Interview with social media expert and Wikipedia critic, Rome Viharo exposes cyber bullying tactics employed by dogmatic Skeptics on Wikipedia.

Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with social media consultant and Wikipedia cyber bullying victim Rome Viharo.  During the interview Viharo discusses the changes he sought to make in the bio page of biologist Rupert Sheldrake:

Rome Viharo:  Personally I have no interest in promoting Rupert Sheldrake’s ideas or his hypotheses and I really can’t say scientifically if they’re valid or invalid.  That was never my argument.  My arguments were always on what’s called the “lead section,†which is just describing the basic information about the man. Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist, author, and lecturer.

I was offended because these editors were basically abusing the metadata, the first sentence of the paragraph, to immediately frame Rupert Sheldrake in a light that is just biographically not true but in a way where he has no credibility after the first sentence.

So when I joined the page, what I found offensive was “Rupert Sheldrake is a former biologist,†right? So I just found that offensive and I was like, “Where is the source that he’s a former biologist? Where is the evidence of this?†So all I was trying to do was really just change the lead section.  There are so many scientific publications that refer to him as a biologist.

Alex Tsakiris:  Well, it’s absurd. He has dozens and dozens of scholarly, peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals. I think he’s published in Nature, if I remember correctly.

Take line two from the Wikipedia entry. It’s just unbelievable. “From 1967 to 1973 he was a biochemist and cell biologist at Cambridge University.†Well, what happened after that? He stopped being a biochemist? He’s not being a biologist? It’s just absurd.

Rome Viharo:  It’s like something from a Monty Python movie.

Rome Viharo’s Website – WIKIPEDIA, WE HAVE A PROBLEM

Play It 

Listen Now:

Download MP3 (46 min.)

All Related:  

