UPDATE2: There’s now some question about who is who regarding the editing of the Connolley page at Wikipedia.One of the problems with Wikipedia is the use of handles. In the messages sent to me seen below, it appears that they came from William Connolley via the Wikipedia message system, but can’t be sure since the identity of the people who have handles and are involved in active editing aren’t known it appears not to be the case. This is one of the central problems with Wikipedia- anonymous editing lends to the confusion. While it is clear that Mr. Connolley has in fact edited his own page in the past, I have removed a reference to self editing in the current time frame because of the uncertainty he did not do so recently. My apologies for the confusion. – Anthony
======
People send me things. Here’s a story about a thread of recent exchanges that appeared in Wikipedia in the “talk” section regarding William Connolley’s page. This incident highlights the shape shifting nature of the information presented on Wikipedia, and how it is subject to the whims of ego and agenda. With information changing character literally in minutes, how could anyone treat Wikipedia as a reliable reference? I’ll coin a new word and call this “turborevisionism” due to the speed, sound, and fury it characterizes.
Consider the “Neutral Point of View” required by Wikipedia policy:
Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.
The editor who takes issue with this event writes:
On Sunday night, I went to the William Connolley wiki page and entered:
Additional criticism appeared on December 19, 2009, in nationalpost.com, as “How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.” This alleges that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
That disappeared within an hour (maybe less); I reinserted it. On Monday night, checked again: text gone. I wished to re-enter it, but the [edit] facility was totally missing from the wiki page. Hardly ever saw that before.
Found a msg from Connolley directly to me:
William Connolley I’m the original author of the paragraph at William Connolley that deals with the Lawrence Solomon article of December 2009. I note you inserted some specific detail that I acutally removed, as I believed it only caused confusion between opinion and fact, and isn’t really necessary, anyway. I don’t want to add any more reverts to that already poorly abused article, so I’m urging you to reconsider your addition of the detail. Cheers. —Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
___________________________________________
Date: Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Wikipedia activity
In 2005, an article in the scientific journal Nature compared the reliability of Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. It discussed Connolley as an example of an expert who regularly contributes to Wikipedia.[8]
A July 2006 article in The New Yorker reported that Connolley briefly became “a victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming”, in which a skeptic repeatedly “watered down” the article’s explanation of the greenhouse effect.[9] The skeptic later brought the case before Wikipedia’s arbitration committee, claiming that Connolley was pushing his own point of view in the article by removing material with opposing viewpoints. The arbitration committee imposed a “humiliating one-revert-a-day” editing restriction on Connolley. Wikipedia “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about”, Connolley told The New Yorker.[9] The restriction was later revoked, and Connolley went on to serve as a Wikipedia administrator from January 2006 until 13 September 2009.[9]
An October 2006 article in Nature contrasted the Citizendium online encyclopedia project, which makes a point of recruiting experts from academia, with Wikipedia. It quoted Connolley as saying that “some scientists have become frustrated with Wikipedia”, but that “conflict can sometimes result in better articles”.[10]
___________________________________________
Just appeared in wiki (by Mason):
Additional criticism appeared on December 19, 2009, in nationalpost.com, as “How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.” This alleges that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
__________________________________________
Instantly changed to:
An October 2006 article in Nature contrasted the Citizendium online encyclopedia project, which makes a point of recruiting experts from academia, with Wikipedia. It quoted Connolley as saying that “some scientists have become frustrated with Wikipedia”, but that “conflict can sometimes result in better articles”.[10]
Mason corx, 2009 XII 21, 12:45 AM & again 12:51 AM:
[[Lawrence Solomon]], on December 19, 2009, penned a piece in the ”[[National Post]]” that accused Connolley of editing Wikipedia and using administrative power in order to subvert opinion that disagreed with his own, linking the supposed activity to the [[Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident|Climategate scandal]].<ref>{{Citation| last=Solomon| first=Lawrence| author-link=Lawrence Solomon| title=Wikipedia’s climate doctor| newspaper=National Post| date=December 19, 2009| url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx| accessdate=December 19, 2009}}</ref> The specific allegation was,”How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles,” claiming that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
__________________________
2009 XII 21 midnight: txt missing again. Mason want to re-inserts txt, cannot because the facility [edit] is now missing :
[[Lawrence Solomon]], on December 19, 2009, penned a piece in the ”[[National Post]]” that accused Connolley of editing Wikipedia and using administrative power in order to subvert opinion that disagreed with his own, linking the supposed activity to the [[Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident|Climategate scandal]].<ref>{{Citation| last=Solomon| first=Lawrence| author-link=Lawrence Solomon| title=Wikipedia’s climate doctor| newspaper=National Post| date=December 19, 2009| url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx| accessdate=December 19, 2009}}</ref> The specific allegation was,”How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles,” claiming that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
_____________________________________
Msg from William Connolley to Mason, 2009 XII 22:
William Connolley
I’m the original author of the paragraph at William Connolley that deals with the Lawrence Solomon article of December 2009. I note you inserted some specific detail that I acutally removed, as I believed it only caused confusion between opinion and fact, and isn’t really necessary, anyway. I don’t want to add any more reverts to that already poorly abused article, so I’m urging you to reconsider your addition of the detail. Cheers. —Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When you have the best hand, and you’ve placed your bets, you want all the other players to call you. You want everyone to see your cards. You are proud of your hand and your bets and you know you are going to win, so you have nothing to fear from the other players. If the AGW information is so strong, why would Connelly have to edit over 5000 articles and eliminate over 500 more? It’s time for all the cards to be face-up on the table. It’s time for Wikipedia to allow us to look at all the information. This kind of politicized censorship has no place in Wikipedia. Connelly is blight on open science and information sharing.
