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.
Wikipedia is a useful research tool, often. However, when it comes to controversial topics, it has not developed its sea legs, and readers should understand that. It is not and does not pretend to be an “authoritative reference.”
Mark, there isn’t a “ton,” maybe merely one or two dozen, with a core of less than that. However, if you are not following Wikipedia policy in your edits, and you appear to be pushing a particular point of view, they will manage to raise the ire of neutral editors and, in fact, the Wikipedia community can and has resisted organized groups with serious resources. That’s why I do not recommend making rapid changes, you will get slaughtered, so to speak, unless you know what you are doing.
Yes. It’s not fair. But to make it fair will take structure and process that hasn’t been developed. Want to change it? You’d have to pay your dues, become known as an editor for things other than some single purpose. You could start, though, by identifying experienced editors who understand the problem, and ask them how you can help.
I’m not banned from this topic, by the way, though I need to be specially careful. I’m user Abd on Wikipedia, and I can be reached through the Wikipedia email interface. My goal has been, from the beginning, genuine consensus, and there are people who know how to facilitate that, but the “technology” isn’t well-known among Wikipedia editors. It takes patience.
I’ve named one editor who generally has a skeptical attitude on global warming, or who wants the article to be fair. There are others, some with very substantial experience, but few have been willing to confront the “cabal.” (This isn’t some secret conspiracy, it is merely a group of editors who collectively exert power through consistent cooperation.) It can be difficult, tedious, and unrewarding. That’s Wikipedia, when there is conflict. Just so you know what you’d be getting into.
Wikipedia can also be fun. Elsewhere. If you contribute to the project in other areas, you will have more credibility and may be better able to resist and gather support if you are treated unfairly.
Thank you for the advice adb, small steps it will be 🙂
I second Mark; thanks for the advice, abd. It should be required reading for everyone here who advocated changing Wikipedia, including me.
DILBERT HAS THEIR NUMBER – LOL
HEY! If you are contemplating the editing of articles at Wikipedia, I highly advise you a) open an account first, b) use a pseudonym and don’t reveal personal information, and c) perform other useful edits before you do anything. Wikipedia fancies itself a community, and they are very intolerant of one-issue editors. I recommend that, if you do not use and enjoy editing Wikipedia, do not touch the editing of a global-warming article with a ten-foot pole.
The thing is that at one point William had a very vested interest in pushing his Point of view (POV) regarding global warming. So while the average hobbyist comes around now and then and works on an article, they quickly get discouraged by William and his supporters antics. Since the hobbyist has no skin in the game, he or she gives up after a bit, while William, who presumably got some funding based on AGW theory, has a vested interest in keeping on pushing his POV, his very livelihood depends on it.
If you want influence, I think your time is better spent starting blogs, plus you can actually make money and contacts from it.
Hi guys, I’ve just been having a discussion on James Randi’s website about William M Connolley losing his administrative priviliges at Wikipedia but someone on there has pointed out that he’s still editing posts. It appears to be correct check here 16 December 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
He also shows up on the realclimate talking about ‘the’ wikipedia project 6 December 2004
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/william-m-connolley/
And on a blog
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/
december 3 2009, Quote: I’ve been busy with the wacko’s on wiki, as you’ll see if you visit [[Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident]].
november 24 2009
Its best to read through his posts yourselves because I don’t have time to read them and follow the links right now but it seems like this guy is on a mission.
Here is a blog where I think by James Annan was appointed arbitrator by Connolley. It gives an interesting insight into the reaction of the IPCC supporting scientists. I think they have forgot that anyone can read their posts.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/11/arbitration.html
Connolly is editing Wikipedia non-stop. Here’s the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=William_M._Connolley
Connolly’s old blog is here. http://mustelid.blogspot.com/
There are other wikipedia administrators on here.
Quote:
A few snippets from wikipedia… I’m now an admin, and hence have ultimate power to CRUSH ALL MY ENEMIES HA HA HA HA!!! . Sadly no: the rules prohibit me from abusing my powers and there are always other people watching anyway. And not that I have too many enemies, Of Course. Some of the comments are interesting though: try the RFA, scroll down for the Opposes.
And I’ve just made my 10,000th edit. That slacker Lubos only has 2.3k, & Charles matthews has a feeble 54k.
posted by Belette at 7:24 PM 6 comments links to this post
Sorry for posting so much but here’s one more (the last one).
It seems like realclimate is making real effort to dominate wikipedia and they even have a guide on how to deal with sceptics.
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki
Maybe this is the wikipedia project.
