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.
Straight out of the handbook: Introduction to Conspiracy Theory-dom (part of the course: Conspiracy Theory 101).
Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting.
Debunking begins thusly here :
.
.
Sorry, mods, but some of this I think (just me thinking now) needs addressing. Or, you might be ‘overrun’ by these people and think, oh! what a mess they will make of Wikipedia then!
brc (16:14:04) :
Interesting news — and chilling.
Thank you for letting us know.
Steven Colbert on how editors and admins create “wikiality” through faked ‘truthiness’:
http://civicactions.com/node/405
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/72347/july-31-2006/the-word—wikiality?videoId=72347
Gail Combs (16:39:52)
This was the best I could find as a reference for the 172 yr Wolf-Gleissberg cycle http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
Thanks for the paper. I have actually abandoned my quest and taken up gravity as a subject of interest. The hunt for what could be an imaginary particle best defined by our imprecise understanding, dark matter, is very intersting.
If I actually fire up my enquiry again that paper will come in useful because I noticed at least two dicernable parallel lines of inquiry exploring planetary barycentric tides on the sun and its influence on solar activity (which don’t cross reference each other). The Gleissberg cycle and other derivations, rather messy and referred to by Hung in his paper in 2007, and the neat and tidy barycentric tides and solar torque wind up of Paul Jose and Landscheidt by Carl Smith. The second avenue of enquiry focused more on the geometry and what I saw of the first is it seemed to get muddled in the mechanics and mechanisms involved and take the geometry as secondary.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if you took these variations of this causal mechanisms for intermediate solar variation, and some think it is the primary driver of the Hale cycle as well, along with the Milankovitch cycle, what we know about solar output over geological time (paleo) and then added the dampening effects of the ocean … I bet you could make a real model. Touch it up a little with some statistical analysis/fitting and you could forcast out to the end of the Holocene 😀
Still cannot add that bit that was pulled (“In September 2009…”) back in to the article on Connolley — need to be an administrator. It was put on protection by Stephen Schulz, to expire late on 26 Dec 09 UTC. Not normal protection: only wikipedia administrators have editing privileges…
An thing that it is severely messed up that you can get elected to the Arbitration committee with negative votes (more against than for)?
Oops. That should read: Anybody think that it is severely messed up that you can get elected to the Arbitration Committee with negative votes (more against than for)?
When I want to look something up, Wikipedia is the first place I go, and the last place I believe. I use them like I use NPR – selectively. And I never give either of them a dime. If they succeed, it won’t be because of me. If they fail, then good riddance.
I created the original Wikipedia entry for the sceptical Australian geologist Professor Ian Plimer in early 2006. The entry has now been totally butchered. I just checked the edit history. William E Conolley and KimDabelsteinPetersen feature prominently in the edit history.
Ian L. McQueen (08:52:28) :
You ask:
“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 :)”
In my peer review for IPCC AR4 (2007) I wrote:
“Page 1-13 Chapter 1 Section 1.5.2 Line 36
For accuracy and completeness, after “(IPCC, 2001a)” it is very, very important to add:
“However, since the TAR several studies have provided doubt to that work of Mann et al.. Many studies provide data that conflict with the findings of that work of Mann et al. (e.g. Beltrami et al) (ref. Beltrami et al “Long-term tracking of climate change by underground temperatures”, Geophysical Research Letters v.12 (2005) ). In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published two papers that together provide a complete refutation of that work of Mann et al. (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 16, no.1 (2005)) (2005), Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32, No. 3, (2005)). But, perhaps the most important of their studies of that work of Mann et al. was their publication in 2003 (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 24, pp 751-771 (2003)) that showed it is not possible to replicate the work of Mann et al. There are several reasons for the inability to replicate this work of Mann et al.; not least that Mann refuses to reveal his source codes. The inability to replicate this work of Mann et al. means it has no scientific worth: i.e. this work of Mann et al. is anecdote of similar kind to a report of a ghost sighting. Hence, the IPCC now apologises for including it in the TAR. The IPCC will now disregard this work of Mann et al. and recommends that all others should also disregard it until it can be – and has been – independently replicated.”
Of course, this review comment was ignored and the MBH ‘hockeystick’ was hdden among a spagheti-graph in the AR4.
But the E&E and GRL references in the comment are peer reviewed pubications.
Richard
Ian L. McQueen:
PS
Following a FOI request, all IPCC review comments are now published on the IPCC web site, so my entire review comment that I posted at (02:56:55) can be quoted and referenced to the IPCC web site if you want to use it (and not only its references) in your wiki submission.
