William Connolley and Wikipedia: Turborevisionism

UPDATE2: There’s now some question about who is who regarding the editing of the Connolley page at Wikipedia.One of the problems with Wikipedia is the use of handles. In the messages sent to me seen below, it appears that they came from William Connolley via the Wikipedia message system, but can’t be sure since the identity of the people who have handles and are involved in active editing aren’t known it appears not to be the case.  This is one of the central problems with Wikipedia- anonymous editing lends to the confusion. While it is clear that Mr. Connolley has in fact edited his own page in the past, I have removed a reference to self editing in the current time frame because of the uncertainty he did not do so recently. My apologies for the confusion.  – Anthony

======

People send me things. Here’s a story about a thread of recent exchanges that appeared in Wikipedia in the “talk” section regarding William Connolley’s page. This incident highlights the shape shifting nature of the information presented on Wikipedia, and how it is subject to the whims of ego and agenda. With information changing character literally in minutes, how could anyone treat Wikipedia as a reliable reference? I’ll coin a new word and call this “turborevisionism” due to the speed, sound, and fury it characterizes.

Consider the “Neutral Point of View” required by Wikipedia policy:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

The editor who takes issue with this event writes:

On Sunday night, I went to the William Connolley wiki page and entered:

Additional criticism appeared on December 19, 2009, in nationalpost.com, as “How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.” This alleges that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

That disappeared within an hour (maybe less); I reinserted it.  On Monday night, checked again: text gone.  I wished to re-enter it, but the [edit] facility was totally missing from the wiki page.  Hardly ever saw that before.

Found a msg from Connolley directly to me:

William Connolley I’m the original author of the paragraph at William Connolley that deals with the Lawrence Solomon article of December 2009. I note you inserted some specific detail that I acutally removed, as I believed it only caused confusion between opinion and fact, and isn’t really necessary, anyway. I don’t want to add any more reverts to that already poorly abused article, so I’m urging you to reconsider your addition of the detail. Cheers. –Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

___________________________________________

Date: Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:53 PM

Wikipedia activity

In 2005, an article in the scientific journal Nature compared the reliability of Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. It discussed Connolley as an example of an expert who regularly contributes to Wikipedia.[8]

A July 2006 article in The New Yorker reported that Connolley briefly became “a victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming”, in which a skeptic repeatedly “watered down” the article’s explanation of the greenhouse effect.[9] The skeptic later brought the case before Wikipedia’s arbitration committee, claiming that Connolley was pushing his own point of view in the article by removing material with opposing viewpoints. The arbitration committee imposed a “humiliating one-revert-a-day” editing restriction on Connolley. Wikipedia “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about”, Connolley told The New Yorker.[9] The restriction was later revoked, and Connolley went on to serve as a Wikipedia administrator from January 2006 until 13 September 2009.[9]

An October 2006 article in Nature contrasted the Citizendium online encyclopedia project, which makes a point of recruiting experts from academia, with Wikipedia. It quoted Connolley as saying that “some scientists have become frustrated with Wikipedia”, but that “conflict can sometimes result in better articles”.[10]

___________________________________________

Just appeared in wiki (by Mason):

Additional criticism appeared on December 19, 2009, in nationalpost.com, as “How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.” This alleges that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

__________________________________________

Instantly changed to:

An October 2006 article in Nature contrasted the Citizendium online encyclopedia project, which makes a point of recruiting experts from academia, with Wikipedia. It quoted Connolley as saying that “some scientists have become frustrated with Wikipedia”, but that “conflict can sometimes result in better articles”.[10]

Mason corx, 2009 XII 21, 12:45 AM & again 12:51 AM:

[[Lawrence Solomon]], on December 19, 2009, penned a piece in the ”[[National Post]]” that accused Connolley of editing Wikipedia and using administrative power in order to subvert opinion that disagreed with his own, linking the supposed activity to the [[Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident|Climategate scandal]].<ref>{{Citation| last=Solomon| first=Lawrence| author-link=Lawrence Solomon| title=Wikipedia’s climate doctor| newspaper=National Post| date=December 19, 2009| url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx| accessdate=December 19, 2009}}</ref>  The specific allegation was,”How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles,”  claiming that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

__________________________

2009 XII 21 midnight: txt missing again. Mason want to re-inserts txt, cannot because the facility  [edit] is now missing :

[[Lawrence Solomon]], on December 19, 2009, penned a piece in the ”[[National Post]]” that accused Connolley of editing Wikipedia and using administrative power in order to subvert opinion that disagreed with his own, linking the supposed activity to the [[Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident|Climategate scandal]].<ref>{{Citation| last=Solomon| first=Lawrence| author-link=Lawrence Solomon| title=Wikipedia’s climate doctor| newspaper=National Post| date=December 19, 2009| url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx| accessdate=December 19, 2009}}</ref>  The specific allegation was,”How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles,”  claiming that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

_____________________________________

Msg from William Connolley to Mason, 2009 XII 22:

William Connolley

I’m the original author of the paragraph at William Connolley that deals with the Lawrence Solomon article of December 2009. I note you inserted some specific detail that I acutally removed, as I believed it only caused confusion between opinion and fact, and isn’t really necessary, anyway. I don’t want to add any more reverts to that already poorly abused article, so I’m urging you to reconsider your addition of the detail. Cheers. –Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

About these ads
This entry was posted in media. Bookmark the permalink.

146 Responses to William Connolley and Wikipedia: Turborevisionism

  1. Mike O'Kelly says:

    When you have the best hand, and you’ve placed your bets, you want all the other players to call you. You want everyone to see your cards. You are proud of your hand and your bets and you know you are going to win, so you have nothing to fear from the other players. If the AGW information is so strong, why would Connelly have to edit over 5000 articles and eliminate over 500 more? It’s time for all the cards to be face-up on the table. It’s time for Wikipedia to allow us to look at all the information. This kind of politicized censorship has no place in Wikipedia. Connelly is blight on open science and information sharing.

  2. Kirls says:

    so, basically, their report that he was removed was not true? or, misleading? if he can remove the edit feature from his own page, he still has far too much authority and power there.

  3. Janis B says:

    I don’t get it – what actually indicates user “Ħ MIESIANIACAL” is, in fact, William Connolley himself?

    “William Connolley” preceeding the message seems to be subject; the one who signed it — user “Ħ MIESIANIACAL” — is the one who left it on User “Certayne” talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Certayne

    Other than that – Wiki editing is something not worth wasting your time on. Sooner or later you’ll run into endless obstruction and frustrations with ‘established’ people and procedures that facilitate keeping certain POV in the articles.

  4. DonS says:

    I repeat: Friends don’t let friends read Wikipedia.

  5. Mac says:

    Wikigate?

    Perhaps Revipedia, Disipedia, Propapedia, or Liarpedia is more apt.

    He who edits last has the last word!

  6. SunSword says:

    I have had multiple edits reverted by this bozo. He doesn’t work alone. He has a small “gang” working with him so that he and they can get around the “3 reverts by one person” rule. Main ones are: “Kim D. Petersen”, “Atmoz”, and “Short Brigade Harvester Boris”. They all have blatant bias and apparently communicate with one another to control the articles related in any way to AGW.

    The only way, and I mean the ONLY WAY to counter this is to have a group of long time (not newbie) wikipedia posters focus on a collection of topics. It would have to be done line by line, and each line with a reputable (e.g. non blog) reference. It would have to be done respectfully and focusing only on the science. Furthermore each change would need to be discussed on the associated discussion page. A large enough group — 8 to 10 should do it — would be able to counter their bias within the wikipedia rules. This approach would work under wikipedia rules and would enable changing the current bias.

  7. Frank says:

    What an [snip] this Connolley.

    What can be done to stop this gate keeping? I’ll never view Wikipedia like I used to.

  8. Gary says:

    Bias was recognized a long time ago (early 1990s) in bulletin board discussions about creating the “Inter-pedia” internet encyclopedia. One suggestion was that various groups could post “seals of approval” (a/k/a SOAPs) on articles to let readers know who endorsed the information. The idea didn’t anticipate lightning fast editing and counter-editing by various factions, but it does go some way toward adding a bit of context to information (and opinion) that is hotly contested. Maybe a version of SOAPs could resolve some of this editorial bias problem on Wikipedia. At least readers would know there is disagreement and a link to counter-arguments in detail that they could then follow up.

  9. M Chance says:

    When you say Connelly is editing his “own page” does that mean his wikipedia biography page?

    Hasn’t Wikipedia prevented other personages from doing that? In fact wasn’t there a case of Wikipedia preventing a skeptic from editing in his proper birth date? Was Connelly the editor there, I wonder?

  10. Mark T says:

    I wonder if “Short Brigade Harvester Boris” is our very own Bore-us?

    Mark

  11. Innocentious says:

    Wikipedia is a fine source of information to start a search on some subjects… Like for instance How to build a cob home or the science of wanton burrito fields. Other then that anything that is political, or company in nature is highly suspect and should not be viewed in anything other then skepticism. I am sure if people placed stuff about me on Wikipedia half would be correct but badly colored. Our words have a distinct way of making something seem good or ill and it is fairly easy to defame a company, idea, or individual on Wikipedia now.

    Don’t bother with it it is not a true source of information and it’s day in the sun of glory has all but faded to a foot note in the annals of cyberspace.

  12. wws says:

    You seem to all be making the assumption that the people at the top of Wikipedia should be opposed to what Connelly is doing.

    The evidence I see tells me that they support him and his actions completely. He’s out as editor? Looks like he was reinstated pretty darn fast, and that didn’t happen without help from on high.

    Give up on any hope of “fixing” wikipedia.

  13. kokey says:

    The first time I came across Connolley was a response of him in the talk page over Ozone Depletion. Someone made a valid reference to how long ozone breaks down but Connolley referred him to the FAQ, which didn’t completely invalidate the question. I left the issue at that.

    I also noticed he’s been very active on watering down the Global Cooling entry on Wikipedia . For example I think he’s solely responsible for making it look like only Newsweek had a significant article on it, completely excluding the 1974 article in Time (cover page feature) or even mention of other articles except at the references at the bottom. That Time article even used the phrase ‘global cooling’, probably the first reference to it, which he also doesn’t consider relevant.

    I’ve been wanting to correct both that, as well as add some text about the details of the 1974 CIA memo providing more detail about how seriously the issue was at this stage: http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

    I’m reluctant to do anything like that simply out of fear of Connelly’s rapid reactions.

  14. K says:

    Wikipedia is a good source for facts and leads.

    Just be sure you are going there for facts and not for viewpoints.

    The discovery of Pluto is probably a safe article. But uncritically believing an article about Jimmy Carter’s administration, or Nixon’s, would be madness.

    Connolley seems to be preparing for a career in Journalism. Make the facts what they should be. And obliterate those you dislike.

    I don’t see how Wiki will manage to allow privileged people to amend content and yet be a reliable source for contemporary or disputed material. But that is Wiki’s problem not mine.

  15. Frank says:

    Looking into this in more detail, the National Post article is actually a blog, and blogs are not credible sources in Wikipedia’s policy. That’s probably a good thing, since wikis like SourceWatch can use blogs to smear people [snip].

  16. Steve says:

    WikiGate.

    A friend teaches at CSU Sacramento, Wikipedia has been discredited so many times that citations are not allowed on any classwork papers.
    Those papers are simply not recorded.

    So I say keep in up – Wikipedia is a useless bunch of 1’s and 0’s.

  17. David says:

    Mike, its a sad thing to say, but we have very little chance in the short term of fixing Wikipedia. Most of our people have day jobs and other duties and responsibilities than merely sitting around and editing Wikipedia. While I’d love to see Wikipedia become closer to the ideal for which it stands by eliminating this bias, I’m afraid that, at least in the short term, its going to be nigh-impossible.

