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.
So a Wiki administrator gets canned what about this guy written about in the Telegraph today:-
Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri
The head of the UN’s climate change panel – Dr Rajendra Pachauri – is accused of making a fortune from his links with ‘carbon trading’ companies, Christopher Booker and Richard North write.
In defense of Wikipedia, it is hard to do what they are trying to do, and on non-controversial subjects the content is, on the whole, excellent.
Here is the page covering the arbitration dispute that stripped Connolley of his administrator privileges. Short story: He lost his privileges for abusing them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#William_M._Connolley.E2.80.99s_use_of_administrator_tools_while_involved
@Bill Illis (06:05:00)
Thanks, but I don’t deserve it. I have duties and responsibilities outside of Wikipedia, apparently unlike these people, and I can’t even start to keep up with the incredible amount of edits they make daily in pursuit of AGW. I’m trying, but not very successfully.
I’m going to propose that educators no longer accept citations or references from Wikipedia in papers submitted by students.
Not censorship, not restricting freedom of information, just good sense. The mainstream media, and here, Wikipedia, has allowed and even encouraged this biased behavior, and this could be a simple cause-and-effect reaction. This is what happens when you’re not responsible. Something they should learn from.
Wikipedia ‘model’ works on its own terms but it has loads of problems as an information source. One of the biggest is that it takes no account of the target audience. Look at ‘sardine’ which has a couple of pages. Is it written for children, home cooks, chefs, nutritionists, fisherman, food producers, fishery managers, fish farmers or fish feed producers? Then there are all the scientific specialties like oceanographers or geneticists. Some subjects are too simple whereas others are full of jargon which is only understandable to someone working in that specialty. Anything medical or anatomical is equally a problem. Is the audience for ‘heart’ for lovers, patients, doctors, cardiologists, surgeons or scientists? What about a cat’ or whale heart?
Wikipedia has now reached the ‘churn’ point. As much is removed as is added.
Caleb (05:15:05) :
We need to remember all the scientists who have been smeared, and who have had their funding reduced or denied. These people have stood for truth, and have suffered for truth. They deserve a gold star by their names. When science re-builds its reputation, after this fiasco, those are the scientists who deserve power. And especially honor.
Over at CA, poster Shen announces that he has set up a wiki for “Climate Change” entitled Neutralpedia. He’s using the Wikipedia platform MediaWiki, and it looks like a possible. He’s inviting contributors. If this starts to take off, I’d still like to see the best of the excellent Conservapedia awareness of wiki issues there – so that reality and ideals stay linked, not severed as currently under Connolley.
I feel we owe it to ourselves to make this, or something like this, work. First I want to know that Shen (or people joining him) can deal with attempts to sabotage – like learning to brake before learning to accelerate.
I want a gallery there, to reinstate the bio’s of those who have been tarred by WC.
I wonder if Connolly is a member of UCCSSP?
More here:
http://tinyurl.com/ycwuzz3
[LOL ALERT!]
Please add the “Gore Effect” back to Wikipedia!
OT.
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/12/17/earths-upper-atmosphere-is-cooling/
“New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining activity of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth‘s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere.”
What? The sun might be responsible for upper atmospheric heating and cooling? Who knew?~
“This finding also correlates with a fundamental prediction of climate change theory that says the upper atmosphere will cool in response to increasing carbon dioxide.”
Hmmm, I thought that upper atmospheric cooling was due to the sun waning but really it is due to increased CO2. I am confused.
–Mike Ramsey
TBH, after reading Conservapedia’s articles on evolution and creationism, IMHO the primary author there is as bad as Connolley, only from a creationist pov. Gah, the world needs an un-idiotarian wikipedia.
Below is a good resource to plenty of articles on Wiki bias including climate science.
Tip: Bookmark to respond to pro-AGW supporters quoting from Wiki 🙂
http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/anti-wikipedia-resource.html
Einstein:
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.”
“To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
…and the “Climate Change Consensus” section!
I would start by proposing that all citations that reference papers that reference data or other papers that directly or indirectly require the support of data from the CRU be disallowed. Without the citations the garbage will simply fall off the pages.
It is the data that is corrupt, anything that is build on corrupt data is corrupt and must be cleansed from the reference section of all libraries.
John Hooper (00:36:10) :
Stop whinging and get editing.
