User talk:Self-ref/Cultural Struggle Surrounding Esoteric Topics in Wikipedia

Cultural struggle surrounding esoteric topics in wikipedia

MUD-wiki: writer flight and trumped up statistics amidst warring cabals

In September of 2008 my adorable wife, catherine yronwode, reflected on discussions which she and i were having about the social dynamics within hotly contested topic areas of Wikipedia. These pertained primarily to religious and esoteric topics, and to perceived cabals assembled to efface and bury substantive contributions to Wikipedia as part of an ongoing cultural struggle. She placed the text below, comparing Wikipedia to a MUD, on her User page:

What is Wikipedia?

I see a cascading series of failures of human decency here: The horrific Poetlister / Slim Virgin debacle and especially the clearly worded attempts to shush it up for the sake of Wikipedia's reputation (and the clearly worded instructions to allow the culprit to "slink off" rather than to expose him, so similar to the mentality that lay behind the Catholic pederast priest scandal); my brief time spent reading Wiki Review, Encyclopaedia Dramatica (currently blacklisted at Wikipedia -- nagasiva), WikiTruth, et al; and my reading of the pages on previous MEDCABs, ANIs, RfCs, and so forth, pointed out to me by helpful readers -- all of these make clear the multiple failed attempts by editors to put a stop to the incivility and ownership and cabalism of people who are trying to negatively impact important portions of Wikipedia. I am now convinced that MEDCAB, ANI, and RfC pages are utter time-wasters. I hold out little hope for ArbComs, either.

My thinking turns to the view that, contrary to the slogan "Wikipedia is not a Battleground," Wikipedia IS a Battleground, and that it was designed that way and is being played that way by a bunch of gamers. It's a MUD or a Dungeon where the premise is "Let's build an Encyclopedia." It is structured upon the storyline that "editors" are needed, and it sucks in a lot of high-minded writers who tend to be a little lonely and would love to have occasional text exchanges with others interested in whatever obscure topics interest them ("Hi, Danny! Wow! I couldn't help but notice that you took your nym from a book by the poet Kenneth Patchen! Cool!") -- but we, the writers, are just cannon fodder or targeted Red Shirts, while the REAL players at Wikipedia are those who know that it provides a shoot-em-up free-fire zone where people can take on anonymous personae and tear apart our writing (called "editing" by the gamers) on any class of thought or belief with which they don't agree.

We set the words up; they take them down. They award themselves points. They promote one another to high offices. That's the game.

To this end, complaints from hard-working writers that they are being treated with incivility are ignored, while the writers themselves are given the run-around. ("You need to develop a thicker skin." "Go ahead, just take a Wiki-Break." "Have you tried Wikiquette alerts?" "Why don't you try MEDCAB?" "This isn't a MEDCAB issue; try Dispute Resolution." "This is unlikely to be resolved; take it to ANI." "This is too long for ANI; take it to RfC." "This isn't an RfC matter; take it to ArbCom"). Meanwhile, the uncomplaining writers who leave in sorrow, confusion, fear, or disgust are said to have "retired." Nothing must interfere with the Battle.

I could say more, but i think you understand my point. No, i take that back. I have no idea if you understand my point or oppose it or are snickering with laughter right now. You are just another anonymous nobody here, and the fact is that you and your Wikipedian comrades are either writers who have thanklessly provided thousands of hours of good writing for target-practice or you are one of the real patrons, the shooter-boys, just hoping to find a handy target.

If i "retire" now, another writer-geek will take my place, and the Battle can go on . . . and on . . . and on.

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

She informed me that she'd written it, and i immediately began imagining what might be contained in it, based on the many hours that i enjoyed playing in and helping to create MUD environments. Once i'd read it, i was inspired to detail just how much commonality there was between Wikipedia and MUD communities. You may find the result below.

Many times i have been struck by the similarity between Wikipedia and a MUD. For those who are not familiar with them, and won't be looking at the supplied link, MUDs are Multi-User Dimensions (formerly 'Dungeons') which are text-worlds created for inter-textual communication and exploration, typically to battle monsters, find treasure, engage in social role-play, and have conceptual adventures, gleaning points, developing skills for the character, and collecting imaginary "stuff" like fabulous magical objects and impressive wardrobes. In the more complex MUDs there are secret or vibrantly public clubs to which one's character may belong, territories and buildings which one may own, and offices which one may hold in the social strata of the fictional society composed of real people posing as fictional characters.

After hours and hours spent wandering, exploring, puzzle-solving, battling, and socializing in MUDs, there are some things which become apparent tying them together as enterprises.

First, they usually have a THEME, and this theme is in part what glues the fictional world of drama together. It informs the types of characters that people are likely to play, what abilities and loot one may be able to obtain, and contribute heavily toward what one may do in the MUD.

Second, MUDs are OWNED. The machine they run on, the software booted on the machine, etc., are typically owned and operated by a single person, who operates the God character (no kidding, this is what it is usually called). That character has superpowers with respect to the MUD universe, can easily create and destroy things, places, and people (turning them into other thngs and making them vaporize). The God character is so powerful that it is sometimes set aside and only used in unusual circumstances, like a high tech tool. The owner usually empowers what are called 'Wizards' who administrate the operation, building, and socializing in the MUD. Their powers are comparable to, but they cannot affect, the God character, which can effectively make and unmake Wizards. The most cherished Wizards are those who are software developers, because they can facilitate the empowerment of the other Wizards and those who construct the MUD. The God of the MUD and these Wizards constitute the 'elite of the MUD' gaming environment.

Third, and this may in fact be the first thing one notices even before the other two if the MUD is very new, the MUD has CABALS. Social groups and cliques form fairly quickly, with variable strength and intensity, primarily depending on any offline and previously established relationships or developing social interactions, exterior and interior to the MUD world. Entire kingdoms may grow up around the owner's Ruling Character, a whole court of Lords and Ladies, their retinues, servants, aspiring replacements and pets. Since these are role-playing environments, role-players may feel the liberty to be extreme in their character personality constructions. A new player may, if lucky, run into a very helpful Wizard-Lady who provides them with countless tools to make their playtime in the MUD more enjoyable, easier, and more successful. She may gift them with baubles, tokens of appreciation, medallions of merit, and any number of badges that help their social advancement. The player may, contrariwise, encounter an evil Wizard-Lord who enslaves them, tricks them, and plays with them tormentingly or perversely, providing them with items only to take them away or make them the butt of jokes while his toadies sit about laughing. The upper echelons of MUDs are typically proportionate to their size. In large enterprises with hundreds of active characters there may be a dozen Wizards and several dozen lords and ladies, sometimes stratified and dispersed into sectors of the kingdom or into separate cities. Finding and encountering them is all part of the drama of the game.