  18. Pascvaks says:

    Wikipedia article on “Integrity”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity

    Kind of a “Dots” thing. (Depends On The Situation)

  19. Deadman says:

    James Randi, the famous American skeptic has been bullied by AGW fanatics into recanting earlier sceptical words and accepting the necessity of bowing to superior scientific consensus.

  20. Ben says:

    Wiki’s writeup on Christopher Monckton has a negative, challenging overtone; perhaps indicative of a sore loser biting back in the only way he can – stabbing in the back. I would love to see more fact vs. fact and less fact vs. ad-hominem on wiki.

  21. Brian Williams says:

    I sent the following to donate@wikimedia.org
    Dear Jimmy,

    if you want donations, then you must rigorously enforce the neutrality of your articles, and, in particular, do something about William Connelly.

    I refer you to this article: it contains sufficient other references for you to investigate this person as a political stooge, and, as such, remove his privileges.

    I am just an ordinary guy in the street who assumed scientists were to be trusted until Climategate broke. As I have read more background, I have become convinced that science has become politicized, almost to the extent of Lysenko in post-war Soviet Russia.

    I don’t give a damn whether the earth is warming or cooling. What I do care about are so-called scientists lying and scheming to get their pet theories accepted.

    If we can’t trust scientists, the world is in trouble.

    If we can’t trust Wikipedia, Jimmy, you are in trouble.

  22. Jason says:

    OT sorry for going off topic but I just read Obama made an executive order http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425 this makes Interpol exempt from having to release documents to the American government, you should watch out for any fall out from climategate being put into an Interpol investigation because no FOIA request would legally be able to get it.
    I’m not saying this will happen just thought this was a funny move from Obama.

  23. Ray says:

    In any case, Connelly is in direct conflict of interest regarding AGW articles since in his biography it is stated that he works in climate science to prove that AGW exists. He is paid and gets grants to do just that. This is not science, it’s politics, and he uses Wikipedia to promote his views and only his views. Can’t he not publish in regular Journals and get peer-reviewed? I guess he is another one of the ChickenMann-type and can’t take criticism well.

  24. Ray says:

    What a waste of webspace and bandwidth this Wikipedia. I think Encyclopedia Britannica should take back its rightful space back on the internet.

    Just like they politicized science, they are unable to depoliticize political articles…

  25. Max Hugoson says:

    Wrestling pigs in mud!

    Everyone know that one?

    You get dirty, the pig gets dirty.

    The pig LIKES it!

    I just shorten it to PIGS IN MUD!

  26. @Brian

    I too have emailed donate@wikimedia.org and explained that until they have a strategy in place to deal with situations like this I will not contribute funds.

    I’d suggest more do.

  27. Sandy says:

    Wiki is an excellent resource used intelligently. It would be nice if each article had an untamperable ‘Edits in the Last Year’ number showing so that high numbers showed contentious issues.

  28. Jeremy says:

    Wikipedia’s idea is sound, their implementation is the problem. Social internet media has evolved since Wiki was founded and their structure for article approval has not evolved with it.

    Frankly, they need to implement a more digg-like system than a contributor-editor relationship.

  29. DJ Meredith says:

    We can now say with certainty, and authority, that Wikipedia is simply a censored blog.

  30. AnonyMoose says:

    … A decision from the arbitration committee was three months in coming, after which Connolley was placed on a humiliating one-revert-a-day parole. The punishment was later revoked,…

    The first case was Climate change dispute, where Connolley was placed on parole.
    The second case was Climate change dispute 2, where his parole was removed without discussion and the reporter of the parole violations was punished. The case is full of errors.

  31. kokey says:

    Two things:

    1.) It drives me nuts when people say ‘Wiki’ as short for ‘Wikipedia’. A wiki is a system like Wikipedia, I work on 4 different wikis almost daily, and shortening it like that is like saying cheese instead of cheesecake or Super instead of Superbowl.

    2.) I’m against too much editorial control and restriction on Wikipedia, it’s part of what makes it great. The community should look after it, but I think the problem with these particular articles are that one side has considerable resources in establishing their point of view. I think the best approach is just to put in the best honest approach to correct it to provide a neutral view, and if this becomes difficult raise the issue through the necessary methods. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these topics are going to end up being marked as controversial issues as it escalates. I do believe we need to raise awareness regarding the conflict of interest, especially of people who seem to have a lot of people and help to work on making certain Wikipedia entries appear in a certain way.

  32. rbateman says:

    Wiki has ceased to be what it was intended.
    The only useful information not subject to the censorship belongs under the category of ‘Trivia’.
    Many have given up on it as a creditable reference link.
    It’s just not acceptable any more.

  33. DirkH says:

    I am thinking of an experimental setup here that could be of interest for sociologists. Get about 50 facts from sources considered reliable like peer reviewed journals, NOAA, GISS, whatever. Divide them into two groups based by how much they support or contradict the AGW hypothesis.

    Place them one by one into the according Wikipedia articles. Make sure you do this footnote thingy on wikipedia. One a day, for instance, maybe only on workdays except Fridays.

    Measure the time until each one of them is reverted and by whom. The reason given should not be considered of much interest.

    This way, you get a quantitave measure of biasedness of W. Connolley.

    Repeat this setup once a month to get a longer time series. Maybe we can find out whether he becomes more biased over time, less biassed or his biasedness stays the same. My hypothesis is that we’ll see his biasedness increase until it reaches a “tipping point” where a positive feedback sets in and leads to a phase shift, resulting in unsustainable high levels of biasedness. Maybe – like it is often with fanatics – this leads to a 180 degree turn in his biasedness.

    The best thing about this is that the experiment can be repeated any time with any other biased wikipedia editor.

  34. John Galt says:

    Winston Smith worked as a low-level bureaucrat for the Ministry of Truth. His job was to correct or purge old newspapers, books, magazine articles, etc., of any stories which contradicted the current official history and account of events.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Smith

    Poor Winston Smith! If only Orwell has anticipated electronic media, where the past can be changed as quickly are you can type.

  35. Derek says:

    I would say Wikipedia isn’t even useful for getting the facts since the activitists will post “facts” that aren’t necessarily so and delete “inconvenient truths”. I would use it only as a memory refresher or starting point for an online investigation. I personally poke fun at anyone that tries to use it as an authoritative source.

  36. Wikipedian says:

    If you guys really think Wikipedia is so terrible and non-neutral, register an account and work on fixing it. There are many respected long-standing editors who are AGW skeptics there, and many more who simply opposed to Connolley and his gang’s shenanigans.

    For those who think Connolley’s style is popular on Wikipedia, I suggest you check out the results of an election in which he recently ran:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Results

  37. tarpon says:

    Wikipedia is useless, unless you already know the subject you are searching, then what’s the point?

    Remember 1984 and Newspeak? That’s what Wikipedia is — Newspeak was the official language of Oceania, and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. In the year 1984 there was not as yet anyone who used Newspeak as his sole means of communication, either in speech or writing.

  38. Roger Knights says:

    Gary (09:04:20) :

    “Bias was recognized a long time ago (early 1990s) in bulletin board discussions about creating the “Inter-pedia” internet encyclopedia. One suggestion was that various groups could post “seals of approval” (a/k/a SOAPs) on articles to let readers know who endorsed the information.”

    Great idea!!

    Ray (09:40:21) :

    “In any case, Connelly is in direct conflict of interest regarding AGW articles since in his biography it is stated that he works in climate science to prove that AGW exists. He is paid and gets grants to do just that.”

    Are there gov’t. grants involved? Is he posting on gov’t’. time?

  39. As some of you may be aware, I’ve long believed in the possibility of a skeptics’ own wiki, an accessible space where good scientists and good science here can actually get published with index for easy ref so that even MSM can use it. We still don’t have this. Yet the AGW have RealClimate (index and wiki) and Wikipedia.

    Shen, a poster at Climate Audit, has now set up a MediaWiki platform for “climate science”, Neutralpedia, that I think could, with good handling, become the much-needed skeptics’ platform. Shen had intended to develop it a bit more before announcing it, but Lawrence Solomon’s article seemed to call for Shen to speak up. It is really at the most basic early stages; I’d be doing a bit there myself today but have the flu; but I do recommend that people who care about a good skeptics’ wiki presence go over there to help build up this potential gift, and make it work.

  40. Syl says:

    Just look at the mad edits on Mike Mann in the last few days.

  41. Pamela Gray says:

    A tempest in a teapot. Much ado about nothing. Britches in a bundle, knickers in a twist, a mountain out of a mole hill. That fact that contributors fight on a fake encyclopedia site that is really just a “king of the hill blog” speaks more for who? The combatants or the reliability of the site?

    (thinking…thinking…thinking…)

    Just my point. That is a hard one to call isn’t it.

  42. wws says:

    Wikipedian, I (and I imagine many others) appreciate your call for assistance. But I’m not sure yet that you realize the true stakes. Connelly is not just a poor editor; by bringing this much opposition and criticism upon wikipedia from outside sources (especially at a time when Wikipedia is searching for new support!) it should be obvious to all that Connelly has now become an existential threat to the viability of your organization.

    He obviously does not care about this and will not change, because as an ideologue his support for his own pet ideas far outweighs whatever support he would give to any organization. For a man like him, Wikipedia is just a means to an end.

    Do you and those who lead Wikipedia realize that the survival of your entire organization is at stake? Because if you lose your credibility, you lose everything you have been working for. Although some from outside may indeed choose to help you, this is a problem YOU must take the lead in fixing, if you truly care for your organization.

  43. b_C says:

    EMAILS – where’s da emails?!?

  44. Plato Says says:

    Great pee take if you can access iPlayer

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pdkf6/The_Now_Show_20_12_2009/?from=r

    Starts at about 18 mins in about Copenhagen and hypocrisy

  45. ELF says:

    Folks:

    Writing letters to Jimmy Wales or the Foundation won’t have any effect. Exactly what would you like them to do??

    The solution is to get in there and edit. Everyone reading this has a right – perhaps even an obligation – to edit. Wikipedia is one of the Top 10 websites in the world and it’s the only one that you, my friend, can actually affect.

    Yes, you’ll probably get involved in a discussion, but it’s worth it. Don’t let the alarmists win by default !!!

  46. astonerii says:

    The people who founded Wikipedia are liberals, you cannot expect there not to be a bias with these people. Every keeps talking about trying to get Wiki leadership to fix this. It is a freaking FEATURE not a FLAW of the system. What you need to do is make it clear to everyone you can that Wikipedia is not an unbiased source of information.

    Consider Wikipedia ACORN on the net…

  47. Plato Says says:

    Plato Says (11:03:37) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
    MODS can you change that start time to 18mins please – thanks

  48. a jones says:

    I concur with many of the comments here.

    To borrow a quote about the early London Metroplitan [underground] Railway’s attempt to use fireless locomotives ‘ Bold and heroic was the notion but the boiler failed entirely ‘. They never did get it right which is why everybody apparently quite literally breathed a sigh of relief when the system was electrified thirty years later.

    Whilst I applaud the concept of Wikipedia I don’t regard it as an authority on anything but it can be useful as a quick reference. Nor do I contribute much having on several occasions been rudely shoved aside by highly self regarding persons those who clearly did not know what they are talking about.

    A pity really but it is hard to see how it might be fixed.

    Kindest Regards

  49. Al says:

    If you are unhappy with Wikipedia, try http://knol.google.com
    I’m not sure they are any better, but at least its a different process.

