Wikibullies at work. The National Post exposes broad trust issues over Wikipedia climate information

http://himaarmenia.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/wikipedia-logo.jpgUPDATED: see stats below the “read more” line.

Lawrence Solomon at the National Post writes about a topic that WUWT readers have known about for a long time: How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.

We’ve known for some time that Wikipedia can’t be trusted to provide unbiased climate information. Solomon starts off by talking about Climategate emails.

The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.

The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.

He then focuses on RealClimate.org co-founder William Connolley, who has “touched” 5,428 Wikipedia articles with his unique brand of RC centric editing:

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

 

William Connolley - Wikipedia image

 

Wikipedia suffers from the same problem that climate science in general suffers from now. A few determined zealots have influenced the vast majority of the published information.

 

Kim Dabelstein Petersen

Petersen

 

IMHO it is time for Connolley to step aside from Wikipedia, one person should not have so much influence over so many articles. At the same time, the number two person, almost as influential, is Kim Dabelstein Peterson. Here’s a National Review article on the kind of things Petersen has been doing in similar to the work of Connolley.

Additionally, there are many Wikipedia editors and contributors that do so anonymously, and I think that is terribly wrong. There’s no accountability, no quality control, and no recourse to people who falsify information, or mold it to fit a personal agenda. Wikipedia relies upon an honor system, and as we’ve seen from the Climategate emails, there’s no honor in some circles of climate science.

Here is another example:

The Opinionator

Posted: May 03, 2008, 2:53 AM by Lawrence Solomon

Connolley is not only a big shot on Wikipedia, he’s a big shot at Wikipedia — an Administrator with unusual editorial clout. Using that clout, this 40-something scientist of minor relevance gets to tear down scientists of great accomplishment. Because Wikipedia has become the single biggest reference source in the world, and global warming is one of the most sought after subjects, the ability to control information on Wikipedia by taking down authoritative scientists is no trifling matter.

One such scientist is Fred Singer, the First Director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, the recipient of a White House commendation for his early design of space satellites; the recipient of a NASA commendation for research on particle clouds — in short, a scientist with dazzling achievements who is everything Connolley is not. Under Connolley’s supervision, Singer is relentlessly smeared, and has been for years, as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry. When a smear is inadequate, or when a fair-minded Wikipedian tries to correct a smear, Connolley and his cohorts are there to widen the smear or remove the correction, often rebuking the Wikipedian in the process.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales recently put out an appeal for donations here. He writes:

I believe in us. I believe that Wikipedia keeps getting better. That’s the whole idea. One person writes something, somebody improves it a little, and it keeps getting better, over time. If you find it useful today, imagine how much we can achieve together in 5, 10, 20 years.

In a perfect world, maybe. In a perfect world unicorns frolic in the park, free money falls from the sky, and people are honest and without bias 100% of the time. But when you have Wikibullies, such as Connolley and Peterson, your honor system goes up in smoke. Fact is Jimmy, your honor system is as corrupted as the peer review process is for climate science these days. In my view, don’t give Wikipedia another dime until they make some changes to provide for a more responsible information environment.

Making free reference information available to the public shouldn’t be a battle of wills between Wikibullies with an agenda and the rest of society.

Here’s where to write to complain to Wikipedia:

Wikimedia Foundation

Postal address

Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
149 New Montgomery Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
USA
Phone: +1-415-839-6885
Email: info(at)wikimedia.org
Fax: +1-415-882-0495 (note: we get a large number of calls; email or fax is always a better first option)

UPDATE: I’ve located Solomon’s source of information, an independent Wikipedia author tracker. Here is Connolley’s base statistics:

Click image for full report

Share


Sponsored IT training links:

Get expert help for your 220-701 exam! We offer latest 640-816 exam questions for practice to help you pass 642-832 on first try.


Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

It seems all the dominos are falling, UEA, NASA, Wikipedia, UNIPCC, Google etc – how far will this go!

Ian

National Review…not National Post (Canada’s national newspaper),
REPLY: Solomon’s article in the link I provided above is in the National Post at this URL:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx
– Anthony

crosspatch

That is the problem with “electronic” media. It can be modified and what was said yesterday can be erased. Archives can be purged, articles can be modified to say things today that they didn’t say yesterday.
You can not edit a hard copy newspaper or book after it has been published. I suppose that is one reason why actual ink to paper publishing should never die. You can’t “unprint” it.
I have personally seen cases where the Washington Post, for example, edits stories after publication, publishes a story online that differs from the same story published in the newspaper, and seen articles purged from the archives that were published online but not in the print edition. Electronic “archives” are not to be trusted. They can be edited at any time and an article that says one thing today can disappear or say something completely different a year from now.
Wikipedia isn’t worth the paper it is printed on.

