User:SkepticalRaptor

Doppelgänger of the user of the same name on the English Wikipedia. I just can't editing articles that pretend to be NPOV, but are actually anti-science pieces of crap. I think it arises from several issues:


 * 1) Way too many rules and regulations. Woo-pushing editors use them to their benefit.
 * 2) Anyone who doesn't get their way uses the various bureaucracies on Wikipedia to win battles. Good editors (read: science editors) usually avoid the Wiki-drama, and end up being driven off.
 * 3) Too many good editors have been driven off, mainly because the articles pretend to be academic, but usually it's discovered they aren't.
 * 4) The scientific point of view ought to be the NPOV. It isn't.
 * 5) Editors care more about their own projects than actually being collegial.
 * 6) Too many editors waste time doing dumb things like trying to delete every new article, or support ever dumb new article. Stupidity.
 * 7) Admins vary from worthless pieces of shit to barely acceptable. The number of decent admins probably could be counted on one hand. Too many punk-ass kids who think they they know more than experienced editors is laughable.
 * 8) Speaking of admins, it's clear that they usually don't know anything about what constitutes neutrality (at least in science). It's easy to game the system, because of the incompetent admins. That makes for a very poorly written article.
 * 9) Using Wikipedia as a source is just dumb.

Someone told me about RationalWiki a few weeks ago. I started using some of the articles here as sources to explain some ideas. Like homeopathy. The Wikipedia article is long and barely readable (no, I'm pretty smart, and it isn't readable). I just complained about the Evolution article there. RationalWiki's Evolution article is readable, succinct, and useful. Love it.

Now I just use Rational Wiki except for science articles though I still refer to Wikipedia for very specific medical articles that I know have been thoroughly edited and vetted by editors whom I know are scientists or research physicians. But there are just too many bad articles.

My interests:


 * 1) Pseudoscience
 * 2) Alternative medicine
 * 3) Evolution
 * 4) Medicine-specifically, vaccines, cardiovascular disease, and endocrinology
 * 5) Skepticism
 * 6) Atheism–a natural and rational endpoint for skepticism, IMHO. But I could be wrong.

I think anyone who believes in sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, alien abductions, homeopathy, Republicans, and/or acupuncture deserve my snarky jackass comments.

By the way, I write a blog under my real name, by using this moniker at Skeptical Raptor's Blog. On a lot of issues, especially vaccines and human evolution, I'm one of the top google hits, but that's because I'm good with meta tags. LOL.

I'm hoping that this place is more fun than my years at Wikipedia.

My writing

 * Where Wikipedia lunatics followed me offline to push a mostly discredited hypothesis
 * My humble opinion on what is right or wrong about Wikipedia
 * I get attacked on Facebook by Ken Ham. I should be proud, I suppose.
 * Dana Ullman, you keep saying that Switzerland endorses homeopathy. I don't think endorses means what you think it means
 * Religionists use tax breaks to get kids to learn creationism in school