Look, I know a lot of big news has happened in the last few days but 6b still has my interest…
Looking at the latest updates to the article on the Specimen/6b/the shroom - Theo Clement is suddenly praised an awful lot in this new edit! Praise from the Guardian, changing ‘claims’ to ‘findings’, even a few digs at Rowan Xu…! Plus making it sound like the EHE closed, not that it was because Zhupao had pulled funding. I bet he’s making these edits himself.
Certainly! What confounds me even more, is their seeming “confirmation” of 6b’s sentience and ability to communicate, without telling us about anything the has said. Furthermore, it is a rather badly edited article all things considered, very little citations, wasn’t Hsiung supposed to put his final stamp of approval on each of these articles?!
I agree, Clements could very well have made these updates. There’s a lot of familiarity in the way the name of the specimen has been shortened to “6b” throughout the article, plus the addition of a mere 2 sq. km to its area. Who else would both know that and care enough to make that update? (Other than maybe 6b itself…but that’s an entirely different line of thought.)
What do we even know about Tony Hsiung? I find it strange that the founder of Omnipedia, allegedly, doesn’t have an Omnipedia page. It’s so hard to figure out his angle without more info to dig into.
Aside from the other changes and additions to the article, what especially piqued my interest was that it revealed what the chemical agent poured on 6b was: collocidal. According to the article it was “derived from a popular line of collocidals” and “introduced to 6b at several of its fruiting sites in the Black Forest”, which to me sounds like it was definitely done deliberately and likely by someone(s) who knew exactly what they were trying to achieve.
So… Maybe the mushroom is indeed talking to Clement and someone wants it to stop, so they tried to destroy its colloids?
There is definitely somebody biased editing the specimen 6b article. The thing that seals it for me is that the comment by The Guardian seems to be praise, but the actual cited article is “The Clement-Xu debate highlighted everything wrong with academia.” That just screams “taken out of context” to me.
Do we even know if there are actual human editors behind this site? Omnipedia’s page says it’s “a select community of human and artificial intelligence (AI) contributors” - would they really be looking for input from Toadstool Theo?
Who else would both know that and care enough to make that update? (Other than maybe 6b itself…but that’s an entirely different line of thought.)
idk if that’s so far fetched… I can’t think of anyone (anything?) else that would have both the motive and the access…
Maybe it was Tony Hsiung and he’s just a big fan of mushrooms.
But in all seriousness, the old version of the article about Omnipedia states that “some of Omnipedia’s human editors are also linked to wealthy donors, taking advantage of Omnipedia’s policy of editorial anonymity”. https://omnipedia.app/wiki/2049/09/28/Omnipedia
In other words, access isn’t a problem. You just need the money.
The thing is, where would Theo Clement have the money from? Either he’s an editor, or he has money (from where?), someone who reaaaaaally likes him is an editor, or someone who reaaaally likes him has a lot of money.
If any of you are secretly Theo Clement please raise your hand.
Hello Omnipedian! As stated in our article, both human and AI contributors add to and review our articles.
Are… are you having an editing war with someone on the platform you founded over a possibly sentient mushroom ?