 I'm DJ Grothi, I'm president of the James Randy Educational Foundation and we're starting just like we've rehearsed before. We are making available these workshops that we're going to be posting online. So I know we're all here for the workshop live but we really anticipate and appreciate this opportunity to share it with a much wider audience through our online video channels. I've known our speaker today for a number of years and I first got to know her on one of the James Randy Educational Foundation's conference at Sea Cruises. We call them the Amazing Adventures. A number of years ago we were on a cruise and on that cruise there were similar sorts of workshops where people learned ways they could become more activists as skeptics, as scientific skeptics and my understanding is that experience sort of radicalized our speaker inspired her to do the yeoman's work that she's doing right now. Here to give the workshop and the discussion today, please join me in welcoming Susan Gerbick. Okay, well I'm Susan Gerbick and I'm here to speak to you today about Gorilla Skepticism on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the single most important tool in the skeptical toolbox that we have. It's only 12 years old and this living breathing encyclopedia is really changing the epistemology in all languages worldwide. I'm here today to talk to you guys about my project and to plead for help because obviously we need editors to make this work. This is a crowdsourced function and we need to have lots of people participate. On my blog Gorilla Skepticism on Wikipedia, what I do is I urge the skeptical community to embrace Wikipedia as this most relevant tool. We use it to shape the public's critical thinking skills and to help them to think more soundly about scientific topics, paranormal topics and our spokespeople. We already know that shouting and belittling believers is not the way to go about changing real minds. We know that it only forces them to circle the cognitive dissonance wagons so to speak and they just shut down and they're not going to listen to anything that we say. But if they're able to do the research in their own home, on their own time and they have the ability to follow other links to get better sources, then they're more likely to, we have a better chance to make it so that they come to better critical thinking decisions. So, Gorilla Skepticism is the act of inserting well documented, well resourced, well-cited information into Wikipedia and to pages that really need to have, you know, improvement on the pages. We still follow all the guidelines that are Wikipedia because we want to make sure that this encyclopedia stays to be very healthy and we want to make sure that we're following all the guidelines that are important to have this great document. We also are trying to improve the history of the skeptical movement, the scientific skeptical movement, which is very important to me, is to keep our history important and documented so that other people can find it. This grassroots method that I'm using is allows editors to edit at home without being confrontational to people. They're able to stay home and they can edit in their pajamas or whatever they want to do and they can change these pages on their own. It keeps us from having to personally confront people because we found that a lot of skeptics really do not have the ability to go in and do a Mark Edward and punk somebody or something like that. We need to be able to do it at home quietly. I began this project in May of 2011 and currently I have 17 languages editing for me and over 90 editors and we're still growing. So I'm just going to really quickly mention something else that came up just in the last week or so. I had an email from a young man who has been following me on the Skepticality podcast and he was pretty impressed with what we're doing. So he wrote me an email and I thought I'm just going to quote a little bit of that because I thought it was just really sums this up real good. He's amazed at what great ideas you and your team implement through Wikipedia. It's like the opposite of harm reduction. I'll bet 99 percent of hits on Wikipedia. You update come from non skeptics. The best part is the sheer fact that they're going to Wikipedia means that that moment in that ever so elusive information gathering phase of thought. It's it's for tip, you know, for typical lay people that phase is shockingly short. And once it's over, it's over for most true believers. So the thing I get most often is that people don't want to edit Wikipedia. They all say, yeah, great project, but I don't have the time to do this. But what I do is I advocate working backwards. It's a phrase I've coined to mean that you're going to take a source that is already cited. It's already well written and we're going to take it and find a place to put it. Whereas normally editors will have a page and they will take the page and they'll try to find sources for it that are relevant and well documented. And that's very time consuming and it's very difficult to kind of it's a very researchy kind of thing. And a lot of people grow frustrated very quickly and they don't end up following through on it. So what I do is I say take a source and I'm just grabbed Skeptic Magazine really quickly. This is a journal that is notable. And when I say notable, that means that it probably has its own Wikipedia page. So a source like Skeptic, which is notable, you're able to take any kind of information from it pretty much and you can go to the Stegosaur myth. And I've never heard of that. I just turned through that page at random. And that if it has a Wikipedia page, you can take this article by Phil Steiner and you can go to this page and you can cite it in there. Read the document really well. Another one I noticed a place I've been to is the Coral Castle in Florida. And this is a great place that has a lot of history and so on. But this person named Peter Hancock had written this article in a Skeptic Magazine and this could be something that's worked backwards cited. In other words, I wasn't creating a page for Coral Castle. I just happened to cross the citation and edited in. And that's one really great way of getting skepticism into a page that maybe we wouldn't have had it in before. So I'm going to give one example of working backwards and these are all very controversial kind of things and I think you guys will all find them interesting but I'm only going to give one. So I want you guys to tell me which one you want me to give you. I'm not going to tell you what they are. But one's an anti-vax celebrity. Another one's a popular pharmacy. Another one's a famous psychic and travel company. And another is a comedian and scholarly definition. So I'm going to repeat those again. So you tell me and show a hands which one do you want me to read you anti-vax celebrity. Yes. Okay. Popular pharmacy. Okay. Famous psychic and travel company. And a comedian and scholarly definition. Okay. That one's getting it. Okay. All right. So this is Bill Meyer and scientific skepticism and all these concern J. Ref which is the host of this workshop today which we were very grateful for. So this is very recent too. So this is a good one. So this is I had seen the Jamie Ian Swiss Tam video lecture just very recently very good talk that Jamie had given on scientific skepticism. And I thought, wonderful. Jamie has mentioned scientific skepticism. And what I'm going to do is I'm going to go to the scientific skepticism Wikipedia page and I'm going to insert his lecture in there. So I did that. Boom. Easy. Very simple to do. And I said, you know, he also calls Bill Myerson interesting things in this lecture. And if I can quote, he said, he's anti-science, anti-vaxxer, dangerous, ignoramus, promoting anti-scientific nonsense that kills people. So I said, ooh, can I get that in Bill Meyer's page? So I thought, well, this is a little more difficult because it's a more well guarded page. It's not something that you can just go up and put something in. And so what I did is I went to my community of my editors, my team. And I said, this is something I want to do. Can you guys help me out? And they're like, well, you know, you're not going to be able to just put Jamie in Swiss's thing in there. That's just not enough. This is Bill Maher. You know, this is a big celebrity. So what I decided to do is we tried to gather information from other