• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wikipedia Wooism (remote viewer)

Rob Lister

Unregistered
R
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
8,504
wikipedia entry for

Paul H. Smith is a remote viewing trainer and practitioner based in Austin, Texas. His remote viewing career began in 1983 when he was recruited for the US Army's Intelligence and Security Command's remote viewing program, then code-named Center Lane. Trained in coordinate (now 'controlled') remote viewing ... woo yada woo yada woo
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Smith_(remote_viewer)
 
Yeah, and Bob Lazar worked for Naval Intelligence on flying saucers and I worked for God rounding up flying renegade elves.

Of course all of this is so secret that they effectively dissappeared me, just like in that movie "The Net." So don't bother looking it up.


Call me cynical, but why should we believe any of his credentials? Is it just me or has every "remote viewer" at one time or another worked for the government? And if he did, why doesn't he anymore?

Could it be because:

A: He's a liar liar pants on fire?
B: He really did work for the govt, but couldn't remote view to save his life with two pairs of binoculars and fifteen extra eyes?

Damn, maybe I can get my own page on Wiki as a flying elf tracker who worked for God while posing as an assassin for Amnesty International, then write a book about it and cash in.
 
Well, that's the problem with Wikipedia (or, indeed, the internet in general): there's a lot of information in there, but it's always best to check it somewhere else...
 
Now to be fair, absolutely nowhere in the wiki entry does it say that he SUCCESSFULLY remote viewed anything, it just says that's what he was hired/assigned to do. Additionally if anyone has factual information that he wasn't even assigned to do this stuff, wiki will let you submit the information for an entry update. Note that it's not wiki's job to evangelize either side of the paranormal debate so they're certainly not required to explicitely state that remote viewing is bunk.
 
When I ask my students to document their sources, Wikipedia is among the least acceptable. FWIW.
 
Red Siegfried said:
Call me cynical, but why should we believe any of his credentials? Is it just me or has every "remote viewer" at one time or another worked for the government? And if he did, why doesn't he anymore?
Click to expand...

To be fair, there are two points to consider:

1) The government really does investigate some pretty weird stuff. Remember Dan Quayle citing a government study on cow farts, to prove that industrial emissions weren't the major source of air pollution?

2) It may be the nature of the people who volunteer to be involved in these projects that they later "go public" with bloated claims as soon as they're released from any government restrictions. The bloating would be needed because the fact of government study, by itself, is too inconsequential to get attention, but can be used to lend credibility.
 
Wooism aside, is Wikipedia the place for that sort of article? This looks more like a promotional piece than anything else. I'm surprised the moderators allowed it to stand.
 
I think the moderators are beginning to understand why no-one has tried to build an encyclopedia through open collaboration before.
 
PixyMisa said:
I think the moderators are beginning to understand why no-one has tried to build an encyclopedia through open collaboration before.
Click to expand...

They do a fair job of keeping the crap out. Wikipedia is, if nothing else, a quick and dirty means of finding some decent information. It just has to be checked through other sources. I like Wikipedia more than not. Could be that none of the members/moderators have caught it. If I were a member I would have marked it for deletion vote. Perhaps I shall become one and do just that.
 
Rob Lister said:
They do a fair job of keeping the crap out. Wikipedia is, if nothing else, a quick and dirty means of finding some decent information. It just has to be checked through other sources. I like Wikipedia more than not. Could be that none of the members/moderators have caught it. If I were a member I would have marked it for deletion vote. Perhaps I shall become one and do just that.
Click to expand...
I agree that the mods are doing a fair job. But if you follow the changelogs and comments, you get the impression that they weren't expecting the nature and volume of problems that they are experiencing. Not technical problems, people problems.
 
PixyMisa said:
I agree that the mods are doing a fair job. But if you follow the changelogs and comments, you get the impression that they weren't expecting the nature and volume of problems that they are experiencing. Not technical problems, people problems.
Click to expand...

I really, really wish that you would clean up and expand that piece you wrote on PEAR and publish it in Claus' rag.

I saved it BTW.
 
Red Siegfried said:
Damn, maybe I can get my own page on Wiki as a flying elf tracker who worked for God while posing as an assassin for Amnesty International, then write a book about it and cash in.
Click to expand...

Nah I'd speedy delete you under the patent nonsense rules.
 
BPScooter said:
When I ask my students to document their sources, Wikipedia is among the least acceptable. FWIW.
Click to expand...

So they get round that by sourcing one of the 32 wikimirrors in existance.
 
Rob Lister said:
Wooism aside, is Wikipedia the place for that sort of article? This looks more like a promotional piece than anything else. I'm surprised the moderators allowed it to stand.
Click to expand...

Moderators? The the cloest would be admins.
 
PixyMisa said:
I agree that the mods are doing a fair job. But if you follow the changelogs and comments, you get the impression that they weren't expecting the nature and volume of problems that they are experiencing. Not technical problems, people problems.
Click to expand...

No people can be delt with sure there as some who cause problems but they are pretty minimal. Hardware is the main problem right now the lastest load balancing softwear appears to be working but there is still a shortage of server capacity.
 
Ed said:
I really, really wish that you would clean up and expand that piece you wrote on PEAR and publish it in Claus' rag.

I saved it BTW.
Click to expand...
Which one was that?
 
Way back when, I shredded PEAR's meta-analysis paper. Basically, the whole thing is a unicorn hunt - find something and call it a unicorn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom