WUWT reader Dennis Kuzara wrote to Wikipedia in response to our earlier article on Wikibullies prompted by Lawrence Solomon of the National Post. He has received an eye-opening reply. Emphasis mine – Anthony
=================
Wikipedia replies
notable excerpt:
> > 4. Has William Connolley been removed as a Wikipedia administrator? If so who has taken his place?
In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. This has now been added to his article
().
Nobody has replaced him specifically, but there are more than a thousand other administrators with very varied backgrounds.
Reply follows:
Dear Dennis Kuzara,
Thank you for your email.
12/20/2009 05:31 – Dennis Kuzara wrote:
> > Pierre
> >
> > I understand there several processes and procedures intended to prevent
> > someone from taking control of a segment of Wikipedia for their own benefit. I
> > also understand that Wikipedia is huge and therefore cannot be micromanaged
> > from the top, which is why the procedures and controls are in place.
> >
> > What happened in this case was a successful conspiracy to take command of
> > information (and history) by a not-so small group of co-conspirators, a la
> > 1984, to serve their own means and ends.This is not a flash in the pan, but a
> > long term (over a decade) coordinated effort to literally rewrite history. As
> > you stated, Wikipedia … normally takes no stance in disputes about Wikipedia
> > content or administration, but this situation is far from normal by anyones
> > measure.
> >
> > I think the Wikipedia concept has enormous benefits and Wikipedia is usually
> > the first place I look when I need information. My greatest concern is the
> > damage to Wikipedia’s credibility by something as massive as what was
> > orchestrated by William Connolley and his band of cohorts. I think it would be
> > prudent for Wikipedia to be proactive on this matter, if for no other reason
> > than for damage control.
> >
> > So, actually, your (apparently off the shelf) reply does not answer my
> > question.
> >
> > Let’s break it down into several parts:
> > 1. Is the management at Wikipedia aware of the biased and dictatorial
> > Wikipedia administration by William Connolley?
I’m not Foundation management, just an editor and volunteer who answers customer
e-mail, but my understanding is that while Foundation staff are probably aware of
this and other controversies, they leave their resolution to the community of
editors and its procedures.
> > 2. Is there any internal investigation being undertaken to verify the extent
> > and the scope of this apparent hijacking of process.
What you refer to as a “hijacking of process” is, as far as I can tell, an
entirely normal (for me) series of disagreements about article content. Thousands
of such disagreements occur every day on Wikipedia, and they are normally resolved
through our discussion-based dispute resolution process, as explained at
. This process may ultimately lead to
an Arbitration Committee investigation.
> > 3. What, if any steps are being taken to correct the bias injected into the
> > 5,428 articles authored or edited by William Connolley?
Wikipedia’s content is not centrally edited. Anybody may make any change to
Wikipedia, including undoing an edit by Mr. Connolley. But that change may be
undone in turn if others disagree, and any dispute has to be resolved through
discussion until a consensus is found. This is explained at
.
> > 4. Has William Connolley been removed as a Wikipedia administrator? If so who
> > has taken his place?
In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s
administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges
while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. This has now been added
to his article
().
Nobody has replaced him specifically, but there are more than a thousand other
administrators with very varied backgrounds.
> > 5. Would it be prudent in this case to now have an administrator who is
> > biased against AGW but closely monitored until this situation is fleshed out?
Administrators are elected by the Wikipedia community, and require a supermajority
of about 70% for election. The community prefers to elect administrators who
display no bias in any respect, but are committed to upholding Wikipedia’s
principle of “neutral point of view” ().
> > 5. If the current controls failed in this situation (a successful coordinated
> > attack by a group), then what steps are being taken to change the procedures
> > and processes to keep such usurpation from happening in the future?
Should the community conclude that its processes were indeed subverted by anybody
(and I am not aware of any such consensus emerging currently), it may decide to
change its policies, as explained at
.
Yours sincerely,
Pierre Grés
– Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org — Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
| D L Kuzara |
Submitted on 2009/12/19 at 11:36pm
Wikipedia replies notable excerpt: > > 4. Has William Connolley been removed as a Wikipedia administrator? If so who has taken his place? In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. This has now been added to his article (). Nobody has replaced him specifically, but there are more than a thousand other administrators with very varied backgrounds. Reply follows: Dear Dennis Kuzara, Thank you for your email. 12/20/2009 05:31 – Dennis Kuzara wrote: > > Pierre > > > > I understand there several processes and procedures intended to prevent > > someone from taking control of a segment of Wikipedia for their own benefit. I > > also understand that Wikipedia is huge and therefore cannot be micromanaged > > from the top, which is why the procedures and controls are in place. > > > > What happened in this case was a successful conspiracy to take command of > > information (and history) by a not-so small group of co-conspirators, a la > > 1984, to serve their own means and ends.This is not a flash in the pan, but a > > long term (over a decade) coordinated effort to literally rewrite history. As > > you stated, Wikipedia … normally takes no stance in disputes about Wikipedia > > content or administration, but this situation is far from normal by anyones > > measure. > > > > I think the Wikipedia concept has enormous benefits and Wikipedia is usually > > the first place I look when I need information. My greatest concern is the > > damage to Wikipedia’s credibility by something as massive as what was > > orchestrated by William Connolley and his band of cohorts. I think it would be > > prudent for Wikipedia to be proactive on this matter, if for no other reason > > than for damage control. > > > > So, actually, your (apparently off the shelf) reply does not answer my > > question. > > > > Let’s break it down into several parts: > > 1. Is the management at Wikipedia aware of the biased and dictatorial > > Wikipedia administration by William Connolley? I’m not Foundation management, just an editor and volunteer who answers customer e-mail, but my understanding is that while Foundation staff are probably aware of this and other controversies, they leave their resolution to the community of editors and its procedures. > > 2. Is there any internal investigation being undertaken to verify the extent > > and the scope of this apparent hijacking of process. What you refer to as a “hijacking of process” is, as far as I can tell, an entirely normal (for me) series of disagreements about article content. Thousands of such disagreements occur every day on Wikipedia, and they are normally resolved through our discussion-based dispute resolution process, as explained at . This process may ultimately lead to an Arbitration Committee investigation. > > 3. What, if any steps are being taken to correct the bias injected into the > > 5,428 articles authored or edited by William Connolley? Wikipedia’s content is not centrally edited. Anybody may make any change to Wikipedia, including undoing an edit by Mr. Connolley. But that change may be undone in turn if others disagree, and any dispute has to be resolved through discussion until a consensus is found. This is explained at . > > 4. Has William Connolley been removed as a Wikipedia administrator? If so who > > has taken his place? In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. This has now been added to his article (). Nobody has replaced him specifically, but there are more than a thousand other administrators with very varied backgrounds. > > 5. Would it be prudent in this case to now have an administrator who is > > biased against AGW but closely monitored until this situation is fleshed out? Administrators are elected by the Wikipedia community, and require a supermajority of about 70% for election. The community prefers to elect administrators who display no bias in any respect, but are committed to upholding Wikipedia’s principle of “neutral point of view” (). > > 5. If the current controls failed in this situation (a successful coordinated > > attack by a group), then what steps are being taken to change the procedures > > and processes to keep such usurpation from happening in the future? Should the community conclude that its processes were indeed subverted by anybody (and I am not aware of any such consensus emerging currently), it may decide to change its policies, as explained at . Yours sincerely, Pierre Grés – Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org — Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org |
Sponsored IT training links:
Need help for HP0-J38 certification? Download 70-450 products to guarantee pass your 1Y0-A09 exam.
This reveals the fundamental flaw in Wikipedia; the consensus view of knowledge. For example, if a majority of the Wikipedia community thought that cold fusion was possible, then that’s how it would be written up, with dissenting views deleted. Anyone previously ignorant of cold fusion, using Wikipedia as the first point of reference, would also be passed this perception, and it becomes self-fulfilling knowledge.