  50. TheGoodLocust says:

    SunSword (09:00:47) :

    “The only way, and I mean the ONLY WAY to counter this is to have a group of long time (not newbie) wikipedia posters focus on a collection of topics. It would have to be done line by line, and each line with a reputable (e.g. non blog) reference. It would have to be done respectfully and focusing only on the science. Furthermore each change would need to be discussed on the associated discussion page. A large enough group — 8 to 10 should do it — would be able to counter their bias within the wikipedia rules. This approach would work under wikipedia rules and would enable changing the current bias.”

    I agree, to a certain extent, but these people are organized. There are a LOT of articles related to global warming and every time they can’t handle something they just send off an email and get instant support. Dissent needs to be focused – otherwise we divide ourselves and are conquered.

  51. Anthony,

    I think this post may be somewhat factually incorrect. If you look at the history of edits on WC’s page, he has not edited his own biography any time in the past 12 months: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Connolley&limit=500&action=history

    Additionally, per the talk page there:

    “Like Solomon’s op-ed discussed above, this blog post appears to be both confused and inaccurate. It is trivial to look at the history of this article: history. WMC’s last edit to it was more than a year ago (in September 2008) and removed a single inaccurate, misplaced category. (For some reason, someone misidentified him as a ‘Global warming critic': diff.) His last edit preceding that one was in September 2006, and corrected a typo in an AfD notice: diff. In August 2006, he corrected a typo in the name of his village: diff. He hasn’t made a significant edit to this article in more than three years. In total, WMC has made fewer than twenty edits to the article, they have tended to be minor, and the bulk of them took place in 2005.”

    This is fairly easy to verify by glancing at the edit history.

    REPLY: I don’t know that it is factually incorrect, since I don’t know the identity of the people behind the anonymous editing handles involved. As it was presented to me it appears factually correct, but looking through the history, there’s a lot of confusion over who is who. Not having access to the Wikipedia message system one can’t see the messages upon which this is based. Therefore due to this uncertainty I’ve removed the reference to self editing, and I’ll leave it to Wikipedia to sort out. – Anthony

  52. TheGoodLocust says:

    Frank (09:26:31) :

    “Looking into this in more detail, the National Post article is actually a blog, and blogs are not credible sources in Wikipedia’s policy.”

    Perhaps in theory, but with wikipedia those with the numbers make and interpret the rules. For example, the blog “real climate” is constantly used by Connolley et all as a “reliable source” to alter articles.

    And so we have an interesting situation where a (co)author of a blog can quote himself (or people with whom he has input) in order to make his own case on wikipedia.

    Hell, he can just make up or order any source he needs if he wants to – it is ridiculous.

  53. John B (tx) says:

    O/T…may be a good article to link to.

    http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/22/build-a-climate-scare-why-you-should-boycott-build-a-bear/

    Part of the text:
    ——————-
    Girl Elf: Santa, it’s gone!

    Papa Elf: It’s gone, It’s gone!

    Santa: What’s gone?

    Girl Elf: Tell ‘em, Dad!

    Papa Elf: The North Peak.

    Santa: A mountain? A mountain’s gone? How is that possible?

    Ella the polar bear: Santa, sir, that’s why I’m here. That’s why we’re here. The ice is melting!

    Santa: Yes, my dear, we know, the climate is changing. There’s bound to be a little melting.

    Ella: It’s worse than that, Santa, a lot worse! At the rate it’s melting, the North Pole will be gone by Christmas!”

    Santa: My, my…all of this gone by next Christmas? I don’t think so.

    Ella: No sir, not next Christmas, this Christmas! The day after tomorrow!

  54. Jon says:

    Controversial topics like global warming and climate change should allow both sides of the issue to be presented, perhaps in separate entries. It is clear that the only side allowed on Wikipedia is pro-AWG, and this is so in almost every entry related to these issues. The results of recent polls suggest that skepticism is widespread and by no means a fringe phenomenon, and that the gap between public opinion and the AGW orthodoxy is increasing, paradoxically, in spite of such gigantic one-sided propaganda efforts as evinced by Wikipedia and the main media.

    It seems that propaganda reaches a saturation point beyond which it has no effect, or it may rather have the opposite effect, especially on working people. The educated are generally more vulnerable to all kinds of nonsense if it is repeated to them with a scientific patina. Monckton thinks this is due to the fact that common peole may have a stronger and healthier common sense, more difficult to deform. Noam Chomsky has also theorized along similar lines, and insists that on many many topics, popular public opinion sees through official nonsense and pieties much more easily than the educated managerial classes. It is the latter, he insists, that are the main target of indoctrination; they are the ones that must be indoctrinated at all costs. And this applies to all aspects of the political spectrum Consider for example, during an election in Venezuela a few years ago, the main media was almost totally in control of the opposition, and they entered into a round-the-clock demonization campaign for months on end, with no effect on the opinion of working people (the majority), who continued to support Chavez, while the more illuminated sectors developed rabid hatred of him fueled by the media.

    Monckton says in today’s blog at SPPI:
    http://sppiblog.org/news/a-sense-of-due-proportion#more-379
    “What the mainstream instruments of propaganda have entirely failed to grasp is that, even if politicians and bureaucrats and environmental correspondents are fatally stupid, the people possess an innate common sense, known to Catholic theologians as the sensus fidelium, which prevents propaganda from influencing them except in the very short term. In the long run, the people can always be relied upon to hold fast to that sense of due proportion that the ancient Greeks at once admired and exemplified. That is why the pusillanimous propaganda of our ruling elite – far too shrill of late to be in the least convincing – has not convinced.”

  55. papertiger says:

    How often does bias cross the line into libel?
    Wikipedia is currently in some form of financial trouble guessing by the constant begging for money at the top of every page.
    WE ARE IN A PROPAGANDA WAR.
    Most people seem to be missing this point. The climate changers had all the advantage from the beginning because the first principle ie; “the world is heating up” …

    It’s a lie.
    The enemy defined the battle from the start.
    Our side had to engage them on a field where the targets are marked and crossed by enfilading fire. No wonder we get croaking frog disclaimers from even our most clear thinking politicians and scientists, confining themselves to arguing “man didn’t do it”, nipping around the perimeter while ignoring the monolithic lie.

    Wiki is in a financial distress. It’s time to kick them in the head. It’s time to force them to use scarce resources in the legal dept.
    How many WUWT readers have been slandered directly by name by the minions of Wiki?
    File papers. Make them take that stuff down. The UK has incredibly friendly libel laws. And haven’t you noticed that the pushers of the global warming, ignoring Al Gores contributions, are predominantly Brits?
    What would happen to wiki if it were suddenly forced to fight 10, 100, or 1000 libel suits at the same time?

    Why they would be put off the net entirely.
    And the world would be a better place.

  56. TheGoodLocust says:

    ” Zeke Hausfather (11:28:12) :

    Anthony,

    I think this post may be somewhat factually incorrect. If you look at the history of edits on WC’s page, he has not edited his own biography any time in the past 12 months: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Connolley&limit=500&action=history

    Correct, he finally got booted off his own article and now relegates cleaning duty to two of his biggest lackeys – Stephan Schulz and Kim Dabelstein Petersen. Sorry, but having your friends on facebook constantly editting your article is just as bad but more subtle.

  57. Tim S. says:

    I think Wikipedia should allow multiple versions of a topic. They could be numbered and the original creator of each topic version would maintain editorial control over the page. The end result would be that the original creator shapes his or her version of the topic into what he/she thinks it should be. Contributors would go to the topic’s version that they agree with.

    The end result would be that readers of Wikipedia can shop around a particular topic and get a wide variety of information and viewpoints. That is something they cannot get now from Wikipedia.

  58. Gary says:

    People like William Connelley destroyed the viability of Usenet 10 to 15 years ago.

  59. Pete says:

    As others have said, what evidence is there that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Miesianiacal is William Connolley?

  60. Old PI says:

    I’m just about fed up with all these moral midgets that believe they are sooo much more intelligent than I am, and that I just ‘have’ to believe what they say. [snip - over the top]

    These people are not scientists, regardless of their degrees or their field of study. They are politicians, trying to shape public opinion for their own personal aggrandizement, and should be stripped of not only their current positions, but their degrees and any finances they may have.

  61. David Segesta says:

    This AGW scam could not be carried out by a few environmental exremists at CRU plus a few like minded blog monitors and one Al Gore. This is easily the biggest hoax in history. Are all of the governments in the world really dumb enough to fall for it? Well maybe they are that dumb, but I think there had to be pressure from powerful interest groups.
    We need to start getting these low level crooks on the witness stand. My guess is they will start singing like canaries, and that should lead right to the top. The full extent of this scam must be exposed and the nefarious intention of those who promote it must be made public. Then the higher level crooks need to be prosecuted.

  62. Bob Kutz says:

    It’s interesting, though, to go to Connoley’s web-page where he discredits the notion that global cooling was predicted in the 70’s. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

    He doesn’t really discredit it at all. What he ends up saying is that no one was actually stating unequivocally that we were entering a LIA. Links to the articles confirm this statement. Most of the articles use words like ‘could’ and ‘may be’ as opposed to ‘very likely’, ‘scientists agree’ and ‘the science is settled’.

    Back in the day, scientists were apparently much more conservative in making predictions. This is one area where computers have not helped science. ‘GiGo; I don’t care if it’s right, I’ll make the prediction because I’ve got a model to back it up!’

    Oh well, in the immortal words of BOC: “History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man.”

  63. GoRight says:

    As someone who has dealt with William Connolley extensively over the past few years, and someone that has an editing restriction from editing Connolley’s BLP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GoRight/Community_sanction), I think it is important to correct a factual mistake in this post. I have personally reviewed the history log for Connolley’s BLP and the last time he edited the page was 07:25, 15 September 2008 which made a minor correction and non-controversial correction.

    In our passion to fight the systemic bias that does occur on Wikipedia in the GW pages, we must still strive to keep the record accurate and true. In this case, WMC is being falsely accused of wrong-doing and it should be corrected.

  64. The Swedish TV company SVT has since long a traditional round table debate with each year’s Nobel laureates. This year they also covered a bit of climate research, in reference to the recent Climategate scandal, and scientific honesty. The section starts ca 13.50 into the programme:

    http://svtplay.se/v/1823383/nobel_2009/snillen_spekulerar?cb,a1364145,1,f,-1/pb,a1364142,1,f,-1/pl,v,,1823383/sb,p117534,1,f,-1

    I don’t know if this web TV service is available abroad (but I think so). The program is often exported to other TV companies, under the title “Science and Man” and may turn up on a local channel of yours. (The Swedish title “Snillen spekulerar” means “Geniuses speculates”.)

    –Ahrvid

    Ps. Not that while the term “climategate” isn’t mentioned, the scandal is named this in the Swedish subtitles!

  65. Jeremy says:

    @Lucy Skywalker (10:42:32) :

    I went and made an account on neutralpedia. then when I found myself sitting down to write, I found myself going to Wikipedia… where I discovered this. This is the protection log on the climate gate page on wikipedia. You see, the climate gate page is not edit-able by people such as myself, it has been made this way by the people shown in this log. I highlighted Connoley

    http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4054/4207297548_cbe971810f_o.jpg

  66. AnonyMoose says:

    If you go to the User page for the user who signed the note about the “William Connolley” article, then click on “User contributions” you can spot this edit to User_talk:Certayne which is the creation of the quoted “I’m the original author…” message. The message is about the William Connolley article, not from him.

    On the other hand, WC has recently deleted comments about himself in at least one Talk page. If you click on his name, then on “User contributions”, you see a list of his edits. Click on “prev” or “diff” to see the change.

  67. Max says:

    @ Frank

    The National Post article is not from a blog. It was in the Saturday paper. I read it with my cup of coffee.

