WUWT reader Dennis Kuzara wrote to Wikipedia in response to our earlier article on Wikibullies prompted by Lawrence Solomon of the National Post. He has received an eye-opening reply. Emphasis mine – Anthony
=================
Wikipedia replies
notable excerpt:
> > 4. Has William Connolley been removed as a Wikipedia administrator? If so who has taken his place?
In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. This has now been added to his article
().
Nobody has replaced him specifically, but there are more than a thousand other administrators with very varied backgrounds.
Reply follows:
Dear Dennis Kuzara,
Thank you for your email.
12/20/2009 05:31 – Dennis Kuzara wrote:
> > Pierre
> >
> > I understand there several processes and procedures intended to prevent
> > someone from taking control of a segment of Wikipedia for their own benefit. I
> > also understand that Wikipedia is huge and therefore cannot be micromanaged
> > from the top, which is why the procedures and controls are in place.
> >
> > What happened in this case was a successful conspiracy to take command of
> > information (and history) by a not-so small group of co-conspirators, a la
> > 1984, to serve their own means and ends.This is not a flash in the pan, but a
> > long term (over a decade) coordinated effort to literally rewrite history. As
> > you stated, Wikipedia … normally takes no stance in disputes about Wikipedia
> > content or administration, but this situation is far from normal by anyones
> > measure.
> >
> > I think the Wikipedia concept has enormous benefits and Wikipedia is usually
> > the first place I look when I need information. My greatest concern is the
> > damage to Wikipedia’s credibility by something as massive as what was
> > orchestrated by William Connolley and his band of cohorts. I think it would be
> > prudent for Wikipedia to be proactive on this matter, if for no other reason
> > than for damage control.
> >
> > So, actually, your (apparently off the shelf) reply does not answer my
> > question.
> >
> > Let’s break it down into several parts:
> > 1. Is the management at Wikipedia aware of the biased and dictatorial
> > Wikipedia administration by William Connolley?
I’m not Foundation management, just an editor and volunteer who answers customer
e-mail, but my understanding is that while Foundation staff are probably aware of
this and other controversies, they leave their resolution to the community of
editors and its procedures.
> > 2. Is there any internal investigation being undertaken to verify the extent
> > and the scope of this apparent hijacking of process.
What you refer to as a “hijacking of process” is, as far as I can tell, an
entirely normal (for me) series of disagreements about article content. Thousands
of such disagreements occur every day on Wikipedia, and they are normally resolved
through our discussion-based dispute resolution process, as explained at
. This process may ultimately lead to
an Arbitration Committee investigation.
> > 3. What, if any steps are being taken to correct the bias injected into the
> > 5,428 articles authored or edited by William Connolley?
Wikipedia’s content is not centrally edited. Anybody may make any change to
Wikipedia, including undoing an edit by Mr. Connolley. But that change may be
undone in turn if others disagree, and any dispute has to be resolved through
discussion until a consensus is found. This is explained at
.
> > 4. Has William Connolley been removed as a Wikipedia administrator? If so who
> > has taken his place?
In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s
administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges
while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. This has now been added
to his article
().
Nobody has replaced him specifically, but there are more than a thousand other
administrators with very varied backgrounds.
> > 5. Would it be prudent in this case to now have an administrator who is
> > biased against AGW but closely monitored until this situation is fleshed out?
Administrators are elected by the Wikipedia community, and require a supermajority
of about 70% for election. The community prefers to elect administrators who
display no bias in any respect, but are committed to upholding Wikipedia’s
principle of “neutral point of view” ().
> > 5. If the current controls failed in this situation (a successful coordinated
> > attack by a group), then what steps are being taken to change the procedures
> > and processes to keep such usurpation from happening in the future?
Should the community conclude that its processes were indeed subverted by anybody
(and I am not aware of any such consensus emerging currently), it may decide to
change its policies, as explained at
.
