As we have known for some time, global warming zealot and green party member William F. Connolley edited 5428 Wikipedia articles, mostly about climate. It seems some researchers have taken notice of this and other topics that are ruled by similar zealotry.
From the BBC and Fox News: Re-writing history? Wikipedia’s biggest ‘edit wars’ revealed
Scientists analysed page edits in 10 editions to find topics fought over by contributors to the open encyclopaedia.
While some topics were locally controversial, many religious subjects, such as Jesus and God, were universally debated, they found.
Further research is planned to log how controversial topics change over time.
Researchers from the University of Oxford and three other institutions analysed logs of the changes made to Wikipedia pages to identify those in the throes of an “edit war”. Such a conflict involves editors of pages making changes that are almost instantly undone by another editor.
Finding the pages over which editors scrap about such changes was a better guide to controversial subjects than simply picking out those that changed a lot, wrote the researchers in a paper describing their work.
Pages that get updated a lot might just be about a rapidly changing field or topic, they said. By contrast, a topic page in which words and phrases are constantly removed and reinstated gave an insight into the depth of feeling it evoked among contributors.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Connolley does not just do edit wars. He threatens banishment rather quickly. He sits on the page for the LIttle Ice Age in which it says that human activity caused the LIttle Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. I added some ameliorating phrases without removing anything of his and he threw my changes out repeatedly, and then threatened to have me blocked from Wikipedia. I even used realtime changes in my classroom to show students how fast he undid my additions.
Global warming? Controversial? Who knew… ;o)
William F. Connolley, eh. Fellow by that name made a few comments here on WUWT a while back. Not a lot of agreement with what he wrote, as I recall.
I noticed the WikiWarming Bias while doing research about the 1936 heat wave. Only in Wiki was there a comparison made to 2012, and on one occasion the inference was that 1936 was the hottest summer “until” 2012. The actual data I looked at made it very clear 1936 was far hotter, with the heat more prolonged.
Someone with a lot more time on their hands than I have needs to go right through Wiki and undo Connolley’s manglings of facts and data.
They should leave the articles alone. Except for the America’s Got Talent article, I stand by my revision that the real season 3 winner was that guy who juggles raccoons He totally got the shaft!
What’s so touchy about circumcisions?
Ah yes. Wiki and their editing. Chairman Mao would be so proud. The only reason I go there now is to get the references at the bottom of some articles I am curious about.
Haven’t they banned this Clown… Connolley?
I created and updated the ‘intermittency’ section on wind power many times, because the Wiki page thought that wind intermittency was irrelevant to wind power. (Duhhh…!)
However, 90% of my efforts hit the cutting-room floor, plus I was banned from updating Wiki for alleged ‘vandalism’ (i.e.: trying to write about intermittency).
That, is how much one should trust Wiki entries, especially on controversial subjects.
Justthinkin says: July 19, 2013 at 11:50 am
The only reason I go to Wiki now is to get the references at the bottom of some articles I am curious about.
_______________________________
Ha, I thought that was just me!
They should create a new Reference Wiki. No biased commentary, just a list of references to that topic. Now THAT would be useful.
Thinking about it, they should create a new Reference BBC too. No biased reporting, just a list of other media outlets who are reporting that topic. Now THAT would be REAAALY useful.
I ran into Mr. Connolley way back the days of UseNet (ask your grandfather what that is). He was as charming then as now.
BTW, if you want to know just how screwed up the process is, this is a must read:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html
Philip Roth tries to edit his own entry to remove a provable falsehood. Hilarity ensures.
Kafka was an optimist…
Perhaps Connolley has a second career option with the WWE which ranks just above him. He has the required level of credibility and the effort he put into wriggling out of an upside down Tiljander should impress.
@ralfellis
Perhaps you should create an article in WIKI specifically regarding “Wind Intermittency” and it’s effect on wing generated electricity. Try creating a different account and loging in from the public library. I can’t see WIKI banning entry from a library PC
He edited 5428 articles? Wow, I’m really impressed by that. He must be a really smart guy.
all I know is what I read in Wiki, The Richmond Times Disgrace and the Raleigh Nuisance and Disturber.