so, basically, their report that he was removed was not true? or, misleading? if he can remove the edit feature from his own page, he still has far too much authority and power there.
I don’t get it – what actually indicates user “Ħ MIESIANIACAL” is, in fact, William Connolley himself?
“William Connolley” preceeding the message seems to be subject; the one who signed it — user “Ħ MIESIANIACAL” — is the one who left it on User “Certayne” talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Certayne
Other than that – Wiki editing is something not worth wasting your time on. Sooner or later you’ll run into endless obstruction and frustrations with ‘established’ people and procedures that facilitate keeping certain POV in the articles.
I repeat: Friends don’t let friends read Wikipedia.
Wikigate?
Perhaps Revipedia, Disipedia, Propapedia, or Liarpedia is more apt.
He who edits last has the last word!
I have had multiple edits reverted by this bozo. He doesn’t work alone. He has a small “gang” working with him so that he and they can get around the “3 reverts by one person” rule. Main ones are: “Kim D. Petersen”, “Atmoz”, and “Short Brigade Harvester Boris”. They all have blatant bias and apparently communicate with one another to control the articles related in any way to AGW.
The only way, and I mean the ONLY WAY to counter this is to have a group of long time (not newbie) wikipedia posters focus on a collection of topics. It would have to be done line by line, and each line with a reputable (e.g. non blog) reference. It would have to be done respectfully and focusing only on the science. Furthermore each change would need to be discussed on the associated discussion page. A large enough group — 8 to 10 should do it — would be able to counter their bias within the wikipedia rules. This approach would work under wikipedia rules and would enable changing the current bias.
What an [snip] this Connolley.
What can be done to stop this gate keeping? I’ll never view Wikipedia like I used to.
Bias was recognized a long time ago (early 1990s) in bulletin board discussions about creating the “Inter-pedia” internet encyclopedia. One suggestion was that various groups could post “seals of approval” (a/k/a SOAPs) on articles to let readers know who endorsed the information. The idea didn’t anticipate lightning fast editing and counter-editing by various factions, but it does go some way toward adding a bit of context to information (and opinion) that is hotly contested. Maybe a version of SOAPs could resolve some of this editorial bias problem on Wikipedia. At least readers would know there is disagreement and a link to counter-arguments in detail that they could then follow up.
When you say Connelly is editing his “own page” does that mean his wikipedia biography page?
Hasn’t Wikipedia prevented other personages from doing that? In fact wasn’t there a case of Wikipedia preventing a skeptic from editing in his proper birth date? Was Connelly the editor there, I wonder?
I wonder if “Short Brigade Harvester Boris” is our very own Bore-us?
Mark
Wikipedia is a fine source of information to start a search on some subjects… Like for instance How to build a cob home or the science of wanton burrito fields. Other then that anything that is political, or company in nature is highly suspect and should not be viewed in anything other then skepticism. I am sure if people placed stuff about me on Wikipedia half would be correct but badly colored. Our words have a distinct way of making something seem good or ill and it is fairly easy to defame a company, idea, or individual on Wikipedia now.
Don’t bother with it it is not a true source of information and it’s day in the sun of glory has all but faded to a foot note in the annals of cyberspace.
You seem to all be making the assumption that the people at the top of Wikipedia should be opposed to what Connelly is doing.
