More on Wikipedia and Connolley – he's been canned as a Wiki administrator

http://himaarmenia.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/wikipedia-logo.jpgWUWT reader Dennis Kuzara wrote to Wikipedia in response to our earlier article on Wikibullies prompted by Lawrence Solomon of the National Post. He has received an eye-opening reply. Emphasis mine – Anthony

=================

Wikipedia replies

notable excerpt:

> > 4. Has William Connolley been removed as a Wikipedia administrator? If so who has taken his place?

In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. This has now been added to his article

().

Nobody has replaced him specifically, but there are more than a thousand other administrators with very varied backgrounds.

Reply follows:

Dear Dennis Kuzara,

Thank you for your email.

12/20/2009 05:31 – Dennis Kuzara wrote:

> > Pierre

> >

> > I understand there several processes and procedures intended to prevent

> > someone from taking control of a segment of Wikipedia for their own benefit. I

> > also understand that Wikipedia is huge and therefore cannot be micromanaged

> > from the top, which is why the procedures and controls are in place.

> >

> > What happened in this case was a successful conspiracy to take command of

> > information (and history) by a not-so small group of co-conspirators, a la

> > 1984, to serve their own means and ends.This is not a flash in the pan, but a

> > long term (over a decade) coordinated effort to literally rewrite history. As

> > you stated, Wikipedia … normally takes no stance in disputes about Wikipedia

> > content or administration, but this situation is far from normal by anyones

> > measure.

> >

> > I think the Wikipedia concept has enormous benefits and Wikipedia is usually

> > the first place I look when I need information. My greatest concern is the

> > damage to Wikipedia’s credibility by something as massive as what was

> > orchestrated by William Connolley and his band of cohorts. I think it would be

> > prudent for Wikipedia to be proactive on this matter, if for no other reason

> > than for damage control.

> >

> > So, actually, your (apparently off the shelf) reply does not answer my

> > question.

> >

> > Let’s break it down into several parts:

> > 1. Is the management at Wikipedia aware of the biased and dictatorial

> > Wikipedia administration by William Connolley?

I’m not Foundation management, just an editor and volunteer who answers customer

e-mail, but my understanding is that while Foundation staff are probably aware of

this and other controversies, they leave their resolution to the community of

editors and its procedures.

> > 2. Is there any internal investigation being undertaken to verify the extent

> > and the scope of this apparent hijacking of process.

What you refer to as a “hijacking of process” is, as far as I can tell, an

entirely normal (for me) series of disagreements about article content. Thousands

of such disagreements occur every day on Wikipedia, and they are normally resolved

through our discussion-based dispute resolution process, as explained at

. This process may ultimately lead to

an Arbitration Committee investigation.

> > 3. What, if any steps are being taken to correct the bias injected into the

> > 5,428 articles authored or edited by William Connolley?

Wikipedia’s content is not centrally edited. Anybody may make any change to

Wikipedia, including undoing an edit by Mr. Connolley. But that change may be

undone in turn if others disagree, and any dispute has to be resolved through

discussion until a consensus is found. This is explained at

.

> > 4. Has William Connolley been removed as a Wikipedia administrator? If so who

> > has taken his place?

In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s

administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges

while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. This has now been added

to his article

().

Nobody has replaced him specifically, but there are more than a thousand other

administrators with very varied backgrounds.

> > 5. Would it be prudent in this case to now have an administrator who is

> > biased against AGW but closely monitored until this situation is fleshed out?

Administrators are elected by the Wikipedia community, and require a supermajority

of about 70% for election. The community prefers to elect administrators who

display no bias in any respect, but are committed to upholding Wikipedia’s

principle of “neutral point of view” ().

> > 5. If the current controls failed in this situation (a successful coordinated

> > attack by a group), then what steps are being taken to change the procedures

> > and processes to keep such usurpation from happening in the future?

Should the community conclude that its processes were indeed subverted by anybody

(and I am not aware of any such consensus emerging currently), it may decide to

change its policies, as explained at

.

Yours sincerely,

Pierre Grés

– Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org — Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org

D L Kuzara

dlkuzara@yahoo.com

76.123.77.31

Wikipedia replies

notable excerpt:

> > 4. Has William Connolley been removed as a Wikipedia administrator? If so who has taken his place?

In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. This has now been added to his article

().

Nobody has replaced him specifically, but there are more than a thousand other administrators with very varied backgrounds.

Reply follows:

Dear Dennis Kuzara,

Thank you for your email.

