[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims) Я только что прочитал эту статью в Википедии, и утверждения звучат очень глупо. Это также в основном включает негативные мнения экспертов и тому подобное. С одной стороны, интересно, что об этом есть статья в Википедии, но то, что она представлена таким образом, обескураживает. Что вы думаете об этом?
Well I don’t wikipedia, but I would think it would be easy to add supporting statements about planned hearings and the public statements of Senators Rubio, Gillibrand, Hawley, and Warner as well as Reps Burchett, Gallagher, Gaetz, Luna, etc.
I think this would be an easy one to fight fire with fire if anyone knows how to contribute edits.
Wikipedia is ok for many topics, but for ufos its plain misinformation. Its so bad it just omits 90% of what happened in ufo cases. I wouldn’t be surprised if their roswell article didnt mention a crashed craft.
They’re always biased against UfO stuff. They make the most credible claims look stupid and allow false statements without citations.
Its pretty sad. Tbh, anyone in the ufo-field are downwritten to ”parapsychologist” or “ufo-researcher”. But their real backgrounds are sometimes not even mentioned like “engineer”, “astrophysicist”, “psychologist”, “md” and so fort.
It gets me pretty mad because these people are actually heroes and brave, these other people down writing this are weak cowards and part of covering this up.
Well fuck Wikipedia for contributing to the stigma and the cover-up. Far too many negative quotes from people who don’t understand the topic or the reality of what’s going on with the disclosure process and behind the scenes activities going on for years now. Undermines the crediblity of what’s happening and does not really cover the seriousness of the allegations around criminality and operating outside the Constitution.
They focus solely on Grusch and not all the other support he has and 20+ whistle-blowers, a number of whom have hands on experience in the covert program.
The editors are on the wrong side of history.
I’m stopping my annual contributions.
It sounds silly because it is. The longer I’m in this sub the more I feel sad for all the desperate people I come across. No I don’t feel better than anyone else, I’m just keeping my eye on the ball. Think critical thoughts but keep high curiosity, come on people, we’ve got real problems to hype about!
>What are your thoughts on this?
My thoughts…? That you and everyone else here are reading the wrong page — if you want to understand a wikipeadia page, you read the [Talk tab](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims) — that’s were the people who contributed and wrote the existing article discuss, respond to questions and argue their case for why any part of it is the way it is or should be a way it actually isn’t — editors argue all the time, this is where the juicy stuff is.
You also need to keep an eye on the update details because change is an ongoing process — this can include removals as well as additions.
The basic fact concerning wikipeadia articles is all information *has* to be sourced from *published* or else broadcast sources, not considered tabloid, no personal opinions, nothing without a credible citation: hence the perceived bias’s, these do accurately reflect what qualifying media has said.
If anyone disagrees about choices made, by all means sign up and proceed to edit what you believe incorrect or fallacious.
Literally anyone can. See how you get on, we can follow your progress via the Talk…
Anyone can make their own Wiki article/entry on a given subject.
The article quotes both pro and con people.
It turns out that experts overwhelmingly have been skeptical about Grusch’s claims, even Avi Loeb…
And turns out the pro people aren’t the brightest ones (Burchett, Tucker Carlson, both mentionned in the article).
>the claims sound very silly
Now you know the POV of us people that were more than underwhelmed by this story. This subreddit has an echo chamber dynamic at times and spending too much time here could make some believe some big disclosure thing is happening when in reality it’s still very niche and limited so far.
I even saw a comment complaining about how no one in their IRL life talked about the topic nor seemed convinced…
Wiki’s good when you want the skeptic’s take. If Wikipedia doesn’t make you doubt the authenticity of a story, you know you have a good one. (Zimbabwe Incident)
read this instead? https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/14dxbfc/everything_you_need_to_know_about_current_events/
Wikipedia article claims that Ezra Klein got an acknowledgment from Leslie Kean that aspects of Grusch’s allegations didn’t make sense. Do you see that in the article?