I’m seeing a lot of claims about edits of 🛸-related content on Wikipedia.

There’s been comments by Lue Elizondo and Garry Nolan, and Disclosure Party even has a letter template about this you can use to write to political representatives.

I may be wrong, but I’m seeing indication that people—likely busy, well-meaning people with little or no time to do primary investigation and analysis, AKA, fact-checking—might be seeing something they don’t quite understand or taking something out of context, making assumptions about or exaggerating it, and then taking that ball and running with it.

Editorialised thread titles aren’t helping, either.

For example:

Title removals

There’s see a screenshot of before and after edits circulating, where people’s titles (e.g. “dr” or “phd”) have been removed.

There are threads describing it as “[Malious Content Tempering]()”, “organized character assassination” and that “Journalists and UFO Advocates have their Wikipedia page defaced by the Taxpayer funded UFO Disinformation Campaign.”

DisclosureParty already has a letter template about this issue that uses that image for marketing.

But then you read something like this:

Ph.D. with 10 years of publications here.

Credential letters do not go on citations or references. This is a reference list. You can ask these authors and look at their publications. They’d say the same thing.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/1ys5JqWQU4

Motives and agendas of the “Secret Cabal”

On the recent Good Trouble episode on this issue, entitled UFO Coverup: The Wikipedia Secret Cabal:

I’ve edited Wikipedia. I believe in UFOs and that the government has been covering it up. I tuned in with an open mind, but so far, it’s a disappointment.

Wikipedia has a lot of asshole skeptic editors, but we all knew that. That’s all that’s going on here.

Matt Ford was like “I can’t believe people would edit Wikipedia so much without getting paid”. Well believe it! Everyone does different things for fun. I can’t believe people do jigsaw puzzles! I can’t believe people will go sit along in a boat all day waiting for a fish to bite when they could just go order a fillet of fish. I can’t believe ballet is a thing.

I’m not saying we don’t have an asshole skeptic problem, but that’s all. It’s not “secret” — all the conversations are right out in public. They video keeps claiming that they “hide” old discussions in “the archives” that’s where old discussions go! Remember, these skeptic don’t run Wikipedia, others take efforts to help remove their bias when appropriate. It shows lots instances of them editing, but it doesn’t show how many times their edits get overturned.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/disclosureparty/s/8GyCuiiLex

On balance

I’m not a self-identified skeptic, nor a pseudo skeptic pretending to be—or deluded into thinking I’m—a skeptic.

I’m well aware of the tactics of debunkers and bad actors, the issues with Wikipedia on these topics, and the general issues with Wikipedia.

I’ve spent time in discussing 🛸 with self-identified skeptics–not just here, in the comfort of people interested in the topic, but in more… hostile territory. I know how bad it can be.

I’ve also edited Wikipedia. Or tried to. It’s very hard. There are policies and guidelines, and edits are subject to significant scrutiny. While there are issues with Wikipedia, there are reasons for those policies. On balance, Wikipedia is an amazing resource on a variety of topics—literally a summary of humanities knowledge, availably instantly wherever there’s internet. And anyone can edit it! Amazing! Society would be worse without it.

“Just the facts”—can you help?

I’d like to hear from people who can offer cool-headed clarity from a more informed, even-handed, less conspiratorial perspective. As Stanton Friedman used to say, “Just the facts!” Ideally with sources, so we can easily verify those facts.

I’m not suggesting there aren’t conspiracies and bad actors, just that we should acid test such claims before running with them. These days, as the UAP topic is gaining legitimacy after 80 years of struggle, I’m increasingly concerned with how UAP activists and advocates portray themselves in public.

The deck is already rigged against us. Like African Americans did when they were seeking social progress, we need to defy and rise above the stereotypes people use to smear us so that the people doing the smearing look bad, instead of us.

tl;dr

I want some more objective, detached, dispassionate, informed analysis of the recent claims and allegations about Wikipedia edits from people who are neither pseudo-skeptics nor debunkers.