12/20/2009 05:31 – Dennis Kuzara wrote:

> > Pierre

> >

> > I understand there several processes and procedures intended to prevent

> > someone from taking control of a segment of Wikipedia for their own benefit. I

> > also understand that Wikipedia is huge and therefore cannot be micromanaged

> > from the top, which is why the procedures and controls are in place.

> >

> > What happened in this case was a successful conspiracy to take command of

> > information (and history) by a not-so small group of co-conspirators, a la

> > 1984, to serve their own means and ends.This is not a flash in the pan, but a

> > long term (over a decade) coordinated effort to literally rewrite history. As

> > you stated, Wikipedia … normally takes no stance in disputes about Wikipedia

> > content or administration, but this situation is far from normal by anyones

> > measure.

> >

> > I think the Wikipedia concept has enormous benefits and Wikipedia is usually

> > the first place I look when I need information. My greatest concern is the

> > damage to Wikipedia’s credibility by something as massive as what was

> > orchestrated by William Connolley and his band of cohorts. I think it would be

> > prudent for Wikipedia to be proactive on this matter, if for no other reason

> > than for damage control.

> >

> > So, actually, your (apparently off the shelf) reply does not answer my

> > question.

> >

> > Let’s break it down into several parts:

> > 1. Is the management at Wikipedia aware of the biased and dictatorial

> > Wikipedia administration by William Connolley?

I’m not Foundation management, just an editor and volunteer who answers customer

e-mail, but my understanding is that while Foundation staff are probably aware of

this and other controversies, they leave their resolution to the community of

editors and its procedures.

> > 2. Is there any internal investigation being undertaken to verify the extent

> > and the scope of this apparent hijacking of process.

What you refer to as a “hijacking of process” is, as far as I can tell, an

entirely normal (for me) series of disagreements about article content. Thousands

of such disagreements occur every day on Wikipedia, and they are normally resolved

through our discussion-based dispute resolution process, as explained at

. This process may ultimately lead to

an Arbitration Committee investigation.

> > 3. What, if any steps are being taken to correct the bias injected into the

> > 5,428 articles authored or edited by William Connolley?

Wikipedia’s content is not centrally edited. Anybody may make any change to

Wikipedia, including undoing an edit by Mr. Connolley. But that change may be

undone in turn if others disagree, and any dispute has to be resolved through

discussion until a consensus is found. This is explained at

.

> > 4. Has William Connolley been removed as a Wikipedia administrator? If so who

> > has taken his place?

In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s

administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges

while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. This has now been added

to his article

().

Nobody has replaced him specifically, but there are more than a thousand other

administrators with very varied backgrounds.

> > 5. Would it be prudent in this case to now have an administrator who is

> > biased against AGW but closely monitored until this situation is fleshed out?

Administrators are elected by the Wikipedia community, and require a supermajority

of about 70% for election. The community prefers to elect administrators who

display no bias in any respect, but are committed to upholding Wikipedia’s

principle of “neutral point of view” ().

> > 5. If the current controls failed in this situation (a successful coordinated

> > attack by a group), then what steps are being taken to change the procedures

> > and processes to keep such usurpation from happening in the future?

Should the community conclude that its processes were indeed subverted by anybody

(and I am not aware of any such consensus emerging currently), it may decide to

change its policies, as explained at

.

Yours sincerely,

Pierre Grés

– Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org — Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org


Sponsored IT training links:

Need help for HP0-J38 certification? Download 70-450 products to guarantee pass your 1Y0-A09 exam.


Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Chris

This is amazing.

Dev

I wouldn’t break out the champagne just yet. William Connelly ran for a seat on the Arbitration Committee.
Current results here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ACE2009
It looks like he won’t make the nine member cut, but with Wiki, who the heck knows for sure…

Wow, it’s amazing. Moreover, the irony is kind of obvious.
99.9% of his bullying and intimidation was related to articles about “climate warming.” They were probably the “desired ones” so at the end, he had to be sacked for a different topic – where he only applied his new self-confidence obtained by the Wikipedia establishment’s tolerance towards his gangster behavior towards the editors of “climate warming” articles.

By the way, once this particular dinosaur is gone, I think it could be sensible to try to correct the most obvious biases and mistakes in Wikipedia’s climate articles.
There are lots of smart and educated WUWT readers who read this thread. Create a Wikipedia account if you don’t have one yet and try to peacefully and constructively edit articles about global warming, hockey stick, and lots of other things.
It may be that you won’t be treated as a Jew in Germany of the early 1940s this time.