John

While a lot is being said about climate science and some bad apples doing some naughty things, and others have even touched on how this may effect the way science is conducted in future everyone seems to be ignoring the most money centric part of science, that is pharmaceutical research.
In recent years some of the dirty tricks that big pharma has gotten up to is very similar to what is now being exposed as a result of emails being aired publicly.
It seems where ever there is a LOT of money involved with science there should be a LOT more scrutiny of the results and players involved but this just doesn’t seem to happen.
Although one thing climate scientists haven’t done yet is make up their own journals to have their results published favourably, so they’re still behind their brethren at big pharma.

Karl Maki

I had been inclined to kick in a few bucks to Wikipedia. Then I read the Solomon piece.
I checked out several of the entries regarding global warming, skepticism thereof, the Medieval Warm Period, Climategate, Pat Michaels, etc. I was a bit shocked at how lopsided the entries were, and how many times William Connolley’s fingerprints were all over the editing.
No money from me until they clean up their act.

I’d like to see a link to the original article, please.
REPLY: Its in my post at the top in bold

“Turns out that on Wikipedia some folks are more equal than others. Kim Dabelstein Petersen is a Wikipedia “editor” who seems to devote a large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages to pump the assertions of global-warming alarmists and deprecate or make disappear the arguments of skeptics.
I soon found others who had the same experience: They would try to squeeze in any dissent, or even correct an obvious slander against a dissenter, and Petersen or some other censor would immediately snuff them out.
Now Petersen is merely a Wikipedia “editor.” Holding the far more prestigious and powerful position of “administrator” is William Connolley. Connolley is a software engineer and sometime climatologist (he used to hold a job in the British Antarctic Survey), as well as a serial (but so far unsuccessful) office seeker for England’s Green party.
And yet by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world’s most influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore. Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling achievements. Under Connolley’s supervision, Wikipedia relentlessly smears Singer as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry. “http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml

oops. Sorry, didn’t see it in the article text itself. Disregard my last comment. 😛

gtrip

Wikipedia = Minitrue RecDep.

WeestHoustonGeo

That tears it. Wikipedia just became the “Web of Lies”, in my humble eyes. After tettering on the edge, they have fallen into the bottomless pit.
Perhaps they will find solace in the words “better to rule in hell than to serve in Heaven.”

Rereke Whakaaro

Y’know, I am convinced that the whole AGW troop have been using George Orwell’s 1984 as a text book.
I did a quick Google search, and the Medieval Warming Period did come up with a reference on Wikipedia, but the text explicitly limits it to “the North Atlantic”, and Western Europe.
I have just finished reading a book on Peru, where archeologists have recently discovered terraces on the Andes used for growing maize, at much higher altitudes than is possible now. The time period: circa 800 to 1350, by carbon dating.
There ain’t many places further away from Western Europe than Peru – it was GLOBAL.
Dipsticks.

Elizabeth

Apparently this parody site, Uncyclopedia, is closer to the truth than I realised:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Global_warming

Alan S. Blue

Rereke Whakaaro, it would be nice to have a citation for that book. There are a long list of such anecdotes, but the cataloging citations is the tricky part.

bikermailman

Perhaps there’s a way to turn their tactics on them? Not a user of Wikipedia, due to this very type of thing, but maybe others here know how to use it, and which ‘articles’ to work on? This crowd always hates it when others use their tactics on them. Just a thought.

Just how deep is Connelley in Climategate? Check out Michael Mann trashing Soon and Baliunas in 2006:

I’ve attached the piece in word format. Hyperlinks are still there,
but not clickable in word format. I’ve already given it a good
go-over w/ Gavin, Stefan, and William Connelley (our internal “peer
review” process at RC)
, so I think its in pretty good shape. Let me
know if any comments…

Up to his neck.

