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.
As for the googlegate issue, I’ve not seen the autosuggest list not have climategate on any of more than a dozen machines I’ve worked on in the past month. I believe that this issue is regional.
The bias charge is serious – and accurate.
Look up “Climategate” there if you doubt it. No one has been allowed to edit the article and provide an alternate viewpoint of its initial author, and a “lock” has been placed on the article to prevent this. Isn’t this contrary to the allegedly “open” editorial viewpoint expressed by Wikipedia founders? Where is the competing press when true censorship is taking place?
Proof of bias is evident in the slew of pro-AGW articles cited in the “reference” section of the article on “Climategate”. Damning or accusatory articles, however scientific in their stance, have been carefully pruned from the 80-article reference list (as of tonight). Almost all of those linked are apologists for UEA, the scientists, or the broader “science” of global warming. Many writers are simply journalists (Andy Revkin among them) reassuring their reading public in bold headlines, subheads, or “conclusions” that the central premise of AGW is unhurt by the content of the thousands of e-mails and data which were “hacked”. (The idea of a whistle-blower is not explored).
It’s curious how often skeptics were and are accused of believing that there is a “vast conspiracy” afoot – even as (is now clearly shown) they conspired to massage data, gatekeep the portals to legitimate scientific discourse, and ostracize dissenting critics and colleagues, and now, in their own defense rally with the following defense:
So they have their conspiracy “theorists” too. It’s a fitting conclusion to this chapter to say that after years of frustrated Freedom of Information Act requests, that need has been finally, embarrassingly, brutally, met. And about time.
Have a look at the Wikipedia entry on Lord Monckton. A nasty little piece.
It appears that Connolley’s effort to get elected to Wikipedia’s arbitration committee have failed according to the election results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ACE2009
He had 234 support votes, 284 neutral votes and 478 oppose votes for a net of -244. He came in 19th out of 22 and nine were to be elected.
Maybe someone is finally listening at Wikipedia.
anon (22:35:51) :
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?
Ahh, yeah, actually there is. Every Wikipedia article has four tabs. The first is the article. The second is the discussion among the editors about what to include, exclude and why, there is a tab to actually edit the page and then a history of edits. In the discussion tab, if you click on one of the editors, it will take you to the editor’s home wikipedia page. The tabs behind the article… any article.. are fascinating.
“crosspatch (22:14:52) :
“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.”
I nominated this as the best comment about Wiki, and might I just add,
It is a toxic waste land, fit to be put on the toxic waste cleanup supper fund.
Rich Day (22:43:07) :
I don’t fail them… Wikipedia is good for a first quick pass at something. It is NOT a primary source and should not be used or cited unless there IS nothing else… and always check the discussion tab…
Rich Day (22:43:07) “Any student who cites wikipedia fails the course immediately.”
The problem Rich, is that the bloody instructors are probably using Wiki as the final authority. Educators tend to be green and left of center and all over GW. Perfect marks for Wiki trash.
We have a local Ph.D. psychologist who is a university prof (now retired I think) left winger, greenie, failed political candidate and letter writer. He was quoting Wiki line, verse and chapter in a recent letter to the editor. He recently trashed Lindzen and yet relies on Wiki.
I know a green enviro teacher who almost certainly allows Wiki references at the college. He’d not blink at a Wiki reference is my guess. And what of the thousands of lefty Grade 6 teachers who are scientifically illiterate. We will soon be seeing a new generation of teachers in our K-12 schools who have been brainwashed now for ten or 15 years by Al Gore and Wiki and utterly brainwashed with scientifically false information. A whole generation of brainwashed greenie teachers is upon us.
Pretty sad. My kids are grown up, but I have grandkids. Worries me.
Perhaps the blogosphere should be allowed access to crowdsource the site in order to clean up the toxic waste that infests that cesspool.
Michael (23:05:48) :
“I nominated this as the best comment about Wiki, and might I just add,
It is a toxic waste land, fit to be put on the toxic waste cleanup supper fund.
