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.
Ian L. McQueen (08:52:28) :
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/
A vote for him and Anthony!
@ur momisugly Ian L. McQueen (08:52:28) :
Thanks man, would anyone know of a peer reviewed article which refutes manns hockey stick? I am trying to edit his wiki article and am being told all the links i provide for proof are nonsense 🙂
Purakanui (00:42:46) :
ClimateGate is only accelerating doubts about global warming that longer, colder winters are making.
here’s a look at record snow from yesterday in the USA:
http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7day/us.html?c=maxtemp,mintemp,lowmax,highmin,snow
Just a couple of observations:
First, it is imperative to remember that Wikipedia is more like a an organic creature than an organization. In order to affect the output, you need to be more like a virus. Appeals to leadership are less than meaningless. Authority is social, not hierarchical nor at all pecuniarily-based. It’s chaos made human. You have to become part of the creature, because you’re not going to change it from without.
Second, I’ve known Jimbo Wales since the days of UseNet where we and a number of others discussed and debated matters of philosophy and freedom. I cannot assert that Jimbo is without any fault, but I can say that from what I’ve personally seen and experienced, he’s one of the good guys. He’s individualistic, objective, and rational and I might add at the very least he’s Objectivist-friendly, which means something to some of us.
If Jimbo understands the issue well enough and can have some positive effect within the context of this strange beast that he helped create, he’ll try to do so, in my opinion.
Mark Young
I received the exact same email so I guess they must have been prepared for this.
I think what is needed is a “pedia” that, for controversial topics, runs two threads – one on either side of an unsettled question. Any contribution should be well supported. It would at least lay out the controversy to a reader for his/her consideration. This might be a good suggestion to Wiki to help repair corrupted topics.
Also, with the dismantling of the AGW dictatorship, I believe we are on the cusp of a sensible development of climatology where we will accord well-supported theories and hypotheses from the complete spectrum of data collected and interpreted transparently. Hey, we may find some real things we should be concerned about.
The cynicism and dishonesty of the wikipedia AGW case here is part of a larger problem that has corrupted science itself. I believe the time is overdue for scientists to formally subscribe to a strict code of ethics – the kind that engineers have had as their professional guide for perhaps a century or more. It includes taking a course in ethics before graduation and it also includes disciplinary proceedings under the Associations of Professional Engineers (one in each province in Canada) where unethical behaviour has been uncovered.
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.
Point taken, Mike. However, that does not invalidate a possible usefulness of the pages mentioned, to adapt to use on the Neutralpedia wiki that Shen has just set up for “Climate Change” and mentions on today’s CA thread on Wikipedia. The author of Conservapedia obviously has hands-on awareness of the problems of Wikipedia, and this could still stand us in good stead, guidelines and help to set up a skeptics Climate Science wiki and make it work. Shen’s setup looks hopeful but is still extremely minimal and I hope this can be developed.
Last April I was looking at the possibility of starting such a wiki myself, and wrote up a page on this, but decided it needed a MediaWiki platform and technical abilities beyond what I have. Now perhaps it’s time. Readers of my Primer (click my name) are writing steadily with thanks, numbers apparently increasing, people are motivated after ClimateGate to try, even as non-scientists, to understand what happened to the science. In fact, today my site is down owing to bandwidth being exceeded for the first time!
So I’ve jumped in at Shen’s wiki to try to start the ball rolling in the right direction… er, David Ball? Reinstatement bio? Good articles? whatever…
“Gah, the world needs an un-idiotarian wikipedia.”
What I think the world needs is a Wiki that embraces the idea that people can have different perspectives and assessments of what’s true or not and that allows both (or all) arguments to exist side-by-side for comparison, perhaps with notation from critics. In other words, let the pro-AGW people make their case and the anti-AGW people make their case and let the public sort out which they believe. Deleting and prohibiting opposing opinions is the problem.
Can anyone help me out on this one?
In a newspaper article about climate a reader made the comment-“when did CO2 become lighter than air?………..How did CO2 manage to get to the upper atmosphere in the first place and how does it manage to stay up there?”