244. Russ Baker, The Taint of Conspiracy Theories241. Joseph Atwill Responds to Caesar's Messiah Critics240. Dr. David Lane Not Sandbagged -- Patricia Churchland Part 2239. Dr. Jim Tucker Compiles Database of Past Life Memories238. Why Skeptics Are Wrong... About Psychics & Mediums237. Dr. Patricia Churchland Sandbagged by Near-Death Experience Questions235. Dr. Todd Dufresne on Freud's Looming Shadow of Deception230. Dr. David Jacobs Claims Academia Has Abrogated Responsibility to Investigate Alien Contact224. Dr. John Searle and the Science Bullies223. Dumbest Explanation Yet For Near Death Experience220. Esquire Proof of Heaven Expose Debunked, Dr. Eben Alexander Prevails217. Dr. Gary Marcus Sandbagged by Near-Death Experience Science Questions216. Dr. Dean Radin Urges Science to Examine the Supernormal214. Dr. Suzanne Gordon Looks Deeply Into Near Death Experience Cases213. Earl Lee’s Shocking Theory Links Hallucinogenic Mushrooms to Christian Burial Rites207. Rupert Sheldrake Censored by TED Conference’s Anonymous Scientific Board205. Michael Tymn Explores the Forgotten History of Psychic Mediums204. Dr. Julie Beischel’s Research Asks -- Does a Reading From a Psychic Medium Help Relieve Grief?203. Out of Body Experience Expert Robert Bruce on Our Demon Haunted World202. Scientific Evidence of Afterlife Overwhelming Says Chris Carter201. Chaos Theory Pioneer Ralph Abraham On a New Model of Consciousness200. A Look Back at 200 Episodes of Skeptiko199. Conservative Christian Chris White Debunks Ancient Alien Theories197. Dr. Diane Powell Uses Serious Science to Understand Psychic Phenomena196. Rupert Sheldrake, Terrance McKenna and Ralph Abraham -- A Dialog That Still Matters193. Dr. Daryl Bem on the Quantum Theory Secret Psychologists Need to Know192. Dr. Sam Harris on Parapsychology, Psi and the “Backwater†of Science191. Dr. Victor Stenger Slams Parapsychology, Calls Dr. Stanley Krippner Charlatan190. Dr. Eben Alexander on the Medical Mystery of Near-Death Experience189. Sam Harris Won’t Debate Dr. Eben Alexander on Near-Death Experience Science188. Dr. Kirby Surprise, Synchronicity is Real187. Graham Nicholls, Out-of-Body Experiences Aren’t All About Angels and Demons186. Dr. Richard Grego Finds Materialism Waning at the American Psychology Association Conference185. Dr. William Bengston’s Hands On Healing Research Ignored by Cancer Industry184. Dr. Rupert Sheldrake Sets Science Free From Dogma183. The Thinking Atheist Backs Down From Science Debate182. Andrew Paquette Brings Statistical Rigor to Psi Experiences181. Peter Bannister of the American Church in Paris Sees Hope For Science and Religion Dialog178. Robert Perry on the Science of Synchronicity175. Author Steve Volk on Skeptical Arguments Designed to Mislead173. Dr. Erlendur Haraldsson Studies Reincarnation and Children's Memories of Past Lives170. Dr. Daryl Bem Responds to Parapsychology Debunkers169. Dr. Michael Heiser On Why Christians Are Skeptical of the Supernatural168. Parapsychology Researcher Dr. Hoyt Edge Explores Cross-Cultural Views of Consciousness167. Investigative Journalist James Corbett on How Skeptics Shape Our Worldview165. Dr. Caroline Watt Defends, There is Nothing Paranormal About Near-Death Experiences164. There is Nothing Paranormal About Near-Death Experiences, Dr. Jan Holden Disagrees163. Physician Ian Rubenstein Encounters Spirit Communication, Becomes a Medium162. University of Chicago Biology Professor, Dr. Jerry Coyne, Fails History161. Outspoken Atheist Dr. Jerry Coyne Sees No Connection Between Consciousness Research and Evolutionary Biology160. Dr. Christof Koch on Human Consciousness and Near-Death Experience Research158. Bernardo Kastrup's Controversial View of Consciousness Research157. Spirit Medium August Goforth Skeptical of Reincarnation156. Closer to Truth Host, Dr. Robert Kuhn, Skeptical of Near-Death Experience Science153. Skepticality Hosts Skeptiko, Blake Smith, Ben Radford, Karen Stollznow151. Science Journalist Ben Radford "Believes" Psychic Detective150. Dream Interpretation a Spiritual Journey Says Lucid Dream Expert Robert Waggoner149. How Many Dinosaurs Fit on Noah’s Ark, Interview With Evolution Theory Expert Michael Flannery147. Can Out of Body Experiences Explain God?146. Paranormal Podcast Host Jim Harold on the Mainstream Media’s Non-Coverage of the Paranormal145. Stanley Krippner Lends Scientific Weight to Paranormal Dreams144. Lynne McTaggart Reports on Science at the Brink of the Spiritual143. Lisa Miller’s Heaven Book Uncommitted to Afterlife, Spiritual Experiences, and Survival of Consciousness142. Jim Marrs On Donald Rumsfeld and “What is Building 7?â€141. Steve Volk Investigates UFOs, Ghosts, Telepathy and Near-Death Experience in, Fringe-ology140. Dr. Lakhmir Chawla Frustrates Near-Death Experience Researchers139. Are Ghosts Real? Guy Lyon Playfair’s Thirty-Year Investigation Yields Insights138. Healing Prayer Expert Examines Whether God Hears Non-Christian Prayers137. Religious Cults Expert Provides Context to Spiritual Experiences136. Hazel Courteney on Understanding a Spiritual Awakening135. Dr. Andrew Newberg on God of the Fundamentalist Atheist134. Dr. Rupert Sheldrake on the Persistence of Richard Wiseman’s Deception133. Dr. Stuart Hameroff On Quantum Consciousness and Moving Singularity Goal Posts132. Deborah Blum On the Taboo of Paranormal Science Reporting131. Dr. Rick Strassman On Whether Psychedelic Drugs Prove We Are More Than Our Brain129. Karen Stollznow On Psychic Science and Being a Skeptic127. Dr. David Eagleman Explores the Afterlife and the Limits of Consciousness126. Andy Paquette Claims 20 Year History of Precognitive Dreams125. Atheist Debates Existence of Soul with Near Death Experience Believer123. Randi’s Prize Exposed in New Book by Robert McLuhan122. Reincarnation of Apostle Paul, Nick Bunick’s Claims