Ahhh, no. I cleaned upa lot of pretty toxic suppers as a Boy Scout commiteeman. No one died. If there was a toxic waste cleanup supper fund, I’m sure my troop would have applied for the funds,
No real surprise here. The agenda driven editing on Wikipedia has been blatant for three years now. Just try looking up ‘Roman Warm Period’.
Link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
“Deleted by Andrew c”
“We’ve known for some time that Wikipedia can’t be trusted to provide unbiased climate information.”
Just more organized crime disguised as information access. I recommend using utility add-ons to delete wiki results from google/xyz searches. I have used one for 6 months and have far more balanced search results. Try Surf Clarity for Firefox.
The brilliant minds at Distilled in UK that built my add-on no longer list it – probably due to a visit from wiki jack boots. Allowing any info system with a one-man gateway to become acceptable is the height of stupidity IMO. Wiki and rc are obviously bedmates in grime and propaganda hearsay.
They’ve been rewriting history since reading and writing first began.
This is the final solution.
CROWDSOURCING!
Robert E. Phelan (23:09:22) : wrote
Michael (23:05:48) :
“I nominated this as the best comment about Wiki, and might I just add,
It is a toxic waste land, fit to be put on the toxic waste cleanup supper fund.
“Ahhh, no. I cleaned upa lot of pretty toxic suppers as a Boy Scout commiteeman. No one died. If there was a toxic waste cleanup supper fund, I’m sure my troop would have applied for the funds,”
I was a boy scout too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
Just added to this part 🙂
Michael E. Mann (born 28 December 1965) is an American climatologist, and author of more than 80 peer-reviewed journal publications. He has attained public prominence as lead author of a number of articles on paleoclimate and as one of the originators of a graph of temperature trends dubbed the “hockey stick graph” for the shape of the graph. The graph received both praise and criticism after its publication in an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
My addition
Which has since been proven to be a fraud.
Wonder how long it`ll stay there lmao
Note to mods, how do i use [code][/code] or [quote] on this site?
“fit to be put on the toxic waste cleanup supper fund.”
Interesting choice of words. They will shove anything down our throats.
Actually, Wikipedia is one of the ways in which “conventional wisdom” becomes “fact” or how something that people want to believe becomes “fact”.
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
There is conservapedia: http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
I had the same problems with phonics, reading, and dyslexia articles at wikipedia. (I tutor with phonics and have a phonics webpage.) Many of their pages have gotten a bit better recently, but their dyslexia page still is not where it should be.
There are many parallels between the reading wars and the climate wars, I have recently observed.
William Connolley is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible human beings I ever had an email contact with. This former small-time British Arctic Survey employee has turned Wikipedia administration into a personal Maoist-style censorship. Having failed in personal and professional life, Connolley sadistically exercises his editorial power over larger hearts and more knowledgeable minds in the virtual dreamland of Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, among Wikipedia admins Connolley has like-mindless followers, pushing the same ideology, censorship and bias. No reasonable statement of facts was ever allowed on Wikipedia pages dedicated to climate or global warming. Environmental disorder is in full bloom there.
@Kevin Kilty (21:03:25) :
I think your idea is very attractive and the best way to resolve this would indeed be to use the UK libel laws to fix Connelley. Unfortunately it won’t work.
The snag is that I doubt that Michaels, Plimer or any of the other skeptics that have been trashed have access to that kind of money, whilst I’m sure a true believer eco-fascist like Connolley could access hundreds of thousands of pounds for his defence. The greenies would set up a fighting fund for this in five minutes flat and they have supporters with very deep pockets. Why, just a fraction of a percent of the profits from the carbon trading scam would keep anyone out of jail.
The British libel laws are an absolute disgrace. Wealthy celebs and foreign tycoons can use them to safeguard their ‘privacy’ whilst the little guy can be crucified by the gutter press with very little chance of any protection.
I’m afraid we are the little guys here -unless you think Big Oil might come to the rescue. (Fat Chance. They are too busy giving big handouts to the alarmists!)
It appears that Mr. Connolley is currently up for election as a Wikipedia administrator and all registered Wikipedia users will have a say in this process according to the 19 December article at newsbusters.org.
