Talk:Erowid

Untitled

recently added the advert tags, then figured I'd try and edit the article myself because it wasn't that bad to begin with. I removed the tags because I think it has better balance now. Testerer 04:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Site down

Erowid.org has been down for moths now. This deserves a mention in the article and, if anyone has one, an explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.38.166.14 (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Site is not down they recently changed server —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.240.61.143 (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement template added

To me, phrases like "The information on the site is a compilation of the experiences, words, and efforts of thousands of individuals including users, parents, health professionals, doctors", "The site does not shy away from presenting the positive side of recreational drug use in addition to the negative, and recommends a certain level of safety and responsibility for users" and "An appealing aspect of Erowid is that anyone, whether a member or not..." are nothing but advertising. /SvNH 00:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of that wording I can see as advertising. The first phrase you give is not an advertisement as that is what the site is. You are allowed to fix this stuff btw. Acidskater 00:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that this article is written more like a press release then an encyclopedic article, but it still is not necessarily a blatant advertisement, but is still overly promotional in tone, so I added the Newsrelease template instead. I do not currently have time to do the task of re-writing the article to read in a NPOV manor, but until someone else does I think the template needs to stay. CrazyRob926 (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree that the article is not totally an advertisement, but there is evidence of self-promotion here and there. It is also poorly written, with some very strange sentence structure at times (hints of "yoda speak", with words not appearing in places where you'd expect). Dr. Cash (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is time to remove the tag. 145.120.1.100 (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I went through it, chopping liberally in places, cautiously in others. Please review and comment. MatthewBurton (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

IMHO the tag no longer applies. It should be removed. Lou Sander (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent conversation) MatthewBurton did a nice job rewriting the open paragraphs and I concur that the tag is no longer needed. I will remove now - anyone who continues to object, please note it here and let's talk about what you feel needs doing. What I see as the article's main problem going forward is still references; many of the ones currently cited point to Erowid's own website. It would be decidedly preferable if those references pointed to independent third party sources. A Train^talk 12:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Name

What does "erowid" mean? 190.41.69.240 (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Erowid doesn't have one specific meaning, as the root words can be percieved in different ways however see FAQ: The Etymology of Erowid (Erowid.org) for in depth clarification.--Astavats (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an anagram for wierdo.24.172.113.130 (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Dean Edell

Erowid has received numerous people writing in saying "hey, I heard Dean Edell recommend Erowid", but we have been singularly unable to find recordings or other documentation to confirm this. If anyone has any ideas about how to confirm this for the 'citation needed', feel encouraged to let us know at erowid or post it here :] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthowid (talk • contribs) 04:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Unknown approprriate headline (prematurely decided upon "Neutrality")

Note: From this sentence onwards, I'm dropping the prententious politeness and feigned natural intellectual advancement that hangs upon the most of the westen world, and Wikipedia editors especially.

Basically, I've seen that people here are pretty pissed that this article seems to paint erowid in a positive light, rather than being fully down the line and not backing any side of the argument. I understand where this shit is coming from, but I'd like to propose this is wrong. At the end of the day, wikipedia is trying to record the facts, and the fact is pretty fucking plain, that erowid is pretty fucking fair. People try and discredit this site, because it has information which isn't an automatic discredit of "Drugs!", but I feel it hasn't dawned on anyone (atleast on a undefiable, concious level) that the article may reflect this because it's the truth?

Neutrality is a big part of wikipedia, but neutraility (atleast in my interpretation) doesn't mean sitting on the fence, it means an affirmitive fact based upon TRUTHS (rather than opinions). There is not definitive point to this post (I apologise, my pretention has creeped back in...I never use words such as definitive in my true form, this apology is in itself pretenious)m but I think it would be a useful thing to read for all potential editors of this page. Asta la Vista (the part of me who cares about the world feels compelled to tell you I recognise that the spelling preceeding this is most likely incorrect).

If I am not misunderstanding your point, then I think you are unclear on the Wikipedia neutrality concept. WP: NPOV isn't a attempt to please everyone, as from what I understood you might believe it is about. It's intended to devoid the article(s) of subjectivity, personal opinions, and bias. We can't just write "Erowid is fair" just because you assume it to be a fact. In the same respect, another user cannot state "Erowid is unfair" just because they assume it be fact. In order to keep neutrality, claims that are, or could be challenged are supported with references from reliable sources. Wikipedia should not present Erowid positively, or negatively. If I have misunderstood you, please clarify. And just because people are polite does not mean they are being pretentious. Best regards.--Astavats (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Erowid is as fair and unbiased as an informational website could be. As the guy said above, most people would automatically be biased against it just because the info therein does not scream "OMG!!! DRUGS!!!". Rather it tells the complete truth. Has real info of real documented facts resulting from the use of various drugs, many of which contradict popular belief ("marijuana kills brain cells" being a prime example). Erowid speaks the truth in a near truthless world, full of lies, deceptions, and falsehoods.--Metalhead94 (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed the point; its not about whether Erowid is fair or unfair, its that the _article_ should attempt to maintain a neutral point-of-view towards the subject -- which in this case is "Erowid".