Richard
At the bottom of his entry at Wikipedia, WMC provides five external links. Ignoring RealClimate, it is instructive to read the comments in STOAT, “I am all powerful”.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
May I suggest that a few thousand people with non-static IP addresses check the recent Wikipedia edits of William E Conolley and KimDabelsteinPetersen, and reverse those edits if you disagree with them. Or simply change climate related articles to say what you think is correct. Do not vandalise Wikipedia. You will need to change your IP address after each change as they will likely ban that IP addess.
The problem is that skeptic editors come, do a few edits, get discouraged, and go. I see new skeptic editors come to the Wikipedia climate articles every day, but they soon get discouraged that their initial edits are not successes and drop out. Usually they don’t understand Wikipedia rules, such as the rule of reliable sources, which basically means you have to get the information from mainstream media *news* sources, not from blogs or editorials. Meanwhile, there are about a dozen hard-core alarmists who are fanatically dedicated to sticking around all hours of the day, and they quite thoroughly understand the rules and will beat you over the head with them. Thus, at any given time the editing is dominated by alarmist fanatics. If we want balanced articles we need to have much more patience and thicker skin, and stick around until enough of us are there to achieve critical mass.
As mentioned last time I put a polite, sensible note on the discussion page of MWP on wikipedia stating my concerns about conflicts of interest on the part of some editors. It was deleted. I then put a comment asking how Mister Connelly could state “The Heartland Institute are considered a joke” and delete all citations involving the group yet he could still cite his own website to support his own evidence. All my comments were deleted by an anonymous user. I restored them. I invite other readers to apply this pressure. At least it may stop some people being totally deceived.
Richard S Courtney (03:03:40) : Maybe they used to be available due to FOI, but the CA link to UCAR WG1 comments is dead. Apparently replaced with a link to Harvard’s collection.
I’ve always stated that you have to be very careful on what you have read on Wikipedia’s Site…Even though information is reviewed, it still has to be ultimately by a person or persons that have a view!
Review this article: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?63.post
And a followup: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?104.post
If you have researched the AGW data there, it follows the same agenda you will see from the Alarmists point of view…It doesn’t stay “non-partisan”!
William E Conolley and KimDabelsteinPetersen can make only a few hundred edits per day. Ten thousand skeptic editors doing only one edit per day can beat them.
And if that’s not enough, I see that Google for Climategate gets over 12 million hits. There are more skeptics than alarmists.
You don’t have to follow Wikipedia rules. They already allow RealClimate as a source, and it’s a blog.
Don’t worry if your edit is deleted. This is about keeping Conolley and Petersen and the other climate alarmists so busy they won’t be able to keep up. They don’t play by the rules themselves. Just be sure to change your IP address for each edit by turning your modem off and on again.
Let’s take Wikipedia back. It can still be a useful source. Don’t vandalise Wikipedia. Add only useful data.
Why not start using knol?
The point is starting to have a mass of data and information organized and easy to use and refer to. This also let people to validate or not a knol (article) with their name and face. The comment help appear useful to find error or criticism.
When a system is corrupt, the best way to reform it is to build a competing system not corrupt. Competition forces people to be honest.
_Jim (21:24:17) :
Can I just say, that, more than likely you were ’stamping’ a form or work order not so much to vouch for its accuracy or authenticity, but rather that a particular ‘work step’ or part of the process had been completed.
Jim I am a chemist who graduated on the dean’s list from Purdue University and am Certified Quality Engineer. I ran chemical analysis using IR, GC, AA, Mass Spec, wet analysis, set up and managed three labs, wrote quality procedures…
I had the plant manager at more than one company point blank order me to change the numbers on a certificate so they could ship the product. These were numbers that resulted from chemical tests I had run and double checked. I am not mentioning names of the companies because I wish to protect WUWT.
I am not making these things up and I would appreciate it if you would quit calling me a liar. If you have never run into dishonesty in the work place good for you but that does not mean it does not happen.
I’m the Wikipedia editor who more or less got WMC defrocked. It’s ironic, given some comments here, that I had confronted WMC long ago on his global warming misbehavior, but personally am very much not a global warming skeptic, I merely believe in the goal of neutrality. In spite of the statements about consensus, Wikipedia has largely settled for “rough consensus” which can, in practice, mean disregard for minority positions, quite contrary to the theory behind Wikipedia. True consensus would be quite different, it’s a matter of stating what is in reliable sources neutrally and completely and without creating imbalance. Balance is found in Reliable Sources, a Wikipedia term of art. It doesn’t mean “reliable” in the ordinary sense. If that had been followed at the Global warming article, none of this would have happened.