Somewhat OT, but since it keeps coming up: Just another note on Google as to why it might show fewer hits on climategate (or any other term) than another search engine. Google has something called a “duplicate content filter.” The idea is to filter out multiple articles which are mostly the same.
An article on several sites that each have differing layouts and associated extra material (on the page that contains the article) will appear several times, but articles that are on what might be called “clone pages” won’t.
The greater the similarity between pages the more likely the article will be hit by the filter. If the article appears on the same site more than once (eg: home page, article page, tag page, category page) then it will probably only be listed once in G.
Google also likes links and authority. An article on Wiki, since it’s an “authority site” in the eyes of G, will get a lot more attention than the article on your new blog. An article on WUWT will also have more G juice than the same article most other places.
If you want a WUWT article (or your own blog article) to rank well in Google (and other search engines) then make lots of links to it, from your blog, social sites, etc. That is over-simplifying the case, but links are a big part of ranking and authority.
None of this is to say that G doesn’t have a political bias. I’ve seen some of their “news/editorial” videos and they’re quite liberal. They’re also a big donor to the Democrat party. Still, the actions of their search engine probably reflect their various duplicate & junk filters more than bias.
By the way, time how long it takes for a WUWT article to get listed in Google. I’ll bet it’s in the 20 minute range or less. Just search for the post URL.
I sent Lawrence Solomon’s article to Wikipedia and I received an incredibly lame response which is included below for your amusement. I wonder, do they think people are so stupid that they believe this kind of BS? I guess the answer is yes.
Here is the response:
Thank you for your email.
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, since article content is not controlled by a central authority, we do not resolve content disputes via email. Instead, please follow the steps outlined at . These steps are designed to help you work with other editors and to draw upon the help of the wider community.
Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia.
May say a word on this site for the new leader of the Australian Opposition – The Honourable Tony Abbott:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/pics/photos/EZ5.jpg
Please do not go to Wikipedia to learn about Tony. There you will read a lot about his “public image” and little about his community service and achievements. Go here:
http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/default.aspx
Tony is being likened to Spartacus who led a gladiatorial rebellion of slaves against the might of the Roman Empire:
Tony, along with a handful of his followers, put his career on the line when he led a revolt against a proposed Emissions Trading Scheme and deposed the compliant leader Malcolm Turnbull by a single vote. Turnbull had been frightened by the threat of an election caused by a double dissolution over the ETS when most of the media proclaimed that his Party would be wiped off the map.
Not only has Tony regained the grass roots of the Liberal Party and shell shocked the media, he has scared the living daylights out of the government who now would not dare call a double dissolution over the ETS as it is they who would be laughed out of office.
Other political leaders like David Cameron and members of the US Congress, take another look at the grass roots of your electorates. You will find that those against AGW are not “deniers” or “dinosaurs” but normal people that are just as concerned about the environment as anybody. These people also fully recognise that eventually we are going to run out of fossil fuels and will have to turn to technology for our energy requirements. But that doesn’t mean to say we have to be in a mad panic and blight our landscape with inefficient windmills.
Also have a very close look at the Copenhagen fiasco where it was evident that the AGW movement has very little to do with science and much more to do with an anti-capitalism redistribution of wealth. In many cases it was a blatant money grab by dictatorial states known for their waste and mis-use of funds. So thanks Mr Abbott for leading the way in Australia. When the government and the MSM try to crucify you, I will be proud to stand up and say ‘I am Spartacus’.
Years ago, I would try to help some sensible people in “edit wars”. For a while, I thought it made sense even though the sensitive pages ended badly and my status at Wikipedia was always threatened a bit.
However, I quickly realized how powerful Connolley has become within the internal Wikipedia machinery. Although people at the top may be neutral, they kind of allow the crystallization of ever more radical “cores” which bring additional left-wing bias at each layer. His powers couldn’t have been competed with – and after all, I decided that the content of 6th paragraph on Wikipedia about a global warming issue is just not so terribly important. But I did contribute hundreds of “positive” articles on other issues.
Otherwise, I think that there’s a lot of quality articles in Wikipedia and I frequently use it. It’s kind of obvious when an article becomes an asset of a dishonest editor or clique of editors.