Connolley left realclimate on december 1 2007 so maybe along with friends on his blog he has his own wikipedia project too.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/goodbye-to-all-that/
Following my issue with Connelly et al on the wikipedia page on MWP (see my comment 04:37:17) : I received this standard message from Connelly:
Surely he has to be an admin to send messages like this?
”
…………….If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! William M. Connolley (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)”
I`m guessing that message was on your talk page, anyone can leave messages to you on it.
Remember, always be polite, do not use profanity and do not exceed the 3 edit rule (you can only do 3 edits per day per article)
I tangled with Connolley years ago on Wikipedia, and don’t have a lot of sympathy with the pro-warming orthodoxy, but wanted to give a few comments to anyone interested in beginning to edit.
1) Take some time to learn the community norms. You are right that organized groups can pull a page one way or the other, but overall, Wikipedia is a pretty incredible achievement. Spend some time editing non-contentious pages until you have a sense for how the community resolves disputes.
2) If you get into conflict on pages you care about, the most important thing is that you be scrupulously fair, pleasant, and open-minded. The people who will judge any dispute don’t have a dog in the hunt. To them, global warming pages are just one more contentious set of documents, no different from Israel-Palestine, Allegations that W stole the 2000 election, or Scientology.
3) The main Wikipedian community strongly believes in the Wikipedia process, and the central posts of that process are (a) that editors should bend over backwards to collaborate openly and pleasantly with other editors (“assume good faith”) and (b) that all disputes should ultimately resolve to fair summaries of reliable outside sources.
There will be times when you are convinced that the other guy is not operating in good faith, or that your reliable sources are being ignored. Those are the times when it is MOST important to be pleasant and collaborative.
It’s astounding how little people know about what WMC does and yet so quickly pass judgment. The subjects WMC is considered an expert in and regularly edits are quite large topics in the scientific community, are highly lucrative topics, and topics of much debate. That being the case, there are at least tens of thousands of articles published about the subject and like any controversial topic, there’s bound to be fringe publications who verge on the border of prophetical or down right nincompoopery. Many of the editors who come to Wikipedia only to edit these articles are often obsessed with conspiracy theories and try to interject their own PoV while backing their claims with these fringe articles. WMC has taken a stand against them. He does not act alone. No one person can act alone on Wikipedia and get their way. There are many others involved with these articles and they too keep the cruft out, often with WMC leading the way.
Granted, WMC isn’t always as civic as people would like but he gets the job done. The majority of the people who oppose him are either misguided, new to Wikipedia and unaware of its policies, guidelines, and nuances. After having their PoV rejected by the editing body, they go off on wild sprees of name calling bad mouthing in blogs as to what can only be compared to as a child’s temper tantrum.
One person doesn’t make, control, or destroy Wikipedia. If you think there’s a problem, voice it through the proper channels like an adult and if people disagree with you, fade away into obscurity like a good child.
The problem is, Zach, that we are right. Fading into obscurity is not an option for us.
Wikipedia is both more simple and more complex than many think. First of all, it’s billed as “the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” And it’s true. You can go and edit almost any page, you don’t need to register unless the page has been semiprotected because of lots of unregistered accounts mangling it (or trying to fix it contrary to the opinion of a substantial set of registered editors, like at least one who knows how to ask for semiprotection. It’s very easy, once you know how to do it, and if there is edit warring going on, the request is usually granted, or even full protection, if it’s registered editors doing the revert warring.)
WMC is not an administrator, he can do nothing that any registered editor can’t do. Except. He has lots of friends who can, though it’s getting more dangerous for them to support him in biased activity. The message he gave to the writer above could have been written by anyone, there is nothing in it that implies he is an administrator. Indeed, personal detailed “welcome” “helpful” messages are often a sign of a contentious editor who wants to set up an appearance of assuming good faith. But WMC isn’t one of the more outrageous game-players, he’s pretty open and direct. He just has strong opinions on global warming and cooperates with and is liked by the whole anti-fringe cabal, who came out in force to defend him during my case.
To give a balanced idea of the power of that cabal, WMC did not do well in the ArbComm elections. However, because this clique includes a number of active editors and administrators, it can often appear to be in the majority, that’s a result of how Wikipedia operates, there is no structure to guarantee broad enough consideration to allow neutrality to overcome participation bias. The “cabal” is not formally organized, it has no discipline, but it functions nevertheless, and it’s obvious if one reviews participation records.
