Wikipedia needs skeptics

Erik Moeller

unread,

Jul 18, 2003, 12:07:08 AM7/18/03

to

Many of you may already have heard of Wikipedia:

http://www.wikipedia.org

It is an open, non-profit encyclopedia project which already has more
than 140,000 articles in the English version alone. Many of these
articles are much more detailed than what you would expect in
traditional encyclopedias -- see
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Brilliant_prose for a collection
of our current favorites. Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, and its
contents may be freely distributed and modified, making them eligible
for almost any use and ensuring that the work of Wikipedia authors can
never be lost. In fact, you can download a copy of the entire Wikipedia
database and set up your own copy if you desire to do so.

Wikipedia articles are written from a "neutral point of view" (
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view ), meaning
that controversial views that are presented on Wikipedia must be
attributed to their adherents. This way we ensure that people who think
that abortion is murder and those who think that it is a legitimate
choice can work together to produce a reasonable article that discusses
all arguments on the matter. In many if not most cases, we succeed at
giving a balanced picture that nevertheless often reveals quite clearly
the holes in certain arguments. For example, several Scientology critics
have commended our current article about the group and added material.

Given that anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, people with strong
beliefs sometimes dominate an article until others fill in the gaps (or
rather, expose them). As a result, there are, of course, many articles
on Wikipedia that would benefit greatly from input by knowledgeable
scientists and skeptics. If you count yourself as part of that group, we
especially invite you to edit articles. You can also help by granting us
permission to include existing material you have written. Because
Wikipedia grants the right to use our material to everyone, giving
permission to Wikipedia alone to use material is not sufficient -- it
must either be in the public domain or licensed under our so-called
"copyleft" license, the GNU Free Documentation License (developed by the
GNU project, which is responsible for large parts of the open source
GNU/Linux operating system). See
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights for details.

Articles of interest

Which articles might you want to work on? The following topics are
particularly controversial and in need of good arguments, scientific
references and a neutral tone. Just visit one of the following URLs,
click "Edit this page" and start working:

There's plenty more, so just consider these some starting points. If you
have material that you want to use, and you are the copyright holder,
feel free to paste it right in -- you implicitly license text under the
GNU FDL open content license by submitting it, but that does not
preclude you from licensing it in other ways. If you become a regular
contributor, please do create a user account (
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Userlogin ), so that
your contributions are assigned to a name; anonymous edits are generally
regarded with some suspicion.

Hopefully, you'll get hooked on Wikipedia soon and can add yourself to
the list of "Wikipediholics" ;-). If you have any questions, feel free
to drop me an email or leave a message on my user page:

http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Eloquence&action=edit

Yours,

Erik Möller
Wikipedia user, sysop and developer

neepy

unread,

Jul 18, 2003, 7:29:22 AM7/18/03

to

Erik Moeller <moe...@scireview.de> wrote in message news:<bf7rp3$e1l$01$1...@news.t-online.com>...

>
> Given that anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, people with strong
> beliefs sometimes dominate an article until others fill in the gaps (or
> rather, expose them). As a result, there are, of course, many articles
> on Wikipedia that would benefit greatly from input by knowledgeable
> scientists and skeptics. If you count yourself as part of that group, we
> especially invite you to edit articles. You can also help by granting us
> permission to include existing material you have written.
>
>

> Yours,
>
> Erik Möller

Erik, I hope you realise what you are letting yourself in for:

You would be hard pushed to find ANYONE here who doesn't consider
themselves "knowledgeable" about the things you list, never mind all
the self-appointed "experts".

Prepare to be snowed under by dogmatic assertions of knowledge from
all sides.

Phil McKerracher

unread,

Jul 18, 2003, 8:30:05 AM7/18/03

to

"Erik Moeller" <moe...@scireview.de> wrote in message
news:bf7rp3$e1l$01$1...@news.t-online.com...

> ...Given that anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, people with strong

> beliefs sometimes dominate an article until others fill in the gaps (or
> rather, expose them). As a result, there are, of course, many articles
> on Wikipedia that would benefit greatly from input by knowledgeable

> scientists and skeptics...

Hmm. I see what you mean. A quick glance at
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precognition
shows no mention of the obvious problem that lotteries couldn't succeed if
people with precognition were around.

--
Phil McKerracher
www.mckerracher.org

Peter Morris

unread,

Jul 19, 2003, 2:50:45 PM7/19/03

to

"Phil McKerracher" <ph...@mckerracher.org> wrote in message
news:hLRRa.2335$0W3.19...@news-text.cableinet.net...

okay, i'll bite.

Why couldn't lotteries 'work' if people with precognition were around?

Given that somebody wins most draws through chance, why could they
not 'work' if somebody won through precognition?

Jack Dominey

unread,

Jul 28, 2003, 8:00:54 AM7/28/03

to

In sci.skeptic, <bfc3u4$fll$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, "Peter Morris"
<no...@m.please> wrote:

>Why couldn't lotteries 'work' if people with precognition were around?
>
>Given that somebody wins most draws through chance, why could they
>not 'work' if somebody won through precognition?

Wow. Nobody else followed up on this one?

The largest lotteries in the United States use a multi-number system -
look up "Powerball" for particulars. The odds of winning are so low
(one in over 120,000,000 according to palottery.com) that the drawings
frequently produce no winner. This is to the advatage of the lottery,
as the prize money 'rolls over' into the next drawing. The total
prize is based on the number of tickets bought, so a drawing for over
US$100,000,000 increases quickly as more and more people buy tickets.

I should also mention that buyers may specify the numbers they wish to
play.

Thus, anyone who could use precognition to learn the winning lottery
numbers would essentially be able to win any drawing. More than a
handful of such people and every drawing would produce a winner.

Of course, lotteries are only one of the games of chance that would be
ruined by precognition.

-
Jack Dominey "Apparently I'm insane. But I'm one of the happy kinds!"
jack_dominey(at)email(dot)com
Happy to be labeled a "spinic" by Edmond Wollman.