Yours sincerely,
Pierre Grés
– Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org — Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
| D L Kuzara |
Submitted on 2009/12/19 at 11:36pm
Wikipedia replies notable excerpt: > > 4. Has William Connolley been removed as a Wikipedia administrator? If so who has taken his place? In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. This has now been added to his article (). Nobody has replaced him specifically, but there are more than a thousand other administrators with very varied backgrounds. Reply follows: Dear Dennis Kuzara, Thank you for your email. 12/20/2009 05:31 – Dennis Kuzara wrote: > > Pierre > > > > I understand there several processes and procedures intended to prevent > > someone from taking control of a segment of Wikipedia for their own benefit. I > > also understand that Wikipedia is huge and therefore cannot be micromanaged > > from the top, which is why the procedures and controls are in place. > > > > What happened in this case was a successful conspiracy to take command of > > information (and history) by a not-so small group of co-conspirators, a la > > 1984, to serve their own means and ends.This is not a flash in the pan, but a > > long term (over a decade) coordinated effort to literally rewrite history. As > > you stated, Wikipedia … normally takes no stance in disputes about Wikipedia > > content or administration, but this situation is far from normal by anyones > > measure. > > > > I think the Wikipedia concept has enormous benefits and Wikipedia is usually > > the first place I look when I need information. My greatest concern is the > > damage to Wikipedia’s credibility by something as massive as what was > > orchestrated by William Connolley and his band of cohorts. I think it would be > > prudent for Wikipedia to be proactive on this matter, if for no other reason > > than for damage control. > > > > So, actually, your (apparently off the shelf) reply does not answer my > > question. > > > > Let’s break it down into several parts: > > 1. Is the management at Wikipedia aware of the biased and dictatorial > > Wikipedia administration by William Connolley? I’m not Foundation management, just an editor and volunteer who answers customer e-mail, but my understanding is that while Foundation staff are probably aware of this and other controversies, they leave their resolution to the community of editors and its procedures. > > 2. Is there any internal investigation being undertaken to verify the extent > > and the scope of this apparent hijacking of process. What you refer to as a “hijacking of process” is, as far as I can tell, an entirely normal (for me) series of disagreements about article content. Thousands of such disagreements occur every day on Wikipedia, and they are normally resolved through our discussion-based dispute resolution process, as explained at . This process may ultimately lead to an Arbitration Committee investigation. > > 3. What, if any steps are being taken to correct the bias injected into the > > 5,428 articles authored or edited by William Connolley? Wikipedia’s content is not centrally edited. Anybody may make any change to Wikipedia, including undoing an edit by Mr. Connolley. But that change may be undone in turn if others disagree, and any dispute has to be resolved through discussion until a consensus is found. This is explained at . > > 4. Has William Connolley been removed as a Wikipedia administrator? If so who > > has taken his place? In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. This has now been added to his article (). Nobody has replaced him specifically, but there are more than a thousand other administrators with very varied backgrounds. > > 5. Would it be prudent in this case to now have an administrator who is > > biased against AGW but closely monitored until this situation is fleshed out? Administrators are elected by the Wikipedia community, and require a supermajority of about 70% for election. The community prefers to elect administrators who display no bias in any respect, but are committed to upholding Wikipedia’s principle of “neutral point of view” (). > > 5. If the current controls failed in this situation (a successful coordinated > > attack by a group), then what steps are being taken to change the procedures > > and processes to keep such usurpation from happening in the future? Should the community conclude that its processes were indeed subverted by anybody (and I am not aware of any such consensus emerging currently), it may decide to change its policies, as explained at . Yours sincerely, Pierre Grés – Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org — Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org |
Sponsored IT training links:
Need help for HP0-J38 certification? Download 70-450 products to guarantee pass your 1Y0-A09 exam.
This is amazing.
I wouldn’t break out the champagne just yet. William Connelly ran for a seat on the Arbitration Committee.
Current results here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ACE2009
It looks like he won’t make the nine member cut, but with Wiki, who the heck knows for sure…
Wow, it’s amazing. Moreover, the irony is kind of obvious.
99.9% of his bullying and intimidation was related to articles about “climate warming.” They were probably the “desired ones” so at the end, he had to be sacked for a different topic – where he only applied his new self-confidence obtained by the Wikipedia establishment’s tolerance towards his gangster behavior towards the editors of “climate warming” articles.
By the way, once this particular dinosaur is gone, I think it could be sensible to try to correct the most obvious biases and mistakes in Wikipedia’s climate articles.
There are lots of smart and educated WUWT readers who read this thread. Create a Wikipedia account if you don’t have one yet and try to peacefully and constructively edit articles about global warming, hockey stick, and lots of other things.