Mark

woohoo, score one for the good guys 🙂

What is to stop Connolly using another ID and IP address to continue administering climate articles?
Perhaps he already has several aliases which he’s been using in tandem.

Nigel S

‘The community prefers to elect administrators who
display no bias in any respect,’
Good luck with that.

bananabender

The point is that hundreds of entries related to global warming are still hopelessly biased. Most of the sceptics are still described as Big Oil stooges or raving lunatics. Instead of one corrupt editor we now have hundreds of even more corrupt petty dictators.

Mark

Well my edit on mann`s hocky stick lasted all of half an hour 🙂
Reason for deletion, blog nonsense pov and was done by chriso, so another one steps in were the other has fallen.

I’m sure I’m only one of many, but I emailed wikipedia recently about their donations campaign saying I woud happily donate once the bias was removed from the global warming section.

VG

Just fix it (Climate change Wikipedia) with the truth no pro or anti AGW bias. Just based on the RAW data (when we get it!). It has to be said that both RC and Stoat Connoley web sites are now allowing unbrindled criticism.. a good start for a future in long term forecasting.

VG

It seems that the Wikipedia “Climate Change” page has now been completely changed! All Hadcrut data deleted, hockey stick gone etc… a good start.

John Hooper

Stop whinging and get editing.
Sheesh!

Kazinksi

I just read through the arbitration page on Connolley’s case over at Wikipedia. The verdict? There all nuts.
It also says that Connolley can apply for reinstatement as an administrator at any time. I think Wikipedia ought to have a clear policy of editors not being allowed to edit articles on subjects for which they are advocates. And despite RC and its contributors claiming they are just scientists explaining the science, I think any dispassionate observer would have to conclude that they’ve crossed over the line to become advocates.

Andrew P

OT – haven’t scanned the rest of the Sundays yet, but an excellent piece by Gerald Warner on Copehagen, carbon trading and climategate in Scotland on Sunday:
“Finally, the great climate change lie begins to unravel”
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/sos-news-columnists/Gerald-Warner-Finally-the-great.5926323.jp
But I am sure that the BBC, the Guardian, Independent (and sadly the Glasgow Herald which usually takes a different view from the London hegemony), will still be on message.

len

I know Anthony has a bias against certain skeptics, namely one that many of us (his readers) want to name the current Solar Grand Minimum after. I joined Wiki to help flesh out Ted’s ‘stub’ and discovered Bill Connolley trolling about. He apparently met Landscheidt and didn’t like him either. He was actively trying to delete it saying he was insignificant and not noteworthy enough for an entry. The version twisted by Bill version remains. I did manage to sneek a bit of fun stuff at the end of a blatantly wrong article about the Western Antarctic related to satelite data which remained there for about 3 months before being wiped. After that bit of fun I’ve grown tired of the idea of doing all that work to put up on a place like Wiki. I still think there is a need to look (paint a picture in simple terms) of solar forcing of the climate from a broad paleo level to the Milankovitch Cycle to the ‘Jose Cycle’ to the Hale Cycle … I had a rudimentary post that was evolving on this but I shut down my site. (Mostly because I would rather browse my fave sites like this one) Maybe with William Connolley gone I could put it on Wiki 😀 He was just one of the team of warmist gate keepers on Wiki and I don’t know if I want to find out who has taken over.
Just take a look at this little incestuous page on realclimate.org …
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki

Purakanui

bananabender (00:15:19) :
You may well be right, but I smell a lot of media outlets of all sorts doing a great deal of cya activity. I suspect that Climategate (and what may well be as yet undisclosed further revelations from Climategate) is having a big influence in all sorts of areas. Colour me optimistic if you like, but I think the tide is turning

dcardno

In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s
administrator status…

So what? He’s made 50 contributions to Wikipedia from Dec 17 to Dec 20, or the last three days or so. Mr Connolley has remained very active, despite revocation of his official status. The point is that while Wikipedia is wonderful for -say- Faraday’s experiments or definition of an eigenvector, it simply cannot be trusted for anything controversial – which unfortunately includes “climate science” at least so long as climate “scientists” persist in playing climate politics.

