoints on Wikipedia. Their efforts predominantly focus on ensuring a factual balance in articles, particularly ones prone to bias from enthusiasts.
It's worth noting a mere fragment, roughly 5%, of their revisions pertains to UFO-related content. The transparency of Wikipedia's edit history is a feature to be commended, as it allows anyone to review changes and understand the reasons behind them.
Addressing the issue at hand: a certain editor, designated as Lucky Louie, assumed by some to be myself, has been mistakenly identified amid these editing activities. Clarification is crucial here — I am not Lucky Louie. His interests, as gleaned from edit histories, differ significantly from my own, indicating a separate individual contributing to Wikipedia autonomously.
The editing landscape of Wikipedia can be daunting to novices. The markup language, dense guidelines, and the subtleties of referencing can obstruct well-meaning edits. It's a common scenario where attempts to correct inaccuracies are overturned, often mistakingly perceived as gatekeeping when, in fact, they are adherence to Wikipedia's protocols.
In summary, the current state of Wikipedia editing, while complex, is a system that strives for accuracy and verifiability, albeit through a sometimes challenging process for newcomers.
Mick West's Engagement in the Wikipedia Dispute
In the realm of UFO skepticism, Mick West's name is frequently mentioned as his expertise is well regarded. His involvement in a controversy concerning Wikipedia merits a closer look.
Wikipedia Edits:
Early Experience: West edited under his own name initially, moving to blog instead due to editing challenges.
Alias: Utilized the pseudonym 'herd of swine' for edits related to biblical content.
Account Banning and Restoration: Mistakenly flagged for sockpuppetry, leading to a ban, later reversed upon request.
Guerilla Skeptics Group:
Leadership: Directed by Susan Gerbic.
Objective: Promote scientific skepticism on Wikipedia.
Scope of Edits: Only a minor portion (5%) relates to UFO topics.
Criticism of Edits: Certain edits were seen as minimizing details unfavorably, leading to scrutiny.
Observations on Editing Culture:
Potential difficulties for newcomers due to Wiki's markup language.
Complex guidelines can be daunting and lead to misunderstandings.
Editing Disputes:
Identifying Edits: Trackable through Wikipedia's transparent edit history.
Case of Mistaken Identity: An editor, Lucky Louie, was incorrectly thought to be West.
Editing Conflicts: New editors can struggle with guidelines, leading to reverted edits and feelings of a controlled narrative.
Specifics on Wikipedia's Editorial Challenges:
Editing Restrictions: Edits made without references or that remove cited information can violate Wikipedia's policies.
Frustration for Newcomers: Good faith changes are often reverted if they don't align with the guidelines.
Public Perception: Reversion of such edits may create an impression of a selective editorial bias.
West's engagement in the Wikipedia environment brings to light the intricacies of maintaining a reputable online encyclopedia and the sensitive balance between contributing knowledge and adhering to established protocols.
Mick West and His Experience with Wikipedia Editing
Mick West is a well-known figure in the skeptic community, particularly for his critical examination of UFO phenomena. His engagement with Wikipedia, an accessible online encyclopedia available for public editing, began over a decade ago. Initially registering under his real name, he later opted for anonymity, changing his username to 'Herd of Swine,' a name with biblical connotations, reflecting his interests at the time.
Once a frequent editor on Wikipedia, West's participation waned after becoming disillusioned with the platform's editing challenges. Subsequently, he focused energies on his 'Contrail Science' blog and 'Metabunk' forum. Occasional minor edits, like correcting typographical errors, marked the extent of his interaction with Wikipedia in the following years.
Significant to West’s narrative is an altercation linked to his account, which resulted in a temporary ban after a switch to a different account prompted a sock puppet detection system. This ban was eventually lifted, underscoring West's limited history as a Wikipedia contributor.
In recent times, scrutiny has shifted toward a group known as the 'Guerilla Skeptics,' affiliated with Susan Gerbic, whom West acknowledges but denies membership. Gerbic's group aims to enhance Wikipedia articles from a skeptical and scientific stance, often contributing to articles on mediums and psychic phenomena to provide a more balanced perspective influenced by scientific skepticism.
While the 'Guerilla Skeptics' edit a wide range of topics, UFO-related content comprises only a small portion. Controversies emerged when edits made by the group and by an editor known as 'Lucky Louie,' suspected incorrectly as West, were perceived as biased, according to observers like Matt Ford and Rob Heatherly.