sources. So also notable sources. And that's what we did. So my editors and I went through and we came up with some ideas. And we had quite a few things that we were able to put in here originally, but they did not stick. So here's what we originally had in here. Formerly from Martin Garner had written an article for Psycop. He had said about Bill Maher, fortunately he has no children. He could let die because of his refusal to vaccinate or because he would not accept medical information from a doctor and cahoots with those dreadful pharmaceutical companies that make and sell worthless products. So I put that in and I got taken out. But that's okay because what we were able to do is the end result was I was able to work with editors on Wikipedia that are not on my team and we were able to come up with something a little more, I guess, pleasant. And this is in the healthcare section as you can see from the video screen that his comments have generated criticism from the medical and skeptical communities and his remarks have been called unscientific and even harmful. Oncologist David Gorski has also criticized Maher's beliefs about vaccines several times in science blogs and when he received the Richard Dawkins Award in 2009, Gorski wrote it was inappropriate. Skeptics including mathematician and science writer Martin Garner, neurologist Steven Novella, magician Jamie Ian-Swiss have also strongly rebuked him, characterizing him as anti-science, uninformed and potentially endangering the health of families who take his non-medical advice. So this is a much more bland, it's not my normal, you know, let's get him with the ignoramus kind of stuff, but it is something that we're able to get up on his Wikipedia page, Bill Maher. Now, I know you're asking, is anybody reading Bill Maher's page? I mean, is that even, like, is this important? But we know that in March of 2013, it was the 9,515th most trafficked site in Wikipedia, in English Wikipedia. And we know Bill Maher in 2013, just for one month of March, he had 118,031 views. So we know that these references to the skeptical spokespeople, Jamie Ian-Swiss, Martin Garner, David Gorski and Steven Novella, we know that those are gonna be read. Maybe not all 118,000 people read it, but we know that we have a better chance of getting our citations read on a site like this. We also know that if you will see from here that David Gorski, the word David Gorski is highlighted, that means that if somebody's interested, they can go to David Gorski's Wikipedia page and they can see his Wikipedia page that we barely have started on. And then if you go back, you'll see that there's, Steven Novella's name is also on here, Martin Garner's science blogs and so on. So people can go and they can see these links because everybody knows it's Wikipedia's, reading Wikipedia is like eating a bag of potato chips, right? You just can't have one. You're gonna go from one page to another to another to another if you peek their interest. So it's important to get these edits in here so people can try to follow and to see if they get people interested in going to the pages and reading about our spokespeople. So that's working backwards. That's taking one edit and putting it into a place in a gruel of skepticism kind of way. I'm following completely the rules. We're not ganging up on any pages or doing anything like that at all but it is improving the pages. So I'm not gonna talk about these others here really quick just for a matter of time but in the workshop part of this program, if you're interested, I'd be happy to give you a zillion examples as well. I'm just gonna briefly mention the We Got Your Wiki Back project which is Wendy Hughes' favorite project at TAM last year. I think she gave like a two minute video on it and what we did with Wendy's explanation of what We Got Your Wiki Back is. We've translated it into several different languages so that other editors and other languages can look at her video for explaining with her enthusiasm of what the project is. And basically the We Got Your Wiki Back project is something that I started kind of right off the bat because there's so many pages you all know. You run into them all the time where people's pages are just not in that very good in that really great shape. They are missing photos. They're missing just relevant current things. They need to be citations. They just need to be updated so that they're current more than anything. So we need to have those pages done really well because when people are going to Wikipedia, we're not writing Wikipedia pages. We're not doing this project for us. We're doing this project for the world. This is definitely not a speak-to-the-acquire kind of project. We're trying to educate people worldwide. And when the page is written well in English, then we can translate it to other languages very easily so that other languages can understand as well. And it is real important to us that we are... We're doing this because there are spokespeople whether we like these people personally a lot and we follow all the things that they advocate or whatever. There's still our spokespeople in the view of the world. They're looking at it though. They're skeptics and they're skeptics. So they're the same thing. So we need to make sure we have their backs and we need to make sure that we are taking care of these pages. We know these people. We know what they're famous for. We are the ones responsible for making sure that these pages are well written and in good shape. So anyway, so this is one of our most popular projects. And if we don't respect our spokespeople, you know, who's going to respect them? So anyway, so we've got thousands of examples. Well, not thousands, but a lot of examples of people's pages we've improved. And I'm just going to run through a real quick list of some that we've done recently. Ken Feeder, who's an archeologist. Sarah Mayhew, who's spoken at TAM a few times. Kiki Stanford, Brian and Baxter from Denver. Jennifer Ouellette, Tim Farley from what'saharm.com, which we've also done that page as well. Captain Disillusionment. William B. Davis, who's the cancer smoking man on X-Files. That's a whole different audience that people are going to be looking in his Wikipedia page than the skeptic community. And when William B. Davis is in the news or somebody's looking at his page and he just came out with a new book, then they're going to go in and go, ooh, what's the skepticism thing? He spoke at what? And then they'll be able to click at the different links and find the J-Ref in CFI and so on. Mary Roach, who's a popular science writer. David Prothero, Ben Radford, Mark Boslow. And not only are we improving the pages of our skeptical spokespeople, but we're really also trying to improve, improve air quotes, pages of paranormal folk and that kind of thing. And James Von Prague is one of those people that he once in a while was in the media again. And if you go to his page, you'll see that the J-Ref zombie video where they went and talked to the dead and they went to the James Randi page, which is a really great video if you haven't seen it. You can find it on James Von Prague's page. And James Von Prague receives 5,000 views each month. So he's definitely in the news. Rosemary Altea, who was on Penn and Teller's bullshit that Mark Edward, you know, took her down and made her from being another Soviet Brown with mega hits. She still receives 1,000 views each month. Sally Morgan, who's in the psychic in Britain, who's been in the news quite a bit lately from where skeptic groups in Britain have been debunking her. She's getting anywhere from 2,000 to 5,000 hits each month depending on if we're got her in the news. Pages like spontaneous human combustion, which is some of my favorites, it scared the wits out of me when I was a kid. I mean, the idea of walking down the street and just blowing up into flames is so frightening. I was like, oh my gosh, I don't want to die. Denver people may know these names, these two people that I'm going to mention. The general public probably doesn't know Jeff Peckman and Stan Romanek, but they're constantly in the news in Colorado for trying to change laws and get UFO landing strips and they run for office. And they're just very much in the news in Denver. They're quite popular over there, so we've made them their own Wikipedia pages. Power Balance Bracelet, oh my gosh, would you believe that they're still receiving 