I hereby propose you Sage, to be the official Admin of the Black Vault.

It will help to keep the site’s space in a manageable size—say 50K or something for a large text image with the title:

THERE ARE ZERO UFO/ALIEN ENCOUNTERS VERIFIABLE BY FACTS

And that would be pretty much it

RP. “That statement posits that books are the only respectable approach to pursue the truth”

It does no such thing. Not even close. You are reading between the lines, things that aren’t there.

“I seem to recall that you don’t consider UFOlogy a part of Science”

But we aren’t talking about UFOlogy here, but how Greenwald’s site should be conducted.

“But I d think they [old timers hiding UFO information] might also have quite a few gold nuggets hidden there too”

Statistically speaking, the odds are way, way against that ever being the case. There are over 10,000 claimed UFO sightings/encounters every year. In the last 50 years there have been hundreds of thousands of sightings/encounters, yet how many of those are backed up with verifiable facts? Exactly zero. Of those thousands of people that have come forward, many have been old timers. So for the people who allegedly exist and are supposedly in hiding, what is it that would make them very special and different from all the other people who have come forward so far?

That statement posits that books are the only respectable approach to pursue the truth. Of that I’m not convinced—and I *heart* books.

“You can’t really believe that facts and logic are determined by vote or opinion. Science wouldn’t exist if that were the case.”

Yes, but I seem to recall that you don’t consider UFOlogy a part of Science. Even Greg & Nick would agree on that with you—as do I.

“So let the Black Vault be the first peer reviewed publication to ever exist.”

Fine. Nobody voted to make Wikipedia the ‘official’ online dictionary either; so it could work for the Vault too

“Who cares? There is lots of lots of other data out there so it won’t make a difference. Maybe these old men have something to hide, after all, shine a light in a dark room and the cockroaches will scurry away from it, so why should your alleged old men be any different?”

I’m sure the old timers have plenty of cockroaches and even a few skeletons stashed on their basements. But I d think they might also have quite a few gold nuggets hidden there too. Heeding them and benefiting from their experience would at least help us NOT to repeat the same mistakes they did—Remember, we are all destined to become the old timers eventually

Only for the things we post that are an attempt to pursue the truth.

“Who gets to decide what constitutes a reliable source in UFO-related material, and based on what?”

It isn’t a case of “who” but of “what”. What constitutes a reliable source is easy to determine and is discussed in the link provided. You can’t really believe that facts and logic are determined by vote or opinion. Science wouldn’t exist if that were the case.

“Last time I checked, there wasn’t any peer-reviewed official UFOlogy publication; and that’s all I’m saying”

So let the Black Vault be the first peer reviewed publication to ever exist.

“But, from what I’ve seen in the UFO world, investigators are not known for willingly share their coveted files. Many of them act like greedy old men keeping their gold in safe keeping”

Who cares? There is lots of lots of other data out there so it won’t make a difference. Maybe these old men have something to hide, after all, shine a light in a dark room and the cockroaches will scurry away from it, so why should your alleged old men be any different?

Sage do all your arguments have to devolve into a ‘war of attrition’? Do all the things we post in this blog have to be backed up by quotes and bibliography?

OK, from your Wikipedia entry:

This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.

Who gets to decide what constitutes a reliable source in UFO-related material, and based on what? Last time I checked, there wasn’t any peer-reviewed official UFOlogy publication; and that’s all I’m saying.

Still, I need to add this: the Black Vault idea is a good one. And there is a clear necessity to have a site where information and documents will be preserved for further reference of future investigators.

But, from what I’ve seen in the UFO world, investigators are not known for willingly share their coveted files. Many of them act like greedy old men keeping their gold in safe keeping.

That is not a fact but an assertion. What if the entry for Jaron Lanier had one mistake in it, as you claim it does (without evidence I might add)? That would be one exception and not a general rule of thumb, and one exception could not be considered “a weakness”.

Wikipedia has been raked over by numerous experts, has had extensive peer reviews, yet it has withstood the test of time. If you can find anything better than the approach taken by Wikipedia, let’s hear it. If not, then the approach taken by Wikipedia is the one that should be taken.

“That is my question: What methodology will he follow to qualify an entry as ‘legitimate’? Based on what criteria?”

The standard that we have been discussing here all along gives us the criteria. I gave the link that discussed the criteria. Here is another…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Nice to see you haven’t lost your touch, dear Sage

OK, you’re right that in general information entries, Wikipedia has nothing to envy from Britannica. Hell, I visit Wikipedia on a daily basis!

Still, there are certain entries where there have been clear omissions and editions that have been the cause of much debate and concern. I remember reading an article written by Jaron Lanier, where he ranted on how he had tried several times to correct a mistake in HIS Wikipedia biography, only to discover that it was useless because the mistake got re-written every time. That was an article from 2006, though. Maybe things are better now…

“If Greenewald wants to ensure accuracy as good as Wikipedia has, he must have the same policy as Wikipedia has for allowing edits: all edits must be accompanied by legitimate sources.”

That is my question: What methodology will he follow to qualify an entry as ‘legitimate’? Based on what criteria?

That is total BS. Wikipedia is the most accurate information source on the planet, being even more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica (which not just anyone can edit). That feat could not have happened if anyone was allowed to edit an entry WITHOUT RESERVATION, but that isn’t the case with Wikipedia. While anyone COULD edit an entry, not everyone can edit entries that will be accepted. The key is that all edits must meet certain minimum criteria, namely that they must be accompanied by legitimate sources

If Greenewald wants to ensure accuracy as good as Wikipedia has, he must have the same policy as Wikipedia has for allowing edits: all edits must be accompanied by legitimate sources.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction

Ironically that is both the strongest and weakest aspect of Wikipedia: that anyone can go and edit an entry.

So how will the Black Vault be moderated, since agreement between dissenting voices has never been a strong trait among Ufologists?