  68. Smokey says:

    TheGoodLocust (12:14:37),

    Thanks for correcting Zeke Hausfather’s dissembling. If Connolley uses others to do his dirty work because he can’t, what’s the difference?

    I’m not surprised at Zeke’s defense of Connolley’s gaming of the system for his own climate alarmist agenda:

    Zeke Hausfather (11:28:12) :

    “Anthony, I think this post may be somewhat factually incorrect…”

    .

    I remember about six months ago Zeke was defending his pro-AGW blog, the “Yale Forum On Climate Change & The Media.” As I recall, Hausfather said he’d just found out the Yale blog was funded by a Leftist foundation, and said that his views were not influenced by their generous funding.

    So I posted this information I found prominently displayed on his home page [which, BTW, is still there today]:

    The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media is grateful for the generous financial support of the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment…

    [Grantham is similar to Soros in its targeted funding of AGW advocacy blogs - while individual voluntary donations keep WUWT going.]

    Zeke posted an excuse to the effect that he hadn’t noticed what was carried on his blog’s home page.

    I still recall the short response from another poster when Zeke gave that story:

    “Ouch for Zeke”!

  69. Roger Knights says:

    Wikipeida’s co-founder Wiles isn’t a liberal but a libertarian (he was interviewed at length recently in Reason), who, I suspect, believes too much laissez faire in regard to his creation.

  70. D. Patterson says:

    Wikipedian, ELF, et al…

    Your appeals to participate in editing Wikipedia appear to be ludicrously disingenuous in the face of so many examples where people attempting to do that very thing have been unceremoniously barred from doing so, often in blatant and repeated violation of Wikipedia’s own rules.

  71. Jeff B. says:

    All Wikipedians are equal, but some Wikipedians are more equal than others.

  72. Scott Gibson says:

    Wikipedian, ELF, GoRight-

    I love the idea of Wikipedia and would love to support it. In my experience, in areas where I have expertise, it is usually a fantastic first reference. For example, the sections on geologic time and paleontology are first rate. However, in areas that are contentious, it is completely not credible. As you can guess, I believe that the climate science sections are one of those areas.

    I thought about editing Wikipedia articles in climate science. I’m certainly knowledgeable and qualified. In the end I concluded, why spend the time it takes to write a good article if it will be deleted a few minutes later?

    Furthermore, it appears to me that some are expert in gaming the system, though I’m speculating. So I have a couple of questions specifically pertaining to Connelly:

    My understanding is that Connelly’s administrative privileges were revoked in September 2009. Is that correct and if so, why was he able to block an article on Climategate in November? And secondly, it is clear his article (on himself) has been extensively modified recently. Who did that if not him, and why did they delete the statement about his past punishments?

  73. D. Patterson says:

    Have some fun, and take up the challenge. Everyone get together here to write an edit critical of some aspect of AGW which is widely and authoritatively agreed to be beyond any reasonable scientific question or dispute. When the edit is finished, someone from the group can post the edit to Wikipedia and demonstrate how long it lasts before being reverted into oblivion and posting privileges on Wikipedia denied. Call it another scientific experiment which relies on actual experimental evidence.

  74. edward says:

    Please note that Connelly is part of the RealClimate “team” and one of his contributions was the “wiki project”. Please note this synopsis from RC:

    William M. Connolley
    Filed under: Contributor Bio’s— william @ 6 December 2004
    When I joined RC, I was a climate modeller with the British Antarctic Survey. Now I’m a software engineer for CSR. I’m still interested in communicating the science of climate change, but can no longer do so at a professional level.
    I’m also elsewhere: the wikipedia project is developing into a useful resource, and my profile is User:William_M._Connolley. My personal vanity site is at http://www.xxxxxx.org.uk.
    One of the people in the picture is me. Guess which.
    ps: all my contributions online are released under the GFDL, unless I explicitly note otherwise.

    Mr. Connelly even reverted my addition to Dr. Christy’s biographical page of his title as a “Distinguised Professor of Atmospheric Sciece” because he thought it was “puffery”. That was despite the fact that Wiki shows several classifications of Professorship with one of them being “distinguished”.

    Forget about even changing one word on any site that has anything to do with carbon or climate. With or without him it will get reverted by others. I could not add the words “theory of” to references to AGW or global warming.
    Good luck
    Edward

  75. Scipio says:

    We are the “Ministry of Truth” you will be assimilated.

  76. Barbara says:

    You’re welcome to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=William_M._Connolley. He’s been involved in editing entries on Pauchari, Richard Lindzen (yes, THAT Richard Lindzen) and the Middle Ages Warming Period. You’ll see who’s editing the article about himself!
    I e-mailed him at wmconnolley@gmail.com to ask him if he thought it was a good idea to be involved in editing entries on those topics. His reply? No. Why?

  77. mj95 says:

    This online encyclopedia lacks transparency and is a propitious habitat for ensconced ideological cabals. Articles on subject matter that is ideologically charged cannot be trusted. Another battleground is ed ideology. I know writers with a background in pedagogy who fought a losing battle with censors on constructivism.

    Until this institution cleans house I will call it Kafkapedia.

  78. John Catley says:

    There’s an article referenced at the end of the talk page on Climategate which is being discussed by Wiki under “New expert commentary”
    It’s extremely critical of the Team.

    http://www.creators.com/conservative/thomas-sowell/the-science-mantra.html

    Hope it gets included!

  79. TMLutas says:

    My wikipedia account is TMLutas. I’m currently working in the global cooling article to improve it and getting double teamed by WMC and Atmoz, nothing new. If you’re frustrated that you can’t get your edits into a semi-protected article, put them in talk. If they’re good, somebody with rights, like me, will put them in.

    Another thing you can do is to go to noncontroversial pages that you are knowledgeable about and put some edits in there. I do edits on religion, anti-communist politics, and climate issues and have done so for years. The red diaper babies defending Alger Hiss are just as annoying as WMC, believe me.

    You can express yourself and improve articles totaling 10 edits over four days and you will be auto-confirmed. If you’re using an anonymizer like a Tor network, it’s 90 days and 100 edits. Once you’re auto-confirmed, you can edit semi-protected pages.

  80. keith says:

    Tim S. and others, this is my response to the donation appeal, lots of topics have the same problems. Not least of all religious topics, and any science writers who do not support the big bang, for example supporters of the Electric Universe hypothesis.

    Dear Mr Wales,

    I have been using wiki’s since c2.com and the derived why? clublet.

    A fundamental flaw in the idea is the belief in NPOV, it doesn’t work. I have spent hours of my time writing content for wikipedia and other sites, only to have them instantly removed by someone with a differing point of view.

    For example, I am have been a full time carer for an individual with Dissociative Identity Disorder. This friend of mine has fully articulated personalities and I have lived with them for 6 years 24/7 as a paid support worker. This means that I do know a little about the subject. If you look at the wikipedia page on this subject it is consumed by the controversy over whether or not the condition even exists, a ridiculous notion if you have my POV.

    Any article I have written gets removed within a day of writing it. With my experience I could do 10-20 pages of detailed information that would be beneficial to those seeking detail on the subject, however the dispute holds the front page, and prevents further illumination on a complex and interesting subject.

    It would be far better to have a subject with a point of view attribution. i.e. “Assuming DID does exist – this is a page on DID”, “Assuming DID does not exist – this is a page on DID”. The pages on DID, would grow to be perhaps 100 pages on various aspects of the topic, whereas the pages against DID would be just one. The present situation is that the anti-lobby simply gate-keep all new material, to the extent that I will not bother contributing to wikipedia again. This similar scenario has been played out on a number of topics.

    best regards, Keith
    ====
    Their reply was a standard reply they give with regards to editing disputes. i.e. we dont control the content you have to fight it out.
    ====
    My response:

    Dear Joe,

    I was not writing about a dispute in editing. I used the editing dispute as a clear illustration for the reason that I was not donating to your appeal.

    I wrote as a user of wiki’s since the beginning. In particular I was the last contributor to the page “Jesus Christ” on c2.com before the page was locked and moved to the why? clublet site for metaphysical discussions.

    In my experience the policy of NPOV does not work and needs to change, because the result is never truly NPOV, but is actually biased in the direction of the archetypal “secular non believer”. The result is that I am unable to contribute to wikipedia on almost any topic that I have some knowledge of, simply because I do have a point of view. Indeed without a point of view, many topics cease to have useful content.

    This policy is the reason I am not considering a donation to Wikipedia, because the content of wikipedia is inherently biased due to this policy. This situation could be changed easily if the idea of POV was recognised. If each side were to be able to present their case fully, according to their point of view then you would actually be providing useful information.

    In the case of Dissociative Identity Disorder, it is of no help to sufferers of this condition if the wikipedia article’s primary message is that the condition does not exist. The reality is that it does exist and is completely curable with the right help and information. Wikipedia could be the source of that information, but the NPOV policy gives an opportunity for the controversy to hog the content where there really shouldn’t be any controversy. Those who want to read about the controversy can of course do so, but the majority of people looking for information on DID want to find actual information about DID, not about the controversy. It stands to reason that the majority of actually useful information about DID will have been written by individuals who believe that it exists, but those individuals cannot post because they have a point of view.

    best regards

    Keith

  81. Gerry says:

    Wikipedia looks to be nothing more or less than the 21st century update to Orwell’s 1984 with regard to rewriting history on a daily basis. Though Wikipedia is much more efficient at this task than was actually possible in 1984, I think it is fair to say that Big Brother is (so far) somewhat less brutal in enforcement of the process than he was in Orwell’s novel (Orwell imagined a totally repressive Stalinist type of regime in 1984). Though certain politicians have devoted extraordinary energy in attempts to terrify the public with their “consensus” of AGW Armageddon, they haven’t quite succeeded…yet.

  82. photon without a Higgs says:

    Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia.

    Wikipedia calls itself an encyclopedia.

    Wikipedia needs to find a more accurate description for itself.

  83. Creation Man says:

    Gentlemen, if I may make so bold as to suggest:

    Some three years ago, a gentlemen named Andrew P. Schlafly started a wiki encyclopedia of his own, in response to three specific and pervasive faults that he found with Wikipedia:

    1. Liberal bias, including without limitation the editing of articles to reflect the liberal and collectivist point-of-view (this although the founder, James “Jimbo” Wales, was supposed to have been an aficionado of Ayn Rand)

    2. Gossip.

    3. Pornography. This includes, to my certain knowledge, blatant plagiarism from another wiki that is a known source of pornographic content and even, dare I say it in this context, “advice.”

    As I said: Andrew P. Schlafly decided to found another encyclopedia to compete directly with Wikipedia. He called it Conservapedia. Find it here:

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

    His first editors and administrators were students of a home-schooling group that he also founded, in northern New Jersey. Then he began to attract other editors–and, frankly, some other “editors” not willing to get into the spirit of the thing. Of course, anyone who doesn’t want to behave is asked to leave.

    Full disclosure: I became a senior administrator of Conservapedia in April of 2007. Today Andrew P. Schlafly counts me as a friend. He even arranged for me to attend a taping of his recent appearance on “The Colbert Report” on Comedy Central, here in the States. (And during the audience warm-up session, I gave Stephen Colbert’s staffer what-for about this entire Climategate affair, and asked him rather scathingly whether he would like to see my copy of the CRU Archive.)

    But I digress. The point is that, at Conservapedia we’re always looking for good editors. I daresay any of you, other than obvious hecklers, would be more than welcome.

  84. TanGeng says:

    As far as I can tell Miesianiacal was someone trying to add similar content to you. He was complaining that your wording of it was inferior to his own. Go look at the change log.