I assure you all that Wikipedia, structurally, such as it is, doesn’t have a bias for or against global warming. However, in practice, there is a bias, and to overcome this takes patience and understanding. It’s a political problem. Wikipedia tells itself that it doesn’t vote, but, of course, it does; in effect. Nevertheless it is possible to bring matters to the attention of the community in a measured and careful way, especially if editors support each other in this, with reasoned and civil argument, and don’t themselves violate behavioral guidelines.
Note that various cabals will attempt to ban editors who challenge their domination, and sometimes they will succeed with individuals, or with a minority group, but they cannot long and completely suppress minority opinion; and when they try and are somewhat successful, they encounter long-term vandalism and sock puppetry, and administrators end up spending inordinate amounts of time dealing with them, with collateral damage as range-blocks set to block known IP for puppet masters prevent completely uninvolved people from editing Wikipedia, which then brings the attention, eventually, of those who actually want a neutral encyclopedia that “anyone can edit,” including Foundation officials. The Foundation, though, seems to have the illusion that the community will fix all its own problems, and you can see that in the comments by the OTRS volunteer whose response was initially quoted. It probably will, but it can take years. Maybe many years.
Wikipedia appears to work well in many ways, though it’s probably highly inefficient once editor labor is valued. Ultimately, that labor must be valued, it is not inexhaustible, it merely appeared that way at the beginning. Editors and administrators are burning out right and left, some of the abuse from administrators is a result of sheer frustration. Yet, tell them why this is happening, and they get angry…. or some of them do. If you go to http://wikipediareview.com, you can find a community of editors and ex-editors, including administrators and arbitrators, some of whom understand very well. Understanding alone doesn’t necessarily fix things.
Zach is a standard Wikipedia defender who is either affiliated with or supports the global warming cabal, or has drunk the Kool-Aid, as they say on Wikipedia Review; he clearly does not understand the neutrality policy, nor the specifics in the global warming case. Or he does and is blowing smoke. The evidence is obvious:
“Granted, WMC isn’t always as civic as people would like but he gets the job done.”
That is the standard excuse for fascism. It presumes that WMC is doing “the job.” But there is a dispute resolution policy on Wikipedia and developed protections against factional bias. Which WMC, in particular, had no interest in and no patience for. Thus he was a hero to people frustrated with having to deal with “POV-pushers,” who miss the point that they, themselves, push their own points of view, it is practically inevitable and the best of us are able to recognize it in ourselves. There are others who have embarked on his crusade, after much popularity and community acclaim, it must be terribly confusing to them that they end up blocked. WMC is carrying on as if nothing happened except he can’t personally block peoiple any more, and there is a good chance he’ll go down that wikisuicidal road as well. He’s managed to insult practically the whole the Arbitration Committee, not the most politic thing to do!
Note that WMC isn’t a naive conniver, he’s quite open. He’s also not particularly uncivil, or wasn’t when he had the administrative tools. He’d just ban or block you. Others were much more uncivil. Civility isn’t the issue. The issue is the use of blocking and revert warring to maintain preferred content, which is very much contrary to policy.
“The majority of the people who oppose him are either misguided, new to Wikipedia and unaware of its policies, guidelines, and nuances.”
The Arbitration Committee? The high percentage of editors who voted against him? He got about 30% approval, i.e, if you divided the Yes votes by the sum of the Yes and No votes, seventy percent voted against him, in an election where he’d made the point that ArbComm was silly to take away his tools, since he was using them as Zach described (he thought).
“After having their PoV rejected by the editing body, they go off on wild sprees of name calling bad mouthing in blogs as to what can only be compared to as a child’s temper tantrum.”
The community does not reject points of view, and that Zach believes it does demonstrates the problem. The community wrote and supports the policies and guidelines, which require a neutral point of view, and no individual point of view is “neutral point of view.” However, WMC’s faction believes, generally, that there is a “Scientific Point of View,” and that this is neutral by definition. It is an error, because science is about method and process, not about points of view, it’s an approach, and definitely is not a set of conclusions, though often the set of generally accepted reports (experiment, observation) and theory (organizing principles and predictions) are mistaken for science itself.
Wikipedia also has a notability policy, which governs what kind of information is allowed in the project. In science articles, the gold standard is peer-reviewed secondary source, but there are other aspects to, say, global warming than the science. There is also political and social history, biography, etc., and the basic policy, as I interpret it, is that anything found in “reliable source” belongs somewhere in the project. Reliable Source is a term of art, it doesn’t actually mean “reliable” in the ordinary sense. It means that fact or analysis or opinion has been published by a independent publisher of sufficient repute. The exact boundaries are frequently disputed, but the theory is that if a publisher is actually in business to make money, or exists for academic purposes, rather than pushing some agenda, it will only publish what it considers notable and sufficiently reliable that their own reputation won’t be damaged, hence Wikipedia depends on this judgment.