Fourth, unless there are barriers or technical limits set to guard against it, one will encounter GAMERS. These are usually juvenile gangsters and bullies who wander about slaying things for points, amusement, or both. In the MUDs which allow or enable it, gamers can acquire coins or gems for killing things, and their delight in repeatedly destroying other characters for these personally-empowering points sometimes extends in sadistic dimensions. In most MUDs the gamers outnumber all the role-players (because there are more puzzle-solving and battle-prize-winning MUDs than any other kind). You may create a character, and, if unlucky, may be immediately beset by a group of gamer thugs who kill you and loot your body for whatever is provided to new characters. More sophisticated MUDs have safe-zone start-points in which this kind of roguishness is not tolerated (call 'no-kill zones'). You may team up with a group of adventurers and later discover that one has fallen into a gang of thieves who merely want to exploit your power as a weapon-wielder and who kill you as part of their next loot-taking episode.

Fifth, especially when trying to initiate or develop the MUD, one may be encouraged to become part of the BUILDERS. These are characters whose powers have been extended to the making of portions of the MUD itself, such as personal accoutrements, places, venues, buildings or subclimates within a particular place like a room in a castle or an apartment in a high-rise, or a whole section of a new town. Builders not only create the objects or places, they also pretty them up with decorations, ornately describing them in dramatic language so as to give the reader and explorer a 'feel' for the imaginary place through which they travel, and connect them in to other parts of the accessible MUD by coordinating with the managing Wizard who control the various building sectors of the MUD gaming environment.

In brief, Wikipedia seems to have all of these aspects, and is stratified in a particular way that is quite visible to those who spend any time encountering it and trying to achieve things in its MUD-like structure. Its THEME is reference. Those assembled to construct it attempt to provide data or discussion that lend it an air of informativeness. It is OWNED by Jimbo Wales. He may have set into motion a cooperative ownership of the whole (as does happen in some MUDs, interestingly enough), but his influence is still obviously operating and somebody still owns and operates the computers (in Florida or wherever they have been moved) where Wikipedia is being saved and, presumably, backed up routinely). The CABALS within Wikipedia are centered around Administrators. These Administrators have variable powers and responsibilities, form alliances, engage in feuds, and belong to social cliques in Wikipedia that may extend outside of the MUD. The GAMERS in Wikipedia appear to be in part arrayed against the BUILDERS, which is to what catherine yronwode refers in her essay "What is Wikipedia?", to which this is a response.

For our purposes the important part of this analogy is that it facilitates an analysis of the dynamic of the GAMERS vs the BUILDERS. While Wikipedians tend to refer to both groups as 'editors', they may be roughly identified by activity: Editors (GAMERS) vs Writers (BUILDERS). The MUD of Wikipedia enables or rewards both groups for their participative actions, and the weapons or tools provided to these groups allow them differing effects that will have an important influence on their ongoing relationship, and what is constructed in the MUD. Editors make edits and Writers make contributions. The former must depend upon the latter for their raw materials, and therefore they exploit or feed off of the latter to a degree. This is in part to what catherine was referring when comparing how the Editors are treating the contributions of the Writers like monsters in a gaming MUD which they shoot, or hack away at with their swords, reducing text to a pile of goo which hovers and then evaporates. Insofar as there is a stratification of power, and reduction-based editing is enabled, and personal/social points are awarded for this kind of gaming activity, so do Editors have the gaming upper-hand and Writers' contributions are exploited for the enjoyment of target practice by Editors.

The Editors employ the Weapon of Effacement to assault text contributions (when not personally assaulting the Writers themselves with insults). They wield a kind of sand-blowing tool which covers over any amount of contribution they desire or can get away with, based on the cabal of their involvement. If they have the patronage of a powerful Administrator, they can use their sand-blower to efface (cover over) entire pages or sections, or incrementally whittle away at entire topic-sectors with which they may have some ideological difference of opinion. They use category tags to identify the contending ideologies in the struggle, and then set about blowing sand all over the contributions made by the Writers within those contended categories. At its best, this struggle produces a refined result, in which text of both substance and content are presented to the interested public. However, when the Editors are armed too heavily and enabled too powerfully by their Administrative patrons, the outcome is burial of content and substance, and the flight of Writers from the project as they tire of being the repeated victims of Editorial target practice, and seeing no Administrative support for their interests.

Just as in the gaming MUDs, Editors form cliques, tag-teams, and cabals. In MUDs, cabals surrounding Wizards engage in contention and struggle for power, and in some cases this leads the MUDs to break apart socially. User flight from a MUD leads to Builders shifting their efforts toward numerous alternatives developed using the same basic software on other machines, owned and operated by others. This situation seems to be reflected fairly directly in the cabal-contentions among Administrators in Wikipedia (consider, for example, the misuse of Administrator-assigned power-objects such as Twinkle and how these are leading to such power-struggles). This kind of cabal-contention occurs regardless of the expressed public statements to the contrary by the God of the MUD, as may appear on Mr. Wales' User Page, Principle #2.

If the God of the MUD abdicates his responsibility to both Gamers/Editors and Builders/Writers, we may witness in Wikipedia what has happened in countless MUDs that were once populated, living communities, but have been superceded by newer, more interesting, more equitable alternatives whose Wizards/Administrators are more pleasant and less caustic, and who protect their Builders/Writers.

If this situation doesn't change, and Writer/Builder flight continues to take place, then the Wikipedia project may succumb to the fate of myriad MUDs, from whom Builder-flight resulted in MUD-hulks, "peopled" by thousands of abandoned user accounts, formerly utilzed by Writers, who no longer visit the once-thriving metropolis of yesteryear. No amount of deception about "how many user accounts exist" will replace the on-the-ground data about daily logins and Builder/Writer-contribution volume. These are the living statistics of any MUD, including Wikipedia, regardless of how many abandoned accounts and user sock-puppets might be used to fortify trumped up statistics about a game that nobody is interested in playing any more.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Cultural struggle, the weapon of effacement, and a theory of hierarchic wikis

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The current policies and atmosphere in Wikipedia are not conducive to fostering coverage of esoteric¹ subjects in any depth. Instead, it facilitates effacement of substantative articles, using such mechanisms as hostile cite-tagging, hostile category tagging to categories and pages, and the Weapon of Effacement, by those opposed to such coverage, and those whose interests extend to esoteric topics that want to work within a wiki are making their own wikis rather than attempt to negotiate for their existence and contributions. Predictably, the result will be an array of wikis focussed and covering a variety of topics, leaving for some future 'meta-wiki' the kind of edited inclusion which should be the ideal and aim of Wikipedia.