I asked today on email if there was any truth in the allegations in the National Post. What was Wikipedia’s side of the story?
I received a prompt and very courteous response from Pierre at Wikipedia with similar information to the above:
==== email from Wikipedia ==========
Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia (as explained at ), and so anyone may edit its articles. Its policy, nonetheless, is that articles must be written from a Neutral Point of View, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias, as is discussed extensively at .
However, all matters relating to article content and project administration are
not controlled by a central authority, but are decided through discussion and
consensus of all collaborators. The nonprofit Wikipedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, does not intervene in the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia, does not make decisions about the content of articles or about administrative actions, and normally takes no stance in disputes about Wikipedia content or administration.
There are several tens of thousands of contributors and more than a thousand
administrators on the English Wikipedia alone, which normally ensures that no single editor or administrator can exert a commanding influence over the project or any particular aspect of it. There are also often disputes about content or administrative policy, but Wikipedia has solid procedures to resolve disputes and to make sure that every contested action, including the deletion of articles or the blocking of contributors, is subject to review in a community discussion or by an independent Arbitration Committee
().
In September 2009, the Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to global warming. This has now been added to the Wikipedia article about him
().
I hope that this addresses your concern.
===== end of email from Wikipedia ==========
That does satisfy my concern about the story. Of course, Wikipedia is always going to struggle to do a great job on very controversial subjects, but perhaps in the real spirit of Wikipedia – the crowd-sourcing model – it might still be better than what would be found in a traditional encyclopedia.
So, for those who have knowledge and expertise in a subject related to climate, why not go ahead and create some material.
If the gatekeeper is gone, the crowd-sourcing model might be freed up.
Steve
http://scienceofdoom.com

dcardno
VG

As an apologist you have to consider giving these guys a way out.. after all they were eminent scientist at some time.

Richard111

I am not impressed with the response from Wikipedia.
While they refuse to publish the academic achievements of scientists who dispute the AGW doctrine they make themselves unworthy of attention.

John Smith

Unfortunately Wikipedia is known as very left wing, and very biased on a great deal of topics (not to mention often-times factually inaccurate). Although this climate issue isn’t my particular field, I’ve faced the exact same aggressive editing when balancing evolution/atheism/religion articles. Most of my edits are extremely well sourced and authoritative, yet rapidly removed because it disturbs the otherwise streamlined propaganda that forms the opinions of millions.
Sorry, I’m wandering OT. My point is that, as others have said, while one propagandist is removed, there are many others that will move in to fill the gap. Bottom line to any casual readers here: if you want the truth on any “hot” issue (pun intended) don’t go near Wiki.

“In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. This has now been added to his article
().”
I don’t see where this was added to Connolley’s Wikipedia article.

The fundamental flaw of Wikipedia is the same as one in the modern process of “peer review.”
I grew up in the Soviet Union, where any publication was allowed only if it faithfully adhered to the current party line. Encyclopedias, including the scientific ones, referred to the previously approved publications only, and, therefore, they too toed the party line.
Any feedback could flow only through this closed evil short circuit. Conformist insiders thrived in government scientific institutes; “skeptics” and “deniers” did hard physical labor in prison camps, died in penalty battalions in Afghanistan, or perished in special “mental hospitals” for dissidents.
Today we live, in more than one sense, in a Global Soviet Union, where no conclusion, no matter how well justified by the logic or experimental results, is allowed to be published in “peer-reviewed” scientific journals if it is regarded as “unwanted” by the clique of mutually supporting, ideologically biased (and, in the final analysis, financially motivated) editors.
Green alarmism is an incredibly convenient ideology for the crooks in power. Not only it justifies their financial and legal abuses, it gives them an opportunity to use fear and guilt – two most efficient tools of manipulation – on the massive, global scale.
They know very well that most human beings value their status, comfort, and safety much more than some abstract notions of “truth” or “scientific facts.” By financing science, plutocrats receive “scientific” results made to their order: scientists are mere humans, and such is human nature.
It is amazing that lawmaking thieves still allow a relatively free worldwide access to some unbiased opinions and uncensored facts via Internet. I am sure they are working fast and furious on closing this dangerous loophole. Yahoo and Google are already cooperating. Soon they will introduce information filters – first under the innocent pretext of “protecting minors from pornography,” and later, quietly, expanding these filters to the matters of real ideological importance.
Do you think people like Rev. Jeremiah Write and his faithful acolyte of 20 years, Barack Obama, will ever let up? They are full of passionate, righteous hatred, and seriously bent on destroying the very foundations of the free society. Overt socialist slogans being out of fashion, green propaganda is their best chance of success.
[snip, ended over the top ~ ctm]

TattyMane

I gave up on Wikipedia a LONG time ago. While I guess I’m not altogether moribund about the demise of the Connolley, I hold very little hope that his ilk won’t carry on polluting the thing and continue its bias.

