UPDATED: 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.
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.
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:
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
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
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wikipedia is a good place to find information on popular culture and entertainment. Comic books, cartoons, episode lists of TV shows etc.
But my experience with it with regards to history has been lack luster. Recently i found out information on I.F Stone from an article at Reason regarding his Stalinist apologist writings. I am not saying he wrote left wing material…i am saying he actually wrote materials that supported Joseph Stalin.
“If Stalin was the aggressive monster painted in official propaganda, his death should have cheered Washington. Actually the unspoken premise of American policy has been that Stalin was so anxious for peace he would do nothing unless Soviet soil itself were violated. With his death, the baiting of the Russian bear-the favorite sport of American politics-suddenly seemed dangerous…The cold war claque was critical of Nehru for calling Stalin a man of peace, but Washington’s own instinctive reactions said the same thing…Stalin was one of the giant figures of our time, and will rank with Ivan, Peter, Catherine and Lenin among the builders of that huge edifice which is Russia. Magnanimous salute was called for on such an occasion…It is difficult to pursue dignified and rational policy when official propaganda has built up so distorted a picture of Russia. Many Americans fed constantly on the notion that the Soviet Union is a vast slave labor camp must have wondered why the masses did not rise now that the oppressor had vanished.”
Any attempt to post material regarding I.F Stone as a Stalin apologist has been blocked and deleted.
http://reason.com/blog/2009/05/07/internationalist-house-of-panc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._F._Stone
Wikipedia’s response to my letter RE: Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor and my reply.
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?
2. Is there any internal investigation being undertaken to verify the extent and the scope of this apparent hijacking of process.
3. What, if any steps are being taken to correct the bias injected into the 5,428 articles authored or edited by William Connolley?
4. Has William Connolley been removed as a Wikipedia administrator? If so who has taken his place?
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?
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?
I await your reply.
Dennis Kuzara
Wikipedia information team wrote:
> Dear Dennis Kuzara,
>
> Thank you for your email.
>
> 12/19/2009 08:26 – Dennis Kuzara wrote:
>
>
>> I would like to know what will be done about this.
>> http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/18/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx
>
> Thank you for contacting us with your concern.
>
> Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia (as explained at
> ), and so anyone may edit its
> articles. Its policy, nonetheless, is that articles must be written from a Neutral
> Point of View, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and
> without bias, as is discussed extensively at .
>
> However, all matters relating to article content and project administration are
> not controlled by a central authority, but are decided through discussion and
> consensus of all collaborators. The nonprofit Wikipedia Foundation, which operates
> Wikipedia, does not intervene in the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia, does not
> make decisions about the content of articles or about administrative actions, and
> normally takes no stance in disputes about Wikipedia content or administration.
>
> There are several tens of thousands of contributors and more than a thousand
> administrators on the English Wikipedia alone, which normally ensures that no
> single editor or administrator can exert a commanding influence over the project
> or any particular aspect of it. There are also often disputes about content or
> administrative policy, but Wikipedia has solid procedures to resolve disputes and
> to make sure that every contested action, including the deletion of articles or
> the blocking of contributors, is subject to review in a community discussion or by
> an independent Arbitration Committee
> ().
>
> I hope that this addresses your concern.
>
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Pierre Grés
>
>
Eduardo Ferreyra (21:13:36) :
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:
Stephan Schulz – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stephan Schulz is a German computer scientist working in the field of automated reasoning. He is best known for the development of the high performance … blah blah blah
It may be a different Stephan Schulz, but whatdya bet that a computer scientist is the resident Wikipedia expert on MWP. Perhaps Phil Jones can get the Wikipedia opening as expert on computer coding.
crosspatch (19:58:53) :
“Wikipedia isn’t worth the paper it is printed on.”
Don’t you mean, “Wikipedia isn’t worth the paper it ISN’T printed on.”?
Emails to me from W Connolley , the ever so balanced Wikipedia admin:
Junk:
Please stop adding skeptic junk to wiki climate articles William M. Connolley (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
3rr warning:
You need to be aware of WP:3RR and the consequences of breaking it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Wait, wait! Where was the 3rd warning! The first email was a “thank you for the contribution” form email!
I have attempted to complain to Wikipedia, but there does not appear to be a direct way to do so.
crosspatch (19:58:53) :
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.
You have my vote for quote of the week in the 2nd paragraph.
News print hardcopy is the key to restoring the USHCN.
I was always surprised how often replies in the comments at RealClimate would reference wikipedia, I guess that’s why.
Here is a flavour:
http://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+site:realclimate.org
Second link is of William Connolley’s “departure” from RealClimate (2007). I think one of the commenters there sums it up perfectly (#18):
“Sad news indeed William. Keep up the vigil at Wikipedia. The cyberworld needs qualified experts to monitor the kids! Good luck.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/goodbye-to-all-that/
Nice.
The corrupt practices surrounding AGW run deep.
While many AGW proponents are misguided or ignorant, many are intellectually dishonest.
Truly, the end justifies the means for these people.
Sadly, the end justifies the means is normal operating procedure for many in our civilization, today — and this mentality is a threat to our civilization’s very survival, a thousand times more dangerous than alleged AGW.
