Susan Gerbic get nicey-nicey treatment from WIRED

[ericbarbour]

https://www.wired.com/story/guerrilla-w ... -theories/

Technically, anyone can edit Wikipedia, but the site has been criticized as overly bureaucratic in practice and difficult for newcomers to learn. For example, all edits need to be made in a unique markup language called Wikitext, which can be a pain.

Also fails to mention how the Guerrilla Skeptics like to shit on people they fight with. Lessee, what does the Rupert Sheldrake article look like today?.....currently hovering around 88k bytes, and as usual, full of meanness and potshots. The top-ten editors of it are a litany of abusive WIkipedians: Manul, Hrafn, "Barney the barney barney", The Red Pen, etc.

[Strelnikov]

This article is slanted around the whole bullshit "fake news*" "issue" when most of the articles on weird stuff (UFOs, psychic phenomena, etc) are general encyclopedia-type articles and have little to do with anything within the news today. It makes Gerbic and her goon squad look like they are fighting idiots sticking tabloid news stories inside Wikipedia, when the Guerilla Skeptics "on Wikipedia" have been skewing "The Project" to their worldview for years - so they are a pressure group (but the sort that is praised by a shitty "technology" magazine like Wired.) When Gerbic is mentioned in a news story without Rome Viharo being brought up, it's a mark of how sloppy that news story is.

A lot of the skeptics (as I've pointed out elsewhere) were/are stage magicians. It's a shame that the "GSoW" people are blowing their time editing this dying online encyclopedia instead of learning how to do street magic in the David Blaine tradition or ten jillion card tricks to impress their younger relatives.

_______________________
* It's called "tabloid journalism" or the "yellow press" in the literate world, and it's been around as long as there has been print news, the only difference being "fake news" is completely digital. I find it hilarious that Wired is standing for solid journalism after all the gaseous fluff they wrote about telecom CEOs (including Carlos Slim Helú, that crook) in the 1990s, and all the nonsense technofuturism they peddled when Bill Clinton was president.

[Graaf Statler]

I compare all that fuckt checkers, gender idiots and strategy movement fools with shell game players, that is a better comparison.
They are always misusing terms like harassment, woman rights, fact checkers, sceptical, charity, etc, etc, to play there dirty games in exacte the same way shell gamers do. Shell gamers are anywhere on wikipedia sitting on there little carpet doing there dirty tricks by using nobel subjects. The don't need a stage or theatres, one or more usernames, a little carpet and three cups will do......

[ericbarbour]

A lot of the skeptics (as I've pointed out elsewhere) were/are stage magicians. It's a shame that the "GSoW" people are blowing their time editing this dying online encyclopedia instead of learning how to do street magic in the David Blaine tradition or ten jillion card tricks to impress their younger relatives.

Or better and funnier yet: GETTING JOBS doing it. Who would pay those nits to edit Wikipedia? Shit, I wish they'd all be stage magicians instead. Does less harm.