It reminds me of when Time magazine ran a reader survey for their person of the 20th century. They were bombarded with nominations for Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, by Turkish people who thought it was a popularity contest. Bad luck for the Turkish that Time isn’t run the same way as Wikipedia.
Gore not the only high priest on the take—-http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html
has the wikipedia”climate change ” page been changed yet?
Until someone who has been smeared takes this anonymous editors to court nothing will change.
Richard Henry Lee (22:58:12) :
It appears that Connolley’s effort to get elected to Wikipedia’s arbitration committee have failed according to the election results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ACE2009
He had 234 support votes, 284 neutral votes and 478 oppose votes for a net of -244. He came in 19th out of 22 and nine were to be elected.
Maybe someone is finally listening at Wikipedia.
Posted on the other thread.
Hooray!!
Dumped as editor and outvoted as Arbitrator now as well!
Maybe Wikipedias internal organs grind round slow, but they seem to be getting some clue.
This calls for a celebration!
I also added two large paragraphs on why wind power does not work – taken from the experience of Denmark. This was taken from this critical report which states that Denmark, as Europe’s largest wind generator, has NEVER USED ANY OF ITS WIND POWER.
Wind power is too variable to use in the Danish grid in such quantities (19%), as it would destabilise it. Instead, the Danish sell their power to Scandinavia, where it can be integrated with hydro power (which is instantaneous). No doubt Denmark has to subsidise this energy, to sell it.
The Danish report:
http://www.thomastelford.com/journals/DocumentLibrary/CIEN.158.2.66.pdf
This has been reduced to:
A report from Denmark noted that their wind power network was without power for 54 days during 2002. Wind power advocates argue that these periods of low wind can be dealt with by simply restarting existing power stations that have been held in readiness or interlinking with HVDC.
A bland paragraph which fails to mention that this doubling of power stations will double the cost of electricity. In addition, most of these backup power stations will have to be on ‘spinning standby’ and thus burning fossil fuels whether the wind it blowing or not.
.
Organizations like Wikipedia, which are based on consensus, will always end up being biased towards the most *pushed* opinions at that time, instead of the most truthful or popular. That is why Science does not work on consensus, and why Wikipedia will never be able to reproduce anything like the scientific method for finding the truth. Anyone who thinks that excluding one or more editors is going to change that are kidding themselves.
Anthony. OT, have you seen this? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html
When Wikipedia was getting started, I maintained a couple of topics. As it got larger, it attracted the usual band of “little dictators”: people who have made working on Wikipedia the purpose of their life, and who are very intolerant of people outside of their little circle. They play lots of politics, and enforce ever-changing editorial policies that part-time contributors have neither time nor interest in reading.
It would be a great thing if WUWT readers would make a joint effort to repair the damage to Wikipedia. Just be aware that you will need patience to deal with the internal politics, else your edits will likely just be summarily deleted for not meeting some obscure guideline or other…
The image that Wikipedia presents to the world is very different from the truth, as anyone who has been involved in editing it knows. Publically, the content of Wikipedia articles is arrived at by concensus. In fact, it is arrived at by stubbornness. The person who is prepared to keep reverting until the other party gives up is the one whose version you will find in Wikipedia. And that is usually either the fanatic or the person with a vested interest. That is what makes Wikipedia useless as a reference work for any but the most uncontentious information.
What Wikipedia has done is ignore science;
And so we see not only does the environment invalidate the AGW theory but that it also fails the 3 main scientific tests – tarski’s theorum, the classical model of science and scientific method.
http://twawki.com/2009/12/20/tarskis-theorum/
Despite the claims of this wiki editor, I find that Connolley remains active in reverting other peoples edits on any climate related articles. He has them all apparently on “watchlist” status so he gets a notification whenever one is edited so that he can go revert it. And yes, he has a team of fellow travelers helping him out as well. I think it would be prudent to investigate whether and how much he gets paid by pro-AGW individuals and groups to do the astroturfing at wikipedia.