29,000 views each month for their Wikipedia page? And we're all over it. If you were to view a Wikipedia page and you can imagine from top to bottom, this is how it would look. The top right here is the positive and the rest of it is criticism. So we're educating an awful lot of people about Power Balance, but 29,000 people each month, every month, yearly are going there. So Liberty Institute, whole body vibration. We have a cryptozoologist who's kind of in between the skepticism and the, isn't that great? I can't remember, we put that picture up there. So I think I saw it on the news and I said, oh, we have to have this on the Power Balance page. So a cryptozoologist called S-H-U-K-E-R. She grew, I don't want to butcher it. He's kind of in the margin of science and skepticism and we went and we improved his page because it is important just the history of cryptozoology, scientific skepticism, psychics. We want to have all that history documented. We had a vision in Russia called Our Lady of Warwick, R-R-A-Q. And this is an editor of mine who had been editing on his own. Couldn't I get this page improved for nothing? It had a lot of woo on it. And he joined our team and we showed him how to edit this page and get it so that it was, so that the edits would stay. Vasula Reiden is one of the people I started with. She gets 2,000 views a month and she's an automatic writer. Gets messages from God, Jesus, Daniel, Archangel, Philip, I don't know. She's getting all these edits and, I mean, all this writing from their chip coffee. He's still getting 3,000 views a month. So there's quite a bit of work to be done. And let me just push my notes over here for a second. I'm just going to very briefly go over one last thing and that's the World Wikipedia Project is something that we started just about a, not even a year ago. I started it in July, August of 2012, right after Tam that we just had. And the World Wikipedia Project is where I'm trying to get these languages, the Wikipedia page is written in all the languages all over the, all over Wikipedia, everything I possibly can. So that means I have to very badly recruit editors. We started with one project and that was the Gerry Andrus Project. Gerry Andrus had a very badly written Wikipedia page and he's one of these people that is kind of kept in the back. You probably don't know who he is but Gerry Andrus is an optical illusion. He invented a lot of optical illusions. And he is a good friend of Ray Hyman's. He's also a very great friend of James, James Randi and their older friends. And again, this goes back to the beginning of scientific skepticism and the founding of our movement. So he died in 2007. He was somebody that you would see at TAMS most of the time and also at the Skeptics Toolbox, which is in August in Eugene. It's Ray Hyman's baby. And Gerry Andrus, I had, I wanted my editors all to write the same page at once because I used it as a training tool and also to get people worldwide interested in this amazing man. They can look at his videos and his optical illusions, his close-up magic and they do not need to speak English. So I thought it would be a great way to spread skeptical thought and critical thinking by just working on this one page. And Gerry Andrus also only does his own tricks, his own things he's invented. So I didn't have to worry about copyrights with other magicians or optical illusionists or anything like that. So Gerry Andrus is the page that we started with. And so my editors have now rewritten this Wikipedia page in many different languages. It's now in Arabic, Dutch, French, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, Portuguese. So once his page is done in these languages, then the groups, the other teams, they can expand off of that same page and they can write pages for Ray Hyman, James Randi, Penn and Teller, Cold Reading, J-Ref, CFI. And then from there, just expand even more. It's like a giant tree. We're starting with Gerry and then we just branch off into other different topics. So that's what's going on with there. Just very briefly, some of the other pages that our world teams have done. And these world editors, most of them have never edited Wikipedia before. Absolutely totally self-taught like I am. In Dutch, they've also rewritten the Bob Carroll from Skeptic Dictionary. They've changed and improved James Randi's page and Michael Shermer's page. The Russians have improved the Paul Kurtz page. Arabic has done the Gerry Andrus only. French has been working on Bob Carroll. And the Spanish page also created the Skeptic Camp page which is really, really kind of cool. The Portuguese team is by far my most prolific group and not only have they done the Gerry Andrus page, they've also written or improved the Ray Hyman page. They just came out with Skeptical magazine, Skeptical Enquirer magazine's page. Martin Gardner, Paul Kurtz, Mildegos Tyson, Phil Plait, Power Balance, Indigo Children, Indigo House, which is a foundation that trains people for Indigo Children, I guess. Eric Von Donoghan, Penn and Teller, the 1023 campaign and just the other day, they came out with Long Island Mediums Wikipedia page and it's pretty much tells you the lead and then it tells you the criticism and doesn't have all those, the show topics and all that kind of thing on it. So, okay, so basically, I need your help, okay? I really need your help. There are thousands of edits that need to be put into Wikipedia and maybe hundreds of thousands of edits. If you just take one single magazine like this that just came out and think about all the difficult Skeptical resources we have, we can't use blogs, we can't use some podcasts we can use if they're the interview portion like a point of inquiry or some coincidence or some of the other ones. We can take those interviews if they're done with notable people and we can cite them back onto Wikipedia pages but something like this magazine, I mean, there probably is 100 edits you can get out of this page if you wanted to get that kind of thing and so I need and there's also probably hundreds of pages that need to be rewritten or created. I need proof editors, just people to look over what we're writing and just correct our grammar. I need researchers, people who are okay with doing research and finding these edits. I need people who are already editors who have grown frustrated with editing and having been attacked by people who are paranormal people and they can't get the edit to stay on there or by other editors on Wikipedia who just aren't allowing them to keep the edits up there because there's something wrong with their edits and they don't know what it is. Can you expand on that? Oh, yeah, sure. Well, in my Q&A, I sure will, Wendy. We need people who attend conferences who can take pictures, something, the photos at the podium and stuff like that so we can get them up on these Wikipedia pages. I also need people who have photos in your hard drive or in your scrapbooks or whatever from past events you've gone to so that we can get those photos uploaded and put onto pages of people who have passed, who have died. I also need people who can interview like John Rael does. He does interviews with video. I can take those videos. I can take the quotes from those videos and I can put them up on Wikipedia pages. I've done it many times with Ray Hyman and different people like that, that the document doesn't exist somewhere talking about scientific skepticism or the beginnings of the skeptic toolbox, but I can interview them and they can tell me about it and then I can put that up on YouTube and then I can turn around and cite it on Wikipedia. It's brilliant, but nobody really has done that before. I need people who are willing to look at videos and caption them. And I mean, this project is so new. We don't even know what we need yet. So, we need it done in all languages as well. So, I don't want your money, okay? I don't need a handout. We need your time. We need your attention. We need your support. We train. We mentor. We need you. Wont you see, see, play a thing? I'm Susan Grubick. Thank you for your attention. Okay. So, this leads to the interesting part where off-camera I get the talk. Okay, no, I'm on camera. Go ahead, John. Sharing photos with you and stuff. Do you have a Dropbox or a network account or something where like, hey, Susan, here's a bunch of photos because that's how to get big. Yeah, no. In fact, I can't upload photos. So, the