Guys, if you can only read the English wikipedia and weep because of the misinformation, be glad you do not read the Spanish, Portuguese, French or Italian versions.
By comparison, the English version is the very fountain of balance and truth. The romance language partisanship on all sort of historical and scientific subjects is beyond belief, and usually only tilts one way.
Yeah, no donation from me to wikipedia. Alas, I wish it were not so.

Alec, a.k.a Daffy Duck

Off subject, but first day of winter is Monday, and winter is back to being like the ‘old days!’
From the data at: National Weather Service, National Operational Hydrologic
Remote Sensing Center
Dec 21st % Snow Coverage Ave. Depth
2009 [12/19 a.m. ] 48.6% 3.5″
2008 53.4% 4.4”
2007 42.3% 4.2”
2006 26.3 2.4
2005 44.8% 3.2
2004 18.6% 1.2”
2003 24.7% 1.7”
http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/nsa/index.html?region=National&year=2009&month=12&day=19&units=e
2009 numbers should be a lot bigger by monday!

P Walker

They scrub political articles as well . But you get what you pay for ….

bananabender

The quicker Wikipedia disappears the better IMHO. The Australian Tax Office was recently embarrassed when it was discovered that a Wikipedia entry was used as the basis of a judgement.
http://www.news.com.au/business/tax-office-relied-on-wikipedia-reference/story-e6frfm1i-1225811594544?from=public_rss

photon without a Higgs

But the UN’s official verdict that the Medieval Warm Period had not existed did not erase the countless schoolbooks, encyclopedias, and other scholarly sources that claimed it had.
Thank God ‘global warming’ never got to the point of book burnings.

Bulldust

I have always maintained that Wikipedia is an excellent reference for any topic that is not in any way political or religious in nature. As soon as human belief systems (such as AGW) become attached to a topic the value of the content on Wiki becomes highly suspect. But for anything of a purely factual nature, and this would account for an extremely large number of pages, such as the decay series of U235, for example, I am sure Wikipedia is as useful as most other references.
I did come across this entry however:
¨Ian Rutherford Plimer (born February 12, 1946) is an Australian geologist, academic, businessman and fraud.¨
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
Nowhere in the Wiki article does it explain why it should be understood that Prof Plimer is a fraud. The discussion attached to the page indicates the interview between himself and Monbiot and the accusation that he misrepresented one of the scientific conclusions in his book ¨Heaven and Earth.¨
Without such an explanation for the accusation at the start of the entry, it is completely unsubstantiated. But apparently this is acceptable because Plimer clearly fights for the dark side…

photon without a Higgs

When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand.
What an incomprehensible bastard!

Bulldust

I have always maintained that Wikipedia is an excellent reference for any topic that is not in any way political or religious in nature. As soon as human belief systems (such as AGW) become attached to a topic the value of the content on Wiki becomes highly suspect. But for anything of a purely factual nature, and this would account for an extremely large number of pages, such as the decay series of U235, for example, I am sure Wikipedia is as useful as most other references.
I did come across this entry however:
¨Ian Rutherford Plimer (born February 12, 1946) is an Australian geologist, academic, businessman and fraud.¨
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
Nowhere in the Wiki article does it explain why it should be understood that Prof Plimer is a fraud. The discussion attached to the page indicates the interview between himself and Monbiot and the accusation that he misrepresented one of the scientific conclusions in his book ¨Heaven and Earth.¨
Without such an explanation for the accusation at the start of the entry, it is completely unsubstantiated. But apparently this is acceptable because Plimer clearly fights for the dark side…
(delete if this is a second entry – first did not appear to go through)

Horst

This is not the first time this has happened. This item was big news a few years back. Yes, another email incident.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9474.shtml

Brooke D
Rereke Whakaaro

Alan S. Blue (20:19:52) :
It is back at the public library.
I will try to find it again and post the citation here.

I recently logged on to wikipedia to look at the polar bear article. A year or so ago the polar bear articles seemed an accurate message on the facts that polar bear are growing in numbers in most of their habitats. But when I recently logged on, the article had been sanitized to toe the global warming line of endangered polar bears.
My sympathy for wikipedia evaporated. I think there is anti-Semitic bias in their coverage of MidEast issues (I’m not Jewish btw).
So, wiki is gone.

pyromancer76

I have been disgusted by this totalitarian version of “science” for a long time; I have read it and been repulsed for too long. Perhaps serious consequences are due for this kind of behavior. My mind first goes to a Western version of justice, but Jail time will do as well — for those who subvert reality, science, and truth.