• GENERAL LANDSCAPE

In the ambiguous zone of cultural struggle to which falls discussion of politics, philosophy, and religion, citation for Wikipedia page construction amounts to the presentation of cultural support for bias. Where esoterica becomes so sparse as to glean insufficient cultural support in the way of books, journals, or even many web pages, the contested contributions are repeatedly created, then "edited" (effaced) by opposition factions to stubs, then removed.

• SPECIFIC EFFACEMENT TACTICS

One encroachment device serving to facilitate this is the category marker. Proliferation of the use of pejorative category identification facilitates the infringement of pages and categories with critical oversight from which this effacement may take place. Those who have a vested interest in seeing particularly targeted categories or pages effaced merely patrol the zones of their interest and repeatedly employ the Weapon of Effacement.

• INSTANCES OF DEPTH PRESENTATION OF EFFACEMENT

At least 3 instances of attempts to bringing this problem to greater light have recently been attempted here at Wikipedia. I presume that there may have been others, but how to see and recognize them is not immediately apparent to me, let alone how to address it with any deftness, or start campaigns or proposals to rectify it (i have neither the time nor the interest to do more than analyze it and comment upon it, myself). Therefore i'll point out these 3 instances here so that others might track them down somewhat if they have the interest to do so and/or use them to their advantage:

-- One instance of bringing the matter up on the Village Pump as a cite taging and culture war, along with a suggestion for a solution to this problem: edit-credits.

-- One instance of attempting to address a particular user's employment of the Weapon of Effacement, presented as an ANI-Proposal.

-- One instance of attempting to launch a protest removal of abused Pseudoscience category tags, subsequent discussion about that protest, and an explanation as to the abuse of the Pseudoscience tag as part of cultural struggle.

-- Realizing the depth of the cultural struggle ongoing at Wikipedia, another tactic was attempted in association with this problem: the placement of defensive category tags upon the categories and pages under assault. Here is the discussion of the Call for Deletion of these new tags, wherein the whole of the issue is aired with particular reference to Pseudoscience as an abused, pejorative category tag and the remedial, defensive category tag is supported.

• HIERARCHY OF WIKIS: The Bowl-Shaped Wikipedia

Imagine that the ideal Wikipedia is a sphere-shape of knowledge or data. What is being created instead, by virtue of the Weapon of Effacement, is a bowl-shape of hard scientific data supporting a fuzzy or fluffy fluctuating residue of unchallenged popular culture, entertainment, and other matters which those employing the Weapon of Effacement have little interest in combatting. Repeated attempts are being made to extend this bowl toward greater depth of record and therefore toward the spherical shape of its ideal, and in some cases (at least temporarily) these extensions remain, often under a heavy burden of supporting the point of view of scientific skeptics who have infiltrated their categories and required conformance to their citation and support-standards alongside their negating evaluations.

Those who are not willing or interested in arguing with or combatting with the editors employing the Weapon of Effacement (i.e. without an investment in Wikipedia.org specifically) are gradually shifting to wiki projects that are more friendly and supportive of their interests. These, by virtue of their experimental nature and their dependence upon private individuals (rather than institutions) to support and maintain them, will of course have a fluctuating existence en par with what are called MUDs or, in general, web pages. They will come into existence, thrive for a time, and then go out of existence due to a lack of administrative/technical support or participant interest. Their GNU Licensing feature, however, makes it possible for what is constructed on these wikis to be archived and moved forward to other venues if obtained prior to their disappearance.

With the proliferation of wiki software and the growing interest in it as a means of presenting knowledge, more and more wikis are coming into and going out of existence. The more that exist, the more specialized is their application and what type of material that they are hosting. We are already seeing numerous wikis that feature the works of prominent authors, for example. These are but the preliminary wave of the type of condition which may yet come to be, along with numerous specialized wiki projects by factions whose principles or policies are different than that of Wikipedia (whether with regard to participation, such as with Citizendium and its requirement of full disclosure for participants, or with regard to article writing/editing itself, such as Kiamagic, whose premise is apparently anti-authoritarian).

Projecting into the future somewhat, and supposing that nothing about the methodology of Wikipedia will in fact change due to its momentum and the character of those assembled to pursue its aims, what will develop will be numerous wikis with differentiated protection and orientation within the zones of knowledge in which they may seek to specialize. Rather than bowl-shapes, they will assume all manner of appearance, metaphorically speaking, and be comprised of less and more coherent and supportable data as well as coverage. Due to the fact that so many of these wikis are accepting the GNU Licensing standard for text, however, this makes possible what we might call a 'meta-wiki'², which will effectively become a 'Best of Wikis', using the 'You Edit It' wiki backdrop as raw material to incorporate information from all of the various protected wikis operating, but excluding by editing standards and top-down direction (much like a conventional encyclopedia or other print reference source) the factional disputes and net results of the Weapon of Effacement that may be employed at any specific wiki due to cultural struggle.

• HIERARCHY OF WIKIS: Spectrum From Personal to Meta

With this in mind, contribution to wikis will perhaps change somewhat in that wiki software (or something much like it, displaying knowledge sets more adroitly) will be employed extensively and having a wiki will become as commonplace as having a web page. What will apply at that point will be what i call a 'hierarchy of wikis'. Individual users will create their own knowledge sets of varying type, quality, and extensiveness (prolific writers of encyclopedic knowledge effectively replicating or improving what has emerged from conventional wiki projects), and these may or may not accept the GNU Licensing standard of copyrights. Focussing solely on those which do, the interchange between them will reduce what we are seeing now as the employment of the Weapon of Effacement (due to our limited perspective on wikis and their importance to overall knowledge presentation) to the character of a boundary-setting device used by factions and editors to limit what is contained within any specific wiki based on its standards of knowledge vetting or inclusion.

Extending from these individual wikis operating in numerous literate places in cyberspace will be intermediate 'edited wikis' which feature collection caches from GNU Licensed personal wikis of a specialized type but which do not attempt to achieve the same level of inclusion as an encyclopedia. Up on the top of the heap of these individual and edited wikis (or at the bottom of a collection trough, if you prefer) will be what i am calling 'the meta-wiki' which attempts to actually produce the sphere ideal that Wikipedia may one day become.