way it works is you have to. The owner of the photograph has to upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons and I have instructions on how to do that. What I've been doing is when we were working on a page like Desiree Schell, I think we're just working on her. We're almost done with her page. She doesn't have a lot of great photos on there. So what I've been doing is going through her Facebook page. I love Facebook. It is the best resource for this. I go through her Facebook page of all her photos and I look and I find photos that I like that will look great on her Wikipedia page and then I write to the person who wrote, who uploaded the image and I say, I'm Susan Grubick and I have this project and I'd like to put your portrait up on Wikipedia but I need you to upload it to the site. They upload it to the site. They get photo credit for it because they're making their username and then I can take the image and put it up. And sometimes I have a Facebook friend named Greg who put up an image. I looked all over for a pen and teller photo because I can't take something from the website. It has to be something uploaded by a photographer. So, pen and teller were at a conference with James Randy and the three of them were on stage and I found this photo and I asked him, can I have you upload it? He uploaded it. Now it's on all the pen and teller pages worldwide. I think he's got like 13 pages that his photos featured on. And it's cool. You know, he's like, oh my gosh, I'm an international photographer now. You know, this is great. And I'm looking for a really nice image of pen, new Hollywood, the pen and teller star. They just got a star in Hollywood. I need a nice image. People keep saying, yeah, I got one. I got one. I'm like, I need to have it uploaded and I need to have the URL sent to me and we can put it up worldwide. And you can Photoshop it before you give it to me. So if there's, you know, somebody standing in the background and they've got like a Coke can or something and it doesn't look so good or their mouth's gaping open and they look really ridiculous. Take them out. Adam, change it. Do what you want to do. Make it a nice image. Give it to Wicked Media Commons, upload it and then I'll happily put it worldwide for you and you can go global. So, Wendy, your question was about... about how to push off the pages by the editor, the other Wikipedia editors. Okay. Well, my edits don't necessarily get pushed off that much. They did in the Bill Maher page but I kind of thought that was going to happen. I just kind of was gambling to get the controversial edits up there. What you do, there's many ways of doing it and as a team, like I say, we talk about what we're going to do before we put it up on Wikipedia. So we'll discuss it and we'll kind of get the wording right and then we don't have a lot of problem with people taking your edits off. Usually it's a lone editor trying to put up an edit and they're not experienced yet. They're just... they're... they're stumbling through. They don't have the citation written correctly and some editor from Wikipedia, they're trying to be nicer, will come in and find a newbie editor and they'll just go, ah, you know, get off of this page or, you know, get out of here. But we're finding that most of our edits stay up or they're modified a little bit and I'm fine with that because I'm not an English major or anything like that. I'm not very good at that kind of stuff, so... So the ratio, most of your edits stick? Most of it... most, if not all of my edits will stick. They... when I first started out a couple of years ago, not so much so, but we're finding people, as I said, they come to the project where they were unable to get their edits to stick in the past. They got frustrated and now we're looking back at what they did and we can see kind of what they did and we can say, oh, well, let's try wording it this way. Let's try adding this citation. You can't use blogs and things like that. Lots of people try to do that. Now, on the other hand, we're finding that we are becoming extremely successful with this project. We just need lots of editors. I have it set up right now. I have 90 editors. 90? 90. The way I have it set up, I can easily have 900 editors worldwide and I can manage the project just fine. It's all set up in a way that we can do it with hundreds of editors and it's not going to be a problem. And we're hoping to grow the group big enough to be able to do that. And I've already thought it through and we've already have everything in place to be able to do it so that it could be a huge massive effort of crowdsourcing of skeptics. But where was I going with this? Oh, the paranormal community is absolutely frustrated. They are so frustrated. We were gathering blogs of people who are linking to my blog so I can turn around and follow the link back to their blog. And I'm seeing how frustrated they are with editing Wikipedia. We have a creationist blogger who's going on and on about how he can no longer edit Wikipedia and the creationist should just give up trying to get information onto Wikipedia because it's a lost cause. There's too many skeptics that have evidence and that kind of thing. And they can't even talk to us because we're just unreasonable. And I hear this all the time and they go in and dare each other. Hey, you go change the million dollar challenge page. I dare you. I bet you'll be taken down in 30 seconds. And I'm reading this, right? So I can see this and I'm over looking at the million dollar challenge page and there's no changes. They're not doing anything. They just go back and forth about, oh, no, I don't want to do that because I don't really know how. And, you know, back and forth, it's a lost cause because Wikipedia requires evidence and citations. It is the skeptical source. It is the, you know, it's amazing. It's also the fifth most trafficked internet page worldwide. I mean, they may have any idea what might be more popular than Wikipedia. Facebook is one of them. Anything else? YouTube is number, is one of them as well. Google is one, two more. Nope. Yahoo, it's Google, Yahoo, Facebook, YouTube and then Wikipedia. Those are the fifth and some, some say six. It depends on which search thing you're using. But everybody knows that if you're going to go to, if you're going to find out something, you put it into your favorite search engine, Google or Yahoo or whatever. And then one of the first hits you're going to get is going to be a Wikipedia link. And people want to go to Wikipedia because we already know how to use Wikipedia. We know those little blue links mean you're going to go to another page. We know there's no, there's no spam. There's no viruses. We already know that. We're comfortable with Wikipedia. And even the few people, and I get this every once in a while, people say, I don't like Wikipedia. It's unreliable. I don't want to have anything to do with it. They don't realize it, but they're probably reading Wikipedia all the time. If they read, they're probably getting their information from Wikipedia because people, we also have been able to take, you know, whole quotes from Wikipedia that look really good and we'll take it and we can put it in a search engine. You can find blogs and newspaper sources and so on that are using the Wikipedia entry just verbatim. They're just copying and putting it into pages. So if somebody's reading some blog somewhere or some scientific journal or I don't know, hopefully they're caught in the scientific journal, but they're reading something somewhere else or a reporter who's going to report on a story that day is going to copy it out of Wikipedia. So they're getting information from here. So we can control this. We are, this is so powerful. You don't understand when you put one of these grill skepticism edits up on Jenny McCarthy's page or Price Line or Walmart or just some of these pages. You just, you're just like glowing inside. It's so powerful to feel like I've made such an impact. I'm hundreds of thousands of people can be reading my edit homeopathy. We've changed that page drastically. The lead, the very, very first couple of sentences of the page, which most people is only thing to read. We've used the word quackery. I mean, that's so awesome. Unsubstantiated claims. I mean, it's like 100,000 people and more read that page each month. And those celebrities or those corporations, they don't have a right to their