The evidence I see tells me that they support him and his actions completely. He’s out as editor? Looks like he was reinstated pretty darn fast, and that didn’t happen without help from on high.
Give up on any hope of “fixing” wikipedia.
The first time I came across Connolley was a response of him in the talk page over Ozone Depletion. Someone made a valid reference to how long ozone breaks down but Connolley referred him to the FAQ, which didn’t completely invalidate the question. I left the issue at that.
I also noticed he’s been very active on watering down the Global Cooling entry on Wikipedia . For example I think he’s solely responsible for making it look like only Newsweek had a significant article on it, completely excluding the 1974 article in Time (cover page feature) or even mention of other articles except at the references at the bottom. That Time article even used the phrase ‘global cooling’, probably the first reference to it, which he also doesn’t consider relevant.
I’ve been wanting to correct both that, as well as add some text about the details of the 1974 CIA memo providing more detail about how seriously the issue was at this stage: http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
I’m reluctant to do anything like that simply out of fear of Connelly’s rapid reactions.
Wikipedia is a good source for facts and leads.
Just be sure you are going there for facts and not for viewpoints.
The discovery of Pluto is probably a safe article. But uncritically believing an article about Jimmy Carter’s administration, or Nixon’s, would be madness.
Connolley seems to be preparing for a career in Journalism. Make the facts what they should be. And obliterate those you dislike.
I don’t see how Wiki will manage to allow privileged people to amend content and yet be a reliable source for contemporary or disputed material. But that is Wiki’s problem not mine.
Looking into this in more detail, the National Post article is actually a blog, and blogs are not credible sources in Wikipedia’s policy. That’s probably a good thing, since wikis like SourceWatch can use blogs to smear people [snip].
WikiGate.
A friend teaches at CSU Sacramento, Wikipedia has been discredited so many times that citations are not allowed on any classwork papers.
Those papers are simply not recorded.
So I say keep in up – Wikipedia is a useless bunch of 1’s and 0’s.
Mike, its a sad thing to say, but we have very little chance in the short term of fixing Wikipedia. Most of our people have day jobs and other duties and responsibilities than merely sitting around and editing Wikipedia. While I’d love to see Wikipedia become closer to the ideal for which it stands by eliminating this bias, I’m afraid that, at least in the short term, its going to be nigh-impossible.
Wikipedia article on “Integrity”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity
Kind of a “Dots” thing. (Depends On The Situation)
James Randi, the famous American skeptic has been bullied by AGW fanatics into recanting earlier sceptical words and accepting the necessity of bowing to superior scientific consensus.
Wiki’s writeup on Christopher Monckton has a negative, challenging overtone; perhaps indicative of a sore loser biting back in the only way he can – stabbing in the back. I would love to see more fact vs. fact and less fact vs. ad-hominem on wiki.
I sent the following to donate@wikimedia.org
Dear Jimmy,
if you want donations, then you must rigorously enforce the neutrality of your articles, and, in particular, do something about William Connelly.
I refer you to this article: it contains sufficient other references for you to investigate this person as a political stooge, and, as such, remove his privileges.
I am just an ordinary guy in the street who assumed scientists were to be trusted until Climategate broke. As I have read more background, I have become convinced that science has become politicized, almost to the extent of Lysenko in post-war Soviet Russia.
I don’t give a damn whether the earth is warming or cooling. What I do care about are so-called scientists lying and scheming to get their pet theories accepted.
If we can’t trust scientists, the world is in trouble.
If we can’t trust Wikipedia, Jimmy, you are in trouble.
OT sorry for going off topic but I just read Obama made an executive order http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425 this makes Interpol exempt from having to release documents to the American government, you should watch out for any fall out from climategate being put into an Interpol investigation because no FOIA request would legally be able to get it.
I’m not saying this will happen just thought this was a funny move from Obama.
In any case, Connelly is in direct conflict of interest regarding AGW articles since in his biography it is stated that he works in climate science to prove that AGW exists. He is paid and gets grants to do just that. This is not science, it’s politics, and he uses Wikipedia to promote his views and only his views. Can’t he not publish in regular Journals and get peer-reviewed? I guess he is another one of the ChickenMann-type and can’t take criticism well.
What a waste of webspace and bandwidth this Wikipedia. I think Encyclopedia Britannica should take back its rightful space back on the internet.
Just like they politicized science, they are unable to depoliticize political articles…
Wrestling pigs in mud!
Everyone know that one?
You get dirty, the pig gets dirty.
The pig LIKES it!
I just shorten it to PIGS IN MUD!