For myself I heard an AGW scientist say that it can stay in the atmosphere for more than 50 years. I am always looking for information to be able to reply to the AGW believers.
Having looked at http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page, I think I will be recommending it in future, but in needs a lot of work to make it comprehensive.
John (09:24:48) :
Amen, amen, amen.
The first case was Climate change dispute, where Connoly was placed on parole.
The second case was Climate change dispute 2, where his parole was removed without discussion and the reporter of the parole violations was punished.
Some years back I was at a country fair and poking through a rummage sale, and came across a “The American People’s Encyclopedia” (20 volumes) for something like a dollar. It was published in 1962, so it doesn’t even include ideas like Continental Drift, but I still use it as a reference, especially when it comes to history. It is amazing to see how history has been revised, no matter what your politics are.
Also of great interest are the Supplementary Volumes of the set, which begin with “Events of 1962” and continue on, year by year, to “Events of 1971.” I actually think you get a clearer idea of history by reading it described by people watching it happen. For example, you can witness Continental Drift entering public consciousness. For another example, reading about the Vietnam War, as it was seen in 1961, 1962, 1963, and so on, gave me insights I have never gleaned from people attempting to write about the events with 20-20 hindsight.
Lastly, I confess the yellowing pages of the old volumes seem more honest and factual than Wikipedia. I recommend that, if you come across an old set of encyclopedias, and have the room, buy it.
However someone should print out sections of Wikipedia now, so people in the future can see what we dealt with.
Plato I believe said it best: “Democracy is the triumph of ignorance over knowledge”.
wikipedia seems to be the definitive proof of Plato.
By the way, Solomon said Connolley was both an editor and administrator. Wikipedia only says they “revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status”. So is his editor status still valid and can he still edit material and mess with it, but perhaps just not bar other authors he didn’t like, or has his editorial status been revoked also?
fFreddy (01:38:47) :
“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 …”
In and out more than once. It’s hilarious, all good stuff, no bad stuff despite having equal relevance.
A number of writers here keep expressing their view that science is not about consensus. This is true at the foundations of science, but in the earth sciences particularly, where controlled experiments are difficult to make, then advancement of the science typically relies on consilience, which is the act of concurrence. Part of the problem with the whole GW-climate change debate (war?) is that so many earth scientists have been boiled in the caldron of concurrence for so long that they believe it is a reliable avenue to truth. It is not nearly foolproof though, and there are many clear examples about science gone badly astray because of this. In these examples it is usually a renegade or two that lifts the veil.
Skepticism is the hallmark of science. Even wrong skepticism is better than none at all.
Mark;
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_fact_sheet.pdf
photon without a Higgs (08:50:02) writes:
“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.”
This is a very interesting question and one worth pursuing. How did young William become a founding member of RC? What’s his connection? Perhaps he’s being paid by Fenton Communications (?).
BTW, if it can be established that RC is not arms length from NASA, then RC can be subject to FOIA and the connection between RC and Fenton can be established. If NASA knew that Schmidt was spending time working on RC during business hours and NASA did nothing about it, then the doctrine of latches can be applied to say that RC is really an activity paid for and approved by NASA.
AnonyMoose (09:47:48),
Thanks. I rarely click on anything Wikipedia, so I wasn’t even aware of these behind the scenes show trials. Reading the first link you provided, it’s interesting that Connolley gets complete unanimous support in every question regarding his exoneration.
paul wright (09:24:49),
CO2 can stay in the atmosphere indefinitely – if you’re talking about an individual molecule. But on average, CO2 is absorbed by a sink [ocean, forest, etc.] in less than ten years.
This is an important question, because if CO2 persistence in the air is long [say, a century or more], the climate sensitivity number is high and a fast rise in CO2 will result in a rapid rise in temperature.
But if the persistence of an average CO2 molecule is, say, ten years or less, then the sensitivity number is very low, and for all practical purposes the effect of CO2 on temperature is so insignificant that it can be completely disregarded.