own edits on there. Absolutely not. Nobody owns their Wikipedia page. We control the Wikipedia pages. The editors. And by the way, you just mean everyone. Everyone. Yeah. And then because we're organized and we have this project, we as a skeptic, since we're focused on this, we're not updating bowling pages or you know, you know, I don't know, Internet fans or something like that or, you know, let bowlers update bowlers pages. You know, this is this is our thing. We need to have this. Scientific pages are pretty dang good. They're in really great shape. But our spokespeople, this isn't done. You know, this isn't been done. They're not there. We're organized rules on Wikipedia that keep people from editing their own. Yes, we do not allow people to edit their own pages. I get desperate cries for help from people all the time. They come to me. You'll do that rather than expecting him to get out. Exactly. And I am very strict because I have that strong kind of personality. I'm strict about criticism goes in. If there is criticism for a page, I want it in the page because if I don't put the criticism in, somebody else is going to find it and they're going to put it in there and it's not going to be as well written or creatively edited as I would. So, yeah, so when I'm working with trying to get a page like Ken Feeder's page up there, I'm like, okay, you know, right before I put it up, I let them look it over and just say, all right, this is factual. And in Ken Feeder's case, exactly one citation we've used that said he had two daughters. He's like, no, they got it wrong. Actually, I have two sons. So we were able to correct something like that. Maybe, you know, years he went to college or just different things. There's not much that they can catch because we usually catch most of it. But it, if there is criticism, we're going to put it up on the page. And that's another way why we have editing credits because we don't back off. And we just did John Prothero's page and before we released it, because we don't release it until it's done. I was looking at it and I said, I don't think this looks too nice. We have got to take some of this out or find more criticism or reword it or something because this doesn't seem neutral enough. It's just too advertising kind of thing too positive. And so my editors are quite right there with me. They're like, okay, let's take another look at it and rewrite it and let's make it so that it's critical. Add some criticism in there and make it so it looks like, because it is a real encyclopedia page. We're trying to create this for everyone so that it's done correctly so that people can't go in and take it down. So if people watching online want to get involved, how do they get it done? I'm really everywhere on the internet. So it's very easy to find me. You can write to me at susangrubbickatyahoo.com or you can go to susangrubbick.com and you'll find all my information on susangrubbick.com but everything happens on Facebook. So if you are not on Facebook, I'm sorry, I'll help you by email as much as possible but that is it. This is the most amazing tool that we have and Facebook allows us to be able to have conversations in real time with notifications and so on. If you don't like Facebook, you know, you can still be on Facebook and just use it just for the single project but I mean it's the future. It's just the way it is. So that's where everything's happening. So you have to friend me on Facebook and you'll have to tell me hi, I'm so-and-so and I'm interested in your project and I want to edit in Norwegian and, you know, and I'll say okay, I'll put you into, I have a group called World and everything in world is in English. We all speak in English. All the editors are there and then I have a group for Norwegians and then that's where you will go and you will be able to speak completely in Norwegian there. I use Google Translate all the time so I can follow the conversations and all the different languages and all the different groups that I'm in because I'm in every one of the groups, the French, the Swedish and so on and I don't think I have a Norwegian page. Do I have everything? Oh my gosh, I'm Norse. I'm about to get Romanian and so that's how it works and then you can just be in there and that's all you do. That's your, you don't have to have anything else to do with Facebook. Nobody's going to get your privacy or anything like that because these are private groups or secret groups who can't join them. I have to allow you and I have admins that will allow you to join the group but we check you out because we don't want to allow, you know, somebody in who's, you know, infiltration, yeah. You have to have some kind of cred somewhere before we're going to allow you into the group. We'll check you out. Couple questions about editing in other languages. If you start a new page in English and you then want similar pages in other languages, do the people in the other languages create it from scratch or do they take the existing material and just translate it or how does that work? That's a great question. Well, when it's well written in English, then what we're able to do is so far almost all of my editors read and write in English well. It's kind of a problem if they're not really great speakers of English. They can still do a lot of great stuff if people want to edit. I mean, they don't speak English really well. They can still do this but it's not quite as easy to translate. They would probably be doing more research and checking over the grammar and things like that. Like in Portuguese, you have Portuguese from Spain. You have Portuguese from Portugal and they're totally kind of different languages. So somebody who's a native speaker, we love them to go through the page and correct everything. But what they would do is they would probably create a user page which is a page off of Wikipedia that the other editors aren't seeing. This is what we do. We don't release anything until it's completely finished and then they'll take... Each person does it differently. Some people will just copy the entire Wikipedia page from English onto their user page and then systematically go sentence by sentence and translate it. Some people do it a little bit differently but they're not doing any research on like the Jerry Andrews except we do ask them to find as much as they can resources like let's say Michael Schermer or the JRef or whatever. If there's any kind of information that exists in their language only in their language then they'll be able to pull it over like Brian Denning's Skeptoid just came out in Chinese. I've been actively looking for Chinese editors. Oh my gosh, there's a billion people over there and we can't find anybody. I've written to them. I'm not getting any information back. I need Chinese editors because they'll be able to take the Skeptoid episodes that are already in Chinese and just edit them into all the other Wikipedia pages all over Chinese Wikipedia and make a massive amount of difference to the Chinese language. But we can't find Chinese editors. Did they have to? No. No. That's a good question. They don't have to be. Yes, Mark? Talk a little more. Oh my gosh. Go to the word. Go to the word evolution. This is a great question. And I tried to... This is a problem. When I started the Jerry Andrews project it was only because I was totally frustrated with trying to get people to help me edit Wikipedia for other languages. So yeah. So what I did is... What made us a star? I think that's something to do with your browser. It's not a normal page. I mean, that's not a normal thing. So here's... This is Arabic for the word evolution and I tried approaching the National Science Foundation. It's all written from left to right. And you know, it's really great. I can edit this page. And I've edited in Russian, Romanian, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese. I don't speak those languages. It's just Spanish. And you can edit it because everywhere on the Wikipedia page for English is exactly the same spot for it for the other pages. So go down to Punjabi or Hindi. And... That's Russian. See if you see them. But anyway, so the evolution page is really great in English. But I couldn't find people who would edit them in other languages for me because they don't understand the scientific words and things like that. So I picked Jareanda, so it should be easy. But these pages are very well trafficked. Which