Volunteering request

[TylerDurden]

Hi,

I have been doing a steady check of the Raw Foodism wikipedia page in order to avoid anti-raw biased members from ruining the page and preventing solid scientific pro-raw data from being entered. I now find 2 members who wilfully removed a swathe of decent scientific data plus solid refs, not only that they also removed the beliefs section despite the fact that the beliefs section was not about scientific data but about raw foodist beliefs.

What we need is for some of us RVAFers here to edit the raw foodism page, partly to prevent unwarranted deletion of perfectly good scientific data but also to add any pertinent data about raw foodism that might be of general interest. I do not expect people to write in a biased way, I just want there to be a balance without it being a wholly anti-raw page.

If you are familiar with wikipedia, please feel free to make  a few edits and monitor the raw foodism page. Biased, anti-raw vandalisers tend to only appear once every 18 months or so, but when they do, it is usually in a pack of two or three.

[cherimoya_kid]

Are they removing links to studies about heat-created toxins like AGEs, HCAs, and stuff like that? That's not OK. We might be able to get them banned from Wikipedia editing if they are.

[TylerDurden]

Are they removing links to studies about heat-created toxins like AGEs, HCAs, and stuff like that? That's not OK. We might be able to get them banned from Wikipedia editing if they are.

Yes, they are. The trouble is that wikipedia is divided into two camps. The first, a wholly biased side, advocates just reporting mainstream views/mainstream subjects and leaving just tiny notes on so-called "fringe" subjects  such as raw foodism, regardless of whether the fringe subjects have more solid data to back them up. The 2nd side advocates reporting ALL subjects, however "fringe" as long as they obey wikipedia guidelines.

The current people are just blindly mass deleting everything with a small note next to each edit  rather than just minor edits plus notes in the talk section.

Well, if enough people contribute to the raw foodism wikipedia page, then perhaps I could ask a wikipedia moderator for help in resolving the discussion in a few days. He is by no means pro-raw or whatever, it is just that he has no inherent bias and is more in line with the 2nd camp.

Again, I am not asking for the raw foodism page to be altered in our favour or anything POV, just that there is a fair explanation from both sides. I am "Vorlon19" by the way, in the edit section of the raw foodism page.

[TylerDurden]

I am disappointed that no one from here has decided to help out.

What about a raw foodist/rawpalaeodiet wiki? That cannot be altered except by key designated members.

We NEED some sort of online explanation of the what/why/wherefore of RVAF diets in order to debunk the nonsense peddled by the mainstream. I am willing to give up on wikipedia/wackipedia if only we get this wiki thing going.

[cherimoya_kid]

Nobody finds us through Wikipedia, let's be honest. A raw foodist wiki, done thoroughly and well, would be more useful, but really a tremendous amount of work. Realistically speaking, anyway.

[TylerDurden]

This true, RPDers? Did none of you newbies even bother checking out the raw foodist wikipedia page in the last 5 to 7 years or so at  the start of going rawish?

A raw foodist wiki need not be more than 10 pages, if done well. 4 pages on the science and palaeo aspects, 2 on the practical requirements re food-supply/quality etc., 2 on raw foodist history and 2 pages on the different RVAF diet paths.

[cherimoya_kid]

This true, RPDers? Did none of you newbies even bother checking out the raw foodist wikipedia page in the last 5 to 7 years or so at  the start of going rawish?

A raw foodist wiki need not be more than 10 pages, if done well. 4 pages on the science and palaeo aspects, 2 on the practical requirements re food-supply/quality etc., 2 on raw foodist history and 2 pages on the different RVAF diet paths.

Hmm.

[TylerDurden]

Just got this message via private e-mail:-

"Hello,

I noticed this and thought you'd be interested to see a planned campaign by some people to "nuke and pave" the article on raw foodism.

There is a movement of people who call themselves Skeptics to discredit various people like the Food Babe (Vani Hari) and concepts like Paleolithic diet (calling it a "fad diet").

I wanted to alert you to this.

This does *not* mean the article is fine, i haven't even read it myself, i just saw that there was this plan by a group to come and rip apart the page from how it was to begin with. I understand good sourcing and NPOV and i edit for those things, but the organized campaigns by pseudoskeptics are not friendly and i thought i might let you know.

Also, if you get any extra time/energy, please consider making some comments on the talk page of the Vani Hari article in her support and that she's not pseudoscience but genuine critique of the chemical food industry and all that stuff...

I've been railroaded and topic banned from editing on glyphosate or any agrochemicals and on GMOs. I'm not much of an anti-GMO advocate but i'm very concerned about the chemicals like glyphosate in our food.

All the best, a fellow Wikipedian who wants good food and good articles.

Call on me or write if you want advice or help, or with any wisdom or observations you can offer.

Sage "

[TylerDurden]

2nd message was:- "
May have left out the link in the last email.
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Raw_foodism  "

[cherimoya_kid]

I don't give a flying fuck about skeptics. If people want to try this diet, then they want to, either through curiosity or desperation. Skeptics aren't magic, so they can't stop sick people from being sick or finding out about us. If dominating Wikipedia is their goal, let them do it.

[TylerDurden]

Personally, I would like such sceptics to be stoned to death etc. Just taking it up the arse from opponents does not seem very assertive.

[Brad462]

   That is very old testament of you tyler.  Are you sure that you aren't a christian?

[TylerDurden]

  That is very old testament of you tyler.  Are you sure that you aren't a christian?

I'm a pagan or more likely an animist.