    Anyhow based on the change log, you should examine the activities of Stephan Schulz. Crazy stuff it is Wikipedia. This is what you get when you are trying to write history as you are living it.

  85. Mapou says:

    Wikipedia is one of those awesomely great ideas that would work perfectly in a 100% honest society. Unfortunately, we are all biased (whether we think so or not) and we cannot trust one another. Humanity must get rid of its self-righteousness because it is seriously defective. We must seek and find a more ethical, more logical and more powerful authority than ourselves and submit to it. Otherwise, we’re screwed.

    Having said that, all is not gloom and doom. I believe that we will find that higher authority in the end, when we are on the edge of extinction. In the meantime, it will get worse before it gets better. Much worse.

  86. Charles Higley says:

    As I have been saying everywhere I can, Connelly sits on the LIttle Ice Age piece and maintains a “proposed” and a “hypothesis” that man in Europe and N America caused the Medieval Warm Period from all of that farming going on and then the plagues wiped out the people and the LIttle Ice Age was caused by reforestation. Geez, if that small number of people did that, we are way beyond warming and roasting right now. Wait, the Medieval period was warmer than now! Oh well, another bad idea failed.

    I added an ameliorating sentence to this entry 6–8 times over many months and W Connelly deleted it ASAP. Then he threatened me with a ban.

  87. GoRight says:

    @Scott Gibson (15:35:22) :

    RE: My understanding is that Connelly’s administrative privileges were revoked in September 2009. Is that correct and if so, why was he able to block an article on Climategate in November? And secondly, it is clear his article (on himself) has been extensively modified recently. Who did that if not him, and why did they delete the statement about his past punishments?

    My reply:

    WMC is no longer an administrator. He was stripped of his administrative privileges on 13 September 2009 when the arbitration committee ruled that he had abused them by blocking his opponent in an on-going arbitration case. This is a pretty obvious no-no but he did it plain as day. I would like to think he had his privileges revoked because of his behavior on the GW pages, but the reality is that this action was unrelated to those pages.

    You can read the details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley&oldid=315690726

    There is a small but loyal cadre of editors who continually cooperate to enforce the status quo on these pages. One person could not accomplish it alone under the existing rules. It requires several people in concert to “tag-team” any editor that tries to put in information that they disagree with. In the end it comes down to a simple numbers game. The group with the most numbers wins, for the most part. It is the cadre of loyalists who are scrubbing his BLP of the information, not WMC himself. He doesn’t need to as you can see since his friends do it for him.

    The recent editing there is typical of any page on Wikipedia, especially controversial ones. In this case a couple of people wanted to add references to Solomon’s article to his page. His friends, obviously, object. There is always much wrangling about with the citing of Wikipedia policies and the subtle nuances thereof, but this is all just for show in an instance like this. The arguments are formulaic. It boils down to some number of people wanting something in, and some number of people wanting something out, and the larger group ultimately prevails.

    Currently WMC has no special status and is not able to block other editors or protect pages, but he has plenty of close friends that will do his bidding for him on the things he really cares about, but obviously within the rules of the site such as they are. If they violate those they will be called out on it.

    I am quite certain (even without having checked) that WMC did not alter the protection level of the climategate page after he was desysopped so there must be some confusion on that point. When the pages are protected the normal editing capabilities are restricted to certain classes of users. So the discussion above about the editing tab being removed is because the page was protected, in this case by user BozMo, not WMC himself. This is all available in the history tab of his page for those who are interested in checking it themselves.

  88. Scott Gibson says:

    Thanks, GoRight. I think your statement clears up a lot of confusion.

  89. Wikipedian says:

    Scott,

    GoRight is correct. WMC in fact simply moved the ClimateGate page and the protection moved along with it. The original protection was done by Wikipedia user MastCell and was supported by policy IMO.

    There are several editors and even some administrators active on Wikipedia who are GW skeptics. At a certain point it turns into a war of attrition and they simply have more time and more accounts. In the end, the neutrality of the encyclopedia suffers.

    As a side note, for those worried about deletion, an article requires a 7-day community discussion before deletion unless it is obviously problematic, i.e. clear vandalism or a copyright violation.

  90. Spector says:

    It is my opinion that items posted on something like the Wikipedia that have withstood the test of time in that venue or in the peer reviewed literature of record should not be subject to summary deletion by any one person who thinks they are inaccurate or incomplete.

    I believe the most appropriate action when apparent new information raises doubts of an earlier science is to add amendments to the earlier articles without destroying the original information. We do not stop teaching Newton’s laws just because Einstein has shown them to be incomplete. I suppose some degree of Wiki-Thrashing is unavoidable on new controversial issues.

  91. Christoph says:

    I’ve personally had some of my edits reverted by Conolly because they conflicted with HIS point of view. It’s not that they didn’t site outside sources: they did.

    To say the least, I don’t bother with Wikipedia.

  92. papertiger says:

    Wikipedian gets the last word at WUWT? And it’s an apologism.

    “Please kind sirs. Don’t destroy the Wiki. It’s not all bad.”

    Isn’t it delightful? Take a deep breath. Can you smell that sickly sweet aroma?

    The stink of fear is on this thread. The Wiki is in a vulnerable position.

    Now I’m simpathetic to the Conservapedia efforts, but isn’t it just another example of “me too”.

    We’ve been there haven’t we? We got the NewYork Post and the Washington Times, me tooing the NYT and WaPo, but what does it get us?

    I submit to you that the world doesn’t need a conservative version to balance the misinformation of the Ministry of Truth.

    Instead let us kill Wikipedia dead using the very statist tools the liberal government of the UK so generously provides. They have libel lawyers advertising there like we have personal injury attorneys here. There has to be a reason for that. Maybe they’ll take your case on contigency.

    Imagine a world without Wikipedia.
    It isn’t hard to do.
    No more slander of our heros.
    The end of edit wars too.

    Lets introduce a little chaos into their well ordered Orwellian world.
    I’m looking forward to seeing what springs up from the desicated husk of Wiki.

  93. Perry says:

    My email to Wikipedia, to which I have yet to receive a reply.

    “Dear Jimmy Wales,

    You wrote, “It stopped being just a website a long time ago. For many of us, most of us, Wikipedia has become an indispensable part of our daily lives.”

    When six years ago I started reading Wikipedia I also felt as you did, but no longer can I maintain that sure confidence, because of the blatant left wing political bias of a clique of administrators led by WMC who secretly police the body of knowledge relating to Man made global warning. Alternative explanations are reverted within minutes, purely because they are not considered consensual, nor orthodox.

    You would be wise to read these WUWT articles linked below,together with all the comments attached.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/more-on-wikipedia-and-connolley-hes-been-canned-as-a-wiki-administrator/

    You have people in your organisation who are working to see your idealism collapse. Clean house and the donations will resume. Best wishes with your duty, to clean the Augean Stables, otherwise the end on era beckons.

    Respectfully,

    Perry Debell.

  94. Dan Hampton says:

    GoRight says, “It boils down to some number of people wanting something in, and some number of people wanting something out, and the larger group ultimately prevails.”

    Wikipedian says, “At a certain point it turns into a war of attrition and they simply have more time and more accounts. In the end, the neutrality of the encyclopedia suffers.”

    *) Which confirm what many of the posts for this blog entry have stated. Wikipedia “Truth” is determined by a pseudo-democratic battle.

    *) The Wikipedia battlefield is predominantly controlled by leftist activists who are going to save the world in one way or another. This fact alone advantages propagandists like William M. Connelly. I’ve butted heads on blatant misrepresentations found in Wikipedia articles and lost. It wasn’t worth the time to appeal up the chain.

    *) You might be surprised at how many articles are biased or controversial. It is often as informative to read the discussion page as it is to read the main entry.

    *) Even Wikipedia’s CO-founder has been caught rewriting history. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales#Controversy . That’s the CO-founder of Wikipedia REWRITING HISTORY!

    *) My wife who occasionally reads articles from Wikipedia came to me some months back with a “fact” she had just read. It was one of those “authoritative Wikipedia facts ’cause it’s in black and white” that was posted by a troll and the article was reverted 5 minutes after my wife saw the page. She learned a lesson about trusting Wikipedia.

    Wikipedia can never be more than the aggregate consensus of its left of center editors with healthy doses of propaganda and troll droppings indiscriminately mixed in. And if you know it, you probably aren’t qualified to edit the article.

  95. ClimateHoax says:

    Wikipedia is a bad almost evil place.

    Check this out: http://www.deepcapture.com/tag/wikipedia

  96. The same tatics are used all over the place.
    For example, the Bilderberg meetings, where the most powerful and influencial people in the world meet every year, has been suppressed and censored sistematically. This year I tried to get enough information in a especific page and that was delete, under the pretext the page was not relevant. If the most important meeting of the year, which participants and minutes are secret, are not relevant, what is relevant, the xfactor series????

    Check the details and help to change this censoring trend:

    http://bigbrother-uk-1984.blogspot.com/2009/06/2009-bilderberg-meeting-wikipedia.html

  97. Malay Observer says:

    As a researcher I use wikipedia regularly and find it very useful. The first rule of the internet is to assume no one soruce is correct but make use of reference links to get further information. Wikipedia is full of links, even to opinions which the major entry disagrees with.

    Wikipedia is also a valuable experimenting in utilising the broadest involvement of experts, unlike tradtional encyclopaedia which had panels of experts. because it encourages input, it is open to opinion confict and where this occurs, activists can take the upper hand one way or another.

    Wikipedia’s credibility is at risk when this occurs and must constantly evolve its safeguards accordingly. But this takes time.

    However, if wikipedia is part of the public discourse, as it is, opinion partisans must engage in consistent debate and in numbers required to effectively sustain it. Otherwise this important global information conveyor is left in the hands of those whose opinion you disagree with.

    Bad mouthing it won’t make it go away.

    Simply, organise or surrender the turf.

  98. James says:

    *snort* Wiki…great information source. OT, but for a good example, check out the glittery review of Ernest “Che” Guevarra sometime. From reading it, you’d think he was a cultured, dignified politician…rather than a psychopathic mass-murderer. /shrug Go figure…

  99. Doc_Navy says:

    Sent to Wikipedia’s “Donate” email address:

    Dear Jimmy,

    I was going to donate as my two kids used to use Wiki for their elementary and junior high school reports as well as myself for
    various basic informational research, and I consider this to be a valuable asset to society.
    Nevertheless, when professors in college, all the way through to the teachers in my youngest son’s ELEMENTARY SCHOOL no longer
    accept Wikipedia entries as citable references because of rampant edit wars, factual errors placed by anonymous “editors”, and the
    outright bias of administrators such as William Connolley and his merry band of revisionists (to wit, K. D. Petersen, Atmoz, Boris,
    etc..) among others, I find it difficult to part with the $50 I would like to donate. Instead I must now spend that money on the
    latest (and last) Encarta dvd as it ~IS~ still a reliable and citable source.

    Since I cannot bring myself to donate to Wiki, I will therefore cease to use it and will not allow my children to use it either as
    this is only fair. Furthermore, I will encourage the rest of my family and our friends, and their friends (Etc, etc..) not to use
    Wikipedia either. This situation will remain until the Wiki leadership actually ENFORCES your policies of neutrality, and integrity,
    and once again wiki becomes a citable source of reliable, FACTUAL, and completely UNBIASED information.

    Finally, I feel that is a sublime irony and powerful commentary on our times when unbiased and eminently factual publications like
    Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta, Collier’s, and Macmillan have all died in competition with electronic media like Wiki which has
    become uncitable, and has VAST sections of information that have become politicized and/or hijacked by special interests.