one are you looking for? Well, I didn't see Punjabi or Hindi. Gosh, it's one of these languages here probably because it's written in the language. That's Chinese, so it's Korean. Yeah, these are written in the language of the language. So that's another thing. And I should have looked at it again. This is Hebrew, I believe. Yeah, Hebrew. You can see up here the first two initials. And this looks like it's pretty well written. You can just glance at it and see that it has all sorts of photos and things that look scientific. Go back to... Go back to... And if you edit this, it is in some corner thing that makes it edit backwards. It's hilarious. Go to Arabic. Where was Arabic again? That's Arabic. Yeah, AR. So Arabic, look how long this page is. But it wasn't like that before. No, no, this is... Okay, this isn't so bad. But... Right, so in Punjabi and Hindi, if I could find them over there, their page is about this long. It's like two paragraphs. And so, you know, it's like, hello, we kind of need to be on these pages and have them well written, but you can just kind of go through some of these. A Farsi. A Farsi. Is that Farsi? Try that. Yeah, I think this is Farsi. Is this the right one? No, that's pretty good. So someone's gotten in there... Yeah, I think we're just not looking at the right pages because there's an awful lot that... There are some that are paragraphs and some are like three paragraphs, but we're hitting on the wrong ones right at the moment. But you can see how easy it is to play with it. Okay, which language is this? Fiji, Hindi. Hindi? Fiji, Hindi. Fiji, Hindi. So, you can see that this is probably something that we need to improve. One citation. Well, that proves it. Evolution exists because of that one citation. Now, and it's not even something you can search because it's a book. Ernst Meyer, I mean... So the citations don't have to be in that language. We'd like them to be in that language. But, I mean, how many Hindi scientists out there are writing books on evolution? We don't know. I don't know. Because we don't have a really... It's not a lot, I'm sure. But we need to get our skeptical spokespeople and our publishers and so on to translate these books into other languages so they can be cited. What was your question? Okay, just to take very complex, especially scientific ideas, and they have a... One of the languages is in simple English. I've never even really looked at that. I doubt anybody... I know that the English version, the regular English version, is extremely popular and it's getting hits. I doubt people go to the simple... Because most pages... Oh, here's the Long Island Medium. Oh my gosh. I love this. Can we go back now? No, go to Portuguese over here. Is Portuguese over there? Here? Yeah. And this is the pages that went up last week. And you can see that it's just a synopsis of the show. And here's the criticism, priceline.com. Here's the Miliano de Dolores de James Randi Educational Foundation and the word paranormal. Here's DJ Growthy. That's going to link to English DJ Growthy because I don't think DJ Growthy has Portuguese right now. But you can see that... Here's the JRF. Here's the pages that it's in. And you know what? Go to James Randi, too, because there's one more thing I can show you guys. It's a weapon. I don't think that is the headboard we're ever had. No, it doesn't look like it. So I need a photo uploaded into Wikimedia Commons to be able to take care of that. So what we're doing right now is this million-dollar challenge has been reduced in size or is about to be reduced in size and we're creating a million-dollar challenge page. And that page up there... Go up here, this picture. Down. I took that. That's Derek Collenduno. And I had it uploaded for Derek Collenduno... Yeah, this is Nita Iconin's challenge. She's not in the image for obvious reasons because I didn't want to put her in there. But Derek Collenduno's Wikimedia page, I uploaded that photo a couple of years ago and put it in. And so whenever my editor says he's working on improving the... He's trying to get the million-dollar challenge to have more exposure. He said, let's go ahead and put... You know, he pulled this out and he's just now doing this. He might have just uploaded this in the last... Hit View History right here. Let's see. Yep. This is my editor in Denver. And Rick Duffy, he's fantastic. He just added this page probably just in time for this lecture so they'd be here for you guys to see. Yes, Mark? Oh, yeah. Press releases. Thank you for reminding me. My editors, before I got here... I took that picture. And just before... This is new J.R.F. Fellows. There's Tim Farley, who has a Wikipedia page that we've made for him. Karen, we've made her Wikipedia page. Steven Novella, who's had a Wikipedia page. And Ray Hall, who does not yet have a page. My editors wanted me to remind DJ also that we need to have more press releases so that we can cite things. So you can't cite articles published on a website because that seems like a log. Like an organization's website and essay or something. It's still in that grade. It depends. You know, it depends on how much I want to be challenged. But press releases are better. Publications are better. Oh, we just finished this page. Isn't this great? We're trying to rewrite his page and all the languages too. This is Leo... pronounce the last name for him? Igwe. Igwe. I don't know how to pronounce a lot of them because I just deal with the text so much. So he's amazing. Man, oh my gosh. And I'm getting new photos uploaded of him as we speak. The J.R.F. has been kind enough to upload them. I don't think they're on here. Are they on here right now? That might be one of them. No, this is from Brian Engler, who's a very prolific photographer for us. He goes to many conferences and see he's getting his credit for his edits. But Brian Engler uploads photos for us all the time. He has quite an extensive photo album. And as do I, as I've gone to many, many functions, I take photographs and you'll see them throughout different Wikipedia pages. And they can be easily displaced by other people too. But Leo, we were able to get Leo's page. One of the things we do, and I didn't want to go into depth on this on the thing, but we try to get them on the front page of Wikipedia for an eight-hour time on a project called Did You Know? Oh, you got a star? Yeah, I kind of tell her I know who took the picture. Okay, well, there you go. We got to get it uploaded. So what we did with Leo is he was on the front page of Wikipedia for eight hours. We have, there's a lot of rules on doing this, but we've learned how to master it. Our team does this all the time now. Used to be something like, oh, maybe we can get it up there now. It's like, okay, what time do we want it to hit Wikipedia? So what'll happen is he'll appear in a little book at wikipedia.org. And what you will find on this page is there's a, this day in history in the news. And here's a Did You Know? And this only lasts for eight hours in English. And during this little bit of time, there'll be a question here. It's called a hook. And we had Leo's and Don Prothero's and Ken Feder and many other pages, Sarah Mayhew on this area. And that means that people worldwide who are reading the English page will find that link and their hits will go from like maybe 10 a day to a two or three to 10,000 hits during that eight hour window. So it's exposing them. The page has to be within five days of its release or it has to be rewritten five times beyond what it was. So when it was released. Five times the length. Yeah, the length. There's a formula for it. And then we have to apply for it. And it's not the simplest thing to do. But anyway, so getting a Did You Know is a one way of really reaching a bigger, broader audience. And then I posted on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and I get other people to tweet it. And then everybody in the community is like, Oh, what, what, what? I'm supposed to do what? And we want them to go to the Wikipedia page during this eight hour window and really push the hits up a little bit. And it's fun. And it gets people in the community kind of excited about, Oh, gosh, I grilled a skepticism project. Just came out with another release. Oh my gosh. So we like to do these kinds of things where we have all this fun stuff. But so you can see that the words James Randy educational foundation is going to end up getting