That doesn’t establish how the fact is presented. It may be quite biased, and if there is, again, reliable source that might show that, the existence of this source can be noted.
And then there is “due weight,” another policy. It is very clear to me that global warming skepticism is notable, and covered by reliable sources. Thus that skepticism belongs in the project. Where, exactly, is a matter of judgment, but the articles themselves should never present a significant minority opinion as if it is “wrong.” Neutral point of view requires otherwise. However, if a position is only held by a small minority of those knowledgeable, and this can be established in secondary source that covers the field, this can be and should be included. Minority opinion should not be presented as if it were equal in breadth of acceptance with majority opinion.
Actually balancing presentation is difficult, and the attitude that Zach shows is precisely what can make it next to impossible: he views the minority position as being that of children. If he voiced that on Wikipedia, he might be blocked for incivility….
“One person doesn’t make, control, or destroy Wikipedia. If you think there’s a problem, voice it through the proper channels like an adult and if people disagree with you, fade away into obscurity like a good child.”
Well, I did voice it through proper channels, very precisely, and the result was that WMC was desysopped. Yes, I was also site-banned for a few months, but those are the risks one takes when confronting administrative abuse. The administrators tend to circle the wagons. I was ready for that. Overall, most of what I set out to accomplish in filing the case was accomplished. But it’s hugely inefficient, and I certainly won’t attempt that again on my own. I did not attempt to gather support, so I was, indeed, largely on my own, with only a handful of editors showing up to try to balance out the screaming crowd.
When many people are upset with you, and anyone who challenges the global warming/anti-fringe-science Wikipedia cabal will upset many people, it is an easy conclusion for a somewhat distracted Arbitration Committee to conclude that you must be disruptive. And so they concluded in my case. Not at all surprising. But “time will tell just who has fell and who’s been left behind, as you go your way and I go mine.” Dylan’s grammar was downright weird, but damn! He could write.
Mark wrote: “Remember, always be polite, do not use profanity and do not exceed the 3 edit rule (you can only do 3 edits per day per article).”
To clarify, the rule is called 3RR, or 3 Revert Rule. A revert is a repetitive insertion of content or removal of content. The exact boundaries are a tad vague, in actual practice, but the intention seems to be that if you reverse the work of another editor or group of editors more than three times in a day, you have crossed a “bright red line.” In fact, any such reversal, if not accompanied by an attempt to negotiate a consensus, can be considered “edit warring,” even if 3RR isn’t broken.
3RR violation can result in almost automatic blocking. Normally, an editor should be warned that they are pushing the edge, before being blocked. 3RR blocks, first offense, are usually short, say 24 hours.
This rule then creates a serious temptation to use sock puppets. Don’t do it unless you don’t mind being more or less permanently site-banned and want to play that game against a group which includes experts. It’s definitely not the way to improve content, because it creates a reaction, it can make content worse, as anyone who tries to insert the same kind of text is accused of being your sock puppet.
The way to permanently improve content is patient negotiation, with appeal through dispute resolution process as needed when the process gets stuck. The global warming cabal is not monolithic, there are more reasonable members and less reasonable members. Further, there is the general community, which, if one has been careful to remain civil and to only assert what is based on reliable source, and what doesn’t violate proper balance, will support neutral text. Many do know how to recognize it!
When a reasonable consensus is found, by means that don’t include excluding points of view through banning all the editors with that point of view, all the participating editors will support that text, including those with minority opinions, for they know that if push comes to shove, they will end up with worse. So when someone new comes in with a minority POV, they will educate this new editor. It’s classic tribal social structure, actually, I saw it functioning in San Quentin State Prison, where I was a volunteer chaplain. Each “tribe” — called gangs by the officials — policed itself, preventing the more radical members from causing gang warfare, which, after all, damaged everyone. The gang leaders were not stupid. And it usually worked.
My position has been that the neutrality policy requires the participation of editors with all significant points of view, for having a point of view makes one very sensititive to bias in the opposite direction. The job of the administrative community, properly, is not the making of content decisions (in general), but maintaining the kind of civil communication between editors that fosters the development of consensus. The degree of consensus that a text enjoys is a measure of its neutrality. If neutrality is desired, “majority” is not nearly adequate, the ideal, which may not be atttainable, would be complete agreement. That’s possible more often than we usually imagine. But it takes patience and tolerance, which are qualities that were missing in WMC, unfortunately.