I’ve been aware of this wikipedia bias for some time and am glad to see that it is getting publicity. I think that the corruption in wikipedia is so ingrained that the whole concept of an encyclopedia modifiable by everyone needs to be implemented in a totally different fashion.
Wikipedia appears to draw on the success of open-source software with one major difference. In a software project there are objective measurements of whether one persons code works better than another persons such as execution time/memory requirements, etc. In the area of personal preferences of hackers, if no agreement can be reached on a basic topic such as the structure of the filesystem to use for a new OS, then usually the project splits into two groups. Also in open source software all of the previous versions of programs are available and it is very clear on comparison of various versions what changes have been made. The most current program has the highest version number and the most stable program is usually a couple of versions back.
If wikipedia functioned in a true open source fashion then every single version of every article would be available on wikipedia. Once an article has been written, it should be treated as read_only and each article should be accompanied with the result of a hash-function which will let people know if the copy of the article they have differs from the one which was used to compute the hash. Creation of a new version would occur if _any_ change was made including punctuation. For trivial changes to the article, a non-alterable audit trail could be created so that one wouldn’t have to save thousands of copies of an article if some user decided to add and delete commas at random.
For subjects such as global warming, the encyclopedic equivalent of forking an open source software project would occur. For those of us who believe there is a MWP, the earth’s temperature history would include this and the warmists POV would be full of hockey-stick like graphs with no temperature variation before the present day. Also, every article and change should be signed by the person who wrote it or made the change. There are lots of opportunities for people to post anonymously on various blogs but for an informational structure that purports to be an encyclopedia, knowing the authorship of varous sections is essential. As every crackpot would be able to post on the new proposed encyclopedic information structure, some mechanism of separating out the usefull from crap would be essential. An objective measure of accesses to various versions of a topic or a transparent voting system could be used to rate multiple articles on various topics in terms of relevance to the majority of people. The other requirement would be that each topic have a mandatory inclusion of how many other articles there are on that particular topic and the ratings of the top 3-4.
One of the things I’ve noticed about Wikipedia is the notion that there is a _right_ way of documenting a particular topic and that all “incorrect” material is excluded. This type of thinking is isomorphic to the hacker ideal of the perfect program, but open-source software development leaves an audit-trail of incredible detail letting anyone else see what “wrong” ideas were pursued. Wikipedia uses this concept in a flawed manner in that wikipedia erases all trace of “wrong” ideas. Most people believe that their personal views are correct and that any dissent from these views is wrong. Even people who try to be objective display personal bias which is why one needs a means of enforcing objectivity in any future wikipedia like project.
I’ve emailed wikipedia to let them know that I won’t be contributing anything to their project and that, unless the process for creating wikipedia articles is changed, I will refuse to use wikipedia and counsel other people to do the same. I notice that wikipedia articles come up near the top of web searches and I make a point of avoiding clicking on these given the major problems that have been identified with wikipedia.

Wikipedia is just another example of the folk with the loudest voices calling the tune – perhaps we need a campaign to withold contributions from it until it stops anonymous editing. On the other hand, it could solve its funding crisis right now by carrying adverts; the problem is, if the silent majority stopped using Wikipedia because of its having been hijacked by thermofascists, advertising revenue would be witheld. Oh dear…

savethesharks

From these words alone…“I believe in us. I believe that Wikipedia keeps getting better. That’s the whole idea. One person writes something, somebody improves it a little, and it keeps getting better, over time. If you find it useful today, imagine how much we can achieve together in 5, 10, 20 years.”…would make me skeptical to ever donate a dime.
More like “WIMPipedia”
or LIMPipedia
or ***LICKipedia
Hey William…because of you and your ilk, as well as your association with public servant, taxpayer-funded Gavin at RC….you are precisely the reason why anything you publish, or allow to be published, will always ALWAYS be taken with a very skeptical, cynical, big-ass grain (rather CHUNK) of salt.
You may think you are getting away with it…but your whole little club is being watched with intense scrutiny…by rational minds.
Nor are we fooled….in the slightest bit whatsoever.
Your reign (if you can call it that) is over.
Long live the MWP. Hip hip hurray!
(LOL)
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Kath

Advocates of global warming are showing their revisionist tendencies. Which leads to me to quote from a well known book:
“This, thought Winston, was the most frightening aspect of the party regime-that it could obliterate memory, turn lies into Truth and alter the Past. The Party slogan was “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” ”
from 1984 by George Orwell

Doug in Seattle

Anthony,
Thanks for spreading this message from the Great White North. Lawrence Solomon has been writing and lecturing on the environment for a long time. His perspective is well worth the wider exposure WUWT can provide.

