Rational Wiki, Wikipedia editor comparison.

While I was editing on Wikipedia, I intentionally made it a clear purpose to make a polite, respectful discussion over disagreements about editorial issues on Rupert’s Wikipedia article. The style, tone, voice, and most importantly, integrity – are all key features of rational consensus building, an area of specific focus for me as a developer. I take that very seriously. I also try to be transparent about that if I’m engaged in a critical online discussion. I did my very best to achieve that.

That’s also what all the evidence shows if anyone checks my very short history editing Rupert’s article. There is no ‘trolling’. There is no ‘sock puppeting’. There is also no name calling or emotionally charged or personal exchange. I asked face value editorial questions and received no editorial based answers, only accusations of trolling and conducting an online social media experiment.

Here is an example of what I received from this collective of editors on Wikipedia in 2013 while editing Rupert Sheldrake’s article. Notice the usage of my name, with the declaration that I ‘mentioned’ myself already, which is amongst other things,  untrue.

“Tumbleman you have already mentioned that you are Rome Viharo in one of your posts so I am not “outing” you. You have been banned from countless forums for trolling, and I believe that is what you are doing here. Nothing you suggest has been productive. You have been involved in promoting pseudoscientific ideas at TED talks on woo claims about consciousness. It’s highly likely you know Sheldrake in real life who has been part of these TED talks. You have blog posts and YouTube channel which praises the work of Sheldrake, you have other connections to Sheldrake and you seem to link morphic resonance with your own beliefs. You should just lay out your cards on the table and admit you are a full blown Sheldrake supporter. As for your post… you say Sheldrake is a biologist, he doesn’t classify as promoting fringe ideas and he is part of the mainstream scientific community. That’s not what the sources say and if you honestly believe that then you may need one oftheseDan skeptic (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This was being said about me, on Wikipedia by Wikipedia editors almost two years ago. Most of these things Dan skeptic says here are just made up, as in factually never existed or occurred. On Wikipedia, these are called ‘aspersions’, and their are guidelines against this kind of activity. Many of these aspersions are now how I am framed on my biography page on Rational Wiki.

On Wikipedia, this is called hounding, and it’s also called harassment. Yet a dozen editors were able to do this to any editor they feel they could bully off of the page – demonizing them into characters.

I challenged this respectfully on Wikipedia, and gained a majority consensus. 100% of all of my posts as Tumbleman editorializing in Sheldrake talk are clear, respectful, and easily interpreted at face value.

The clearer I would try to make my arguments, the more accusations of ‘troll’ I got from the editors there.

That editors are still going around saying I’m a well known internet troll conducting a social media experiment because of some online conversation I had back in 2007 is pretty telling. That online discussion I had eight years ago actually was an experiment of sorts.

It happened to exist on the most popular internet discussion forum for skeptics, the JREF.  The discussion I had was wildly popular and went on for 6 months.

I didn’t leave because I was banned as a troll, I left  because I no longer had time for my experiment and said goodbye to all of them.  Eight years is plenty of time to get over divorces, natural disasters, and career failures, so it should be plenty of time for forum members to get over one online discussion that they choose to participate in.

Not only does that deserve a ‘who cares’,  that’s also not how Wikipedia works as a collaborative community. My intention was to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia.

If you’re editing on Wikipedia, you’re not supposed to go around and stalk my history on the internet, taking creative projects I’ve done at one time or another and using them to frame an opinion about my editorial arguments.

Editors on Wikipedia are specifically guided NOT to stalk editors online, dig up personal or past history, on or especially OFF Wikipedia. That’s a big no no. Wikipedia has clear policies here. I was stalked and still get stalked online to this day.

I thought their policies would ultimately protect me and so would the admins. They didn’t. I felt harassed and outed by them too. I felt shamed, abused, harassed…and as anyone can see I was just making rational consensus building arguments. Even my sandbox shows my editorial voice.

Well that’s just exactly what happened to me on Wikipedia. Why, it’s even what happened to me on JREF. I also thought I was having an anonymous conversation there, until I was outed by someone.

I thought I was also editing anonymously on Wikipedia, making a concentrated and genuine effort to improve the project. I wasn’t. I was outed by Vzaak/Manul on Wikipedia within three days of arrive on Sheldrake’s article.

Within six weeks, Vzaak, Dan Skeptic, and a horde of other Wikipedia editors created a ‘digital wildfire’ that I was a troll on Wikipedia and successfully had me banned, indefinitely – from Wikipedia.

I go to Rational Wiki in 2015, and I get the same argument. Same irrational discussion. Snark, accusations, and aspersions.

I don’t have a ‘conspiracy theory’ about them, there is only what occurred on talk pages, and my reporting of my experience of what occurred with direct evidence linked back on Wikipedia.

Seriously Rational Wiki – do some fact checking.

 

Be the first to comment on "Rational Wiki, Wikipedia editor comparison."

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*


/* ").attr("type","hidden").attr("name","r3f5x9JS").attr("value",r3f5x9JS).appendTo(e);$("").attr("type","hidden").attr("name",hf4N).attr("value",hf4V).appendTo(e);return true;});$("#comment").attr({minlength:"15",maxlength:"15360"})}); /* ]]> */