Scrutinized121. Skeptical of Skeptics, Chris Carter Tackles Near Death Experience Science120. Dr. James Fetzer Separates JFK Assassination Science From Fiction119. Dr. Pim van Lommel Transformed by Near-Death Experience Research116. Dr. Sam Parnia Claims Near Death Experience Probably an Illusion114. Near-Death Experience Skeptic Dr. Susan Blackmore Responds to Critics113. Atheist Ophelia Benson Admires the Pre-Deathbed Denouncement of Christopher Hitchens111. Parapsychology Researcher Dr. Stephen Braude Battles Against “Sleazy Argumentsâ€110. Christian Atheist, Dr. Robert Price, Champions Fairness In Argument Against Bible Accounts109. Is Dr. Sam Parnia’s AWARE Study of Near Death Experience Doomed to Fail?108. Christian Theologian Claims Near Death Experience Not Communication With Divine107. Massimo Pigliucci on How to Tell Science From Bunk106. Psychic Medium Experiment Not Enough to Convince Skeptics105. Near-Death Experience Research Debate With Dr. Steven Novella104. Dr. Steven Novella Dead Wrong on Near-Death Experience Research103. Near-Death Experience Research -- Do Science Journalists Get it Wrong?102. Dr. Peter Bancel Assists Goldsmiths, University of London With Global Consciousness Project101. Near-Death Experience Skeptics Running Out of Excuses100. Dr. Garret Moddel Brings Psi Research to University of Colorado Classroom99. Dr. Jeffrey Long Takes On Critics of, Evidence of the Afterlife98. Near-Death Experience Skeptic, Dr. G.M. Woerlee Takes Aim at Dr. Jeffrey Long's, Evidence of the Afterlife97. Rupert Sheldrake and Richard Wiseman Clash Over Parapsychology Experiments96. Renée Scheltema, Something Unknown Is Doing We Don’t Know What95. JREF Million Dollar Challenge D. J. Grothe91. Global Consciousness Project Welcomes Collaboration With Skeptics89. “God Helmet†Inventor, Dr. Michael Persinger Discovers Telepathy Link in Lab Experiments88. Scientific Community Unfair to Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, Imperial College London Dissertation Asserts86. The Men Who Stare at Goats Science With Jon Ronson85. Atheism and the Comedy Jesus Show84. Dr. Rupert Sheldrake Responds to Dr. Chris French83. Dr. Chris French, Extraordinary Psi Claims82. Mark Edward... The Lost Interview81. Dr. Phil Plait Defends JREF80. Craig Hogan, Your Mind Is Not Your Brain79. Skeptic Zone Host, Richard Saunders78. Psychic Detective, Noreen Renier and Skepticality Response75. Marilynn Hughes, Out of Body Travel Experiment74. Dr. Dean Radin And Dr. Roger Nelson Respond to Global Consciousness Project Criticisms73. Skeptoid's Brian Dunning Finds Global Consciousness Project Lacking71. Michael Schmicker, Best Evidence of PSI70. Guy Harrison, 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God69: Psychic Detective Smackdown, Ben Radford67. Greg Taylor, of The Daily Grail on the New Skeptics66. 13 Things That Don't Make Sense, Michael Brooks64. Near-Death Experience Research, Dr. Peter Fenwick63. Is the Dalai Lama an Atheist? Dr. Alan Wallace62. The Spiritual Brain, Denyse O’Leary61. Medium Experiment (Part 3), Michael Tymn57. The Psychic Detective Challenge56. Dr. Jon Klimo on Channeling and Consciousness55. Carol Tavris on Mistakes and Skeptics54. Ben Radford Debunks Psychic Detective53. Noreen Renier, Psychic Detectives and Skeptics52. Skeptic Lynne Kelly on Cold Reading Techniques51. Dr. Julie Beischel Responds to Critics of Psychic Medium Research 50. Skeptical Inquirer Editor, Ben Radford47. Skeptical Researcher, Dr. Clive Wynne Tackles DogsThatKnow46. Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and the Skeptics45. Researching Psychic Mediums44. Dr. Steve Novella on Psychic Medium Research Protocols43. From the Desk of James Randi42. Chris Carter, Parapsychology, Skepticism and Ideology41. Chris Carter, Parapsychology, Skepticism and Ideology40. James Randi’s Skeptiko Interview39. Dr. Elisabet Sahtouris, Resist the Non-Living Universe Assumption36. Academic Snobbery and the Journal of Scientific Exploration35. Dr. Steven Novella and Dr. Richard Wiseman on "Dogs That Know" Research35. Dr. Steven Novella and Dr. Richard Wiseman on "Dogs That Know" Research34. Response to Skeptics' Guide Host, Dr. Steven Novella33. What I've Learned From Skeptics Michael Shermer, Steven Novella, James Alcock and James Randi32. Dog Trainer and Animal Communications Expert Skeptical of Human to Canine Telepathy26. Scientists Are Not, “Playing by the Rulesâ€, When Exploring Intelligent Design24. Naturalism Advocate Sees No Evidence for Survival of Consciousness After Death23. Buddhist Scholar and Meditation Researcher Says Skeptics Misinformed22. Physician Turned Podcaster Skeptical of NDE21. What Being a Skeptic Really Means, Dr. Raymond Moody20. Consciousness Researchers of a Different Mind19. No Evidence of Life After Death, David Lester, Ph.D.17. Dr. Rupert Sheldrake Asks: Can Dogs "Know"?16. Parapsychology Research Can Learn From Skeptics, Dr. Steven Novella15. Your Mind is More Than Your Brain, Dr. Robert Almeder13. Dr. Neal Grossman, Religion Afraid of Near-Death Experience Research 12. Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove, Debunkers and Radical Skeptics11. Dr. Richard Wiseman on Rupert Sheldrake's DogsThatKnow10. Psi Research Lacks Good Data, Dr. James Alcock9. The Universe Isn’t Pointless, Dr. Jean Burns8. D. J. Grothe, Scientific Inquiry Takes Scientists, Not Magic7. Remote Viewing Leads to Global Climate Change Awareness, Steven Schwartz6. Spiritual Growth Withstands Everyday Stress Says Dr. Charles Tart5. Zen Meditation Leaves Consciousness Scientist Dr. Susan Blackmore Skeptical4. Dr. Marilyn Schlitz, Skeptics Spit In My Face3. Dr. Michael Shermer on Darwin, Evolution and Creativity2. Dr. Dean Radin, The Perils of Psi Research1. Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, How Controversial Science is Debated