Kevin Kilty

I was hoping for something fun to read before bed-time, and what I find is another horror story.
However, on a brighter note, perhaps the offended skeptics can sue the likes of Connelley in an English Court of Law. The English have a very different view of libel that has caused numerous authors of scurrilous books and articles to alter versions available in England. For instance, I’m pretty sure Bill Clinton changed the tone of his attacks on Ken Starr in the English version of his autobiography, because Starr could have sued easily for libel if it had remained true to the American version. Anyway, Wikipedia is available in England in the same version it is in the U.S.? Perhaps trouble for bad boys.

Trey

I get lots of good info if it’s a non-controversial subject. I was needing some computational geometry basics last week, and wikipedia was a big help.
But AGW, with its charged atmosphere of science, politics, economics, environment, and journalism is just too much for wikipedia to handle in a meaningful way.
FWIW, we should be skeptical of a lot of what we hear, whether it’s on the internet, TV, books, radio, newpapers, magazines… Hmmm, I guess that doesn’t leave a lot.

DOuglas2

I find Wikipedia quite useful on non-controversial subjects. What I find most useful, however is the standard wikipedia structure. Near the top of each article is a block called “contents”, and in that block is indexed a section called “further reading”. This section is almost always contains a link to a good tutorial on the subject. If it doesn’t the “external links” may, and this is often where any balance may be hidden.
And we are fortunate that the English language Wiki is edited by a large population no tonly from the English speaking world but from English-speaking experts from all over the world. That does not mean we monolingual types are limited to reading the English version however. If you can put up with automatic translation, you can often get useful information from other wiki sites, such as Germany:
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?ref=SERP&br=ro&mkt=en-US&dl=en&lp=de_en&a=http%3a%2f%2fde.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fMittelalterliche_Warmzeit

Michael

History has always been rewritten by people with an agenda, who have something to promote for their own benefit or their peoples benefit, or by those who have something to hide.
Take for instance the Council of Nicaea who rewrote the message of Jesus in starting in 325AD. They subverted the true message with pagan Babylonian rituals, which is why we has the sun god ritual with Easter and all it’s machinations, as well as Christmas rituals that mimic the ancient Babylonian traditions surrounding the event.
Human nature has not changed in 5,000 years, and it’s not about to change any time soon.

Neo

William Connelly does get mentioned in e-mail 1108399027

A good comparison of all of the reconstruction constructive by William Connelly, which
makes it clear that the take-home point is robust, is available here:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Chris

Wikipedia should never be regarded as an authoritative source. It’s probably OK for basic factual information but is worthless for any topic tainted with controversy or politics. As you may be aware, congressmen routinely rewrite and edit wiki pages which put them in an unfavorable light. I long ago realized the wikipedia coverage of AGW was incredibly biased.

Frederick Michael

Rereke Whakaaro (20:37:22) :
It is back at the public library.
I will try to find it again and post the citation here.

I’m interested.

eo

Who cares about your penny contributions to wike. Party time to all the AGW crowd. Just think of all the money being thrown around after the sucessful meetings and lobbying at Copenhagen. Its billions going international organizations and NGOs( something like 10 to 15% administration fees of the $10 billions promised per year), then most of it some ( 70 to 80 per cent will be for consulting fees, purchases of SUV vehicles justified by the conditions of the roads in developing countries, trainings seminars, regional consultative meetings, capacity building, study tours, report preparations, public consultations and hearings, banquets, design and supervisions of demonstration projects, information dessimination, documentation. etc.) Whatever small amount left is the one for the tangible demonstration projects. Not to mention in developed countries the huge amount of taxpayer’s funded research and development for clean fuel, sequestration, renewable energy, etc that goes to the big oil companies and energy generators. This is the real stimulus to the economies of the developed countries. The truth is irrelevant. Science is irrelevant. It is the golden rule. He who holds the gold rules.