• CONCLUSION

As long as Wikipedia supports and allows the employment of the Weapon of Effacement in its policies and procedures, so it will effectively exclude to other wikis those editors whose efforts might have been employed to achieve its lofty goals (and thereby lose valuable resources). Instead of a complete encyclopedia, what will be created by Wikipedia is a restricted edifice of substantial worth to a specific group of people, a helpful reference source on topics substantiated by conventional citation or so fluffy and peripheral as not to interest any in dispute.³

Let this post stand as a prophetic and referential strand between the Wikipedia that exists today, the wikis that exist in comparison to it, and the Meta-wiki that Wikipedia should eventually become. It should be seen as an interested attempt to describe or troubleshoot from a distance what it may take decades to realize and effect in pursuit of encyclopedic coverage of contested zones of knowledge. It is based on peripheral observation of the dynamics and social policies which currently exist, as well as a brief and intriguing foray into Wikipedia before moving on to wikis where esoteric data is allowed greater protection against those opposed to it.⁴

• NOTES:

1 -- If something is actually "esoteric, its 'small' or 'inner' condition as regards the terminological portion 'eso' is relative. Some esoteric subjects are very well-sourced, even by unaffiliated individuals, academics, and are broadly covered by a variety of quality interests, pro and con. There is nothing consistently which makes esotericism secret, though some of it may be so. Citation (to meet Wikipedia standards) is strictly possible, but it will depend on interest in keeping supportable data in Wikipedia by those who aren't exercizing hostile cite tagging, hostile category/page tagging and the Weapon of Effacement to eradicate to stubs what they oppose, ideologically (there is already Wikiversity interest in this matter, and i suspect that some portion of this message is getting through the hostile editors mentioned).

2 -- This is not to be confused with the "Meta-Wiki" which coordinates all Wikimedia projects.

3 -- This may seem to be burying an evaluation of what is ostensibly a significant problem at Wikipedia, but as there doesn't seem to be any obvious place wherein such problems might be brainstormed, and i have here no specific proposal to put forward, this will have to do. Feel free to copy this essay with proper reference to other venues should you desire, or simply make reference to it in the archives of Wikipedia's Village Pump, where it will lay indefinitely for future generations.

4 -- I have been asked what i am aiming toward in constructing these observations. I can clearly say that i am aiming for an end to the influential cabals in Wikipedia that Jimbo says should not exist. An equitability between Editors and Writers (esp. in the esoteric cats) such that Wikipedia doesn't continue looking like a hack and slash MUD where the content is merely being used for target practice in a game to entertain Editors (see above). A greater accountability than Wikipedia is providing with its anonymization-support about which Larry Sanger and others have objected, left, and which enables the sock-puppetry which is being used in hegemonic cultural warfare. An end to the employment of tactics like hostile cite tagging and hostile tagging of pejorative categories or the enabling of some defensive zone wherein esoteric topics under cultural assault by convetional science apologists may be adequately covered in depth without having to provide real estate for opposing viewpoints. The termination of futile newspeak (it is Orwellian) contending that Wikipedia is not a Battleground (when it is in some places), that cabals should not exist (but they do), and that there are no rules (when there are). Those are the ones that occur to me off the top of my head that are related to this posting.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)(revised, integrated)

Cabalism in wiki-land: sock it to me!

(In response to people claiming that contentions about cabals are paranoid or slam-based:) Several things are being smashed confusingly together here.

• 1) 'a cabal' is not the issue, several cabals are. -- it is stated within Wikipedia by its God character Jimbo that cabals should not exist. they do seem to. this is therefore a problem.

• 2) overt cabals are not the main problem, groups of people and their socks are. -- the issue of anonymity and the facilitation of socks to enable the apparency of numbers in consensus-based process has been sufficiently addressed that the other person owning the God character left the MUD to form Citizendium. obviously this is a problem.

• 3) conspiracy and paranoia are personal slams, but observations on the manifestation of POV-pushing by factions of conventional society utilizing badly-weighted Editor/Writer powertools within a Wikipedia that looks more and more like a hack-and-slash MUD to entertain effacing Editors (esp. in certain contested categories) are in fact helpful analyses. -- the observation that certain contested zones (such as religious, Intelligent Design, esoterica) face what appear to be factionalized effacement and hostile engagement by an identifiable set of user accounts is not a personal slam. it is a real problem being described in sometimes contentious ways for effect.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC) (moved from User talk:Killerchihuahua#Temperature)

WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

I have become increasingly concerned about the Fringe theories/Noticeboard, and started this thread to discuss the problematic nature of their editing on the Village Pump. If you have anything you would like to say on the subject, before it disappears into the archives, please do. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

posted. note that i have addressed what i think of as this problem before in the Village Pump. see my archives re Cultural Struggle and Esoteric Topics. thanks. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

Thanks for the interesting comments. I asked because my recollection that you had given considerable thought to closely related issues. It is my intention to diminish my participation of WP, and I wanted to say something about the problem before that. Salve. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Protest edit: the weapon of effacement combatted

Pseudoscience edit protest explanation

Could you explain your edits, please? You've been removing categories from articles in what appears to be an inappropriate manner. Those articles (and categories) are categorized that way because there are several reliable references indicating that they are pseudoscience. ... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i can explain my edits. I find that the Pseudoscience faction in Wikipedia is egregious in its abuse of the category to oppose paradigms with which it does not agree. I have no confidence that the serious damage that this is doing to the categories of its infringement will ever abate due to the aggregate momentum of the users assembled to efface what the pseudoskeptics abhor.

The "reliable references" to which you refer are merely biased faction supporters in a cultural war that seems to have engulfed Wikipedia to such an extent that its techniques and guidelines and customs now consistently enable the bludgeoning of topics which pseudoskeptics dislike.

I have indicated at least initially some of the problem areas of the Pseuodoscience category (subcats, pages) by my edits, and i will list them here for the interested, possibly reflecting this to a Talk page other than my own if i feel like it:

SUBCATS

• Astrology
• Divination
• New Age
• Numerology
• Orgone energy
• Paranormal
• Phrenology
• Psychic powers
• Reiki
• Remote Viewing
• Spiritualism

Good examples, otherwise, within these SUBCATS are "Creation Science", and "Intelligent Design", possibly but probably not including "Scientology", which is a religion that does sometimes try to give the impression of being scientific.

PAGES

• Astrology
• Aura (paranormal)
• Bigfoot
• Colon cleansing
• Divination
• Dowsing
• Graphology
• Numerology
• List of occultists
• Orgone
• Paranormal
• Reiki
• Remote viewing

In general the types of things being misplaced into the category of Pseudoscience are phenomena, principles, processes, techniques, and theories. By themselves these aren't pseudosciences even though some in the scientific community may seek to call them this. Typically they are divinatory or therapeutic techniques that may be based on questionable or disputed theoretical foundations, and this should never be considered pseudoscience by itself.