The transparency of Wikipedia's editing process allows all changes to be publicly viewed, along with editors' comments justifying their modifications. This openness has led to criticism when edits seemingly downplay or modify certain information, as noticed by Heatherly and others. These edits, while conforming to Wikipedia's citation requirements, can appear confrontational toward newcomers who may not be versed in the intricacies of Wikipedia’s guideline and citation framework.
This situation encapsulates the complexities and nuances of editing Wikipedia, which can be especially challenging for new editors unfamiliar with its markup language and extensive editing protocols. The result can create an appearance of exclusion or favoritism, though often it involves the enforcement of established guidelines regarding verifiability and reliable sourcing.
Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia
Role of Group:
The group, managed by Susan Gerbic, aims to enhance the accuracy of Wikipedia entries from a scientifically skeptical standpoint. This involves scrutinizing articles on controversial subjects and ensuring there's a fair representation of scientific consensus regarding any claims made.
Editing Focus:
Their revisions principally target articles related to paranormal topics, with the intention to insert more scientifically grounded views.
Contrary to popular belief, UFO-related topics comprise only a minor portion of their edits, accounting for roughly 5%.
Editing Impact:
The group's actions have led to criticism by individuals who perceive these edits to decrease the credibility of certain claims or personalities within the paranormal community.
Misconceptions Addressed:
Confusion arose over the identity of one editor, Lucky Louie, who was erroneously thought to be Mick West. It has been clarified that this is a mistaken identity; West has minimal affiliation with Wikipedia editing in recent years.
Key Points about Wikipedia Editing:
Wikipedia's open-source nature allows for transparency in edit histories and editor comments.
New editors may face challenges due to the unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's technical formatting and comprehensive guidelines.
Disputes often occur when edits made in good faith do not adhere to the strict sourcing and reference rules of Wikipedia.
Example of Editing Dispute:
An example involves an editor attempting to correct a factual error about an individual's birthplace but failing to provide the necessary reliable source to substantiate the edit. Consequently, the correction is reverted, leading to the perception of editorial bias.
Observations:
While the intentions of the volunteer group are rooted in promoting scientific skepticism, their activities sometimes stir controversy in niche subject communities affected by these edits.
It's important to understand the complex dynamics of community editing on Wikipedia to fully grasp the implications of such a group's influence on the platform's content.
Wikipedia Skeptics' Editorial Influence
In recent discussion, it was highlighted that a collective known as the Guerilla Skeptics has been actively editing Wikipedia. Spearheaded by Susan Gerbic, their primary objective is to curate content from a scientifically rigorous standpoint, particularly on topics that might draw interest from pseudoscientific perspectives.
Their Contributions:
Ensure scientific accuracy in articles
Provide counterbalance to edits made by enthusiasts of pseudoscientific subjects, such as mediumship
User Experience:
Challenges for Newcomers:
New editors often encounter a complex interface and markup language
They must navigate extensive and sometimes obscure editing guidelines
Editing Controversies:
An instance involved user "Lucky Louie," suspected of being connected to the skeptics' group, whose edits some perceived as biased
Personal Background:
The speaker, Mick West, shared his individual Wikipedia history, elucidating a past issue with a secondary account, and his eventual distancing from platform engagement in favor of other pursuits.
Editing Dynamics:
Editors with longstanding experience tend to be more adept at navigating Wikipedia's policies
New contributors, despite good intentions, may inadvertently contravene guidelines if they lack citations or remove referenced material
Transparency and Accountability:
Wikipedia's structure allows public access to full edit histories, offering transparency and, in turn, holding editors accountable for their modifications.
Examination of Particular Wikipedia Revisions and Participants
In recent discussions on social media platforms, attention has shifted towards a group recognized for their contributions to Wikipedia known as the Guerilla Skeptics. This assembly, orchestrated by Susan Gerbic, pursues the objective of enhancing articles on the digital encyclopedia from a stance rooted in skepticism and scientific inquiry. Their focus extends to numerous topics, encompassing claims made by individuals asserting to communicate with the deceased, ensuring these entries preserve a scientific counterbalance.
