UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 21

Re: Wikipedia UFO Entries & CSICOP/CSI

From: Vincent Boudreau <vincentboudreau.nul>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:23:48 -0500 (EST)
Archived: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:08:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Wikipedia UFO Entries & CSICOP/CSI

>From: Bill Chalker <bill_c.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:53:23 +1100
>Subject: Re: Wikipedia UFO Entries & CSICOP/CSI [was: Kaku...]

>>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:00:21 -0800
>>Subject: Wikipedia UFO Entries & CSICOP/CSI [was: Kaku...]

>>I've been recently trying to edit a very slanted article on the
>>ETH over on Wikipedia which failed to present such arguments in
>>favor of the ETH. When I tried to insert some of Kaku's
>>arguments and others by Bernard Haisch, one of the CSICOP
>>debunkers came in and deleted them all - while leavin! g detailed
>>arguments against untouched. He also censored my mention of
>>opinion polls showing high levels of support for the reality of
>>UFOs amongst the best educated (and the least amongst the poorly
>>educated), and also a decent level of support for the ETH shown
>>in 1970s polls of technical readers of Optical Spectra and
>>Industrial Research/Development journals. And he censored a lot
>>of historical material I documented showing clear discussion of
>>the ETH even back in 1947 during the big U.S. flying saucer
>>wave. Just one example, as noted in Ted Bloecher's review of
>>the newspaper articles, is that a Pentagon spokesman on July 8,
>>1947, felt it necesary to specificially deny that they were
>>explained by "space ships". The article had previously tried to

>While Wikipedia might be a good starting point for preliminary
>information it ! should always be fact checked elsewhere.

>Myself and others have had a sort of 'UFO history war' about the
>Wikipedia entry on "Australian Ufology". It is a skewed,
>unbalanced and troubled article that reflects the biases and
>agendas of the anonymous edits.

>My entry on my new UFO history keys blog and the links there
>tell the sorry story.

>While there has been some limited success with correcting some
>of the problems it seems a waste of time trying to play the
>Wikipedia 'edit game'. Read my article, Australian UFO History
>Wars, which can be accessed via my blog:


>Good luck with trying to sort your Wikipedia problems out.

Hello David, Bill and Listers,

You might be interested in the following link regarding the KNOL
project from Google that wants to dethrone Wikipedia:


It seems that Knol will feature articles signed b! y 'experts',
not anonymous authors like Wikipedia. You guys might want to get
into this.

More on this if you follow the NEWS links from Google:


Btw, the NEWS link from Google provides a search engine on news


As I key this, a search on the word UFO actually provides
695 hits - 413 effective.

Happy holidays,

Vincent Boudreau

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com