Feel free to quote or refer to this portion of my talk page, as it is likely going to be one of my few involvements in Wikipedia. The pseudoskeptical factions are way too strong for me (or many of my friends or family) to want to stay long, and the means by which things are changed here is so tedious that the best most of us will be able to do is put up a meek protest, explain it, and move on.

Thanks for your time.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category abuses

Removing the pseudoscience category from articles which so obviously concern subjects in that category is very likely to be seen as vandalism. You will note that all of your removals have been reverted. For Wikipedia's attitudes towards pseudoscience, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, specifically the section stating

16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

--MediaMangler (talk) 05:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that they don't obviously concern it. I protested and corrected the problem that you and others have allowed to continue due to your bias against the topics of your infringement. Your knowledge is floating on a cloud of consensus.

The arbitration to which you refer is merely a gang's victory against those who are attempting to repulse the pseudoskeptical assault on topics which aren't properly pseudosciences at all, but are targets of modern materialist science proponents who seek to use the term in this way.

Because some arbitration was agreed this does not mean that it is authoritative or that i must agree with it. I dispute it and would characterize it as a form of gang-warfare against an array of topics which you and others like you are effectively damaging Wikipedia's knowledge base concerning, by repeatedly infringing on these areas of knowledge and inserting pseudoskeptical viewpoints into them rather than to let them have their own zones to explain their methodologies and associated ideas in peace.

I gather that were i to continue to make these edits over and over again you would be within your rights and powers to issue to me some kind of warning. This is the means by which the culture war is carried out -- through the mechanism of the Wiki POLICE (Patrollers). Your Talk page itself indicates that your interest is Pseudoscience, and you have a vested interest in maintaining the intellectual boundaries which are in fact whittling away at the topics that the category of Pseudoscience is allowed to encompass, quite idiotically and biasedly.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add here that mine is not the first voice being raised in alarm at the abuses of the category (and terminological use) of 'pseudoscience'. during several arbitration incidents arguments have successively explained some of these problems, inclusive of that by Gleng in the immediately foregoing arbitration that

"Pseudoscience” is a word rarely used by scientists in the peer reviewed literature; it has no consistent and clear general meaning, although it may be used with a particular meaning in mind when used in a particular context. I think it should be avoided in general on WP because of its vagueness and derogatory implication, if something has been criticized as obscure, illogical, unfounded, false, or mystical, say that, and say why the source of the opinion is notable if it is not apparent, and make sure that the citation is accessible online so that the context can be seen.

Additionally, the text of Jim Butler (refined cites slightly for sourcing) is of some assistance, excerpted from that same arbitration:

I agree with Gleng's comments. As he says below and elsewhere, the term "pseudoscience" isn't found much in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Accordingly, to the extent that we use the term, we should be clear about whose POV we're representing, and with which V RS's.

Editors concerned with highlighting what they believe are pseudoscientific topics rightly point to the NPOV FAQ's comments on pseudoscience, giving "equal validity", and making necessary assumptions. However, NPOV and VER go further than those passages, and if we rely too heavily on those passages at the expense of other aspects of NPOV and VER, we're missing the forest for the trees. For example, if WP:NPOVT#Categorisation means anything, it means that category:pseudoscience should be used sparingly. I've commented on this issue in some detail here. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (minor edits for clarity 05:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

As an example regarding categorization: Is the current[1] inclusion of homeopathy in category:pseudoscience appropriate or necessary when a Pubmed search turns up a scant three citations of the terms "homeopathy" and "pseudoscience" together? Why doesn't it suffice simply to let the facts speak for themselves, as WP:NPOV says? I believe some editors (cf. User:FeloniousMonk's comment at Talk:Pseudoscience#Credible_sources) are tending to use the above-linked comments from the NPOV FAQ as a way to resurrect the deprecated WP:SPOV. It's as if so-labelled pseudoscientific topics have magically become exceptions to the NPOV and VER requirements that we use V RS's to say who says what and why. Editors such as FM are arguing that if authors who write for non-peer-reviewed popular journals such as Skeptical Inquirer designate a field as pseudoscience, that suffices for categorization[2][3] --

* despite the fact that such sources don't meet RS for scientific sources;

* irrespective of whether we can prove the scientific community takes such a stance; and

* despite the NPOV problems with the category namespace that WP:CG mentions (i.e., it appears without annotations, so it can be used to advance one view over another rather than presenting competing views).

Since these disputes affect large numbers of articles, guidance from the ArbCom would be helpful. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, i would also like to include the following material from Jim Butler's User page which he references above in excerpt as it is appropos and bears repeating:

What is pseudoscience?

Pseudoscience essentially means "something misrepresented as being scientific". The definition thus depends both on what is meant by "scientific" and on whether misrepresentation is taking place, and the term remains ill-defined. Unless one explains the ways in which a particular field diverges from the scientific method, the term pseudoscience remains little more than an epithet, like "cult".

Notable critics have argued that some topics in alternative medicine have particular pseudoscientific characteristics. I often agree with such criticisms (and the ways in which alt-med topics diverge from the basic requirements of the scientific method are too numerous to list here). However, it's overreaching to assert that critics of pseudoscience who write for popular audiences (e.g., in publications like Skeptical Inquirer) necessarily represent the views of a majority of scientists. (For that, we need to follow WP:V, which says to use reliable sources that meet particular standards.) I believe that some self-identified "skeptics" err on the side of pseudoskepticism, and in their zeal to debunk have tended to throw out some "baby" along with the "bathwater".

Scientists generally comment on evidence, not on whether something is "pseudoscience". Pseudoscience is inherently a contentious term because it says that a topic's advocate is engaging (knowingly or not) in misrepresentation. Wikipedias's categorization guidelines, at WP:CG, suggest that we avoid using categories when they are contentious. Thus, for topics that are in "grey areas", i.e. that have significant scientific and pseudoscientific elements, we should be very careful about using the pseudoscience category. (Fortunately, since I wrote this section, the ArbCom has clarified matters and we may rely on WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience.