A particular controversy involves the Wikipedia contributions of an editor who operates under the alias Lucky Louie. Allegations have arisen, accusing Lucky Louie of minimizing particular details regarding subjects on Wikipedia. However, it is important to note that my identity and Lucky Louie's should be viewed as separate, contrary to some assumptions. The alterations made by Lucky Louie can be scrutinized through Wikipedia's transparent edit history, which is open to the public for examination.
Although my own participation with Wikipedia has been limited to minor typo corrections in recent years, I acknowledge that the platform's complexity can deter newcomers. Wikipedia's rich tapestry of guidelines, coupled with a unique markup language, can render the editing process daunting. Novices to the site who attempt to correct or amend entries often encounter frustration when their changes are reversed due to non-compliance with Wikipedia's standards for citations and referencing.
To illustrate, an instance cited involved the biography of an individual who—despite claims of being born in Texas—was listed as born in Miami due to an existing citation from a regarded publication. Attempts by well-intentioned users to rectify this incongruity without providing an adequate source in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines were ultimately undone, creating the impression of an editorial gatekeeping or biased narrative preservation within the platform.
It is pertinent to reiterate that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, open to contributions, but it demands adherence to a stringent framework of rules to maintain the integrity and reliability of the information presented.
Rob Heatherly's Analysis and Review
In recent activities, Rob Heatherly has taken an investigative role in examining changes to Wikipedia entries made by a collective known as the Guerilla Skeptics. Concerns arose from his observation of certain edits which he perceived to be diminishing the significance of specific information and, in his view, unfairly influencing the representation of subjects related to UFOs.
Personal Experience with Wikipedia:
Initially used his own name, Mick West, when editing.
Transitioned to anonymous contributions under the moniker 'herd of swine.'
Moved away from Wikipedia editing to focus on his own platforms, such as producing content for his 'contrail Science' blog and 'metabunk' website.
Guerilla Skeptics Initiative:
Aims to refine Wikipedia from a scientific and skeptical standpoint.
Specifically targets pages on niche subjects like mediums and the paranormal to provide scientific counterbalance to potentially one-sided claims.
Accounts for only a minimal portion, around 5%, of their edits on topics concerning UFOs.
Public Transparency:
Wikipedia's edit history is entirely open access, showcasing the detailed record of updates and the editors responsible.
This transparency allowed for the examination of edit justifications and content modified by users, sparking Heatherly's curiosity.
Encountering 'Lucky Louie':
Lucky Louie, presumed to be part of the Guerilla Skeptics, became a focus due to his association with the debated modifications.
Misidentification occurred, initially leading some to believe Lucky Louie was Mick West.
Further investigation revealed that Lucky Louie had interests in areas such as amateur radio and other topics, establishing him as a distinct individual from West.
Challenges for New Editors:
New users often find Wikipedia's interface and its “markup language” daunting.
Abundance of rules can be perplexing and not immediately apparent to newcomers.
While attempting to rectify inaccuracies, edits can be reverted if they do not adhere to Wikipedia's stringent sourcing guidelines.
Case Study of Incorrect Information:
Instances noted where factual errors persist due to reliance on referenced materials; leading to difficulties in correcting.
This engenders frustration among those trying to make edits in good faith but lack understanding of the referencing rules, causing their changes to be undone.
Heatherly's Efforts:
Battles inconsistencies by attempting to alter entries he believes are flawed.
His approaches are sometimes hindered by the established editing guidelines and the learning curve associated with mastering Wikipedia’s editing framework.
In summary, Heatherly’s investigation into Wikipedia’s editing ecosystem highlights the struggles between preserving verifiable information and correcting inaccuracies within the platform’s rules. It underscores the intricacies of contributing to an open-source knowledge repository from both a skeptic’s perspective and a newcomer’s challenges.
Challenges Encountered by Novice Wikipedia Contributors
Entering the realm of Wikipedia editing presents a formidable set of obstacles for newcomers. Stepping into this space requires grappling with a steep learning curve that involves mastering a distinctive markup language vital for crafting links and formatting text. Additionally, nascent editors confront a dense labyrinth of guidelines that regulate the editing process, which can be overwhelming and less than intuitive to locate and comprehend.
