Usually they focus on debunking creationism and the like, but they also have an article on The Electric Universe that desperately needs to be fleshed out.
HOWEVER, please read the below information before attempting to edit the article.
Some members of the EU community have already tried this in the past, and failed.
The failure is usually because they appear to have planned to convince people using an argument, rather than simply presenting sourced facts and letting people believe whatever they want - this is something we need to remain conscious of at all times, if we want to improve the external image of The Electric Universe hypothesis.
The biggest mistake we can make, is to forcibly change the "tone" of an article.
This is something that will get your wiki edits auto-deleted by the moderators.
Currently, the article categorizes The Electric Universe as "pseudo-science."
I know this is aggravating, but we need to ignore this for the moment and just edit the article to include non-argumentative factual information about the EU hypothesis, without changing any of the disrespectful language that is already in the article.
In fact, mimicking the existing negative/skeptical tone is actually a good idea at this point (IMHO), since it will help our edits to be accepted by the moderators for now, and as the evidence stacks up the tone will start to seem inappropriate to everyone who reads it, and the moderators will eventually be motivated to correct the tone of the article themselves without a fight.
As time moves on, and as we fill the article with non-confrontational and indisputable information, we can gradually convince the moderators to re-categorize EU as "proto-science" - which is both more accurate, and less demeaning to EU.
I've started the process by adding a couple brief paragraphs mentioning Pluto, Comet 67P, and Project SAFIRE, with at least 1 or 2 sourced footnotes/references per sentence, pointing to appropriate pages at ThunderBolts.info and NASA.gov
As I described above, I tried not to make it sound like I was proving anything, and I even mimicked the existing negative tone ever so slightly, but in a way that did not appear to directly compromise the integrity of the statements I was making.
This should help the greater community over at RationalWiki.org to accept the information at face-value, rather than rejecting it immediately without bothering to read about it a little first.
The key is to let the good information outshine the bad tone, thereby giving the moderators a good reason to clean up the tone in the future.
Here's what I've added to the wiki article so far:
With 10 or 20 more blurbs like this, I feel like the negative tone of the article will start to sound childish and ridiculous (as it should), and the raw facts will start to appear legitimate, informative, and noteworthy.EU proponents from The Thunderbolts Project claim to have predicted the natures of Pluto and Comet 67P more accurately than NASA or ESA.[3][4]
The International Science Foundation, a group which claims to neither support nor oppose[5] the Electric Universe hypothesis, has provided $2,200,000 USD to fund an unprecedented laboratory experiment to test the Electric Universe claims regarding the nature of the sun.[6] The intent is to compare the results of this experiment to the results of NASA's Solar Probe Plus mission[7], and thereby demonstrate whether the EU solar model has any grounding in reality whatsoever.[8]
I'll continue to try and add good information to this wiki article, but a group effort could speed the process up considerably.
What other good tidbits do you think we could add to this wiki article without sparking fights with the mainstream?