Thank you for the work you both do. I frequently despair at the sheer amount of misinformation so casually believed and acted upon. To be attacked simply for setting the record straight - with receipts - is abhorrent.

@sgerbic

Ай бұрын

Thank you! It is surreal

@thewell-knownskeptic5008

Ай бұрын

Thanks so much! It is fighting an uphill battle, but we must try.

This isn't very surprising. Many who are emotionally invested in the paranormal and/or extraterrestrial visitations would rather just assume a conspiracy against them rather than accept that their evidence and heroes just aren't as compelling as they'd like to belive.

When it comes to silly notions about extraterrestrial visitors, or Bigfoot, or Flat Earth, or 9/11 "Truth", or whatever, believing believers just need to believe their beliefs because believing is something they want to believe. They love the drama. Reality is not important to a true believer.

Alien cow-molesters must be true, because I once saw something I couldn't explain, and a buddy also saw something sort of similar. What more proof do you need? 😜 By the way, UAP is unidentified anomalous phenomenon. Which is a better term since many of the sightings are not either flying or actually physical. UAP covers lens flares and glitches.

@sgerbic

Ай бұрын

I'm sticking with UFO - getting into the weeds of the definition isn't my thing, I think society knows what UFO means. But most people don't know what UAP means, and I believe it has already changed it's meaning twice since they created it.

Good advice, so many people could use a puppy.

@jh58547

Ай бұрын

A kitten would be a better choice. They don't bark.

Does anyone know if an where the training for editing is available publicly?

@katmac5965

Ай бұрын

There isn't a training program for editing Wikipedia per say, Susan Gerbic created and does the training for the GSoW editors who act as peer reviewers and support for each other. The rules of Wikipedia are available for anyone to read and become "self taught" but the community Susan has created is a wonderful resource. :)

Chat😮

How about having George Knapp on the show, so he has the opportunity to give his side of the issue?

@thewell-knownskeptic5008

Ай бұрын

Knapp knows less about Wikipedia I would wager than Weiler, and the topic was Wikipedia editing claims. What would be the point?

@75YBA

Ай бұрын

Knapp is a proven liar.

@sgerbic

Ай бұрын

Number one rule of Wikipedia - the Wikipedia article may have your name at the top of it, but that is NOT your article. We are here to build a encyclopedia and the last person who gets an opinion of the George Knapp article is ... George Knapp. This is true for everyone. Take a look at the Susan Gerbic article to see what I mean, we obviously don't edit it, if so it would be a lot better.

Started watching this and 10 min in there has been nothing of substance... im out.

@sgerbic

Ай бұрын

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

@williamrunner6718

Ай бұрын

Bye? 😂

@GrimJackal

Ай бұрын

They're laying the background for the conversation ahead. I'm not sure what else you expected them to start with.

@danp8321

Ай бұрын

As we all know, nothing of value takes longer than ten minutes 🤦

Yawn. Honesty is in question when the first comment and host introduction lays out a debunking agenda. I remain skeptical of this inquiry and your bona fides as serious thinker. The need to offer apologia immediately following is cheap parlor trick of misdirection.

@jonathanedwardgibson

Ай бұрын

Farce. Welcome to the Consensual Church of Scientism where we drive into future by staring into rear-view mirror and driving backwards. This is why progress has been stunted for almost a century under DoD secrecy and powerful secret agendas. Take Navy suppression of Cavitation and Ball Lightning since 1950’s to point of jailing and killing intrepid inventors : we all witnessed the Public Stoning of Flieshmann and Ponds in 1990’s as entire scientific community got their paychecks and turned on their own. Science went to die in the Manhatten Projects’ Minotaur-maze of Pentagon secrecy for force-fed grants foie-gras style, resuscitated, and sent walking like zombie through XXth pretending advancement. Meanwhile, indie-style Bob Greenyer has touched the magneto-toroid moment and a phalanx of intrepid scientists are breaking through this crap. “You can’t stop the signal, Mal” - Serenity This venal woman publicly chortles of her vanquishing and publicly and dramatically wielding institutional power over others for her fun and profit. Craven. Shill.

@75YBA

Ай бұрын

You haven’t been to college.

@scottplumer3668

Ай бұрын

@@jonathanedwardgibson WTF are you talking about?

@williamrunner6718

Ай бұрын

Rule number 1, never try to persuade a conspiracy theorist that he's bought a load of BS because they only dig in deeper. So I hope the best for you.