Read It 

Rome Viharo:  Me personally, I have no vested interest in promoting Rupert Sheldrake’s ideas or his hypotheses and I really don’t know. I can’t say scientifically if they’re valid or invalid and that was never my argument. I was never arguing like pro his ideas. My arguments were always just on what’s called the “lead section,†which is just describing the basic information about the man. Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist, author, and lecturer.

So why I was so offended is—and this is the metadata on Wikipedia—is that these editors were basically abusing the metadata, the first sentence of the paragraph, to immediately frame Rupert Sheldrake in a light that is just biographically not true but in a way where he has no credibility after the first sentence.

So when I joined the page, what I found offensive was “Rupert Sheldrake is a former biologist,†right? So I just found that offensive and I was like, “Where is the source that he’s a former biologist? Where is the evidence of this?†So all I was trying to do was really just change the lead section. I never was arguing for his theories, if they were valid or invalid. Even just getting him his proper credentials academics. Like Cambridge University refers to him as a biologist. There are so many scientific publications that refer to him as a biologist.

Alex Tsakiris:  Well, it’s absurd. He has dozens and dozens of scholarly, peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals. I think he’s published in Nature, if I remember correctly. He’s published in some of the most respected biology journals.

Take line two from the Wikipedia entry. It’s just unbelievable. “From 1967 to 1973 he was a biochemist and cell biologist at Cambridge University.†Well, what happened after that? He stopped being a biochemist? He’s not being a biologist? It’s just absurd.

Rome Viharo:  It’s like something from a Monty Python movie. That was inherently where I was focusing my arguments, just on the lead section. I created a sandbox. The thing is I was making this argument but so were many other people. I personally do not identify myself as like a pro-Sheldrake supporter. You know, Craig Wheeler was involved in the page and he writes a blog about psi and telepathy and things like this, so he was arguing from that perspective.

But even the people who were arguing from that perspective, no one had any problem with having any criticisms of Rupert Sheldrake on the page, right? There are a number of scientists who have said very critical things about him. They refer to his work as pseudo-science and all these things. No one was arguing against that. Everyone wanted that on the page. It’s an encyclopedia. It’s notable. It should be there.

Alex Tsakiris:  Hold on a minute. Maybe it’s notable, maybe it’s not notable. There’s a lot of controversy about that. I think one of the things you bring to this discussion, the perspective you bring, is as a media consultant and as someone, as you explain your story, who is neutral on the topic. I can get pretty heated if we want to talk about pseudo-science so I don’t want to go there necessarily.