It may be that you won’t be treated as a Jew in Germany of the early 1940s this time.
woohoo, score one for the good guys 🙂
What is to stop Connolly using another ID and IP address to continue administering climate articles?
Perhaps he already has several aliases which he’s been using in tandem.
‘The community prefers to elect administrators who
display no bias in any respect,’
Good luck with that.
The point is that hundreds of entries related to global warming are still hopelessly biased. Most of the sceptics are still described as Big Oil stooges or raving lunatics. Instead of one corrupt editor we now have hundreds of even more corrupt petty dictators.
Well my edit on mann`s hocky stick lasted all of half an hour 🙂
Reason for deletion, blog nonsense pov and was done by chriso, so another one steps in were the other has fallen.
I’m sure I’m only one of many, but I emailed wikipedia recently about their donations campaign saying I woud happily donate once the bias was removed from the global warming section.
Just fix it (Climate change Wikipedia) with the truth no pro or anti AGW bias. Just based on the RAW data (when we get it!). It has to be said that both RC and Stoat Connoley web sites are now allowing unbrindled criticism.. a good start for a future in long term forecasting.
It seems that the Wikipedia “Climate Change” page has now been completely changed! All Hadcrut data deleted, hockey stick gone etc… a good start.
Stop whinging and get editing.
Sheesh!
I just read through the arbitration page on Connolley’s case over at Wikipedia. The verdict? There all nuts.
It also says that Connolley can apply for reinstatement as an administrator at any time. I think Wikipedia ought to have a clear policy of editors not being allowed to edit articles on subjects for which they are advocates. And despite RC and its contributors claiming they are just scientists explaining the science, I think any dispassionate observer would have to conclude that they’ve crossed over the line to become advocates.
OT – haven’t scanned the rest of the Sundays yet, but an excellent piece by Gerald Warner on Copehagen, carbon trading and climategate in Scotland on Sunday:
“Finally, the great climate change lie begins to unravel”
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/sos-news-columnists/Gerald-Warner-Finally-the-great.5926323.jp
But I am sure that the BBC, the Guardian, Independent (and sadly the Glasgow Herald which usually takes a different view from the London hegemony), will still be on message.
I know Anthony has a bias against certain skeptics, namely one that many of us (his readers) want to name the current Solar Grand Minimum after. I joined Wiki to help flesh out Ted’s ‘stub’ and discovered Bill Connolley trolling about. He apparently met Landscheidt and didn’t like him either. He was actively trying to delete it saying he was insignificant and not noteworthy enough for an entry. The version twisted by Bill version remains. I did manage to sneek a bit of fun stuff at the end of a blatantly wrong article about the Western Antarctic related to satelite data which remained there for about 3 months before being wiped. After that bit of fun I’ve grown tired of the idea of doing all that work to put up on a place like Wiki. I still think there is a need to look (paint a picture in simple terms) of solar forcing of the climate from a broad paleo level to the Milankovitch Cycle to the ‘Jose Cycle’ to the Hale Cycle … I had a rudimentary post that was evolving on this but I shut down my site. (Mostly because I would rather browse my fave sites like this one) Maybe with William Connolley gone I could put it on Wiki 😀 He was just one of the team of warmist gate keepers on Wiki and I don’t know if I want to find out who has taken over.
Just take a look at this little incestuous page on realclimate.org …
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki
bananabender (00:15:19) :
You may well be right, but I smell a lot of media outlets of all sorts doing a great deal of cya activity. I suspect that Climategate (and what may well be as yet undisclosed further revelations from Climategate) is having a big influence in all sorts of areas. Colour me optimistic if you like, but I think the tide is turning
In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s
administrator status…
So what? He’s made 50 contributions to Wikipedia from Dec 17 to Dec 20, or the last three days or so. Mr Connolley has remained very active, despite revocation of his official status. The point is that while Wikipedia is wonderful for -say- Faraday’s experiments or definition of an eigenvector, it simply cannot be trusted for anything controversial – which unfortunately includes “climate science” at least so long as climate “scientists” persist in playing climate politics.
I asked today on email if there was any truth in the allegations in the National Post. What was Wikipedia’s side of the story?
I received a prompt and very courteous response from Pierre at Wikipedia with similar information to the above:
==== email from Wikipedia ==========
Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia (as explained at ), and so anyone may edit its articles. Its policy, nonetheless, is that articles must be written from a Neutral Point of View, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias, as is discussed extensively at .