My primary interest was Wikipedia process, in other words, not specific content, but how to develop neutral and informative content, given a community consisting of people with various degrees of bias. In this pursuit, biased administrators using their tools to warp content are a serious problem, interfering with the necessary seeking of consensus. So I’d confronted WMC when I found what he was doing. Later, investigating another incident of admin abuse, I came across the Cold fusion article, and started to research it, and found that it’s quite an unusual situation: a common view among scientists and others in one direction, and opinion among scientists actually informed about the topic in the opposite direction. The rejection was twenty years ago, but research continued, and the tide of publication in peer-reviewed journals shifted in the other direction within two years of the original conclusions of experimental artifact. So I started to edit the article according to what is in the literature, in reliable sources. And ran into the same kind of problem, what I’ve called “Majority Point Of View (POV)-Pushing.” WMC saw this and took advantage of the opportunity to ban me. Ultimately, I appealed to the Arbitration Committee.
The result was mixed. I’d always known there was a risk that I’d be seen as a fringe advocate, and that happened. But WMC also stubbornly persisted to the point that he blocked me during the case. As if a police officer accused of abuse went out and arrested the plaintiff…. So the statement that this had nothing to do with global warming wasn’t accurate, ultimately. It was a product of his attitude, and the initial confrontation had been over global warming behavior.
Wikipedia is complex, and many comments here are quite uninformed. Connolley is not an admin any more, but remains free to edit, as does a skillful global warming skeptic, GoRight, though the latter is often beseiged. There is a “cabal” of editors who maintain the global warming articles in their desired state, quite improperly, but the difficulties of Wikipedia process mean that it can take years for this to be adequately resolved. Quite simply, they have the troops. If a skeptic registers and tries to be effective, they also have the experience and status, and the skeptic is quite likely to end up blocked, unless they manage to learn how to navigate the Byzantine maze. If anyone wants to help, I would highly recommend becoming familiar with how Wikipedia works. If you focus on developing truly neutral articles, rather than on emphasizing skepticism, for example, you might succeed if you are careful. Don’t just dive in with insistent editing, you will be history quickly, given the number of editors and administrators on Connolley side, who remain untouched, and some remain powerful. I’ll be on the other side, as to point of view, but my position is that we can’t find neutrality if we attempt to shut up one side.
Reply: Thank you for the the thoughtful comment. While you will read many angry and some rather biased opinions here, there are others that strongly strive for neutrality as well, as well as open and transparent research. If you do not mind I may contact you via email. ~ charles the moderator.
An interesting view of bias at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
All this and all they are discussing is a name for climategate.
len (23:09:29) :
….Wouldn’t it be interesting if you took these variations of this causal mechanisms for intermediate solar variation, and some think it is the primary driver of the Hale cycle as well, along with the Milankovitch cycle, what we know about solar output over geological time (paleo) and then added the dampening effects of the ocean … I bet you could make a real model. Touch it up a little with some statistical analysis/fitting and you could forcast out to the end of the Holocene 😀
Yes it would. Especially now that we have the computer power not available to Milankovitch and Gleissberg. It is ashame so many possible research avenues got derailed not just by the global warming clique but when ever research threatened entrenched money. A good example is the Canadian treatment for rheumatoid arthritis my doctor used and then championed that was never allowed in the USA.
for Jim
Her Name was Dr Dailey. She lived in the NYC area and appeared on the Joe Pine TV Show in the 60’s pushing to have the medication allowed in the USA. There maybe archived news stories too – YOU dig them out.
If you hate Griffin then A Primer on Money by the House of Representatives Committee on Banking and Currency: The chairman was even a democrat http://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Money/patman-primer-on-money.pdf
And yes I read the entire 135 pg booklet.
man their is a ton of them all working in tandem, i can only make 3 edits a day to an article, they can team up and undo it without breaking the 3edit rule. This is impossible 🙁
anyone want to go and undo changes to this article other than by mark nutley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri
Please do so
Rather than worrying about someone playing games at Wikipedia, I usually just scoff at anyone pointing to it as some kind of authoritative reference. Connolley’s tale is fat for the fire in directing people to get information from something that isn’t so beset with factual errors and ideological bias.