I can’t believe people think the Climategate Conservapedia article is better than WIkipedia’s counterpart. Just look at the lead. It included emotional, unencyclopedic language like “in a profoundly bizarre situation”. Seems to be more concerned with The Truth, than presenting both sides, neutrally, with due weight. It flat out calls climate science “a fraud”, which is clearly taking sides. “Contrary to the liberal media’s attempt to hide the scandal”. Accusations of censorship. And then those images. Encyclopedias usually don’t present new information, or novel syntheses. But Conservapedia seems fine juxtaposing the Gore image with the snow image, having us take their word on it that one disputes and disproves the other, without backing it up with a valid source. (not to mention that Gore was not involved with the hacked e-mails, so the top image seems misleading in other regards as well) Not to mention the photoshopped image of Gore and the fire.
While it might be telling you what you want to hear, it doesn’t seem neutral nor encyclopedic.
I’m glad some of you guys stood up and noticed the bias at Conservapedia on other science related articles (evolution/creationism). Kudos to you.
dcardno (00:46:58) : “…while Wikipedia is wonderful for -say- Faraday’s experiments or definition of an eigenvector, it simply cannot be trusted for anything controversial – which unfortunately includes “climate science” at least so long as climate “scientists” persist in playing climate politics.”
But science is not a collection of independent articles. It is more like a tapestry, an interwoven structure of facts, data, and relationships. Once the corruption starts in any area, there is nothing to stop it from gradually spreading to all the others. In fact, given the lowest common denominator, self-selection process of postering, eventual degradation of most articles is probably guaranteed. The entire concept is flawed, particularly in its reliance on social consensus instead of Science.
Add to this the likelihood that AGW pseudoscience will become increasingly difficult to prop up as contrarian knowledge expands. An ever-widening body of tainted articles (e.g., CO2 spectral absorption bands) will be necessary to preserve the appearance of legitimacy in global warming and warming related articles.
Science is dead and Wikipedia is becoming necrotic. I use it only as a last resort and never for climatology, meteorology, atmospheric physics or geophysics.
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodies.”
This thread is long in the tooth, but I just ran across this dirt on Jimmy Wales: click.
I especially liked the one on censorship [including the embedded links].
Is it possible that Gavin Schmidt and Jimmy Wales were twins separated at birth? If so, that would tilt the nature vs nurture argument [over innate ethical behavior, at least] firmly into the nature camp.
The key feature of Mr. Gres’ reply is one I don’t see discussed, namely the total abdication of responsibility. “The community” does this, prefers that, elects the other. Don’t like what you see? It’s not our fault – vox populi, vox dei. Obviously, with that kind of attitude on the part of those who should be in charge, Wikipedia is a lost cause. I’m not sure that’s bad news, though. The Internet is vast and non-hierarchical; why then must there be ONE wiki, ONE search engine and so on? People with specialized knowledge got disenchanted with Wikipedia years ago and started their own specialized wikis and FAQs to serve as alternatives to the erroneous Wikipedia entries that kept getting restored by incompetent editors. Don’t like the biased [snip] about climate at Wikipedia? Stop using them and build your own. Anybody can start a wiki.
Talkpage censorship. “Sockpuppet” tool abuse.
————————————-
The main problem in William related topics is that at least several admins have found loopholes in Wikipedia rules and worked out the way to abuse them institutionally.
One of these loopholes is the “sockpuppet” tool. Originally developed to prevent single editors from operating multiple accounts in polemics, polls, edit wars (etc). is now a strong censor tool on talkpages.
How was it possible? Current regulations allow to accuse just anyone of suckpuppetry but don’t give that person instruments to prove innocent. What happens next is humourously but accurately described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_Ban_a_POV_You_Dislike,_in_9_Easy_Steps
I’d like to underline that an editor doesn’t have to be a climate change skeptic/”denier” to clash with these ppl. My personal experience was when I tried to discuss “Climate change denial” article. I suggested to neutralise the language and give some background to the term. Another one was William Connoley’s biography where I postulated to update info in “Writing and editing” section.
In both cases no one responded to my thread. Each lasted for about 30 seconds before deleted. I was labelled as a sockpuppet without any explaination.
@marco
I am amazed that that article is still there, “humorous” or not. I would think that it might just hit a little too close to home for certain Wiki admins we all know and love…