However, all matters relating to article content and project administration are
not controlled by a central authority, but are decided through discussion and
consensus of all collaborators. The nonprofit Wikipedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, does not intervene in the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia, does not make decisions about the content of articles or about administrative actions, and normally takes no stance in disputes about Wikipedia content or administration.
There are several tens of thousands of contributors and more than a thousand
administrators on the English Wikipedia alone, which normally ensures that no single editor or administrator can exert a commanding influence over the project or any particular aspect of it. There are also often disputes about content or administrative policy, but Wikipedia has solid procedures to resolve disputes and to make sure that every contested action, including the deletion of articles or the blocking of contributors, is subject to review in a community discussion or by an independent Arbitration Committee
().
In September 2009, the Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to global warming. This has now been added to the Wikipedia article about him
().
I hope that this addresses your concern.
===== end of email from Wikipedia ==========
That does satisfy my concern about the story. Of course, Wikipedia is always going to struggle to do a great job on very controversial subjects, but perhaps in the real spirit of Wikipedia – the crowd-sourcing model – it might still be better than what would be found in a traditional encyclopedia.
So, for those who have knowledge and expertise in a subject related to climate, why not go ahead and create some material.
If the gatekeeper is gone, the crowd-sourcing model might be freed up.
Steve
http://scienceofdoom.com
Sorry – that last comment was intended to include a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=William_M._Connolley
As an apologist you have to consider giving these guys a way out.. after all they were eminent scientist at some time.
I am not impressed with the response from Wikipedia.
While they refuse to publish the academic achievements of scientists who dispute the AGW doctrine they make themselves unworthy of attention.
Unfortunately Wikipedia is known as very left wing, and very biased on a great deal of topics (not to mention often-times factually inaccurate). Although this climate issue isn’t my particular field, I’ve faced the exact same aggressive editing when balancing evolution/atheism/religion articles. Most of my edits are extremely well sourced and authoritative, yet rapidly removed because it disturbs the otherwise streamlined propaganda that forms the opinions of millions.
Sorry, I’m wandering OT. My point is that, as others have said, while one propagandist is removed, there are many others that will move in to fill the gap. Bottom line to any casual readers here: if you want the truth on any “hot” issue (pun intended) don’t go near Wiki.
“In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. This has now been added to his article
().”
I don’t see where this was added to Connolley’s Wikipedia article.
The fundamental flaw of Wikipedia is the same as one in the modern process of “peer review.”
I grew up in the Soviet Union, where any publication was allowed only if it faithfully adhered to the current party line. Encyclopedias, including the scientific ones, referred to the previously approved publications only, and, therefore, they too toed the party line.
Any feedback could flow only through this closed evil short circuit. Conformist insiders thrived in government scientific institutes; “skeptics” and “deniers” did hard physical labor in prison camps, died in penalty battalions in Afghanistan, or perished in special “mental hospitals” for dissidents.
Today we live, in more than one sense, in a Global Soviet Union, where no conclusion, no matter how well justified by the logic or experimental results, is allowed to be published in “peer-reviewed” scientific journals if it is regarded as “unwanted” by the clique of mutually supporting, ideologically biased (and, in the final analysis, financially motivated) editors.
Green alarmism is an incredibly convenient ideology for the crooks in power. Not only it justifies their financial and legal abuses, it gives them an opportunity to use fear and guilt – two most efficient tools of manipulation – on the massive, global scale.
They know very well that most human beings value their status, comfort, and safety much more than some abstract notions of “truth” or “scientific facts.” By financing science, plutocrats receive “scientific” results made to their order: scientists are mere humans, and such is human nature.
It is amazing that lawmaking thieves still allow a relatively free worldwide access to some unbiased opinions and uncensored facts via Internet. I am sure they are working fast and furious on closing this dangerous loophole. Yahoo and Google are already cooperating. Soon they will introduce information filters – first under the innocent pretext of “protecting minors from pornography,” and later, quietly, expanding these filters to the matters of real ideological importance.
Do you think people like Rev. Jeremiah Write and his faithful acolyte of 20 years, Barack Obama, will ever let up? They are full of passionate, righteous hatred, and seriously bent on destroying the very foundations of the free society. Overt socialist slogans being out of fashion, green propaganda is their best chance of success.
[snip, ended over the top ~ ctm]