OT but nice piece in DT dissecting Pachauri’s business links
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html
Its fun to read the entry on Energy & Environment in Wikipedia. Energy & Environment probably has the longest history of publishing peer reviewed papers which are not wholly sympathetic to AGW. Therefore the AGW-ers desperately need to rubbish it, because its existence contradicts AGWs major claims about scientific consensus, and how the peer reviewed literature reflects this. (In passing they create a straw man, implying that peer review acceptance means ‘this paper is good/correct’, rather than the true case, ‘this paper is worth publishing). And they do a good job of rubbishing it, offering a page which is not false, but far from true also. Its as though the Queen of England were to be described as a rich old lady living in central London. Certainly, not false….however. The ‘Talk’ pages are good fun, where Connelly, Dalbenstein and Schultz can be seen busily at work. I like ‘Talk’ No 9 most.
Barry Foster (02:56:54) :
Anthony. OT, have you seen this? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html
Dynamite!
New thread please!
>> I don’t see where this was added to
>> Connolley’s Wikipedia article.
Seems it was added in this revision:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Connolley&oldid=332828714
But it was reverted again 10 minutes later by KimDabelsteinPetersen (the other Wikibully) hiding the embarassing passage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Connolley&action=historysubmit&diff=332829845&oldid=332828714
What on earth is going on?
I had noticed how some of the Wikipedia articles on global warming were altered several years back. When I had gone back to find a graph on Wikipedia about CO2 absorption bands, it had been deleted. I stopped using it as a source of AGW information other than to get the alarmists’ point of view. It was great as a starting point of information because the alarmists would not argue with that data. For me, it was just a starting point. It was still a useful source for developing arguments against AGW. Since proof that we are not the cause is apparent in even the hacked articles of Wikipedia, I saw no reason to fight the Wikipedia process to get rid of the hackers.
Ignoring the politics and looking only at the data, the AGW case falls apart even on Wikipedia.
This whole thing is not a big deal for me. I rarely use Wikipedia for information unless it is not a politicized topic like how an XRF works. Just stay away from current events topics on there.
John M Reynolds
Nigel S (00:14:34) :
‘The community prefers to elect administrators who
display no bias in any respect,’
Good luck with that.
A very apt point. You will never get unbiased administrators and Wikipedia should stop hitting their head against a brick wall trying to. The solution is transparency. Would fellow wikipedians view Connolley’s actions favourably if they knew he has a vested interest in the science remaining settled? The childish and ignorant ones would, the grown ups wouldn’t.
The warmist side of the argument is always keen to judge sceptics based on their qualifications and corporate connections but it is a massive blind spot for their own kind, as we are now seeing with Dr. Pachauri. He has collated an impressive catalogue of business interests that hinge on emissions trading. Sorting out the environment (and even proving to what extent the environment should be sorted out) has taken a back seat.
You may be interested in this page that gives a background to whats going on at wikipedia in regards to Climategate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge
Apologies if this was already known.
OT:
Mayon Volcano in the Philippines on the verge of major eruption:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091220/ap_on_re_as/as_philippines_volcano
Just take over Wikipaedia. 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 other contributors monitoring that topic first, before making changes. But there is nothing to stop you jumping straight in and changing a posting. Just make all points reasonable, balanced, truthful, referenced, and don’t include personal opinions.
.
Off Topic, but Richard North and Chris Booker have exposed the dubious financial shenanigans of Rajendra Pachauri.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html
The man is probably worth more than Indian Railways.
More on how the money-go-round works.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1237235/ANALYSIS-Saved–trillion-pound-trade-carbon.html
How does the song go? “Money for nothing ….”
Thought this was rather amusing pee-take of AP : D
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100020347/ap-wins-world-brown-nosing-championships-for-how-obama-saved-the-world-article/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
I don’t see anything in the article about “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”.
Maybe the Wikipedia administrators should confer and agree to update the article to include actual practice.~
Mike Ramsey