For long-standing contributors, the rules and the editing environment are second nature, but this is far from the case for those just venturing into Wikipedia's back-end. Often, well-intentioned modifications made by these new editors, drawing from knowledge they consider accurate, run afoul of Wikipedia's stringent reference standards. A common example may involve correcting a biographical detail, such as a person's place of birth, only to have the change reversed due to the absence of a verifiable source.
This strict adherence to sourced content, although essential for maintaining the encyclopedia's credibility, can inadvertently generate a perception of an impassable barrier or, worse, an impenetrable clique determined to maintain status quo. However, those perceptions stem from the platform's vigilance in upholding the integrity of information rather than any concerted gatekeeping effort.
In summary, Wikipedia is an open collaborative platform, yet its complexity and rigorous editing standards can pose significant challenges for those who are new to its environment. Editors with years of experience hold a substantial advantage over newcomers, affecting the latter's ability to make enduring contributions. Understanding and navigating these challenges is paramount for all who wish to take up the mantle of a Wikipedia editor.
Audience Engagement and Queries
In today's engaging exchange, the discussion with Mick West, a prominent figure questioning UFO phenomena, touches upon a recent event widely termed the 'Wikipedia Controversy.' The dialogue offers Mick the opportunity to present his perspective on this matter, counterbalancing the surrounding narratives.
Below are some highlights from the interactive segment:
Video Accessibility: Access to the detailed discourse is provided via a link in the description for those seeking background on the controversy.
Support: Viewers are prompted to support the content through likes and subscriptions for daily updates and special features.
Commentary Invitation: An invitation is extended to submit thoughts on Mick's comments or Wikipedia in general.
Question Compilation: A selection of submitted questions is addressed at the interview's culmination. While not all inquiries are covered, a significant majority are.
Community Contribution: The significance of civil and constructive questions from the audience is acknowledged.
Editing Experience: West shares his personal history with Wikipedia editing, detailing an account switch from his real name to an alias, and subsequent disillusionment leading to his departure from active editing.
Editing Community Insight: A discussion ensues about the Guerilla Skeptics, a group led by Susan Gerbic, aimed at enhancing Wikipedia content from a scientific, skeptical stance.
Transparency: Wikipedia's editing transparency is emphasized; each amendment's history and rationale can be scrutinized by the public.
Understanding Wikipedia: The intricacies of Wikipedia's editing process are expounded upon, clarifying common challenges faced by new editors unfamiliar with its systems and guidelines.
Clarification of Mick West's Identity and Involvement
Mick West, recognized as a prominent UFO skeptic, has been inadvertently entangled in what some have labeled the 'Wikipedia Scandal.' His association with the matter stems from past personal editing experiences on Wikipedia. During an early stint as a Wikipedia editor - a foray that dates back over a decade - West eventually shifted his focus to blogging, leading to the creation of the 'Contrail Science Blog' and subsequently, 'Metabunk.'
At one juncture, operating under his full name, he transitioned to an alias, 'Herd of Swine,' for anonymity. His dual identity on the platform inadvertently activated a sock puppet detection mechanism resulting in a ban. The account was later reinstated following an appeal years after the incident. Since then, West's interaction with the platform has been minimal, limited to the occasional correction of minor errors.
Current discussions around West have also brought up a group known as 'Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia,' led by Susan Gerbic. Their mission—to foster a scientifically skeptical tone in Wikipedia entries, particularly involving contentious topics such as mediums and the paranormal—has made them a focal point in the dialogue about online information balancing. While West has stated he sympathizes with their objectives, he is not a member of the group.
The spotlight has been on edits made by 'Guerilla Skeptics,' accounting for about 5% of their work revolving around UFO subjects. The transparency of Wikipedia's historical edits record allows for scrutiny of changes, such as those by an editor 'Lucky Louie,' who is believed to be affiliated with the skeptics group. West clarifies he is not 'Lucky Louie,' a detail that can be confirmed by examining the edit history of the user, who appears to have a distinct interest area, such as amateur radio.
Contentions arose when other individuals attempted to revise certain Wikipedia entries and encountered the site's complex editing standards and guidelines. This learning curve led to the reversion of well-intentioned edits that contravened Wikipedia's citation rules, creating an impression of potential bias. West's explanation sheds light on these common misinterpretations faced by new editors to the platform.
Source Links
TO FIND OUT MORE ON THE WIKIPEDIA SCANDAL: https://youtu.be/rUCBZcBY_5M