@GrimJackal

Ай бұрын

A take that says far more about you than the host or guest.

WHY DO YOU GET TO CHOOSE WHAT IS OK AND WHAT ISNT?

@sgerbic

Ай бұрын

ARE YOU SHOUTING RYAN! WHY DO YOU GET TO SHOUT? Anyway, you obviously do not know how Wikipedia works. We don't "choose" we have to go where the reliable sources are. Reliable sources, secondary, not tied to the target of the article are best. Reliable sources are determined by Wikipedia editors in mass, generally they are not these things ... blogs, websites, social media, or sites that are known for not having journalist integrity like OEN, News Nation, Coast to Coast, BrightBart. What they are looking for are those places that worry about their reputation and will seek outside conformation, will retract if they got something wrong, will be wary of anything that doesn't sound right. Generally these are the rules for reliable sources. For example Ryan, when I wrote the Elizando article I did a Google search and found all the reliable sources I could to write the article. Because it was a brand new article and he is a BLP (Biography of Living Person) I had to prove (using reliable sources) that he was notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. This is very difficult because Wikipedia now has very tight rules (in the old days the rules were less strict and many articles written years ago are still there when they should be deleted) I used an article from the Sarasota Times (or something like that) and in it, they mentioned that he was a "local boy" and had grown up in Miami. I am relying on the journalist integrity of that newspaper to get his birthplace correct. I don't care where he was born, I just put what the reliable source says (the burden is on them to get it right), I as an editor am not allowed to do original research and go check with courthouses to get that detail correct. When UFO world got upset and was not thanking me for writing the article (yeah, where is my thanks for spending a dozen hours for doing that work?!?!) you all just wanted to find fault because it wasn't the unicorn that you thought it should be. Luz noticed that his birthplace was incorrect. Instead of politely going to the talk page and leaving a note saying that he was born in Texas and moved as a youngun to Florida, he instead through proxy on reddit and Xitter launched a campaign against GSoW and I as evil doers and SHOUTING at me as you are doing now. If he had done that, wrote politely on the talk page, and if we had some way of verifying that it was Luz making the post on the talk page (anyone could have done that, you want us just taking someones word for it when it could have been anyone) probably an editor would have told him to use his personal email that can be verified to write to Permissions on Wikipedia saying that the birthplace was incorrect. OR he could have in his next interview with a reliable source say "I was born in Texas, but moved as a young man to Florida where we settled" and then we would have used that as a citation. Editors can't just change an entry based on threats and rants on Xitter. We don't allow someone to email in a birth certificate, how stupid would that be, omg think about that. it could be an altered birth certificate, and do you think that Luz would want his birth certificate floating around the Internet? Who would he email it to? How do you trust who ever it was emailed to that they wouldn't sell it to the dark web and then Luz would have someone harm his credit. THINK RYAN! So after all the vandalism from the trolls that were sent to "fix" this problem. OMG what a uproar you would have thought we misspelled his name! Some editor (not GSoW) finally said "enough" and changed it to "born in the USA" and that was it. BUT NO ... we still had to deal with trolls (yes, that is how they appear, vandalizing trolls who are trying to bomb the article with no good citations to change the birth place) And because we don't want the article vandalized we have to temp lock down the article so only serious editors can make changes. All the vandals are blocked. FINALLY RYAN someone got the Sarasota Times to change the birthplace, and then someone posted on Xitter that the change had been made and tagged me. I reviewed the change, I looked at the Wayback machine to see that only the birthplace had changed (this is journalist integrity, when they get something wrong, they change it) and I made the change that Luz was born in Texas. Then I made a note on the talk page of what I did and how the newspaper had made the change and that was that. I posted on Xitter the before and after of the change in the newspaper (screenshots) and that should have been it. But NOOOOOOOO RYAN here you are still SHOUTING at me, probably not even reading this long response (it's for others who want to know the details). There are articles and videos explaining Reliable Sources if you really want to understand the answer to your question ... but I know you really don't want to know, you just want to have something to shout at me. This just shows the quality of your non-argument. Please be polite Ryan, you really should, Leos are actually nice people, please reflect that.

@christopherhamilton3621

Ай бұрын

Good faith correction with credible fact checking & evidence. Like science almost: being willing to be corrected. You must be new around here?