    V/r,

    {redacted}

    —===*Cool Website of the Week: http://web.mit.edu/isn/ *===—

    PS. There was once a time that Wikipedia would be linked as my “Cool website of the week” on my emails, which goes out to hundreds
    if not thousands during the workweek. No more.

  100. Dan Hampton says:

    Malay Observer:

    : “Simply, organise or surrender the turf.”

    That very formula is inherently biased against fact. Wikipedia reflects the vocal nature of the activist minority.

    Wikipedia will never work, no matter how many “safeguards” evolve because it cannot vet the accuracy of its editorship, which will always be predominantly left of center. Wikipedia is today what it has always been: The encyclopedia of Utopians… vainly striving but never arriving.

    : Bad mouthing it won’t make it go away.

    No, it won’t. But it will make others aware of how flawed the nature of the so-called “encyclopedia”.

    : Simply, organise or surrender the turf.

    As you may have guessed, I have more profitable things to do with my time. Further, the turf of Wikipedia was pwned by activism to start with, so surrendering the turf is a misnomer. It would be like saying, organize or surrender the turf of RealClimate.org! I am a realist, not a dreamer.

  101. Mark says:

    You may want to try Wikwery, which is a kind of question-based Wikipedia http://www.wikwery.org It’s new so it doesn’t have any Wikipedia type liberal bias

  102. I’m glad that this issue came up and blew the wikipedia’s status as a reliable information authority to bits.

    I am particularly sympathetic to the person who deals with Dissociative Identity Disorder. I invite him to go look at the site’s treatment of trauma induced dissociation.

    My first inkling that something was wrong with the Wikipedia came through trawling the talk pages of Satanic Ritual Abuse while looking to find out more about the subject while researching potential research proposals for a postgraduate psych course in research methodology.

    It was immediately apparent that there was censorship going on, and that a contributor was having all attempts to post links to academic articles and news stories supportive of the phenomenon removed by an editor/administrator (you’d actually have to see the dialogue to believe it).

    This subject is, incidentally, tied up to larger issues such as the alleged involvement of the political elite in pedophilia etc (some of which was exposed during the course of the infamous Dutroux Affair).

    From what I could tell the page simply served to bar entry to deeper thinking on the topic in the same dismissive, sneering, scornful and patronising tone we have become so accustomed to from the AGW camp. In other words it became a facilitator for censorship and propaganda.

    The irony of this is I went there an agnostic, and left the page suspecting that there was far more to the issue than was indicated by the Wikipedia entry. I’ve since noticed similar patterns on any contentious issue.

    Both sides of the question are rarely given equal weight, and there is a strong bias towards modern establishment narratives, a tendency that puts the wikipedia site on a par with the laughable Skepdic. In fact when I want more reliable info I just look at the talk page rather than the main page as there is a far greater chance of other perspectives being aired.

    True pursuit of knowledge should expose us to all sides of a question and encourage us to use and develop our critical thinking skills to reach our own conclusions.

    In 1789 Mason de Luchet summed it up quite effectively:

    “There are a certain number of people who have arrived at the highest degree of imposture. They have conceived the project of reigning over opinions, and of conquering, not kingdoms, nor provinces, but the human mind. This project is gigantic, and has something of madness in it, which causes neither alarm nor uneasiness; but when we descend to details, when we regard what passes before our eyes of the hidden principles, when we perceive a sudden revolution in favour of ignorance and incapacity, we must look for the cause of it; and if we find that a revealed and known system explains all the phenomena which succeed each other with terrifying rapidity, how can we not believe it?”

  103. William says:

    Come on over if you think you’re hard enough:

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/12/poor_old_watts.php

    REPLY: Why would anyone want to participate in a discussion with you when you phrase it that way? Those are the words of a bully, not of a scientist. From your words and demeanor there in that piece, clearly you have contempt for the general public which Wikipedia is designed to serve.

    The real question is, why do your friends remove valid criticisms from the National Post? – Anthony

  104. Indiana Bones says:

    Pointed out earlier:

    Wikiwiki – the Hawaiian word for “quick” that the “pedia” appropriates for its name, is in fact NOT the proper word. The first word in Hawaiian for quick is – AWIWI. Thus an etymologist would suggest the proper corruption would be: AWIWIPEDIA…

    However, you can understand why the inventor of even a hearsay-based encyclopedia has shied away from using King Kamehameha’s Hawaiian.

  105. William says:

    OK, so you aren’t hard enough. Fortunately GoRight is, though he seems confused about whether you’ve edited your original post or not. Do you have your original text? It would be nice to see it.

    “The real question is, why do your friends remove valid criticisms from the National Post?”

    Well it is one possible real question. It would seem natural to ask the people who are doing it rather than me. Do you have diffs?

    REPLY:The issue was brought up here, yet you want it moved to your turf by making a goading statement. I see you’ve ducked the real question by deferring it, that’s fine. The text is clear in the update. – A

  106. William says:

    I’ve asked you for a diff of whatever it is you’re complaining about. You’ve ducked the question by refusing to reply. If you want an answer to “why was text X removed from wiki” yuo’ll need to tell me what piece of text X is, and the best way to do that is a diff. If you’re not interested in an answer, that’s fine.

    REPLY: The issue is simple, you have, in the opinion of many, undue influence over a huge number of Wikipedia entries related to climate change. A germane reference to an article bringing that to light, published in a newspaper of record in Canada, keeps getting deleted from your Wikipedia page. The edits (or “diffs” as I think you mean) are listed in the body of this article. The number of articles you’ve edited and people you’ve banned from making edits to articles you’ve been involved in on Wikipedia is documented by an independent source here and agrees with the numbers in Solomon article, yet that article keeps getting deleted from your Wikipedia page. The question is why? That’s really the only question here. While it initially appeared that you were making the edits to your own page yourself, upon further inspection (and to an outsider the Wikipedia is somewhat of a maze) that claim was brought into question, and the article here reflects that uncertainty.

    If the Solomon article is untrue, or somehow erroneous, and that is why it is not cited as a reference, in the interest of fairness I’ll offer you an opportunity to write a new guest post here. This affords wide exposure so that you can address/explain why it is not valid and tell your side of the story. The only caveat would be that you limit the topic to that issue and do so without using denigrating language that insults the readers and myself as you have done in comments here and in your articles.

    Thank you for your consideration. – Anthony

  107. Dan Hampton says:

    : “Come on over if you think you’re hard enough”

    LOL. What’s wrong William, cannot deal with the matter here? You can see why this fellow has been desysopped by Wikipedia.

  108. James says:

    Dan-

    Nah, he’s just lonely. After all, he’s got…what…like three commenters on his blog page (and one or two of them are skeptics — likely from WUWT)?

    Awww…does wittle Biwwy need a hug? I think him does…

    P.S. The Mekons were posers.

  109. I have noticed a trend, a rouge administrator doing Connelley’s dirty work in banning people relating to global warming articles

    http://connelleywatch.blogspot.com/2009/12/connelleys-hatchet-man.html

  110. PaulH says:

    Lawrence Solomon has a new column at:
    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/23/lawrence-solomon-climategate-at-wikipedia.aspx

    It looks like Connolley and/or his cronies are still hard at work re-writing and revising. It’s really quite pathetic.

  111. Roger Knights says:

    Maybe Wikipedia should at least flag “contentious” entries somehow. Or not cover such topics at all. Or cover them on a separate site.

  112. JR says:

    Notice that the title of Connelley’s blog, “STOAT: Taking science by the throat …” nicely fits his role as Wiki-censor and his manner of commenting here – crude thuggery and bullying.

  113. William says:

    AW: my answer to LS is here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/12/i_am_all_powerful_part_2.php so I don’t need a guest post from you. If you’ve got any questions on that post, feel free to add them there.

    You say “The number of articles you’ve edited and people you’ve banned from making edits to articles you’ve been involved in on Wikipedia is documented by an independent source here” where “here” is http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/ec/William+M.+Connolley

    That’s a std edit counter. It doesn’t tell you who I’ve banned or from what articles. I’ve banned (or more correctly, blocked) loads of people from loads of articles – but most of them had nothing to do with climate change. Most of them were to do with WP:3RR (see-also WP:AN3).

    You don’t understand how wiki works, so you’re thrashing and embarassing yourself in public. Talk to GoRight (privately, by mail, if you want to avoid embarassment). He is one of you: he’ll be happy to explain.

    I notice the top of this blog still says “There’s now some question about who is who regarding the editing of the Connolley page at Wikipedia.One of the problems with Wikipedia is the use of handles. In the messages sent to me seen below, it appears that they came from William Connolley via the Wikipedia message system”. That is all wrong. There is no doubt. None of those messages were sent by me. You commenters have explained this to you, as has my blog post if you can bear to read it. So you need to update your posting.

    REPLY:Thanks for your consideration, the offer remains open. So just for the record then, none of the other handles involved in that editing are connected to you in any way?

    Solomon has just written another story. Here: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/23/lawrence-solomon-climategate-at-wikipedia.aspx

    Oh and to add, despite our differences, I wish you and your family a joyous, happy, and safe holiday!

    – Anthony

  114. Some Guy says:

    This is the same thing that happens with the articles about cult leaders. Sun Myung Moon and Elron Hubbard both have devoted minions who will remove anything negative that gets added to their articles.

  115. Bulldust says:

    Clearly Wiki needs to make editors more accountable. Anonymous posts should not even be allowable. All handles should be tied to verifiable email addresses. How hard is this really? The fact of the matter is that pure garbage gets posted on WIki all the time. Heavily emotive or politicised subjects are most prone to attack. It is a rubbish reference for these kinds of topics. I would not even think of looking at Wiki for anything relating to climate for this exact reason.

    It really doesn´t matter whether Connolley or someone else is instrumental behind the CC Wiki pages, they show clear POV bias towards the IPCC and the overwhelming majority of the content reflects that view. It is equally evident the contempt in which Wiki holds prominent skeptics, often devoting the vast majority of their entries to attacks on their credibility. The POV bias on those entries is equally evident.

  116. mkurbo says:

    I have battled Connolley and the bias at Wiki for over four years. It has been a very frustrating experience. He and Petersen, Schulz among a few others have worked diligently to manipulate the Wiki info on AGW. In particular, their peer review “trump” card has been played consistently and without reproach to defend their religion.

    Reminder: Wikipedia is used in schools as a point of reference for children to seek out facts on AGW.

    Connolley and cohorts have effectively been indoctrinating young minds and that makes them among the very lowest forms of life…

  117. Bulldust says:

    A couple other things I find amusing… Watts here has links to sites on both sides of the AGW debate including Mr Connolley´s Stoat site, which has mediocre traffic at best of times. You can bet your bottom dollar that it won´t be reciprocated there.

    Additionally I see Mr Connolley´s first post here is to goad readers to his site which is moderated at his own discretion:

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/08/comment_policy.php

    Basically he likes to delete whatever he doesn´t like (i.e. finds boring or noisy), much unlike WUWT which welcomes all views as long as they are polite. The problem with this smug approach is that it alienates the moderates. It might work well for his Green Party extremists, but it doesn´t get traction with the mainstream.

    Good luck with that approach Mr Connolley.

  118. papiertigre says:

    Quite right Bulldust. Let’s analyze. He comes to our neck of the wood to issue a challenge against Anthony.
    The problem is why would Anthony lower himself? Connolley isn’t in Anthony Watts league. He’s just the CRU’s cabin boy.

