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.
@Brian
I too have emailed donate@wikimedia.org and explained that until they have a strategy in place to deal with situations like this I will not contribute funds.
I’d suggest more do.
Wiki is an excellent resource used intelligently. It would be nice if each article had an untamperable ‘Edits in the Last Year’ number showing so that high numbers showed contentious issues.
Wikipedia’s idea is sound, their implementation is the problem. Social internet media has evolved since Wiki was founded and their structure for article approval has not evolved with it.
Frankly, they need to implement a more digg-like system than a contributor-editor relationship.
We can now say with certainty, and authority, that Wikipedia is simply a censored blog.
The first case was Climate change dispute, where Connolley was placed on parole.
The second case was Climate change dispute 2, where his parole was removed without discussion and the reporter of the parole violations was punished. The case is full of errors.
Two things:
1.) It drives me nuts when people say ‘Wiki’ as short for ‘Wikipedia’. A wiki is a system like Wikipedia, I work on 4 different wikis almost daily, and shortening it like that is like saying cheese instead of cheesecake or Super instead of Superbowl.
2.) I’m against too much editorial control and restriction on Wikipedia, it’s part of what makes it great. The community should look after it, but I think the problem with these particular articles are that one side has considerable resources in establishing their point of view. I think the best approach is just to put in the best honest approach to correct it to provide a neutral view, and if this becomes difficult raise the issue through the necessary methods. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these topics are going to end up being marked as controversial issues as it escalates. I do believe we need to raise awareness regarding the conflict of interest, especially of people who seem to have a lot of people and help to work on making certain Wikipedia entries appear in a certain way.
Wiki has ceased to be what it was intended.
The only useful information not subject to the censorship belongs under the category of ‘Trivia’.
Many have given up on it as a creditable reference link.
It’s just not acceptable any more.
I am thinking of an experimental setup here that could be of interest for sociologists. Get about 50 facts from sources considered reliable like peer reviewed journals, NOAA, GISS, whatever. Divide them into two groups based by how much they support or contradict the AGW hypothesis.
Place them one by one into the according Wikipedia articles. Make sure you do this footnote thingy on wikipedia. One a day, for instance, maybe only on workdays except Fridays.
Measure the time until each one of them is reverted and by whom. The reason given should not be considered of much interest.
This way, you get a quantitave measure of biasedness of W. Connolley.
Repeat this setup once a month to get a longer time series. Maybe we can find out whether he becomes more biased over time, less biassed or his biasedness stays the same. My hypothesis is that we’ll see his biasedness increase until it reaches a “tipping point” where a positive feedback sets in and leads to a phase shift, resulting in unsustainable high levels of biasedness. Maybe – like it is often with fanatics – this leads to a 180 degree turn in his biasedness.
The best thing about this is that the experiment can be repeated any time with any other biased wikipedia editor.
Winston Smith worked as a low-level bureaucrat for the Ministry of Truth. His job was to correct or purge old newspapers, books, magazine articles, etc., of any stories which contradicted the current official history and account of events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Smith
Poor Winston Smith! If only Orwell has anticipated electronic media, where the past can be changed as quickly are you can type.
I would say Wikipedia isn’t even useful for getting the facts since the activitists will post “facts” that aren’t necessarily so and delete “inconvenient truths”. I would use it only as a memory refresher or starting point for an online investigation. I personally poke fun at anyone that tries to use it as an authoritative source.
If you guys really think Wikipedia is so terrible and non-neutral, register an account and work on fixing it. There are many respected long-standing editors who are AGW skeptics there, and many more who simply opposed to Connolley and his gang’s shenanigans.
For those who think Connolley’s style is popular on Wikipedia, I suggest you check out the results of an election in which he recently ran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Results
Wikipedia is useless, unless you already know the subject you are searching, then what’s the point?
Remember 1984 and Newspeak? That’s what Wikipedia is — Newspeak was the official language of Oceania, and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. In the year 1984 there was not as yet anyone who used Newspeak as his sole means of communication, either in speech or writing.
Gary (09:04:20) :
“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.”
Great idea!!