Biased section?

"The accessibility of correct information as well as the general populous possessing the potential to increase its knowledgeability by its own means is frowned upon by the public school establishment." --- I beg your pardon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.249.52 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is Erowid.org?

The website seems to have disappeared!Memyme11 (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Websites do that. It's probably just unscheduled/unannounced maintenance. 74.178.200.239 (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"Fire" and "Earth"?

These two individuals have been cited repeatedly by pseudonym; at the same time, we're told fairly specific information, including that they work as public-speakers, and maintain a foundation, and so on. Is it wrong to demand that we get some names, here? If their anonymity was crucial to them avoiding imprisonment or other censure, I seriously doubt they'd be making themselves available as public-speakers -- and those donations go *somewhere* -- so who the hell are "Earth Erowid" and "Fire Erowid"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.152.160 (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Erowid - uniformed, perhaps intentional misinformation campaign

As far as I can tell, Erowid uses no sources in his information and is leading a misinformation campaign. For example, when I looked up 'marijuana trade funds terrorism', a link to his page popped up, simply stating "no, it isn't. terrorism is funded by the US government and gasoline sales", which is a completely random conspiracy theory. Apparently he thinks that buying drugs from the Columbian Cartels doesn't fund them as much as... gasoline sales?! I mean, really. If he had half a brain he could just look up and see that most of the marijuana trade comes from Columbia. Hes misleading by telling people its okay to buy (directly or indirectly) from the worst terrorist organizations on the earth. Even organizations that support illicit drug use say that their illegal trade directly supports terrorism. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42/071.html; http://www.cfdp.ca/terror.htm#tlb1 --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You accuse someone else of not even having half a brain? :D I've never seen any cannabis (or as you call it "marijuana") that comes from Colombia... either here in the UK or anywhere else in my travels. Maybe in the US it's available, but not around most of the world. Go to a Dutch coffeeshop and ask for Colombian weed/hash and prepare to be laughed at! Are you sure you're not thinking of cocaine? You're right that buying illegal drugs can fund terrorist groups; but it can also fund the CIA, see CIA drug trafficking and CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US. Still, I'd be interested to see the part that says "it's okay to buy from the worst terrorists", because I've looked at the article you mention, and can't find it. 82.153.105.106 (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Colombia was the US's main supplier of Marijuana from the get-go (Illegal drug trade in Colombia), and Erowid said in that article that it was okay to buy Marijuana as it "has no known terrorist links". He, therefore, provided misinformation that may have led to the funding of Colombian Cartel groups who regularly conduct and fund terrorist activities. I understand that you're upset about being called a funder of terrorists. Perhaps you should should stop engaging in activities which might be illegal in your area - activities which, therefore, would have a high likelihood of being attached to terrorist, but certainly criminal groups. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

IronMaidenRocks seems to be unaware of the fact that a significant portion of marijuana in the US is locally-grown (often by individuals completely unaffiliated with terrorists, gangs, or other "criminal groups"). The crops grown for dispensaries in states where it is legal may indeed be Colombian, but I have no sources to assert that claim.72.94.21.217 (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Erowid as a source?

Is there any discussion or concensus on using Erowid as a source in wikipedia? --Custoo (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering this too. There are over 1500 links to it, currently (according to Special:Linksearch), so it appears to be widely accepted. I'll see if I can dig up any discusions. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are the discussions in the Wikipedia namespace that I found:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Archive_1#WP:RS.3F (2007) -- vague question about whether the Erowid Expierence Vaults are WP:RS's; consensus was they weren't.
• Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_21#Erowid_as_an_external_link -> Talk:Mitragyna_speciosa/Archive_1#External_links.2C_and_references (2008) -- discussion of whether Erowid satisfies the WP:EL policy; various justifications of why it does.
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Archive_3#Upgrades_to_project -- mention of trying to discourage links to Erowid in favor of unspecified "far better citations".
• Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example edits for different methods -- Uses a Erowid link in a citation to a journal. The link is to full-text, and works, but does not seem to be linked from the corosponding abstract page on erowid. Odd, that.
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Non-medical_use_of_dextromethorphan -- Some discussions of Erowid's status as a WP:RS, but the focus is on the article, which, while based on a source hosted at Erowid, was not itself that related to Erowid.
• Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2007_April_5#Credibility_of_references -- One user, answering a question, stating that they consider Erowid "pretty reliable".
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_141#Erowid_a_reliable_source_about_drugs_or_not.3F (2013) -- a discussion, with input both for and against, and a link to a previous discussion (for which, see below).
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_138#Erowid (2012) -- a generally negative discussion of the reliability of Erowid.

All the other entries in the Wikipedia namespace seem to be trivial mentions. Hope this is helpful! JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

New Yorker article

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/the-trip-planners
The Trip Planners: The unusual couple behind an online encyclopedia of psychoactive substances.
By Emily Witt
The New Yorker
November 23, 2015
--Nbauman (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Fan page

This article reads like a fan page. Adamsjrcn (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)