Bishop Hill had the news first, which is fitting since Mr. Connolley is based in Britain.
In a vote of 7-0, The most prolific climate revisionist editor ever at Wikipedia, with over 5400 article revisions has been banned from making any edits about climate related articles for six months.
Here’s the details at Wikipedia. After that time, he can reapply, per the Wikipedia rules seen here in remedy 3
This is of course just a shot across the bow, and there are easy ways to circumvent such a ban, but it is finally a factual realization by Wikipedia that the sort of gatekeeping and revisioning wars in the climate change information business are being recognized and dealt with.
Personally, I’m encouraged by some of the recent changes brought to my attention by Peter Tillman, an editor who left a comment here.
Perhaps we no longer need to disengage from Wikipedia, but rather engage it and work to make it better.
Even though they banned him for six months and others thought sixty years was appropriate, Anthony had a problem with that- but I remind you that many judges sentence people for 360 years for some horrible crimes. The venue there obviously is out of synch but I see nothing wrong with 60 years here.
That is what you do with Wikipedia. So what is the difference?
Bulldust says:
October 14, 2010 at 5:54 pm
… as such * … dang it is first thing Friday morning. The beers haven’t kicked in yet >.>
Beer? More than just a breakfast drink….
Double O sheven’s post above has put me in a shilly mood sho here’sh Shcotland’s ‘William’ Connolly. He’sh a much shmarter pershon than the English one – they can keep him. Here’sh a random shample.
You folksh accrossh the pond know all about Billy Connolly but here’sh shome more Shcottich humour you may not know about – Chewin’ The Fat on Jamesh Bond.
I like Wikipedia too.
One reason I like it, is that I realise that most book encyclopedias are no better written. They are definitely less thoroughly checked. Experiments have confirmed this — book encyclopedias contain as many errors.
Librarians in society have significant duties of care to make sure books are not burned and knowledge destroyed. To report outcomes and discussions and debates.
Yeah, like most encyclopedias actively record dissent! In fact Wikipedia is unusual in that you can actually see what the source of disputed facts are.
There was no golden era in which encyclopedias could be relied on. There never will be. Always check facts. That includes paper sources.
I wonder how many topics on
Global Warming, Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climate Change, Global Climate Disruption, Climate Money Laundering Wiki will have to control..?I can’t believe they finally did it.
Ha! Six months? How kind-hearted and commiserating are destroyers of culture, science, and education toward their own.
I complained once about Connolley publishing my private email on his Wikipedia talk page, and… his fellow admin (don’t even remember his moniker now, some wannabe lawyer) banned me from editing forever.
Why ask scoundrels to be just? Why expect fraudsters to have honor?
Ignore them, and they will pass into oblivion.
Considering the historical bias of wikipedia this could be a significant step. Do I consider them a reliable source? heck no! But what really is after all?
From politics to specs for older models of cars and trucks they are full of errors – some innocent and some not. But as the reader it’s still your responsibility to judge the source for yourself no matter what the source may be and no matter how much you want to believe in it.
One of the things that is frustrating about orthodox alarmists is their argument of trusting the consensus. On the one hand they seem content to admit their own ignorance of the science in a bid to pass responsibility to some one else – the “experts”. But by placing trust in some one else you have made a decision just as potentially dangerous and still bear the responsibility for your choice.
The idea of due dilligence seems to be dying.
Poptech says:
“No, I actually understand how it works and I think it is flawed by design. No site is more widely used as a “reliable” source of knowledge that allows any drug user who has had a lobotomy to edit it. Every computer illiterate user on the Internet references it as “fact” and none have any remote comprehension how it works. Wikipedia has done more to spread worldwide ignorance than anything in history.”
————–
Your opinion is extravagantly expressed and loses some credibility as a consequence.
Are you suggesting that some alternative would ensure that “every computer-illiterate user” would be transformed into a well-informed, thinking repository of the Truth?
“Here’s the details at Wikipedia. ”
Again, should be “here are…” not “here’s”
Maybe he’ll just buy a computer with a different IP and use a fake name and keep right on going.
5400 article revisions
I hope he’s had pangs of conscience along the way doing that. Otherwise this is really warped. Well, it’s warped even with it.
One reason I like it, is that I realise that most book encyclopedias are no better written. They are definitely less thoroughly checked. Experiments have confirmed this — book encyclopedias contain as many errors.
This is total nonsense and anyone who believes it has no remote understanding of how Wikipedia works.
Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature (PDF) (Britannica)
It never ceases to amaze me how many people believe this misinformation about the alleged accuracy of Wikipedia.
I am stating as fact that it is impossible to trust a single word on Wikipedia without verifying it from a reputable third party source every time you look at it.
Computer illiteracy is why people blindly trust it.
Mooloo.
In all due respect. Technology of any sort is not stationary. However in this thread the discussion is on the blatant misuse of a construct that is trying to be both a library (as in index cards to sources) and as a first source encyclopedia.
ActuallyI can go to any reputable Encyclopedia or Library and read on Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Gallilleo, Copernicus, George Washington, Malcom X, Rome and Carthage, with Carthage actually attempted to be totally censored out of existence physically. I can read on issues of dissent over millenia. History is not banned from Encyclopedias or libraries for that matter. Wiki are the ones to claim to real time and accuracy.
Books go out of date. Bloody dictionaries are revised and revised. Encyclopedia’s similarly.
I don’t use wikipedia. They allowed the medium to be politicised and bastardised. They can have all the noble goals they want but unless they actually do some due bloody diligence as part of what they actually do and not censorship and defamation, then they are not a resource worth spit. Their job is not to defame people on their backgrounds nor remove any reference to serious works published in science journals.
You like it, cool, it’s your bandwidth. On the subject of Climate Change they are less than prestigious, which then taints the whole organization and it’s work.
At least to me anyway. Flame off.
“Perhaps we no longer need to disengage from Wikipedia, but rather engage it and work to make it better.”
I think not. The concept of wikipedia works only if politics doesn’t exist. There’s a saying in business that if one person is responsible for a decision, you have a decision maker. If two people share the responsibility, you have… politics. Abuse of Wikipedia is rampant and climate is not the only place where it happens. There’s at least two other topics besides climate that I have a general interest in, and hijacking by politics is rampant on Wikipedia for both of them.
Someone pointed out that the traditional paper based encyclopedias had lots of errors in them too. True. But with a fundamental difference. Britannica and others charged money for their product, and their market share and profitability was based in part on the quality of their information. The damage to them of allowing the kind of abuse that Connolley is becoming famous for would hurt revenue and profits. Their errors were just that, errors. Not deliberate acts of misinformation driven by a political agenda. Not to mention that being published on an annual basis in hard copy, it wasn’t possible for them to edit history out of existance.
I don’t see a return the the leather bound books that are stacked up in my basement, but crowd sourced information is as suspect as the peer review process and needs to be rethought in light of current technology and the “information” age.
Why some people hate other human beings so much as to blame them so vehimently for the climate of the earth is beyond me. They want us humans to take the blame for everything under the sun. Some of those warmists are such vile scum for their irrational hatred of humans, and for their ulterior motives to enrich themselves by taxing the hell out of us for something that is not our fault.
Thank God for Climategate and the people who put the information out. It looks like it’s over for the real scum of the Earth, the eugenicist human haters.
No doubt Connellys sidekick “Kim” will still be there.
DaveE.
Well deserved ban for that high-handed twat of a manchild.
@ur momisugly Capn Jack Walker October 14, 2010 at 6:21 pm
How many people misled?
I have to say, not much stuns me anymore, but this did. Regardless of whether WC can get around it, it sends a message. To both sides, surely, but to THAT side, specifically? If ANYONE had predicted this a year ago… we’d have said he was nuts.
HAIL CLIMATEGATE!
It truly started the collapse of a house of cards. A slow one, yes. But, folks, the tide keeps turning. Yes it does.
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Great comments, everyone! But no overreacting on our part. Recognition of justice, finally some justice.
For me this is the best moment since Climategate and its immediate aftermath.
@ur momisugly Stephan October 14, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Hear! Hear!
With the numbers visiting here, this is the biggest voice on our side, with all due kudos to CA. And at CA, Steve M insists his thing is not climatology.
So who better than some here? Perhaps a committee, Anthony? (Too formal? I have 100% expectation we would do it fairly.) With consideration of the points made by Capn Jack Walker (to include a record of the conflict)?
…I am thinking that would be a really big job…
I just asked me eldest boy if he used it. No conversation, no coaching, we have a rule in this house adults are inconvenient necessities barely tolerated.
Now a brief background, I have four children, he is very net savvy but as a student he does sport for a living.
His answer was, “any clown can post and edit it, it’s not a good resource”.
So I guess that is the opinion of the net savvy younger generation and their teachers..
Don’t matter what I say, they trashed their own brand.
Banned for 6 months, R.S.I. more likely.