Apparently Wikipedia’s own attempt at self policing problem editors isn’t working. Despite being up for a restriction or a ban, rogue Wiki editor (and Real Climate co-founder) William Connolley is still removing anything he doesn’t like when it comes to climate science. This time it’s wholesale removal of any reference to the American Physical Society resignation letter of physicist Hal Lewis, who resigned over the APS global warming position:
And no wonder, the traffic to the Hal Lewis Wikipedia page looks likes a hockey stick. People are learning about the reasons for the Lewis APS resignation, and Mr. Connolley can’t have that:
Here’s the Wiki history page. Note the comment by Mr. Connolley:
And look at the Wiki entry for Hal Lewis now, fully sterilized:
Ironically. the yellow highlighted text says:
This article about an American physicist is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Yeah, right. Just try.
Members of Wikipedia, you need to show William Connolley the door, or at the very least, put up a new picture for him:
Don’t get it? Read this.
h/t to WUWT reader “gibo”
587 views on Wikipedia on the 12th! I’m sure there were a lot more here, even on the 8th.
People looking for Lewis’ letter can find it here or elsewhere.
What is Connelly doing back on Wikipedia? Hasn’t he accomplished enough to be banned for life?
Connoly has a new article!
Its called the “mediaval wanished period”
From: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/10/price-of-knowledge.html
Connely’s post on STOAT on October 12/10:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/10/im_sure_dr_lewis_deserves_some.php
It looks like he won’t be long at Wikipedia if you read the history.
Has WMC errred in using the word “happily”?
It looks like there are very formal procedures for challenging the deletion of the reference to Dr. Lewis’ letter on Wikipedia by William Connolley. I’ve sent a note to Jimmy Wales but would be happy to use the formal procedure if someone can point the way.
Reference to Hal’s resignation is now back on his wiki page, apparently The Spectator is RS.
And I have to admit; someone on the discussion page suggested Will be banned from his editorial responsibilities, which I ‘seconded’ (sic) with a brief editorial intended for Will’s reading pleasure. (My disdain for his activities and POV finally got the better of me.)
If anyone knows a better way to get the attention of the powers that be at wiki, let me know and I will pursue a better approach.
What is really humorous about using a picture of Nomad from Star Trek is how Nomad is overloading and mixes the words error and sterilize into “errorlize”. Perfect word for what happens on Wiki.
Interesting internal dialogue at Wikipedia, with and regarding Connely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harold_Lewis
Interesting internal dialogue with, and regarding Connely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harold_Lewis
Haha, a great unsigned comment about Connolley on the discussion page:
I firmly stand behind Wikipedia. No other online source is as handy for looking up the birth dates or political affiliations of Congressmen or the atomic weight of boron. OK…so beyond that it’s pretty useless…but you CAN find the atomic structure of MTBE there.
Seriously though, Wikipedia is handy for unambiguous, non-controversial information (e.g. the date Eisenhower died) but nearly useless for any information that is “open to interpretation” (e.g. Eisenhower’s civil rights policies). You can safely trust only about 20% of the content. Most of the rest of their content has fallen victim to revisionists. Why they allow it is beyond me. The user has to apply their own filters. I’ve actually been quite impressed with some of their articles. I was fact checking about fluorescent lighting and found their article to be very good…all factual, all verifiable, objective and with no particular slant. Even their article on MTBE wasn’t too bad. In fact, in many ways it was superior to most of the information found with a casual Google search. If only they could maintain those standards. When you start looking for information regarding people, issues or events the bias become readily evident and renders Wikipedia useless as a source. It’s actually a pity.
This chap Connolley seems to be a particuarly sad individual. I picture him hunched over his keyboard, night after night,….. after night…. after night…waiting… AFTER NIGHT… waiting.. … WAITING…WAITING… How long does he wait there?… waiting… … waiting… waiting… until… YES!!!… HE POUNCES…GOTCHA YOU BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TYPE TYPE ERASE ERASE TYPE……TYPE…. TYPE….. ERASE… ERASE… ERASE… ERASE…. .TYPE ….TYPE…. TYPE ….TYPE……………….
Robinson says:
October 13, 2010 at 7:50 am
er . . . yeah, that was me. Sorry.
They’ve removed it now though. ( By ‘they’ I assume I am referring to WMC.)
“…and King Canute stood on the shore and commanded the waves to stop their crashing as he was King and Master of All He Surveyed.”
Canute was almost swept away by the incoming tide, but survived, humbled with a new perspective on his place in the grand scheme of things.
Life Lesson #5: Arrogance and pride always precede a fall. Perhaps Gore, Connelley and the rest of the Confederacy of Conceit will take note.
Sadly, more than likely, they won’t…
It all seems to be fixed now. Yes it was unreasonable to have one small paragraph about Lewis, followed by a large one purely quoting some of his resignation letter. The page is now well balanced with a link to his resignation letter.
Make you wonder how many uncontrolled revisions he adjusted in the HadCM3 of the CO2 forcing parameter. I would bet that with all the his “preferential adjustments” that the MetCentre’s seasonal forecasting was always “warm biased”.
If they did a fresh install of the HadCM3, I bet it would be comparable to “more accurate models” 😉
Patrick Davis
October 13, 2010 at 4:03 am
These people have no shame! Off with their heads…oh but we can’t do that in civil society, can we?
#
No we can’t. It’s what they do 🙁
I’ve been trying to get the folks at Britanicia to dump the stupid membership fee requirements at their website, at least on an abbreviated version, and go the fast access open-site way and knocketh the socks off the corrected sociosanitized and sociocorrected and socioedited crap-olla at the sociopathetic subject wikisite. (If they, the Chicago Brits, don’t getteth with the program I feareth they will not last too many fortnights hense, me thinks, and my kith and kin and I grew up on their books and if it weren’t for them we sould not be whom we areth today –get the pic?)
I went to the Wiki page on the “hockey stick” and noticed that there is no mention of McShane & Wyner’s paper. Has anyone made Wikipedia aware of the paper?
Wiki doesn’t consider The Register (El Reg) to be a reliable source because its always making fun of Wiki, it’s founder and it’s editors.
Consider Connelley’s association with Europe’s Red-Green Alliance. It is described as a revolutionary socialist political party. Connelley is well-schooled in the ways of Saul Alinsky and the “Rules for Radicals.”
Any questions?
Maybe William Connelly should rethink his priorities. After he dies, much of his life’s work, the censorship of others, will be undone within a month. His accomplishments, such as they are, are totally negative. What a sad little man.
Don’t forget the vote he forced and lost on deleting Joanne Nova from Wikipedia last week either. I left a note on it in Tips and Notes at the time. You guys can double check me on that, I may have misread but I’m sure I didn’t.
Someone with a current Wikipedia account should post a series of footnotes to back up every one of these assertions:
“Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)”
It’ll take a while for me to get to where I can edit restricted articles, but I think it’s worthwhile. Wikipedia is too useful to concede to Red-Green shills like Connelley.