Bishop Hill had the news first, which is fitting since Mr. Connolley is based in Britain.
In a vote of 7-0, The most prolific climate revisionist editor ever at Wikipedia, with over 5400 article revisions has been banned from making any edits about climate related articles for six months.
Here’s the details at Wikipedia. After that time, he can reapply, per the Wikipedia rules seen here in remedy 3
This is of course just a shot across the bow, and there are easy ways to circumvent such a ban, but it is finally a factual realization by Wikipedia that the sort of gatekeeping and revisioning wars in the climate change information business are being recognized and dealt with.
Personally, I’m encouraged by some of the recent changes brought to my attention by Peter Tillman, an editor who left a comment here.
Perhaps we no longer need to disengage from Wikipedia, but rather engage it and work to make it better.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The whole problem is getting someone in that “field of expertise”.
Same problem with peer review.
By the time they have “expertise”, they have an opinion.
Anyone with “expertise” is going to be hard pressed to pass something that makes them look wrong.
Ding Dong, the witch is dead….for now.
A step in the right direction, finally!
Well, they’ve put new sanctions in place in the CC topic area and banned basically every skeptic.
Several key AGW members were ignored and if anyone jumps in I expect they will be banned using the same tactics WMC’s group has always used (revert, bait and then whine to admins).
Do those of us who submitted evidence against WMC in this case get special WUWT medals? 😉
REPLY: I wish I had them to pass out, but with budget cuts…oh, wait, I have no budget. – Anthony
For six months? The issue goes back to the late 1960s. How about banning him for six years or even sixty years?
REPLY: Wikipedia was formally launched on 15 January 2001, how about we limit the scope to the venue? – Anthony
They’ll just find excuses to let him continue, as they’ve done before.
He’ll probably re-register himself as Conal M Williams or some such. Like dog’s doings on your shoes, the smell will hang around and just won’t go away
OT, sorry, but too good to pass up: Friday Funny material for you Anthony
From the LA Times: UFO’s descend upon Manhattan. “…believers cite a September 13 press release for the book Challenges of Change by retired NORAD officer Stanley A. Fulham, which predicted a fleet of UFOs would descend upon Earth’s major cities on Wednesday, October 13.
Fulham stated the extraterrestrials would neither land nor make any communication with Earth on Wednesday. But their presence would be “the first in a series intended to avert a planetary catastrophe resulting from increasing levels of carbon-dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere dangerously approaching a ‘critical mass.’ […] They are aware from eons of experience with other planets in similar conditions their sudden intervention would cause fear and panic.”
He asserts their contact with Earth is part of their process of leading mankind into accepting the “alien reality and technologies for the removal of poisonous gases from the earth’s atmosphere in 2015, if not sooner.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/wpix-ufo-sighting,0,2283967.story
P.F. says:
October 14, 2010 at 4:47 pm
“For six months? The issue goes back to the late 1960s. How about banning him for six years or even sixty years?”
No, it is technically indefinite, but we can all appeal after 6 months.
OK , but how receptive will Wiki be to corrections ? Connolley must have fellow travellers there .
It should be noted that this 7-0 vote is against a co-founder of RealClimate. Speaks volumes.
I’ve had run-ins with this clown on Wiki. Can’t tell you how happy this news makes me.
Amazing … Mr. Connolley got himself a time-out. Tsk,tsk.
Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Atmosphere
References:
3. “Deep ice tells long climate story”. BBC News. 2006-09-04. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
4. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
Anyone who wants to correct that, especially with it citing such illustrious unquestionable peer-reviewed references as the BBC, feel free to try. We’ll see how long it’ll stick “now that Connolley is gone.”
A very wise but inevitable decision. This man was giving Wikipedia a bad name, a very bad name.
I wish the Wikipedia’s DMU and management all the success of the world with their project.
I wonder what happened to make these 7 change their minds? This is not the first time Connelley has been called up and they gave him a slap on the wrist before.
One suspects that Stoat and RC will be deadly silent on this issue and “moderating” any posters that dare mention the ban.
Problem is that he can easily start editing under another name, from another IP, another email address, and through various “sock puppets.” The ban is a symbolic gesture as best, but I applaud it as thus. His edits were indiscriminate and in many cases poorly argued. That Wiki let it go for so long despite his obvious PoV bias beggars belief.
… as such * … dang it is first thing Friday morning. The beers haven’t kicked in yet >.>
Good news that Wikipedias finally actually noticed.
That should inconvinience him for several minutes until he activates his sockpuppets.
Hopefully this will not turn into a case of “better the devil you know…” although it is difficult to imagine someone being more biased than Mr WC.
I say leave him there…. all these guys including Romm, Hansen, Tamino, Pachauri, Nature (climate science), APS et al (climate science), are the skeptics allies/best friend, due to their inherent capacity to do things that eventually bring them and the whole scam down.
Editing Wikipedia is largely a waste of time because it is flawed by design and nothing more than truth based on who edits last.
The Anti Wikipedia Resource
The Wikipedia Paradox
1. At the time that you are looking at a page how do you determine it’s level of accuracy?
2. How do you determine if a page is “good editor” corrected or “bad editor” inaccurate?
3. Who decides who a “good editor” is? How are their qualifications determined?
4. What is the time frame for a “good editor” to correct a page and how is this time frame determined?
5. If more then one “good editor” wants to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth?
6. If more then one person is “watching” a topic for changes and they both want to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth?
7. Are there more expert or non-expert people with Internet connections on a certain subject that can edit that subject’s Wikipedia page?
8. With no value assigned to level of expertise for editors per Wikipedia page how is the accuracy of the edits determined?
9. How is a “neutral point of view” determined on Wikipedia pages and who makes this decision? Could it be the person who edited it last? How is this a “neutral point of view”?
10. If Wikipedia is so accurate then why would anyone ever need to make corrections to it?
Personally I disagree, with the removal of the ban.
I was once an avid supporter of group networking to solve issues, but the behaviors of collective disinformation and defamation, have caused serious injury.
There has been no apologia (yes that is what I wrote) it was not a single issue of conflict it was a series of issues that would have made middle age inquisitors proud.
As a brand new voluntary project in information management, the story of the behaviors in Climate needed to be observed and reported as factual and not as partisan player.
Pinning a tail one one malicious donkey and calling that a fix, is not rigorous librarianship.
How many people defamed? How many careers destroyed? And the defence of the failed philosophical position of the precautionary principle?
Encyclopedia are to report accurately even in conflict.
Me I will continue to avoid like the plague, this discredited project. It was joined at the hip top the last witchhunt instead of historically recording the conflict. A pox on it’s ignoble house.
Librarians in society have significant duties of care to make sure books are not burned and knowledge destroyed. To report outcomes and discussions and debates.
007 says:
October 14, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Yesh Double O sheven. It doush shpeak volumesh. What wil Connolly do in hish shpare time now?