Sheesh!
You could lead the way John.
A cartoon linked from Connelly’s run for Arbitration Committee…shouldn’t this robot be named Al Gore?
http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/ignorance.PNG
Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It appears the owners of Wikipedia do not want it to be an encyclopedia.
It should not be viewed as an encyclopedia. I think most people don’t view it as that anyway.
Over the top? In 1930s practically every sensible editor would reject any notion of what was really going on in Germany as a wild exaggeration: “After all, we are all Europeans, civilized, educated people! It cannot be.” Eyewitnesses warning the Eastern European Jews were laughed at in their faces.
Remember my words: a few years from now you will realize that what was going on behind the Climategate was much worse than you thought.
You are dealing with a mob; billions of dollars and thousands of reputations are at stake. A mob not only lies for comfort and status, it readily kills.
So I think the only reasonable follow up activity is to now hit every climate article ever touched by Connolley with the bias {{POV}} and factual problems {{disputed}} templates.
That should serve as a nice notice to people that the articles aren’t to be taken for granted.
Mike Lorrey (08:03:43) :
TBH, after reading Conservapedia’s articles on evolution and creationism, IMHO the primary author there is as bad as Connolley, only from a creationist pov. Gah, the world needs an un-idiotarian wikipedia.
Or Idolitarian perhaps…
Perhaps the best thing Wikipedia could do is simply have two clearly labelled sections on global warming, one for the proAGW crowd and another for the sceptics. Then folk could read either or both and make up their own mind without wikiadmins getting into fights about it.
r (05:44:25) :
Rewrite,delete, repeat… what a waste of time. Obviously this is the domain of someone who does not do any real work.
I’m still wondering how William Connolley makes a living. He must be getting funding to edit Wikipedia full time. Maybe I’m wrong about that. But I don’t know how he has time to work a full time job to raise his kids and also do all the editing of Wiki that he has been doing for years.
…and now, as time goes by, this tale of “global warming” will remain as a scaring tale just for kids….and, last but not least, politicians 🙂
Mark (01:17:45) : “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?”
Steve McIntyre’s claim to fame is mathematical prowess. He was a whiz in school, and went on to study (and master) statistics. He made his living in the mining industry, studying data for ore bodies and the like, where statistical analysis was part of the game. He was also involved in the administration of mining companies, where he gained knowledge of the legal requirements for prospectuses, etc. (I am writing this from my impressions from having read his story several times. I believe that I am generally correct!) He makes no claim to being a climatologist. He became suspicious of the claims of Mann and the “hockey stick” and decided (as a mental pastime) to subject the data and methods claimed by Mann to rigorous statistical standards (audit). And he found that things didn’t add up.
You can read the whole story at http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html . (Google “mcintyre and mckitrick + hockey stick” if you want to read even more!)
Steve M deserves the Order of Canada, at a minimum. Through WUWT his accomplishments have been praised more than once. You can follow his blog at http://climateaudit.org/
IanM
VG (00:31:05) :
RC and Stoat Connoley web sites are now allowing unbrindled criticism..
Few even know about this because few ever visit or even know about these web sites.
All changes and information must be referenced to original sources.
And therein lies the operational design flaw. Some time back (2 or 3 years?) Jerry Pournelle tried to correct misinformation about himself. He was not allowed to do so, because the “original source” of the misinformation was a published (opinion) article and Jerry didn’t have a reference to a published article.
The wiki “editor” in charge of this decision was likely unqualified to serve Dr. Pournelle his lunch at Taco Bell, much less have anything resembling a discussion with him.
The Wm Connolley episode is simply part and parcel of how wiki operates. Don’t get your hopes up that this changes anything at all.
Wiki is democracy but only in the form of two wolves and a sheep discussing what to have for dinner. Without well considered, working forms of oversight, this is little more than a shouting contest; e.g. the editing process as written requires than an entry be agreed upon by some “community” and there’s zero evidence that this “community” in any real sense is qualified to hold an opinion, much less be able to influence one, meaning that there are likely millions of edits that have been given up simply because the holder of the Correct Information grew tired of arguing with the unqualified. (And whether the unqualified are activists or mere imbeciles hardly makes an operational difference.)
Until WIKI corrects this obvious and enormously stupid policy I’ll continue to regard it as a source of egotistical flatulence.