Yet another prediction by George Orwell coming true. History will be rewritten. Memory holes to come on every computer to suck the truth out of the Internet. Pretty obvious it has to happen so that governments can become more powerful. Funny though, I always thought the governments were for the people , not the other way around. Most people are too apathetic to do anything about it. I suppose in the end we get the government we deserve.
I think he needs hair cut.
Rereke Whakaaro (20:14:00) :
And publishing interpretations of Nostradamus that favor Global Warming.
Wow…
What area hasn’t this religion infested yet ?
It’s like a cancer…
This Wiki business is most disturbing.
For those who have never read 1984, the entire book is online:
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/3.html
Part 1, Chapter 4
(Winston Smith was an “editor” in the Ministry of Truth….)
The messages he had received referred to articles or news items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, as the official phrase had it, to rectify. For example, it appeared from The Times of the seventeenth of March that Big Brother, in his speech of the previous day, had predicted that the South Indian front would remain quiet but that a Eurasian offensive would shortly be launched in North Africa. As it happened, the Eurasian Higher Command had launched its offensive in South India and left North Africa alone. It was therefore necessary to rewrite a paragraph of Big Brother’s speech, in such a way as to make him predict the thing that had actually happened. Or again, The Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today’s issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones. As for the third message, it referred to a very simple error which could be set right in a couple of minutes.
Can you say “Climategate”, “MWP” and Wikipedia in the same sentence? Apparently Wikipedia is unable to do so.
Wikipedia and Google do evil. Boycott them both.
See more by Solomon about Connolley from last year here:
The Opinionator: Solomon
Posted: May 03, 2008, 2:53 AM by Lawrence Solomon
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx
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.
REPLY: Thanks I’ve added this to the main body – Anthony
“Don’t you mean, “Wikipedia isn’t worth the paper it ISN’T printed on.”?”
No, I meant what I said. I meant that it was worth less than nothing. In other words, it is worse than useless, it is a hazard.
Someone asked about the extent of the Medieval Warm Period.
co2science.org has a lot of information about it.
junkscience.com frequently has a list of recent additions at c02science.org,
usually on Wednesday. Here is a recent example:
Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week:
Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 774 individual scientists from 459 separate research institutions in 42 different countries … and counting! This issue’s Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week comes from Northeastern Slope of the Cariaco Basin, Venezuela Coast. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project’s database, click here.
I’ve stopped contributing money to Wikipedia some time ago when it became apparent that it’s very partisan. I might just subscribe to National Post. I’ve been meaning to do that for a while now.
OT – Something to keep an eye on. Mayon volcano in the Philippines has seen an increase in SO2 emissions to 7,000 tons/day on Saturday from 4,000 tons earlier this week. Pinatubo, by comparison, was at 10,000 tons/day when it erupted.
Richard McGough (21:17:59) :
Don’t shout.
I’ve seen no credible evidence that Google is censoring climategate.
12 million matches for climategate – do you really believe that the number of people who read WUWT and other blog could write that many articles and have Googles spiders find them in a few days? Where’s your scientific skepticism? I wrote two or three times that despite the inflated number of hits estimated, Google really had only 700 or so articles indexed.
Read up on how the Google search engine works with its farm of smallish PCs, and then you might begin to understand why they use estimates like that instead of taking the time to find the actual count.
Your description of search terms is lost in ambiguity – Google behaves very differently when quote marks are used than when they aren’t. Any comparison with Google searches must include clearly specifying what the search expression is. For example (I didn’t know this until the first Google thread) searching for “climategate” (i.e. with quotes) matches only climategate, whereas searching for climategate matches climategate and also pages with both climate and gate. There are likely many other subtleties I’m not familiar with
The paragraph you offer had no business being in Wikipedia, any other Wiki, or any other web page – its presence here cheapens WUWT and lowers the respect for scientific inquiry at the heart of this blog.
You might notice on Wikipedia it’s always called the “scientific consensus,” rather than a theory. And that any bio of anyone questioning the theory smears them in some way. While advocates are never similarly smeared.
Just curious where would Solomon have got the stats about what Connolley had done? Is there a log of wikipedia changes we can look at or something?
Compare the wicked pedia entries of Naomi Oreskes to Fred Singer. Her selected awards and honours makes it look she’s about to receive a Nobel Prize while Singer is dismissed as a crank who believes in Martians. Any young student who reads this crap would be incredulous if they were told Singer is actually a great scientist while Oreskes owes her fame to the Goracle and her work has been thoroughly discredited.
“But, but, but I read it on wiki….”
Any student who cites wikipedia fails the course immediately.
Content of my email to Wiki
Gentleman
Your lack of editorial control in the area of climate has tainted all of your efforts to date. Connolley and Peterson have poisoned Wikipedia. Your “honor” system has been destroyed by your own hand.
Terry Bixler
Charles Higley (21:47:21) :
“I have attempted to complain to Wikipedia, but there does not appear to be a direct way to do so.”
There is zero accountability for wikipedia admins. There are a number wikipedia admins who are furry pedophiles who edit a lot of the various articles on sex and fetishes. Because the pedos hide in fursuits they are a protected minority at Wikipedia.
BTW Two days ago I wrote a letter to Wikipedia via their donation system, explaining why I wasn’t donating anything and never would until they drastically change their policies. So this piece by Solomon is welcome.
There is a conservative group launching their own wiki encyclopedia, btw, which will have better vetting of admins and peer review of contributions.