Nigel S

‘On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age’
Nothing better to do I guess.

Mark

Slightly ot/ is steve mcintyre actually a climatoligist? What are his credentials?
Is he considered an expert in this field? How would i go about using his work as a reliable source?

Mapou

Here’s some good news. Michael Mann is getting his ass whipped by the commenters of his pathetic Washington Post editorial in which he tried to defend AGW by attacking Sarah Palin:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682_Comments.html

Caleb

Let us see how quickly the MWP rises like Lazerus from the dead. If it doesn’t, we know the bias remains.

Doug in Seattle

I read through the comments/endorsements for Conneley’s candidacy for arbitrator. Wow, a lot of folks have been rubbed the wrong way by this guy.

Honest ABE

Ok, I would love to write an entire article on this subject, but I believe the spam filter would kick in.
First off Connolley, several years ago, lost his adminship due to similar behavior. Once, when I was a bit active with wikipedia, and pissed off at his obvious censorship and his “teamwork” with several other individuals, I pointed out that his facebook friends (right off is own profile), included about 12 obvious wikipedia admins – this would allow them to communicate off-wiki to coordinate their activities (a big no-no according to wiki rules).
I pointed it out in the appropriate place, but knew nothing would happen due to the culture of wikipedia (it is all about sucking up to people like “Jimbo”) and so I didn’t spend too much time fighting it.
Honestly, the best thing to do in reponse is to play dirty. They break wikipedia rules all the time and know how to game the system with socks, email lists, and wiki-lawyering. A coordinated attempt to correct the bias on wikipedia is the only way to counter them – they’ve been doing it for years.
Mind if I write a “How to” guide?
Reply: Go for it, but we will not advocate gaming the system, but some may need to understand the system better. I’ll send email. ~ ctm

DavidR

Well, at least we can hope that this is a move in the right direction at least.
NigelS, how very true. Maybe WUWT readers and their associates should attempt to become a sizeable part of the community.

dearieme

“he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. ” Do I understand that he lives in England? If so, will he try to use the notorious English libel laws?

Christopher Hanley

Look up ‘Medieval Warm Period’ in Wikipedia and you will notice that graph, still, at the head of the article.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
It opens (inter alia): “The Medieval Warm Period …… is often invoked in discussions of global warming. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that effects other than temperature were important”.
I have noticed that AGW enthusiasts are now willing to accept the existence of the MWP, but emphasize possible negative consequences like the collapse of the Maya civilization (supposedly caused by climate change, i.e. drought).
This tactic is, of course, an attempt to deflect attention away from the crucial point that the MWP was probably global and probably warmer than now.

fFreddy

“In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. This has now been added to his article”
Does he mean this article :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley
Looks like it has been edited out already …

dearieme

Ah, on the dispute page: “I came to cold fusion – I forget how”. One does, doesn’t one?

DirkH

The german Wikipedia has long been overtaken by people we call “Blockwarte” (in Nazi Germany there was one spy per housing block, the GDR had a similar setting; their job was to control that everyone behaved conformant). The Blockwarte will delete any article they deem “irrelevant”. So there’s a constant “relevance discussion” in the german wikipedia. The trick now is this: Wikipedia stores the history of all changes of an article so any viewer can get at old versions. But if an entire article is deleted, that history is lost as well [or at least becomes inaccessible, i don’t know what happens when you create a new article with the same title].
So be prepared to see entire articles deleted by the admins. They will want to destroy the history of those articles. Watch out for discussions of the relevance of an issue, this discussion always indicates efforts to delete it in the near future.

Luke Warmer

I’m not sure what he’s hinting at here in his square brackets comment to Dallas Dinosaur’s post at his stoat blog – anyone help?
Quote DD:
Can you explain the one below? It looks innocuous, but there are others emails that have at first glance, looked harmless, only to look much more conspiritorial once you understand context.
> William M Connolley wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Phil Jones wrote:
> >
> >> The net is closing…
> >>
> >> National Research Council, US Committee for the Global Atmospheric
> >> Research Program, Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action,
> >> National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, (1975), appendix A.
> >>
> >> This book (Fig A2b) has the same figure as Imbrie/Imbrie. It is rotated.
> >> It also has the same concept of the IPCC 1990 Figure, changes on
> >> various timescales – all rotated. Loads of Lamb diagrams I have
> >> seen countless times before.
> >>
> >
> > ? The source for IPCC can’t be the 1975 NAS report. That fig is relatively warm
> > about 1600; the IPCC ’90 figure is cold then. And as noted the “MWP” is colder
> > than 1950. But NAS 75 is the same as I+I, true (they both source to Lamb 69).
> >
> > Incidentally my I+I says copyright 1979, seventh printing 1998.
> >
> > -W.
[Yes, this is the bit I said you could find if you looked hard enough. But I don’t think you’ve done your homework enough – go read the wiki page on MWP/LIA and see if you know then -W]
(ENDS)
His comment reads like someone who wants to get caught like the poisoner who actually suggested the police test for Thalium.