a lot of hits. There was a one of his hits on here. I can't remember which one we had, but it received like, oh, 3000 hits during that eight hour window, different kinds of things. We haven't got it written in any other languages yet. We haven't done, but I believe that we're working on it in Portuguese right now. And a couple of, yeah, we haven't got the photos uploaded, the new photos that were just out. But all this is there for people to read and so that we can impact a higher, higher bigger audience. Other questions? Give me the hard stuff, Dan. I have no skills at Photoshop. But if I were to physically hand you a DVD, a raw video, Penn and Teller Star, is that something you could take yourself and? No, what I would do is I would take, if you had a photo that was really, that was probably something we really wanted, Robert Schaefer has been really great at this. He's got a whole history of black and white images from the beginnings of the skeptical movement and he's uploading them for us. If it was not a really good photo that needed just like some tweaking, then I would just go to Facebook and say, hey, somebody give me 10 minutes of your Photoshopping skills, edit it. And then I'd have an email back to you and then I'd have you upload it to Wikimedia Commons. What about video? I mean, does Wikipedia have multimedia or just? Yes, it does and we're just now, before I came here maybe about five days ago, we've decided we're going to start doing videos on Wikipedia pages. But again, the video has to be owned by somebody who will upload it to Wikimedia Commons and I have lots of video of James Randi and I'm sure we could probably get some from the JREF snippets that will appear right down here and it'd be something that you click on and it would show the video. I would love to do, go to Sylvia Brown. I'd really love to get some things on Sylvia. Yeah, the million dollar challenge. We've got her punked. Mark Edward punked her at the Hollywood Bowl just a few years ago and you look at this page and here's this little bit about who Sylvia Brown is. It's very little and then here's her personal life and her children and the whole thing is just us. Yes, fail, fail, fail, fail, fail. I mean, you know, it's just overwhelming. And you could go to her references and you can see all sorts of citations we've had on here. It's on and on and on and on. How in the world do people still support this woman? We even have on here her conviction, her legal conviction. Here, if you click on... For a gold investment scheme. Yeah, we have it so you can actually go and see where she's a convicted felon. So when people say she's a convicted felon, we're like, go to Wikipedia. There it is and you can see the actual document that shows that she's a convicted felon before she became, when her name was without the E. We think she added the E because it was less likely to be associated with this felony that she has. But we're not quite sure. But so we're going to, this is going to be a project. Oh my gosh, there's so much we want to do that can really improve. But it's just a matter of finding people that can do this kind of stuff and willing to help us out. Okay, let's go through this picture. Okay. That's fine. She loads the picture, follows the instructions on Wikipedia images. Right. And then she forwards the email to, she forwards the URL to me of the photo. So it'll have the photo. When you go to Wikimedia Commons, it's when you're done loading your image. It just takes two or three minutes and you load it in and then you'll come up with the URL. And then the URL, you just send it to me and then we just go right into the article. It's so simple. And then we just try to put Groovy. I just love Wendy. But Sylvia Brown and many of her friends, they, their pages are in very bad shape. We've also had pages deleted. Psychics are notorious for putting up Wikipedia pages with no citations on them. Oh, wait, they help out. They've solved missing crimes. They found missing children. They've uncovered cold cases. They help out the police department all the time. And their source is their own personal face. Yeah, their own, they goes back to their own website. So websites are not credible because you could write it yourself. It's an advertisement. So we've had several psychic pages deleted or expunged. There's one recently that we, I just happened to find and we ended up taking it down to, she's been in a few TV shows and she's written some music and doesn't mention the word psychic on her page. So in other words, it's about three sentences long. Oh, chip coffee real quick. This is great. I really, really need people to write about chip coffee in notable sources because chip coffee, he gets 3,000 views a month. But this is what they're finding. Yeah, there he is, first hit down here because his name is spelled COFF. Okay, 3,000 people a month are viewing this page. We have no criticism on it. I've tried to get criticism on it but I don't have enough sources to get on there. So there are a number of pieces on Randy's work about coffee and psychic kids, but you're saying those because they're not friends? Yeah, they're an e-newsletter as opposed to... I might be able to use them. It's just that I'm, there's a million things I'm doing at once. But I know that chip coffee, so that's possible. You might be able to use that and get it on there, but you can see we've taken almost everything off. Oh, for your own amusement, if you guys are ever very like, you know, you're like reading these blogs where people going back and forth and they attack each other and things like that. Always go to the talk page. You see it up there? Click on that. This is behind every page on Wikipedia. Some are more talking than others. Sylvia Brown's page is notorious. You can just see conversation after conversation after conversation after conversation of people going back and forth. These are skeptics. The editors are mostly skeptics. And then you'll see, and they're not mine. They're just by nature. They want evidence. How do we know how many people are hitting a page and how many are actual page views versus just a hit count or what was it? Yeah, okay, one person. Right, one person. Oh, unique visitors and that kind of thing. Okay, I get your question. Yeah, how do you meet visitors? Right, right, right. And I don't have a great answer for you. She's asking if, you know, how do you tell if somebody, the same person is going to the same Wikipedia page multiple times versus somebody who's a unique user going to that page? And we don't have a way of telling that because there is a stat page that we can use that tells us just total views for that page. And that's all we have. And it's a Wikipedia stat. Gosh, I can't remember the URL right now. But yeah, we use it constantly because it tells us we're able to track things in the media. We can say like the Mark Boslow page immediately after the NOVA program was released. We can see the stats go like this. Same with Leo. Whenever he hit the eight hour window of the did you know page? We can see the stats just to shoot way up for how many views that he had. So we use it constantly. But when I ask people, and this is a question I haven't been asked yet by you, but I get a lot that who do we work on? How do we know who to go to? And that kind of thing. How do you prioritize? We don't because this is supposed to be a project that we're not paid. We're not signed up. There's no staff. There's just us. And so yeah, it's bottom up. Not talking on good analogy, DJ. I want you to love what you do. I want you to enjoy doing this. I have people who, as we saw, just edit pages pretty much on Denver focused people. And I have people who like to find out where the next conference is and then find out who the speakers are. And then she goes in and she likes to improve the pages of those speakers. We have people who just feel passionately about certain things. Or they found a topic in Skeptic Magazine or wherever or CFI or Skeptical Enquirer Magazine. And they want to take that page and they want to add it to something. We have no priority. The Robert Ingersoll Birthplace Museum page that I edited gets maybe 300 views a month. It's just something I wanted to do. Something to improve the something out of love of the project and the history of modern skepticism that I wanted to do. So I don't ask people to work on pages that are popular necessarily. I want them to work on things