Eduardo Ferreyra

This is a coincidence, because today I edited three times the Wikipedia article “The Medieval Warming Period”, at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
with highly referenced peer reviewed data, and my editing was erased and reverted in NOT MORE THAN TWO MINUTES by some Stephan Schulz, apparently a PhD. After three succesive editings (as shown in the log page:
00:34, 20 December 2009 Achuara (talk | contribs) (16,466 bytes) (Undid revision 332762415 by Stephan Schulz (talk)) (undo)
Mr Schults sent me this threatening message in Wikpedia “talk” page:
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Medieval warm period. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. –Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Achuara”
Solomon is right about William “The Wiki” Connolley. He’s a the watchdog in Wikpedia, and have this guy Schultz as his aid. They are really the Black Pest.
However, I have several computers, several aliases, and several different IP addresses (and some dozens of friends that will be happy to bother these guys) so it is going to be difficult for them to keep their present missinformation on the web.

Margaret

The best thing to do is boycott Wikipedia and set up a competitor who demonstrates the policy of acting without fear or favour of facts and the truth. Wikipedia’s reputation will diminish if they do not publish both sides of an issue.

[snip] When will the inquisition begin Bishop Connolly?

Wicipedia is in collusion with Google to censor information. Before climatgegate, wiki had this information on their page called “Censorship by Google” found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google
Google also censors its search suggestions in the United States. “Dirty” search suggestions end in an apostrophe, period, or hyphen. Suggestions containing the words “teen” or “teenager” are forbidden. “Child abuse” is notoriously blocked as well, but not “abused children”. Suggestions for “physical neglect” and “emotional neglect” are used as code words for “physical abuse” and “emotional abuse”. All queries containing “hate” are censored as well. For example, instead of “Why did Hitler hate Jews?”, a suggested query is “Why did Hitler hated Jews?”.
When folks began to notice that Google was censoring the keyword “climategate” from it’s autosuggestion list, someone added this information to the article:
More recently, Google has been censoring search suggestions skeptical of climate change, i.e. “Climategate” is forbidden, but “climate change” is ok. Also both “climategate” and “climate gate” search results went from over 12 million to around 6 million results for both. “climate gate” should always yield more than “climategate” as teh Google search algorithm should find all sites containing “climategate” and sites containing both “climate” and “gate”, but “climate gate” yields less results than “climategate”. This is pointed to as undeniable evidence of tampering since the results are violating the rules of their own search algorithm.
Now ALL THE INFORMATION quoted above has been CENSORED from the Wiki article.

Deadman

crosspatch (19:58:53) rightly said (inter alia)

You can not edit a hard copy newspaper or book after it has been published. I suppose that is one reason why actual ink to paper publishing should never die. You can’t “unprint” it.

Unfortunately, some reputable but lamentably imprudent publishers are now printing history books (for example) which, instead of appending copious notes and full lists of sources, merely refer readers to web-pages.

sHx

I am surprised that nobody has commented yet on the picture in his wiki page (now also on the WUWT).
To my knowledge that kind of picture counts as ‘Point of View’ pic on the Wikipedia. William Connolley, the Wikipedia administrator, should have found the photo that he uses on his passport a more suitable contribution to his wiki page than this sh*t.
Not sure whether he thinks that photo makes him look ‘hot’ or ‘cool’, but from my point of view, it looks as if he is running away after stealing a small teddy bear from a toddler. Shame, William, shame!

Deadman

Margaret (21:16:13) says:

The best thing to do is boycott Wikipedia and set up a competitor [which] demonstrates the policy of acting without fear or favour of facts and the truth.

Well, I for one shall gladly help but, though willing to give time, lack the funds to establish such a site. Who will fund this?

David Madsen

This is a perfect example of why, when I was a physics TA, I would give no credit for references on papers that were turned in to me that had Wikipedia as a source, even if there were other sources. The information is not reliable and in many cases not verifiable.
I’m glad that many others are beginning to see what I knew 5 years ago. It’s an okay place to start research, but don’t start using it to support your arguments.

Norman

I don’t usually immediately send off an email when I see these sorts of revelations, I suppose the mere fact that there are so many would cause my fingers to freeze up once and for all. But I use Wikipedia and while I suspected the ‘fix was in’ after the East Anglia Emails were released, I dodn’t suspect the fix was quite as bad as described. I Immediately wrote an email telling them that while it is important to guard the credibility of their product, they should be most careful in guarding it from the guards.