In the last thread I noted
Mike Lorrey (22:48:33) :…. There is a conservative group launching their own wiki encyclopedia, btw, which will have better vetting of admins and peer review of contributions.
Please keep us informed Mike, if this is a usable alternative wiki platform for the real climate science, we surely want to bless it and use it… When there is an opposition party, the worst excesses can be kept in check.
We need a skeptics’ reference point, that is open to editing by a wide number of editors (unlike NIPCC for instance) that can in this way become a gold standard for Climate Science where it differs crucially from the AGW point of view.

hengav

Both he and “atmoz” are still working the Patrick Michaels entry as of 2 days ago…
REPLY: Atmoz is this guy:
http://atmoz.org/blog/
He’s a grad student at the University of Arizona Atmospheric Sciences Department. And yes, he’s worked up a number of Wiki articles. – Anthony

gnarf

It looks like this person is still contributing a lot, every single day he updates a dozen global warming related articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=William+M.+Connolley

Tenuc

No surprise here. This is the single biggest problem with the wiki idea and, as wiki has become bigger more and more people with a vested interest have joined the support volunteers to skew the content to match their beliefs. This applies to many topic areas, not just CAGW.
Just like the MSM, wiki is not a reliable source for accurate information.

gnarf

OMG yesterday he removed any reference to climategate in the article concerning Michael Mann:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=prev&oldid=332744981

Wikipedia needs to take action on this instead of the whitewash. Unless they do their credibility will fall even further.

tunka

During the years, I have been a bit surprised to see Wikipedia’s obvious bias when it comes to facts and conclusions in climate science. It has been clearly partial, like reading Guardian. I have not reflected much on that, thought more like “one can’t ask for a professional quality, after all it’s free of charge”.
But I now understand that the ambitions are admirable:
“Administrators are elected by the Wikipedia community, and require a supermajority of about 70% for election. The community prefers to elect administrators who display no bias in any respect, but are committed to upholding Wikipedia’s principle of “neutral point of view” ().”
I believe that all controversial subjects should be treated with more caution and should be controlled by more than one person. I have seen requests for monetary contributions, but I would not consider contributing to something that amounts to a partial source of information. I hope that WUWT follows up the development, a neutral source of high quality would be of great value.

Something needs to be done about Wiki, as an information source on energy, for the bias here is as bad as at the BBC.
A few years ago I edited Wiki ‘wind power’ to add details on intermittancy, which it did not mention. These were constantly deleted and had to be re-added – and this got to the stage where I was banned from Wiki for ‘topic vandalisation’ !!
I re-added similar details under a different user for many months, and I now note that an ‘intermittancy’ section has been added. But I still note that this mentions things like:
“”Thus, the 2 GW Dinorwig pumped storage plant adds costs to nuclear energy in the UK for which it was built””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Intermittency_and_penetration_limits
This is totally untrue. Dinorwig was built (at enormous expense) to cover variability in demand, not in supply. It is a capacitor. It is there to soak up the instant demand when 5 million households all put the kettle on when a football match ends, and all demand extra power. It is NOT there to soak up any perceived variability in supply from nuclear plants.
If we can all have a concerted effort to change this and other points, I would appreciate it.
Remember:
a. Anyone can make changes.
b. All changes and information must be referenced to original sources.
c. It is sometimes better to enter the discussion pages and talk with the others monitoring that topic first.
.

Carl Hult

Maybe we should take this chance and edit some of the pages ourselves. I don’t have an english account (anymore) but I can edit the swedish sections.

Vincent

I remember reading a blogger post on RC, I think, about a year ago, where the blogger was lamenting that Connelly had too much power in Wikipedia. The comment was only allowed to stand so Connelly could add his dismissive riposte. He said, “Apparently I’ve got a lot of power. I must start using it then.”
In hindsight, his sarcasm was rather prophetic.

P Gosselin

Here’s Wiki itself on Connelly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley
Sparse details of his canning are left to a footnote: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact
(Connelly mentioned about 2/3 into the article):