    If the captain of that ship were to come and challenge, that would be different, but as things stand we need someone from the Watts “crew”, a swabbie if you will, to take on Connolley.
    There has to be a stake involved. Lets argue a point of contention, say the MWP page. If the Watt’s swabbie wins the edit stays from now till the end of time. If Connolley wins WUWT will never post another disparaging word about him or Wikipedia.
    There has to be a jury selected at random, whose verdict will be final.
    There has to be some neutral place outside of Will’s ability to tamper with the jury. Sciblog, where he can manipulate his antagonist’s comments, is right out.

    Those are the terms. Are these acceptable with you Anthony?

    William are you hard enough to face someone without your automated posse backing your every word?

    Personally, I think a fair fight will be too much pressure for ponytail boy.

  119. Jimmy Haigh says:

    I took the bait and had a quick look at Stoat. (Strange avatar – a stoat. “Methinks ’tis very like a weasel…” )

    Anyway I see the one who calls himself ‘Dhogaza’ is still in the huff because he’s banned here.

  120. Turboblocke says:

    I notice that for a while now the sceptic arguments seem to revolve around attacking people rather than the science of AGW. Does that mean they finally understand the science and realise that attacking it is a no-hoper??

    Given that Plass in 1956 got all the main elements right, it’s about time.
    http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate/10

  121. Smokey says:

    Turboblocke (06:23:02),

    You misunderstand the situation.

    Scientific skeptics have demolished the CO2=CAGW conjecture. The mistaken belief that CO2 can possibly lead to runaway global warming and climate catastrophe has been repeatedly falsified. The climate’s sensitivity is so small that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes, no matter how much the minor trace gas CO2 rises.

    Your American Scientist link references only Arrhenius’ 1896 paper, in which he imputed a very high sensitivity number to CO2. But your source rather mendaciously omitted any mention of Arrhenius’ follow-up paper ten years later. In his 1906 paper, Arrhenius recanted his 1896 conclusions, and assigned a very low sensitivity number to CO2.

    We have learned a lot since 1906. Current estimates range from 0.5 – 0.35. And the more we learn about the climate’s low sensitivity to CO2, the less we find that CO2 matters. If that were not so, then the recent rapid increase in CO2 would have resulted in a rapid rise in the global temperature. But that has not happened. Instead, the global temperature has declined. Therefore, CO2 must have very little effect on temperature.

    The real problem is William Connolley’s dishonest redacting of thousands of articles and comments that simply presented a different [and more scientifically credible] point of view to the debunked belief that rising CO2 will cause rapidly rising temperatures leading to runaway global warming.

    Censoring different points of view is not science, it is partisan political advocacy, and an unethical abuse of his position within the increasingly discredited Wiki AGW posts. As we see in this thread, and in Connolley’s election loss, and in his repeated punishments for improper advocacy, people do not appreciate being spoon-fed his discredited propaganda.

  122. Alfred says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medieval_Warm_Period&dir=prev&action=history this is the early record for the Medieval Warm Period article on Wikipedia.
    The article was created on 27 Jan 2002, had two more edits and was then redirected to “Medieval climate optimum” on 25 February 2002.
    The record for that page starts at 20:57 on 15 November 2002, when it was moved back to “Medieval warm period”.
    The page moved in the Medieval warm period is noted at 20:58. At 21:42 the same day William M. Connolley made the following edit, with the edit summary:

    “Remove rubbish. Look at Temperature record of the past 1000 years where this has been addressed for some time now.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medieval_Warm_Period&action=historysubmit&diff=7502049&oldid=7501548

    The edit removed the section header titled “Recently changes in scientific thinking” and the following text:
    Sherwood and Keith Idso wrote:
    :”IPCC documents up to at least 1995 had faithfully depicted the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age … The Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age – which followed hard on the heels of the Roman Warm Period and Dark Ages Cold Period (McDermott et al., 2001) – were long considered to be classic examples of the warm and cold phases of a millennial-scale climate oscillation that has reverberated seemingly endlessly throughout glacial and interglacial periods alike (Oppo et al., 1998; McManus et al., 1999), as well as across the early Pleistocene (Raymo et al., 1998).” [http://www.co2science.org/edit/v5_edit/v5n13edit.htm]

    Make of that what you will.

  123. John Howard says:

    Wikipedia is a perfect example of a democracy. I highly recommend Hoppe’s book, “Democracy – The God That Failed”.

    Democracy never works because we are individuals, not parts of an organism. Some power-lusting clowns will always try to rule the collective. In a democracy, there will always arise an elite that rules “in the name of the people”- called “representatives” in our political circles. Democracy is always a fraud. Wikipedia is based on a fraudulent premise. Thanks to the internet, it is being exposed faster than previous encyclopedias for what it is: the opinions of those who control it.

  124. Alfred says:

    Error in my above text:
    Third sentence should be 2004 not 2002 – both the page move back to MWP and WMC’s edit were on 15 Nov 2004.

    Should read:
    “The record for that page starts at 20:57 on 15 November 2004, when it was moved back to “Medieval warm period”.”

  125. Melamed says:

    There is another wikipedia, called “wikinfo.org” that was set up specifically to deal with some of the weaknesses of Wikipedia. It may be something to look into to support.

    One of the worst weaknesses of Wikipedia is their so-called NPOV standard, which results often that a particular POV is adopted for many articles. Another weakness is the no original research clause, which even extends to no correction of erroneous information that was published elsewhere.

    I had an account on Wikipedia, but left after finding that most of my edits were summarily deleted by activist editors who did not know what they were talking about. Once I tried correcting a simple error, but my correction was rejected as “original research” until the main editor of the page did his own “original research” weeks later. One article I wrote was decried as “original research” where the sum total of my ‘original research’ was rewording the idea so that others could easily understand it (the same type of “original research” that is part of all Wikipedia articles), thus deleted. Another lasted a few years before being deleted. I gave up seeing that my efforts would be more fruitful elsewhere.

    Wikipedia has turned out fairly useful for computer geeks, detailing the latest hardware and software fairly accurately. But I wouldn’t recommend it for anything else.

  126. George says:

    Well as one of the many many many people who was banned from Wiki by William and his goon squad(not for anything I did mind you, they simply accused me of being a fake account of someone else and I was never even given the chance to respond) I can say that wiki is a waste of any reader of WUWT time. Let it die the death that its new “we need money” advertisements show quite clearly it is dying..

    And anthony please don’t justify this mans existance by arguing with him. He is the lowest of the low.

  127. papiertigre says:

    Nothing. Just what I figured.

    THe man has no kahones. I tell you what Anthony, you should require the same standard of “proof” for the “corrections to this post that Wikipedia requires for skeptics. Benny Peiser’s page comes to mind.
    Revisions based on Benny’s word were not good enough.
    Likewise, revisions here based on Williams word shouldn’t be good enough.

  128. papiertigre says:

    Here’s a little nugget from UK libel laws that might explain the use of handles at Wiki.

    You can’t defame nicknames when people don’t know who they are. Hence the fancy nicknames on the revision. It’s to give WC plausible deniability.

    There are no special internet defences. The only advantage is that web sites tend to have a smaller number of users, (so less people see it hence it’s less defamatory so it’s rarely worth the bother of going to court) and allegations can be removed promptly on protest from a defamed party.
    But what about a site like Wiki which is preeminent on the Google search engine? I bet those damages are more substantial.

    On the web, the writer, the web site owner and the ISP can all be sued just like the writer, the magazine and the distributor in the print field. A link could also be potentially defamatory if you are linking to defamatory material. So if you have Connolley defaming Benny Pieser, the case can be filed against Will, Wiki, and Google. That could be interesting.

    As explained well in an article by Emily MacManus, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that British laws on libel are a threat to free speech around the world. Because they permit frivolous cases that would be far too costly for most people to fight, they give a great deal of power to anyone who is annoyed enough and has the resources to pursue legal action there. Even the threat of such action may be sufficient to make individuals or publishing organizations censor themselves.

    Let the treats commence.

  129. Barbara says:

    www. YCombinatorcom has a wish list written by Paul Graham. One of the items is software to replace Wikipedia. Has anyone looked into WMC’s business dealings? He’s copyrighted his HadCM3 graphs.

  130. Turboblocke says:

    Smokey puhleese. In the anstract of that link the author reveals he doesn’t understand the science of CO2 in solution. The release of CO2 from the oceans as temperature rises is in equilibrium with the partial pressure of CO2 which gives negative feedback.

    Now if you knew that yourself, why link to such a bogus analysis? If you didn’t know it, I suggest you bone up on the science of AGW.

  131. George says:

    Connolley has never made any attempt to abide by strict libel laws of his nation. Whats more he knows it too.

  132. Smokey says:

    Turboblocke, making a final judgement based on an abstract is juvenile. There is no way that you could have read that link with the comments and the embedded links. Opinions based on preconceived assumptions don’t carry any weight here.

    Here is Dr Glassman’s CV:

    Dr. Glassman has a BS, MS, and PhD from the UCLA Engineering Department of Systems Science, specializing in electronics, applied mathematics, applied physics, communication and information theory. For more than half of three decades at Hughes Aircraft Company he was Division Chief Scientist for Missile Development and Microelectronics Systems Divisions, responsible for engineering, product line planning, and IR&D. Since retiring from Hughes, he has consulted in various high tech fields, including expert witness on communication satellite anomalies for the defense in Astrium v. TRW, et al, and CDMA instructor at Qualcomm. Lecturer, Math and Science Institutes, UCI. Member, Science Education Advisory Board. Author of Evolution in Science, Hollowbrook, New Hampshire, 1992, ISDN 0-89341-707-6. He is an expert modeler of diverse physical phenomena, including microwave and millimeter wave propagation in the atmosphere and in solids, ballistic reentry trajectories, missile guidance, solar radiation, thermal energy in avionics and in microcircuit devices, infrared communication, analog and digital signals, large scale fire control systems, diffusion, and electroencephalography. Inventor of a radar on-target detection device, and a stereo digital signal processor. Published A Generalization of the Fast Fourier Transform, IEEE Transactions on Computers, 1972. Previously taught detection and estimation theory, probability theory, digital signal processing.

    Please post your CV, so we can compare it with Dr. Glassman’s. If you’re not Connolley’s sock puppet, or Connolley himself, I’m sure you will be happy to comply.

  133. Bulldust says:

    Melamed (11:25:17) :
    Another major issue with Wikipedia (at least from my perspective) is that it is particularly user unfriendly to the average web user. Clearly the editing processes have not evolved much from the original concept of some IT experts. It is intimmidating to non-IT types and hence likely to discourage many people from taking part in the project. Surely that is counter to the concept that it be inclusive.

    Would it kill them to make the whole edit-discussion process more like conventional blog fora?

  134. Turboblocke says:

    Oh Smokey, going straight to the appeal to authority aand ignoring the mistakes in the text does not enable you to pass “Go” and collect $200.

    You also went for the classic double of an ad hominem on me to.

    In addition to not understanding the point about partial pressures, you also ignore the fact that the ocean surface exchanges CO2 not only with the atmosphere, but also deeper water and that exchanges happen between waters of a different temperature. Given that the basic physics of the CO2 ocean/atmosphere dynamics seem to have escaped your hero, I have no intention of wasting my time looking deeper into his story.

    Perhaps he should have spent more time learning about them rather than on all the unrelated subjects that his CV reveals.

    Back to my original remark: “Now if you knew that yourself, why link to such a bogus analysis? If you didn’t know it, I suggest you bone up on the science of AGW.” Let that be my Christmas gift to you… a bit of advice to help you sort the wheat from the chaff.

  135. Smokey says:

    Turboblocke:

    So, it seems you’re a high school graduate with no CV, quoting simple high school chemistry like it’s advanced physics. Should we be impressed by having to multiply the % of CO2 X the total pressure to get the partial pressure? That’s your rebuttal to Dr Glassman??