Bryan A says:
July 19, 2013 at 12:20 pm
“@ralfellis
Perhaps you should create an article in WIKI specifically regarding “Wind Intermittency” and it’s effect on wing generated electricity. Try creating a different account and loging in from the public library. I can’t see WIKI banning entry from a library PC”
They will mark such an article with “Candidate for speedy deletion” and simulate a debate on the talk page where they come to the conclusion that the topic is irrelevant.
DirkH says:
July 19, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Bryan A says:
July 19, 2013 at 12:20 pm
“Try creating a different account and loging in from the public library. I can’t see WIKI banning entry from a library PC”
Oh, and my kid told me that all public school IP’s in Germany are banned anyway due to vandalism; with the same argument they will have banned library PC’s – they are often used by kids.
Surely there is some deep seated psychological pathology at work here. What would Cook and Lewandowsky have to say about this?
The study as described may not reveal as much as they think. What about all the articles that are changed but not noticed? That won’t be caught either by the “many changes” filter or the “many back and forth” filter.
Well, this is good material for real psychology studies not what the clown Lew and the like does. This is real and very interesting, so possibly they will soon get the money cut. Sounds too cynical? Am curious… lets talk 6 month later.
These are the limits of Wikipedia, the way how articles about global warming were edited was the reason why I ceased to make donations… It does not make sense for me to pay to maintain the nonsense some self-assigned “scientist” puts there.
Bill, I trust you were joking.
The author’s observation about how to define controversial articles sounds plausible.
Bob says: @ur momisugly July 19, 2013 at 12:23 pm
He edited 5428 articles? Wow…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Makes you wonder what Connolley does for a living doesn’t it? Especially when you consider the number of time he has edited and re-edited the same article.
……
Now if a bunch of determined people picked one article and all had a go at it….
@higley7
He threatens banishment rather quickly.
Perhaps true, but quite dated. He was an admin (you have to be an admin to block someone) but he lost that position years ago, so he no longer has the ability to block. (at the risk of being anal, banning is not the same as blocking and admins do not ban, that is a community action. However, to the casual editor a ban or a block both sound serious.)
Lars P. says:
July 19, 2013 at 12:37 pm
“Well, this is good material for real psychology studies not what the clown Lew and the like does. This is real and very interesting, so possibly they will soon get the money cut. Sounds too cynical? Am curious… lets talk 6 month later.
These are the limits of Wikipedia, the way how articles about global warming were edited was the reason why I ceased to make donations… It does not make sense for me to pay to maintain the nonsense some self-assigned “scientist” puts there.”
You can be 100% sure that the state (or the superstate, the EU) finds ways to have exactly that in the wikipedia that he wants you to know and have you see what he wants you to see, whether the tool is Connolley or some other name. Just like the EU funds the NGO’s.
The wikipedia is a controlled medium, a Pravda, just like the state media (the “public broadcasters”) and the controlled private media (of which many are participants of the Bilderberg and CFR meetings).
The modern superstate has taken 1984 not as a warning but as a playbook, and wikipedia is the ministry of truth, in which history is constantly being rewritten. How many of the Winston Smith’s are REALLY unpaid volunteers (fanatics) will stay unknown and will never be examined.
@Mycroft
Haven’t they banned this Clown… Connolley?,/i>
I disagree with the characterization, but dealing with the substance, Connolley was both an editor and admin. He lost his admin status. For a time, he was banned from editing article about Climate Change, but he requested a release from his ban and it was granted.
It has been good to see how the BBC’s Black and Harrabin have kept licence payers in the know about how Wikipedia works.
Next up, the BBC’s “science editor” (BA Geography) explains recent developments in knitting needle technology.
@ralfellis
the Wiki page thought that wind intermittency was irrelevant to wind power. (Duhhh…!)
The article on wind power states (in part, emphasis added):
Electricity generated from wind power can be highly variable at several different timescales: hourly, daily, or seasonally. Annual variation also exists, but is not as significant.
Because instantaneous electrical generation and consumption must remain in balance to maintain grid stability, this variability can present substantial challenges to incorporating large amounts of wind power into a grid system. Intermittency and the non-dispatchable nature of wind energy production can raise costs for regulation, incremental operating reserve, and (at high penetration levels) could require an increase in the already existing energy demand management, load shedding, storage solutions or system interconnection with HVDC cables.
How do you reach your conclusion? (In fairness, I am quoting the current version, maybe you mean an earlier version?)