Ray (09:40:21) :
“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.”
Are there gov’t. grants involved? Is he posting on gov’t’. time?
As some of you may be aware, I’ve long believed in the possibility of a skeptics’ own wiki, an accessible space where good scientists and good science here can actually get published with index for easy ref so that even MSM can use it. We still don’t have this. Yet the AGW have RealClimate (index and wiki) and Wikipedia.
Shen, a poster at Climate Audit, has now set up a MediaWiki platform for “climate science”, Neutralpedia, that I think could, with good handling, become the much-needed skeptics’ platform. Shen had intended to develop it a bit more before announcing it, but Lawrence Solomon’s article seemed to call for Shen to speak up. It is really at the most basic early stages; I’d be doing a bit there myself today but have the flu; but I do recommend that people who care about a good skeptics’ wiki presence go over there to help build up this potential gift, and make it work.
Just look at the mad edits on Mike Mann in the last few days.
A tempest in a teapot. Much ado about nothing. Britches in a bundle, knickers in a twist, a mountain out of a mole hill. That fact that contributors fight on a fake encyclopedia site that is really just a “king of the hill blog” speaks more for who? The combatants or the reliability of the site?
(thinking…thinking…thinking…)
Just my point. That is a hard one to call isn’t it.
Wikipedian, I (and I imagine many others) appreciate your call for assistance. But I’m not sure yet that you realize the true stakes. Connelly is not just a poor editor; by bringing this much opposition and criticism upon wikipedia from outside sources (especially at a time when Wikipedia is searching for new support!) it should be obvious to all that Connelly has now become an existential threat to the viability of your organization.
He obviously does not care about this and will not change, because as an ideologue his support for his own pet ideas far outweighs whatever support he would give to any organization. For a man like him, Wikipedia is just a means to an end.
Do you and those who lead Wikipedia realize that the survival of your entire organization is at stake? Because if you lose your credibility, you lose everything you have been working for. Although some from outside may indeed choose to help you, this is a problem YOU must take the lead in fixing, if you truly care for your organization.
EMAILS – where’s da emails?!?
Great pee take if you can access iPlayer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pdkf6/The_Now_Show_20_12_2009/?from=r
Starts at about 18 mins in about Copenhagen and hypocrisy
Folks:
Writing letters to Jimmy Wales or the Foundation won’t have any effect. Exactly what would you like them to do??
The solution is to get in there and edit. Everyone reading this has a right – perhaps even an obligation – to edit. Wikipedia is one of the Top 10 websites in the world and it’s the only one that you, my friend, can actually affect.
Yes, you’ll probably get involved in a discussion, but it’s worth it. Don’t let the alarmists win by default !!!
The people who founded Wikipedia are liberals, you cannot expect there not to be a bias with these people. Every keeps talking about trying to get Wiki leadership to fix this. It is a freaking FEATURE not a FLAW of the system. What you need to do is make it clear to everyone you can that Wikipedia is not an unbiased source of information.
Consider Wikipedia ACORN on the net…
Plato Says (11:03:37) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
MODS can you change that start time to 18mins please – thanks
I concur with many of the comments here.
To borrow a quote about the early London Metroplitan [underground] Railway’s attempt to use fireless locomotives ‘ Bold and heroic was the notion but the boiler failed entirely ‘. They never did get it right which is why everybody apparently quite literally breathed a sigh of relief when the system was electrified thirty years later.
Whilst I applaud the concept of Wikipedia I don’t regard it as an authority on anything but it can be useful as a quick reference. Nor do I contribute much having on several occasions been rudely shoved aside by highly self regarding persons those who clearly did not know what they are talking about.
A pity really but it is hard to see how it might be fixed.
Kindest Regards
If you are unhappy with Wikipedia, try http://knol.google.com
I’m not sure they are any better, but at least its a different process.
SunSword (09:00:47) :
“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.”
I agree, to a certain extent, but these people are organized. There are a LOT of articles related to global warming and every time they can’t handle something they just send off an email and get instant support. Dissent needs to be focused – otherwise we divide ourselves and are conquered.