I love the idea of an accurate Cryptid Wiki with sources, references and footnotes. I also love the concept of skeptical viewpoints and evidence. However, if you have read many cryptid books, you would know that accuracy is extremely difficult in a pseudoscience. Trying to find complete accuracy in cryptozoology is like trying to find complete accuracy in religion, which is unfortunately not possible. It is for this reason that a main/major Cryptid Wiki could not function as there so much is speculation and pseudoscience in cryptozoology. However, I love the idea of a Skeptical Cryptid Wiki or a Speculative Cryptid Wiki. True speculative/skeptical cryptozoology is not mainstream cryptozoology and is usually followed by cryptozoologists such as Grover Krantz and Darren Naish, who are scientists that specialize in paleontology. I have read several books on this subject from Darren Naish, who is a British vertebrate palaeontologist and science writer. He provides speculative evolution for a variety of cryptids as well as detailed skeptical analysis. I have read many of these books and would love to contribute to a Speculative Cryptid Wiki that focuses on the more scientific elements of cryptozoology. I noticed that you do not have any content regarding the sightings of cryptids. I have books with sightings that I would love to use as sources. The books also contain sources, such as newspaper articles. The amount of content this method brings may be less, due to the reliability of sightings, but I think a "grown-up" wiki would be interesting to work on. Let me know if you need any help, I would love to contribute to a source based wiki. I appreciate all of the great contributions you have made to Cryptid Wiki. Your presence has made Cryptid Wiki increase so much in quality and I would like to thank you for your edits. To make a science based replacement for an unreliable sightings based pseudoscience is not practical and limits the range of crytids investigated. However, I would love to help you make a speculative and skeptical version. I would love to help on this interesting project. :)
- Firstly, thank you for sending me this message. Wikia has a nasty habit of wiping wikis with only one editor on it so this site would have most certainly disappeared if not for your words.
- When I say 'accurate', I mean 'precise'. For example, if there were different reported measurements of a specific cryptid, I'd use either the mean measurement or the modal measurement rather than resort to the classic 'it's an inter-dimensional shapeshifter' rhetoric that I've had from fanatical cryptozoologists time and time again. This is not meant to be a scientific wiki - pseudoscience is the antithesis of science after all - but it's still meant to be truthful, in an incredibly loose sense.
- For example, look at the Pamba article on cryptidz.wikia. It states that the cryptid was "capable of swallowing a boat and its entire crew" - how big is this boat? A crew of what size? This is what I'm trying to avoid. In this wiki's article about the same cryptid, I have used your wiki as a reference but I've also had to include verifiability tags within the article because of how broad the description is. Are we talking about a boat the size of a yacht or, alternatively, the size of a canoe? Even then, other sources that I cited claim that the cryptid is merely a 6" lates perch so I can only question the validity of the description on the other wiki.
- I personally have loads of recorded sightings in my possession; it's just a case of finding the time to fill in the gaps. I'm currently trying to save up my money to purchase a >700 page long book about cryptids so I will try to use the information from it once it becomes available.
- Nonetheless, if you want to contribute to the wiki, you are more than free to do so. :) -- Lythronax (leave a message) 13:21, April 17, 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd love to be a part of this. I made that response along time ago, but I definitely think this is a great idea.