they want to do, things they love and that kind of thing. It seems like I had one more thing to mention about that. The Jenny McCarthy is another person that is well guarded. It's a page that's very hard to get an edit to stick on Jenny McCarthy's page because she received so many hits and I think she receives Jenny McCarthy's gets 170,000 views a month. Priceline.com is another page that we were able to get a lot of views. We were able to put the J-Ref challenge to Teresa Caputo who's one of their spokespeople and we had a really awesome quote from DJ actually on that page to help make people think about. A lot of people tell me psychics are no big deal, you know, whatever. They don't understand that there's a living person on the other end that's a family that's grieving that is impacted by what a psychic says or doesn't say. And so DJ's quote is, it's difficult to watch the show and not feel heartbroken for those who are desperate to hear from the departed and even more so if they're being manipulated by a charlatan. growthyinvitespriceline.com to invite your new representative to take the James Randy Million Dollar Challenge and prove her credentials. I can't give my opinion on Wikipedia but I can through our spokespeople, I can give an opinion of what, you know, how I feel about a topic and so on. So I'm writing through other people but I need that content first from the J-Ref or from CFI or from Ben Radford or Ray Hyman or whomever, I need the content first and then I can meet a way of finding it. Priceline.com, you wouldn't think they'd get a lot of hits. Well, views, their Wikipedia page gets 21,000 views last March. That's 130,000 views since we put the edit up there on the priceline.com page. The Long Island Medium page she got in March 25,000 hits and that's in the seven months that that quote's been on her page, 441,000 people have viewed her page. So one day in November, she got 17,500 views, one day. So I don't know what it was, if there was something massive that came out on that day in the news on Teresa Caputo and the Long Island Medium. So far she doesn't have her own page, she just has the Long Island Medium page. But you know these, we have to be there and the only way we can be there is to have support from foundations like the J-Ref has been so gracious and helpful for me for just all the time that the project's been done. They, I gave my first paper presentation at Tam9 in, oh gosh, two years ago I guess? Tam9, these years things, it's kind of like nine, which one was that? So we're about to have 11 now I guess. So two years ago and I gave paper presentations, so I've come a long ways, I've been huge. This video will be involved in a workshop. Oh yeah, thank you DJ. And I have that in immediate one second, John. And the, I've been supported by CFI also quite a bit and all podcasts that I've approached except for one have been very, very generous with their time. They interview me, they upload, anytime we have a major update, they say, hey, did you hear about what's going on with that girl with skepticism team? They've just added Sarah Mayhew and Don Prothero and Power Balance, you know? And then blogs, I get lots of support from people who blog. So from our community, I'm getting a lot of skeptic love, but we've got to kind of push it farther and get more editors. John? Well, speaking of all that stuff, what's in store for the future? What do you got planned? Wow, so much. I'm trying to grow the group massively. We're going to have a table at Skepticale in Berkeley and try to get more editors from the Bay Area. Skepticale by the way. Oh, Skepticale is in June this year. June? Yeah, to Berkeley, California. So go to their website. Thank you for plugging them. But that's a local group to me, because I'm in Salinas, California. And, you know, I'm trying to grow the group with videos like this by the JRF that will help reach more people maybe worldwide. We're also trying to, like I said, I could go easily with 900 editors just as easily as 90. It wouldn't make any difference to me at all. I have it all in place. And so we need to grow the group a lot. We, like the video thing that DJ mentioned, getting videos on these pages is great. I mean, it's such a, just an asset. They don't have to go to Wikipedia. I mean, go to YouTube to see the video. They can just go right there and click on it. We'll get a lot more views. You had a question? We're finishing up. I was just going to ask if there's like any, of course, the big point is this is an encyclopedia, Enlightenment Philosophia to Road, The Great Skeptic, started the first big encyclopedia project. We're in a skeptical tradition. So it's finishing up. Is there like one big kahuna that you haven't gotten that you want to get sort of as you're appealing for people to rally around to help you out? One big kahuna that I want to hit their page, or tag their page, or recruit? Or some big project. It seems like you've been talking so far about, it's piecemeal. You know, people are, there's a steady margin progress. People are working a little on this page, a little on that page. But no big windmill that you're tilting at. Gosh, that's a good question. If thinking quickly, I would say that there isn't a big project and we like our editors to spread out because if they edit one specific kind of thing or completely, then they can be tagged by other editors as being a single. Is too many editors are working on one project? Well, no. Well, that could be, but also if one editor only sits on one page and they're only editing that topic, that can be a no-no. We like them to diversify. As we're talking earlier, we like our editors to edit pages for their high school, their college. They're, you know, whatever they know that's maybe local historical site in their town that's nonsceptical because we want to keep them editing and keep a history so that they are improving Wikipedia, not just completely for this one topic. But there isn't, the only thing that I see right at the moment is getting the world group really, really going. And, you know, I have people who sign up all the time and they're just, it's hard to support them really good when you have two editors in Russia or you have one Farsi editor or one Arabic editor. You need a team of people to really play off each other and learn from each other and you need leaders in each of those groups because I can't obviously lead all the groups. So you need people to constantly be motivating people and getting them going. And then I have to turn around and I like to be able to use, I mean in English it's cool. I can say to different blogs or different podcasts, hey, we've got these new things and then they kind of spread out. Because we don't get any kind of feedback. It's not like having our own podcast or something. Nobody says, hey, high five, you are. Well, I like what you wrote on homeopathy the other day. You know, I saw that edit you made and I thought, no, no, we don't get any feedback like that except whenever I lecture like this or whatever I give to my editors just from the reports and blogs I do. But you have a running blog of updates you're doing that's on your website, right? No, it's not on my website. I have it hidden behind the scenes on a Facebook page. But I do have constant blog issues of things that are going on. I could easily put out a blog that would be what are recent updates but I just haven't gotten around to it. It's kind of constantly editing, constantly improving. And is that also a little redundant? We want people to go to Wikipedia. Yes, right. So the biggest challenge I have right now is maintaining a very active world group. We're at 17 languages. The other problem is this is very difficult to get other, like there's one Romanian podcast. There's one that's in Romanian that I know of. And they said they'll do any updates I want and that kind of thing and they'll do whatever they would like me to do. But it's really hard to get updates on Romanian pages if I don't really have Romanian editors to edit and say, you know, so I'm trying to duplicate what we do in English with other languages. And I've used JREF and I've used the skeptics on the net to find these groups, but it's a challenge. But that's what I've been doing. Well, so people who are viewing the video that we'll be putting out, get involved with Susan's project and many of us in this room are already involved, please join me in thanking Susan Gerbeck for this.