(Inspirational quote)

From User:Gleng, this[4] is a keeper:

Like most scientists am sparing with the term "pseudoscience" because it is both offensively perjorative and irredeemably imprecise. My resource is PubMed, this vast repository of the scientific literature spanning all disciplines and many languages, in all this trove only 71 articles even use the word, of these only 11 are reviews [5], and mostly concern the historical debates about now rejected areas of science. Scientists deal with the merits of arguments, case by case; they do not categorise by prejudice, either arguments or those who make them; to call something a pseudoscience or someone a pseudoscientist are either gratuitous insults or they are serious charges, worthy of close and careful argument, of meticulous rigor and precision, to justify what might be seen as a libel.Gleng 15:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to these abuses.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC) (whoopsee forgot to sign)

Pseudoscience category as a weapon in the hegemonic culture wars

In Wikipedia, Pseudoscience is defined like this:

Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method,[2][3][4] lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,[5] or otherwise lacks scientific status.[6]

This sentence contains an opening clause -- the "claimed to be or made to appear" clause -- and three dependent sub-clauses, the "does not adhere" sub-clause, the "lacks supporting evidence" sub-clause, and the "lacks scientific status" sub-clause.

The sub-clauses only function as agents upon the first clause ("claimed to be or made to appear scientific"). If this were not so, then anything in the world which "lacks scientific status" -- a cheeseburger, a dog, a piece of hand-woven cloth from Equador -- could be classified as a "Pseudoscience." Obviously this is not the case, because these items (and a million others), are never thought of as Pseudosciences because they were never "claimed to be or made to appear scientific."

The problem is that the pseudoskeptic group at Wikipedia treats these three sub-clauses as independent clauses. They do this despite that fact that adherents and practitioners of the subjects labelled "pseudoscience" are not always claiming a scientific basis for their beliefs or, if they are, they may be using the word "science" in its broadest sense, meaning "knowledge," and not in the narrow sense of "an approved academic curriculum of study of the material world that utilizes the 'scientific method' of investigation into physical phenomena".

Let us take Spiritualism, for an example. Spiritualism is a religion. There have been claims made for it of a scientific nature in the narrow sense of the word, mostly in the past, and mostly by a very small minority of adherents. However, this entire religion, consisting of many denominations (see List of Spiritualist organizations) is unfairly labelled a Pseudoscience at Wikipedia. This is grossly unfair and prejudicial to the religion of Spiritualism.

Then let us take New Age. This is an interfaith religio-cultural movement. Again, a small minority of adherents have made scientific claims, narrowly defined, for aspects of the movement, but the general woman-in-the-street adherent does not make scientific claims, merely thinking of herself as a "New Ager" or "New Age pracititoner." Labelling her beliefs a "Pseudoscience" is inaccurate, prejudicial, and discourteous.

Scientology is listed as "Pseudoscience" at Wikipedia, which makes some sense, as this religion does curently present itself as "science" based. But why is the religion of Thelema NOT labeled a "Pseudoscience" at Wikipedia, despite the fact that its motto is "The aim of religion, the method of science"? This is inconsistent, to say the least, and also a-historical, given the intertwined origins of the two religions.

Then we have Divination, in all its many branches. While some forms of divination are presented by some (but not all) adherents and practitioners as "scientific," others are virtually never given that appellation. In my 40-plus years of reading tea leaves, for instance, i have never heard Tasseography "claimed to be or made to appear scientific," yet it is still classified at Wikipedia as a "Pseudscience." WHY?

Why are the pseudoskeptics holding these topics hostage inside a category that exists only in the NEGATIVE, only to disrespect the items thus contained? Why is Wikipedia openly allowing a small coterie of editors to discredit and tarnish sincere religious and spiritual adherents?

It is my opinion that a pseudoskeptical faction of active and aggressive editors is waging a hegemonic culture war against small religions, folkloric customs, divination, mysticism, ccultism, and spirituality, that they are doing so by taking over and controlling the categories in which these diverse socio-cultural topics appear at Wikipedia, and that this is being done with the full knowledge and encouragement of Wikipedia administrators and bureaucrats.

If this were not so, the pseudoskeptics would allow members of these religions to absent their religions from the "Pseudoscience" category -- but they do not. They would allow practitioners and adherents of folkloric forms of divination to ask for independence from the "Pseudoscience" category -- but they do not.

WHY NOT?

As a Jew, i cannot help but note that this enforced classification of religions as "pseudo-somethings" is abhorrent and grossly offensive. Let me tell you how horrific it appears to me. Judaism is not "Pseudochristianity" and no one at Wikipedia would allow it to be listed as such -- but at the same time, Spiritualism and its attendent organizations like Universal Hagar's Spiritual Church and Pentecostal Spiritual Assemblies of Christ - International and Metropolitan Spiritual Churches of Christ -- which are not "Pseudoscience" and should never have been classified as "Pseudoscience" in the first place -- are thus listed, held captive to the mocking whim of pseudoskeptics who think that their connection to rich, powerful, White scientific atheists gives them the right to disrespect and malign any religion they choose.

That's what it looks like to me, and i invite anyone who doesn't have a closed mind to click on the links to those small, mostly African American, Spiritualist groups and tell me why -- WHY? -- they are placed in the "Pseudoscience" category. Can you justify it? Really? If you can, tell me why. Or better yet, tell THEM.

Please feel free to carry this material to any other discussion page at Wikipedia where it might be appropriate.

Thaks for reading. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Pseudoskeptic Target

I have nominated Category:Pseudoskeptic Target (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Gillyweed (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing that. I have referenced the above 3 Sections as part of the presentation there. Should i actually move these sections interior to that CfD discussion? or should i leave it here on my Talk page? I am concerned that if were deleted in the future there would be no way to fully understand that discussion and want it archived. thanks for any recommendations that any may be interested in providing.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, i have set out more coherently and with detail what my premise was in doing what i have done, presenting this at the Village Pump.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Prototype for a list of pseudoskeptic targets article

note: Category:Pseudoscience
Category:Pseudoskepticism

SPECIAL REFLECTION NOTE: List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts

PROPOSAL: create List_of_pseudoskeptic_targets

PREMISE

Usually calling their targets "pseudoscience", pseudoskeptics attempt to argue with and efface competing ideologies they have identified as in error or as contrary to their understanding of the universe. Typically these are techniques, therapies, and phenomena which offend their modern scientific perspective, and which they seek to oppose in society through their pseudoskeptical methods.

The following are contested as to their pseudoscientific status. Pseudoskeptics use assertions by mainstream, specialized scientific bodies (e.g., a society of plasma physicists) or one or more national- or regional-level Academies of Science to issue challenges to their legitimacy and to repeatedly efface their complete coverage. That these items listed here are not accepted by the scientific establishment is acknowledged, but that this necessarily means that they seek to be known as sciences on a consistent and comparably meaningful basis or primarily promote themselves as sciences is disputed. 'Pseudosciences' used in this pejorative sense deserves a more stringent restriction for its application, and phenomena, theories, and ideas which modern science dispute deserve greater protection from this cultural infringement. Thus, the list below is helpful in identifying these targets which are receiving undue effacement by pseudoskeptics in such networks and projects as Wikipedia.

