• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Debunkers and Budd Hopkins' Wikipedia Page


Forums New posts
kruggutter

kruggutter

Paranormal Maven
To the members of the Paracast UFO forum.

A few days back Budd Hopkins' Wikipedia page was torn down and rebuilt. Much was removed and replaced with significantly more debunker-oriented material, in fact it is now saturated with it.

I wanted to bring this matter to the attention of the Paracast community, so that any interested parties can follow up on it and look into it.

I've put together a brief rebuttal regarding some of the false information now posted at Budd's Wikipedia page regarding the Linda Cortile case. The rebuttal is called "Debunkipedia: The Pseudoskeptical Rebirth of Budd Hopkins' Wikipedia Webpage" and is available at the following webpage for reading online or download in PDF format.

URL: Debunkipedia: The Pseudoskeptical Rebirth of Budd Hopkins’ Wikipedia Webpage - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

URL: http://www.lindacortilecase.com/uploads/2/9/1/0/2910920/bhwp.pdf

I hope the information I've presented here is of some interest and value to the Paracast community, and I hope that others will look into what has occurred at Budd Hopkins' Wikipedia page.

Many Thanks.

Sincerely

Sean F. Meers

www.lindacortilecase.com
 
I've always appreciated all the work Hopkins put into the abduction phenom. The only regret, was that he felt the need to hang his hat on one particular case, instead of simply presenting his research to readers. I found it distasteful that his motives were attacked while he was on his deathbed.
The fact remains, he did help shine a light on a very strange phenom. And, at the very least, made for some late night spooky reading.
 
kruggutter said:
A few days back Budd Hopkins' Wikipedia page was torn down and rebuilt. Much was removed and replaced with significantly more debunker-oriented material, in fact it is now saturated with it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, Sean. I've also noted a trend toward biased article content. Everything that supports paranormal stuff is always "alleged" or "supposed" or "fringe science", while the "CSI-stone Cops" version is presented as immutable laws of the Universe.

I've made a few edits here and there to correct some of the more blatant omissions and misstatements, but having a whole watchdog group of us would be awesome. Maybe we can do stuff like (for example) noting that Joe Nickell's PhD is in ENGLISH, which makes him just as much of an expert advisor as "Dr. Laura" was.
 
Tony B. said:
I've also noted a trend toward biased article content. Everything that supports paranormal stuff is always "alleged" or "supposed"
Click to expand...

The Wikipedia bias is not just against paranormal topic. There is also political bias. Some people make influencing Wikipedia content their life's work.

I ran into this in the early 2000's when I tried to edit the Wikipedia entry for the martial art Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. The "editors" at that time contended that Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu was a merely a bastardized style of Japanese Judo. Any edits I made which implied it had developed into a separate martial art during the last 80 years were deleted.

I researched who were the "editors". They were the same virulently anti-JJ people who crusaded on the old newsgroup rec.martial-arts. Their hatred of Jiu-Jitsu was religious in nature.

I gave up. The editors eventually relented after 10 years of complaints from users, but it wasn't worth my time to fight them.
 
kruggutter said:
I've identified the source of the debunkers rewriting Budd Hopkins' Wikipedia page.

Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

An operation being headed by an alleged "skeptic" Susan Gerbic.
Click to expand...

I went and looked at the page. :rolleyes:

"Alleged skeptic" is right - and the usual self-congratulation over how clever and organized they all are, compared to us benighted peasants, and single-handedly saving Western civilization.

Closed minds don't go anywhere.
 
Hello,

Sean here.

Thank you everyone for your replies and attention to this issue.

It's good to know what is going on finally at Wikipedia regarding the one-sided presentations of some of the controversial topics posted
about there. It's also interesting to know that it is not limited to Budd Hopkins' Wikipedia page.

Being able to identify the source of the pseudoskeptical material (Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia) posted at Budd Hopkins' Wikipedia
page has helped me to better understand this situation as a whole now. It's certainly helped me to understand why any legitimately cited
facts, that don't conform to the ideologies of the Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia movement are quickly removed.

Below is a quote from the Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia's page acknowledging their rewriting of Budd Hopkins' Wikipedia page.

http://s22.postimg.org/abcyz04nl/image.jpg

image.jpg

I guess the ultimate disappointment about this development is that it reflects poorly on the potential credibility of Wikipedia as a whole.
When it comes to less controversial topics, Wikipedia can be an excellent and relatively helpful place to at the very least ascertain some
credible leads for looking into particular subjects in more detail. It's clear, however, that when it comes to the paranormal, and as others
have pointed out political and controversial topics, that Wikipedia is hopelessly biased in its presentations.

At any rate, like finding out the source of a mystery illness, there is degree of relief and greater understanding now, and to a degree an
alleviation of stress. If Wikipedia wishes to indulge and reward the Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia movement that is fine. All that the
rest of us need to do is make it known that's who Wikipedia belongs to now.

If I don't get the chance I'd just like to wish everyone here a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely

Sean F. Meers
 
Back
Top