There is a lot of peer reviewed literature on CO2 persistence: click
@paul wright
Start here with Ernst Georg Beck studies:
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf
http://www.biokurs.de/eike/daten/leiden260607/leiden1e.htm
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/bayreuth/bayreuth1e.htm
Being a long-time Wikipedia user and sometimes minor editor (always anonymously, I don’t want to be associated with that bunch of nut-bags), I can tell you that their ArbCom (Arbitration Committee) is not much help – they consider themselves to be a law unto their own.
Mark (01:17:45) : “Slightly ot/ is steve mcintyre actually a climatoligist?”
In addition to what Ian relates above, Steve applies the Scientific Method in terms of his “audits”, which are essentially peer reviews because he’s looking at, and is extremely qualified to look at, stastistical “methods” used in Climate Science studies, methods which often are the most relevant and even the only “science” being done by some important Climate Scientists – such as those studies using alleged temperature proxies such as tree rings, varves and other borings for obtaining specimens – such as from sediment layers from lake and ocean bottoms, spleotherms – stalagmites, and, of course, instrumental temp. constructions which involve a lot of data and methods of collection and manipulation of data to get graphs and averages, including the Global Mean average. McIntyre is also an official ipcc Reviewer.
He’s pushed for accessable, fairly contemporaneous release of “materials and methods” – or data, sources, and algorithm computer codes used for further use of the data, as required for a Scientific study to even be a study and have results to begin with, the lack of doing which is one of the main reasons we are at the point we now are, which seems to clearly reveal that what the ipcc and its elite Climate Scientists have done is simply not Science.
Steve’s audit and methods get deeper and deeper in trying to look at what Climate Science does, including publishing papers “officially” but also completely openly on his blog. He’s also asked and looked for, without receiving or finding, and pushed for a complete “Engineering quality” analysis of how Climate Science gets its CO2 forcing numbers. Etc., etc..
But Steve and “Mr. Pete”[?] and his wife also even collected some tree ring cores in one day – I think “Mr. Pete” then collected some more over a few days – taken from the important Almagre bristlecone pines near Boulder[?], Colo., in order to have them analyzed and to prove Steve’s “Starbucks” hypothesis to the effect that some amateurs could pretty easily do it starting out from a regional Starbucks in the morning, when the Climate Scientists [Mann?] were claiming they couldn’t update from 1980[?] their own series because the operation was too difficult and costly. It was a riot!
McIntyre stays very focused and requires this on his blog, but it sounds to me like he understands a lot more about physical Science, or easily could, than some of the elite Climate Scientists. There are so many topics, posts, and thoughtful comments at Climate Audit that you could probably get a good start at achieving several Phd.’s if his blog were to get accredited.
It just goes on and on. So, yes, imo Steve McIntyre is easily as much of a Scientist and “climatologist” as anyone apparently needs to be to qualify as a “Climate Scientist” and then some.
For a refutation of Mann’s Hockey Stick, go to Climate Audit as per WUWT’s link and look to the left sidebar there for MM’s papers – McIntyre and Mickitrick – and the NAS, etc., investigations – I’m having trouble with the new CA site, probably due to my OS or something.
Also keep in mind McIntyre’s anlysis of the “trick” used to “hide the decline” re: Briffa’s contribution to the Hockey Stick, which can also be found at CA and elsewhere.
I wrote Wikipedia dozens of times from 1999 to 2004 about how its stance on global warming was one sided and that Wikipedia was a site only for leftists. I never got any responses, even though I sent in links to more recent studies that were pulled from Wiki that were more recent than the ones they put up. I stopped using Wiki for anything with even the most remote political consequence, because they simply were not credible.
G.L. Alston (08:55:11) :
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.
I get the impression that the people running Wikipedia don’t want to put the effort in to correcting everything.
Mohib (09:55:04) :
Plato I believe said it best: “Democracy is the triumph of ignorance over knowledge”.
wikipedia seems to be the definitive proof of Plato.
U.S. politicians also.