Preliminary list of pseudoscientific targets

• Astrology refers to any of several systems of understanding, interpreting and organizing knowledge about reality and human existence, based on the relative positions and movement of various real and construed celestial bodies.

• Crop circles are geometric designs of crushed or knocked-over crops created in a field. Aside from skilled farmers or pranksters working through the night, explanations for their formation include UFOs and anomalous, tornado-like air currents. The study of crop circles is termed "cerealogy" by proponents.

• Crystal healing is the belief that crystals have healing properties. Once common among pre-scientific and indigenous peoples, it has recently enjoyed a resurgence in popularity with the new age movement.

• Homeopathy is the belief in giving a patient with symptoms of an illness extremely dilute solutions of substances that produce those same symptoms in healthy people given larger doses.

• Lunar effect is the belief that the full moon influences human behavior.

• Paranormal subjects

• • Channeling is the communication of information to or through a person allegedly from a spirit or other paranormal entity.

• • Dowsing refers to practices said to enable one to detect hidden water, metals, gemstones or other objects.

• • Electronic voice phenomenon is the alleged communication by spirits through tape recorders and other electronic devices.

• • Levitation, in this sense, is the act of rising up from the ground without any physical aids, usually by the power of thought.

• • Materialization is the supposed creation or appearance of matter from unknown sources.

• • Séances are ritualized attempts to communicate with the dead.

• • Psychokinesis is the paranormal ability of the mind to influence matter or energy at a distance.

• Therapeutic touch is a form of vitalism where a practitioner, who may be also a nurse, passes his or her hands over and around a patient to "realign" or "rebalance" a putative energy field.

Other topics which pseudoskeptics label 'pseudoscience' and try to marginalize

The following are subjects labelled pseudoscience by notable skeptical bodies such as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP). The fact that these items are not considered scientific by these groups in and of themselves, and that only certain aspects, explanations, and/or applications of them have been thus classified, warrants their characterization as pseudoskeptic targets. They are the victims of an ongoing scientistic culture war. This is not to say that they are justified, well-founded, or more than fantasies, just that they are mislabelled as 'pseudosciences' when in fact at best they are products of pseudosciences or pseudoscientists.

-- Terran regions

• The Bermuda Triangle is a region of the Atlantic Ocean that lies between Bermuda, Puerto Rico, and (in its most popular version) Florida. Frequent disappearances and ship and aircraft disasters in this area have led to the circulation of stories of unusual natural phenomona, paranormal encounters, and interactions with extraterrestrial.

-- Paranormal and ufology

• • Ancient astronauts are extraterrestrials said to have initiated the rise of human civilization or provided significant technological assistance to various ancient civilizations.

• Animal mutilations are cases of animals, primarily domestic livestock, with seemingly unexplainable wounds. These wounds have been said to be caused by natural predation, extra terrestrials, cults, or covert government organizations.

• Tutankhamun's curse was allegedly placed on the discoverers of Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamun, causing widespread deaths and other disastrous events.

• Tunguska event is an anomalous meteor strike said to actually be the impact of a miniature black hole or a large body composed of antimatter, or Ball lightning.

Philosophy and psychology

• Graphology is a purported psychological test based on a belief that personality traits unconsciously and consistently influence handwriting morphology - that certain types of people exhibit certain quirks of the pen. Analysis of handwriting attributes provides no better than chance correspondence with personality, and neuroscientist Barry Beyerstein likened the assigned correlations to sympathetic magic. Graphology is only superficially related to forensic document examination, which also examines handwriting.

• Phrenology Phrenologists believe that the mind is compartmentalize, an idea featured in modern neuro-imaging technique (see also modularity of mind or faculty psychology). Phrenologists also claim to determine character and personality traits on the basis of the shape of the head (reading "bumps").

• Primal therapy The Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology (2001) states that: "The theoretical basis for the therapy is the supposition that prenatal experiences and birth trauma form people's primary impressions of life and that they subsequently influence the direction our lives take....".

• Subliminal perception is visual or auditory information that is discerned below the threshold of conscious awareness and has an effect on human behavior.

Health and medicine

• Anthroposophic medicine, or Anthroposophically extended medicine, is a school of complementary medicine founded in the 1920s by Rudolf Steiner in conjunction with Dr. Ita Wegman based on the spiritual philosophy of anthroposophy. Adherents practice a highly individualized holistic and salutogenic approach to health, embracing a "Fourfold Path" of healing by considering the physical body, formative processes, consciousness, and biography (ego). Medications are formulated to stimulate healing by matching "key dynamic forces" with symptoms, and prepared for external, oral, or parenteral introduction in various dilutions ranging from whole to homeopathic. Skeptic Robert Carroll likens to sympathetic magic the principle that curative plants may be identified by distortions or abnormalities in their morphology or physiology. Carroll and others suggest that the system is out of touch with conventional medicine. Practitioners give less significance to randomized controlled trials, emphasizing balancing these with individualized diagnosis and treatment. Because promotion of self-healing is preferred, anthroposophical doctors and parents generally restrict or delay the use of vaccinations, antibiotics, and antipyretics; this restriction has been associated with a relative reduction in incidence of allergies in children being raised according to an anthroposophic lifestyle. No thorough scientific analysis of the efficacy of anthroposophical medicine as a system independent of its philosophical underpinnings has been undertaken; no evidence-based conclusion of the overall efficacy of the system can be made at this time.

• Applied kinesiology is a means of medical diagnosis which proponents believe can identify health problems or nutritional deficiencies through practitioner assessment of external physical qualities such as muscle response, posture, or motion analysis. A variety of therapies are prescribed based on tested weakness or smoothness of muscle action and a conjectured viscerosomatic association between particular muscles and organs. The sole use of Applied Kinesiology to diagnose or treat any allergy or illness is not scientifically supported, and the International College of Applied Kinesiology requires concurrent use of standard diagnostic techniques. Applied kinesiologists are often chiropractors, but may also be naturopaths, physicians, dentists, nutritionists, physical therapists, massage therapists, and nurses. Applied Kinesiology should not be confused with kinesiology, the scientific study of human movement.