I want to stick to what you were just saying about the real story here is about Wikipedia and about it has been rigged. How the game has been gamed by these folks and how it’s consistent. It’s not just about Sheldrake. The broader question that we have to ask ourselves when we dig into it is, what does this say about science?

I think one of the ongoing debates we have on this show and with forward-thinking scientists is we have this perception sometimes because the Internet does have this long tail and it does allow more voices and more variety of voices. We have this sense sometimes that things are getting better, that a paradigm change is coming. We’re more open to new ideas. I think when we run into something like this, we have to acknowledge that in a lot of ways science is worse than it was. That power through the Internet has been consolidated in some respects into the hands of a few people like this who can rig the game.

Let’s talk about what this might mean for science or what the broader implications of this are.

Rome Viharo:  I’m not sure how much it affects science as how it affects knowledge.

Alex Tsakiris:  Just to jump in here, I didn’t say, “How does it affect science?†I said, “What does it say about science?†What does it say about our perception that we have that the Internet is going to somehow liberate us from the narrowed perspective that science and materialism sometimes gives us? It’s kind of a rhetorical question.

To me, it says that science isn’t as well off as it seems and Sheldrake’s latest book, Science Set Free, is an extension of that condemnation of science and science’s inability to get out of its own nest and pull itself up by its bootstraps.

Rome Viharo:  I see what you mean now. I actually agree with that. I personally wouldn’t call it science. I would call it just philosophy. There’s this philosophy of scientific materialism that’s referred to as “scientism†or “physicalism.†It draws from a lot of knowledge that science provides but it is a philosophy and I think what this does say is that there is a bias of this philosophy.

I do believe it’s entrenched in Wikipedia. My own personal experience has actually provided that to me, where you have this really rigid philosophical bias that takes science and treats it like a fundamentalist religion person would treat their religion. How they would treat Christianity. We’re right; we can break any rules that we want because we’re right anyway. It doesn’t matter. Anybody who disagrees with this, not only are they wrong as people but they’re ignorant, they’re stupid, and we can abuse them. That is a pattern and I have seen it happen on Wikipedia.

In addition to that, I was exposed on Wikipedia—me personally. They outed me as a person and now they have created this hit piece on me on RationalWiki. I’m sure you’re familiar with RationalWiki. It’s everything but rational, right? There probably isn’t that many editors involved in RationalWiki but they’re these really aggravated people who adhere to this specific worldview and they use it to basically abuse people.

There’s this very abusive, libelous piece on me on RationalWiki right now. It shows up really high in searches. It’s harmful to me professionally. What it says to me is if this philosophy–or however it’s referred to, these people who are part of this—I really don’t know what to call it, Alex. Is it a skeptical movement? Are they Atheists? I have no idea. But if they’re simply promoting science, which is based on empiricism, logic, rationality, why do they need to do all these dirty tricks to get their point across? Why do they need to abuse people? Why do they need to defame people to make their point?

Alex Tsakiris:  I think that’s really the more interesting issue and I think we can sit on the sidelines and go, “Oh my gosh, isn’t this horrible and will things ever get better? These crazy skeptics!†The thing I always point out to people is the dogmatic skeptics, the fundamentalist Atheists, who these people represent, are really the tip of the spear for scientism. We always want to do like you did and say it’s really not a problem with science, is it? It’s a problem with scientific materialism. It’s a philosophical issue. No, forget it. It’s about science.

If we’re going to talk in general terms, science media has been completely co-opted by this point of view. The reason I’d come back and say it’s the tip of the spear is because you don’t see scientists rushing to the aid of Rupert Sheldrake just on principle saying, “Hey, this is a colleague of ours. This guy is clearly a biologist. He’s a Cambridge Fellow. We need to defend this.†No. They sit on their hands and silently cheer. Some of them sit on their hands and hope the arrow doesn’t point to them next.

So it’s really akin to what you were talking about with religious fundamentalism back when they were bombing abortion clinics. Of course there was an outcry of “Stop the violence†from other Christians. But there wasn’t too much of an outcry, right? There’s a lot of sympathy. “Well, we can certainly understand how upset people are by all those babies dying.â€

So these frontline soldiers, these tip of the spear of an ideological debate, I think we have to be careful when we separate them and bifurcate and say, “Well, they don’t really represent science.†Yeah, I think they do. They form a pretty good representation of the crazy scientific materialism that really grips science as we know it right now. I don’t see any relief from that.