    Since you’re not capable of refuting Dr Glassman, or even of understanding his deconstruction of your high school conjecture in his Q&A and related links, you’ll understand why it’s appropriate to dismiss your attempt at criticism. This isn’t Wikipedia; when you stumble over the science here, you will get pushback with the facts.

    Just look at all the comments in this thread. Do you actually believe that you are right, and everyone else is wrong? Look at William Connolley’s quote, presuming to be the authority on what are facts, and what is opinion:

    “I note you inserted some specific detail that I acutally removed, as I believed it only caused confusion between opinion and fact, and isn’t really necessary, anyway.” [emphasis added]

    Could Connolley be any more arrogant and insufferable? He is the primary reason that WUWT has replaced Wikipedia’s totally pro-AGW propaganda pages with honest, open, uncensored discussion from both sides. You would never find a quote like Connolley’s here.

    On this “Best Science” site, the truth is sifted from all the pro & con comments by the readers themselves — not by one Soviet-style individual who selectively removes thousands of scientifically skeptical facts debunking the CO2=CAGW conjecture, just so others can’t see them and decide for themselves. That’s not science, that is pushing an agenda.

    WUWT is ethical, and Wikipedia’s AGW pages are not. They are pure propaganda. How can you excuse Connolley’s constant, unremitting censorship of anyone who has a different point of view, and provides specific facts supporting their arguments? Condoning Connolley’s censorship of anyone but his own puppets is inexcusable, and it makes a mockery of the scientific method.

    Next, since you can’t follow Dr. Glassman’s explanation, here is another well documented paper discussing CO2 vapor pressure. It’s a little beyond high school physics, but you should be able to understand most of it. It deconstructs the repeatedly falsified CO2=CAGW conjecture. Debunkings of the CO2 scare like this are immediately censored out of Wiki’s AGW propaganda pages. Really, could Wiki be any more biased and one sided? And Wiki’s kissy-face propaganda giving China a free pass isn’t lost on the rest of us. With Wikipedia’s constant, top of the page begging for moneymoneymoney, it’s pretty clear that throwing Jimmy Wales a bone keeps the repeatedly punished William Connolley in a position to delete skeptical facts disputing AGW. We’re supposed to believe that no one else is capable of doing the same job as William Connolley?

    George Soros funnels money to alarmist blogs. And China bailed out an entire country this year with $5 billion, when Iceland was on the ropes financially. You can be certain that China didn’t do it without a private quid pro quo. So throwing a little chump change Wikipedia’s way is a cheap and easy way to buy their AGW propaganda. Or maybe you’re naive, and believe that Wales keeps a guy on board who is turning his site into the equivalent of realclimate, and forfeiting Wikipedia’s reputation in the process.

    Finally, FYI: CO2 is mainly a function of SST; human activity has little to do with it. The planet emits by far the largest share of CO2 naturally. You probably didn’t know that. But then you’re new here, and you’ve been getting spoon fed your AGW propaganda by Wiki. Stick around here, and you’ll learn the side of the debate you’ve been missing.

    For example, temperatures have been lower in the past than they are now many times — with CO2 concentrations up to twenty times higher — for millions of years at a time. CO2 is an effect of temperature — not a cause. By mendaciously deleting data like this, Connolley sacrifices scientific truth on the altar of his Leftist ponytail politics.

    The fact that the title of this article is ‘Turborevisionism’, and that you’re a new poster calling yourself ‘Turboblocke’ is no coincidence. You are either Connolley or one of his string puppets. Which is it?

  136. Turboblocke says:

    Well Smokey, you seem to have no intution at all. Check my nickname on Google to see how far off the mark you are.

    You seem strangely reluctant to argue the point. Here’s what the abstract of your link said: “When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.”
    The catastrophic positive feedback that he postulates, didn’t occur because a basic knowledge of the physics and chemistry that I explained above show that it can’t occur.

    Claiming that Carbon Dioxide doesn’t accumulate in the atmosphere is so contrary to evidence that it shouldn’t fool anyone.

  137. Smokey says:

    Turboblock:

    “You seem strangely reluctant to argue the point.” Now there’s an example of pure psychological projection. Turboblock has avoided answering numerous points and questions, for example:

    Arrhenius’ 1906 paper recanting his 1896 paper re climate sensitivity. The climate’s sensitivity is so small that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes, no matter how much the minor trace gas CO2 rises. Even using Arrhenius’ 1906 sensitivity number [≅1], we have nothing to worry about even if CO2 doubles. And Arrhenius’ 1906 number was likely at least double the true number. Therefore, wasting more money on the CO2=CAGW scare is foolish and irresponsible.

    And:

    Turboblocke was asked to post his CV to compare it to Dr Glassman’s, after disparaging Glassman’s knowledge. Still waiting.

    And:

    “The real problem is William Connolley’s dishonest redacting of thousands of articles and comments that simply presented different [and more scientifically credible] points of view, which refuted the debunked conjecture that rapidly rising CO2 will cause rapidly rising temperatures, leading to runaway global warming.” Rather than allow Wiki readers to read both sides and make up their own minds, Connolley works overtime to delete one side of the debate; the scientific skeptics’ side. All that’s left are alarmist scare stories, temperature graphs with colors ranging from hot orange to deep red, and repeatedly debunked hokey stick charts.

    Censoring different points of view is not science, it is partisan political advocacy, and an unethical abuse of his [Connolley's] position within the increasingly discredited Wiki AGW posts. Try to justify the blatant, ongoing and one-sided censorship by Connolley and the typical climate alarmist blogs, with the requirement of the scientific method for full and complete transparency and cooperation. Censoring those who disagree with AGW is how Connolley and Wikipedia operate.

    And:

    Residence time for CO2: click. This is the central issue in the CO2=CAGW debate. Because if CO2 residence times are on a century long time-scale, then as CO2 rises rapidly, the planet’s temperature will rise rapidly in response. That is not happening.

    Conversely, if CO2 residency time is short, eg: 10 years or less, then there is nothing to worry about. And as we see from dozens of peer reviewed studies, CO2 persistence is very short. Only the UN/IPCC preposterously assumes that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a century. They must claim that, because the entire alarmist case against CO2 falls apart with short residency times; the biosphere will easily accommodate excess CO2.

    Not sure what the complaint is with the solubility of CO2. As Dr Glassman points out, when ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to naturally increase. So of course CO2 increases, and the natural ocean outgassing of CO2 swamps the relatively tiny human CO2 emissions. But the natural rise in CO2 is an effect, not a cause, of temperature rises.

    It looked like Dr Glassman was referring to a geologic time scale when he wrote, “If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic.” But there has been no positive feedback from the [largely] natural increase in CO2, so there has been no runaway global warming. Even if CO2 levels more than doubled, there would still be no climate catastrophe: As Glassman points out: “While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur.”

    So CO2 can not cause runaway global warming, and that was the central conjecture of the CO2=CAGW promoters. Now that the science on that point is settled, there is no reason to throw more good money after bad, and certainly no reason to worry about the silly catch-word of the day, “carbon”.

    [And for those who think the Wiki AGW pages or Connolley are honest, see here.]

  138. I would invite all readers to help improving the climategate article on wikipedia, which has been hijacked by alarmists that have a troop of sleepless zealots that work in conjunction with the aim to keep the page as useless as possible. Please bear in mind the use of reliable sources and read and add your views in the discussion page before changing the main article. We need more people to counter W. Connolley and his troop of alarmists:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

    talk page:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

  139. TWZA says:

    Oh dear. We saw that, [snip].

    –The Wikipedia Zealot Alarmists

  140. BLouis79 says:

    I tried changing some bits in the article on “climate sensitivty”. Given a range of estimates appears already and warwick hughes site suggests even lower is reasonable, I added it to the mix. It got undone by W Connolley. Didn’t know about him until that. Citing “unreliable source” is an interesting rule to push, since one could arguably delete all reference to IPCC et al as “unreliable source” after climategate.

  141. Godfrey says:

    I see Connelly and his “tag-team” are at it again. This time it’s about the many disputed entries about Lord Monckton, the prominent anti-AGW campaigner.
    Many contributors have argued that they have chosen a picture of him which is unflattering, and at worst, deliberately derogatory – which is agaist wiki rules.
    After a temporary removal, there has been an edit war which Connelly’s tag-team have won, insisting that it stays. See “Discussion” page on
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

    They’re fascists.

  142. Zach says:

    There’s a reason Wikipedians don’t take this criticism seriously. The main reason being the numbers you cite.

    You site that he deleted over 300 articles that he disagreed with. While it is true that he deleted articles on Wikipedia, that’s part of the duties of an administrator. He can only delete articles that don’t belong on Wikipedia according to Wiki policies and guidelines which have been decided by hundreds if not thousands of people. You have no proof that he has ever simply deleted an article that he just didn’t care for or went against his alleged views.

    The same holds true for his edits. Did you check to see what percentage of his edits had anything to do with climate change articles? I would guess that not even 25% of the 5k+ edits had anything to do with climate change.

    I worry that my words will fall on def ears as you apparently do not fully understand how Wikipedia works and the conspiracy theory that a cabal of editors headed by a dastardly Goliath are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public.

    I think your reports are borderline libel and that you should have looked more deeply into the matter. Once you do, I believe you will find that at least a partial apology is in order as I don’t expect you to agree with everything he does (I don’t either).

  143. Fred S. says:

    William Connolley was in direct contact with the IPCC as the Climategate emails reveal. Searchable climatagate database:

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/

    Search for “Connolley” and you get the picture.

  144. noway says:

    Opening comment – “politicized censorship has no place on Wikipedia”. Well just out of curiousity where in hell are these articles in Wiki. I have totally missed them – other than bland science etc. Anything to do with history, etc, etc GW is a good one, etc is so politicized I read them for the humor. I didn’t think ( and seriously doubt ) that anyone other than a few editors on Wiki take the quality of their work seriously.

  145. Abd says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-12-08/Global_Warming&diff=337975642&oldid=337963833

    Schulz, one of the long-time tag-team editors at Global Warming, claims that “A large part of the problems at the Climate Change articles is caused by short-lived newcomers and, in particular, socks.”

    Sure. One of the most prolific sock puppet masters at Wikipedia has been Scibaby. Look at the history of Scibaby, he was tag-teamed by the usual suspects and blocked by William M. Connolley and then by Raul654, and a number of administrators were quite ready to block anyone who “pushed” a skeptical point of view at the article, leaving alone editors who were uncivil revert warriors on the other side. Editors who tried to make the article neutral, following guidelines and policies, gave up in frustration, leaving behind nobody but “us chickens.” Like Schulz.

    At one point a neutral administrator, seeing the edit warring, protected the article. WMC unprotected it, in a blatant violation of administrative recusal policy, and his reason for unblocking was that the article was being watched by administrators, no problem. He also wrote that there was no problem, because “we” would be able to keep the article on-track, “they” would tire of trying to work on it and go away. He got away with wiki-murder for a long time, he had powerful friends, but eventually it became too much. He lost his administrative privileges last year over actions-while involved.

    If you are interested in global warming, by all means, read the article and watch the Talk page discussion. Register an account and use it, particularly after some delay and hopefully some edits to other subjects, but, note, much information about Wikipedia, such as the complaints about WMC’s deletion record, are misinformation. WMC was abusive, all right, and still is, but coming in like a bull in a china closet will just irritate everyone. If you want to help, learn the policies and guidelines, be as cooperative and civil as possible, be patient, try to make the article actually neutral following what is in reliable sources, help those who are trying to do the same, and especially those who are unjustly attacked. And don’t give up. Don’t burn yourself out by trying to do it all at once.

Comments are closed.