• Attachment therapy is a set of potentially fatal clinical interventions and parenting techniques aimed at controlling aggressive, disobedient, or unaffectionate children using "restraint and physical and psychological abuse to seek their desired results." Probably the most common form is holding therapy in which the child is restrained by adults for the purpose of supposed cathartic release of suppressed rage and regression. Perhaps the most extreme, but much less common, is "rebirthing," in which the child is wrapped tightly in a blanket and then made to simulate emergence from a birth canal. This is done by encouraging the child to struggle and pushing and squeezing him/her to mimic contractions. Despite its name it is not based on attachment theory or research. In 2006 it was the subject of an almost entirely critical Taskforce Report commissioned by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC).

• Ayurveda is a 5,000 year old alternative medical practice with roots in ancient India based on a mind-body set of beliefs. Imbalance or stress in an individual’s consciousness is believed to be the reason of diseases. Patients are classified by body types (three doshas, which are considered to control mind-body harmony, determine an individual’s "body type"); and treatment is aimed at restoring balance to the mind-body system. Its beliefs and practices include: 1) obvious and well established principles; 2) herbal remedies which might be proven useful by medical research; 3) absurd ideas, some of which are dangerous. It has long been the main traditional system of health care in India, and it has become institutionalized in India's colleges and schools. Although it superficially adheres to modern institutions, the institutional practitioners are haunted by Ayurvedic vaidyas, who were trained outside the traditional medicine school and are often referred to as "quacks".

• The Bates method for better eyesight is an educational method developed by ophthalmologist William Bates intended to improve vision "naturally" to the point at which it can allegedly eliminate the need for glasses by undoing a habitual strain to see. In 1929 Bates was cited by the FTC for false or misleading advertising in connection with his book describing the method, Perfect Sight Without Glasses. Although some people claim to have improved their eyesight by following his principles, Bates' ideas about vision and accommodation have been rejected by mainstream ophthalmology and optometry.

• Biorhythms – a hypothesis holding that human physiology and behavior are governed by physical, emotional, and intellectual cycles lasting 23, 28, and 33 days, respectively; not to be confused with Chronobiology, the scientific study of biological rhythms. The system posits that, for instance, errors in judgment are more probable on days when an individual's intellectual cycle, as determined by days since birth, is near a minimum. No biophysical mechanism of action has been discovered, and the predictive power of biorhythms charts is no better than chance. For the scientific study of biological cycles such as circadian rhythms, see chronobiology.

• Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) is a reported sensitivity to electric and magnetic fields or electromagnetic radiation of various frequencies at exposure levels well below established safety standards. Symptoms are inconsistent, but can include headache, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, and similar non-specific indications. Provocation studies find that the discomfort of sufferers is unrelated to hidden sources of radiation, and "no scientific basis currently exists for a connection between EHS and exposure to [electromagnetic fields]."

• Faith healing is the act of curing disease by such means as prayer and laying on of hands. No material benefit in excess of that expected by placebo is observed.

• Hypnosis is a state of extreme relaxation and inner focus in which a person is unusually responsive to suggestions made by the hypnotist. The modern practice has its roots in the idea of animal magnetism, or mesmerism, originated by Franz Mesmer. Though Mesmer's explanations were thoroughly discredited, hypnosis itself is today almost universally regarded as real. It is clinically useful for e.g. pain management, but some claimed uses of hypnosis outside of hypnotherapy clearly fall within the area of pseudoscience. Such areas include the use of hypnotic regression beyond plausible limits, including past life regression. Also see false memory syndrome.

• Iridology is a means of medical diagnosis which proponents believe can identify and diagnose health problems through close examination of the markings and patterns of the iris. Practitioners divide the iris into 80-90 zones, each of which is connected to a particular body region or organ. This connection has not been scientifically validated, and disorder detection is neither selective nor specific. Because iris texture is a phenotypical feature which develops during gestation and remains unchanged after birth (which makes the iris useful for Biometrics), Iridology is all but impossible.

• Magnetic therapy is the practice of using magnetic fields to positively influence health. While there are legitimate medical uses for magnets and magnetic fields, the field strength used in magnetic therapy is too low to effect any biological change, and the methods used have no scientific validity.

• Radionics is a means of medical diagnosis and therapy which proponents believe can diagnose and remedy health problems using various frequencies in a putative energy field coupled to the practitioner's electronic device. The first such "black box" devices were designed and promoted by Albert Abrams, and were definitively proven useless by an independent investigation commissioned by Scientific American in 1924. The internal circuitry of radionics devices is often obfuscated and irrelevant, leading proponents to conjecture dowsing and ESP as operating principles. Similar devices continue to be marketed under various names, though none is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration; there is no scientific evidence for the efficacy or underlying premise of radionics devices. The radionics of Albert Abrams and his intellectual descendants should not be confused with similarly named reputable and legitimate companies, products, or medical treatments such as radiotherapy or radiofrequency ablation.

Religious and spiritual beliefs

Spiritual and religious practices and beliefs are normally not classified as pseudoscience.

Omitted based on Stephen Jay Gould's sufficient defense of religion as a separate knowledge magisteria.

-- Parody pseudoscience ...notable parodies of other pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, or scientific jokes posing as serious theories.

-- Idiosyncratic ideas ...concepts have only a very small number of proponents, yet have become notable.

The 2 above omitted as unneedful of defense, yet mentioned because concepts and hoaxes aren't sciences or pseudosciences, though they may derive from pseudoscientists or those conducting pseudoscience.

See also

• Fringe science
• Occam's razor
• Pathological science
• Philosophy of science
• Protoscience
• Pseudophilosophy
• Pseudoscience
• Pseudoskepticism
• Science
• Scientific consensus (describes the majority views of scientists)

Notes and references

Category:Fringe science
Category:Paranormal
Category:Pseudoskepticism
Category:Scientific skepticism

POV fork (discussion)

The above content is a clear POV Fork, in which you have taken the NPOV article and added your views. It'll need massive changes were it to be added to namespace. Verbal chat 09:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, i think i know to what you refer, and think that i agree completely with you.

my interest here isn't really to create a useful page for the public wiki, but instead to create a useful page for those who must consistently contend against the pseudoskeptics. I'd like to add that your comment here is to me a demonstration of your integrity and willingness to help (your overall generous nature and interest in providing helpful feedback), and it is definitely appreciated, thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Proliferation of MUD-Based Model Appreciation

an administrators parting comments

Hi Self-ref, I thought you might find the comments by Jossi in his user page [6] interesting. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I love Carse's book and i enjoyed the application of that book to the Wikipedia MUD and its dynamics. beautiful. thanks. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

NEW INSTANCES OF THE SAME TYPE OF STRIFE/EDITING/EFFACEMENT

http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/05/17/anonymous-revenge-editing-on-wikipedia-the-case-of-robert-clark-young-aka-qworty/

-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)