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.
@ur momisugly Jason October 15, 2010 at 5:26 am:
On an open-edited site, in a field as contentious as AGW, presenting one’s side of the issue is to be expected, if not forgiven.
That he removed references to peer-reviewed articles he happened to disagree with (I am assuming here that I understand that correctly), THAT would be unacceptable and should have been dealt with long ago. That they did not deal with it till now speaks volumes. One does have to ask: If Climategate had not happened would they have continued to let WC get away with that behavior forever?
We cannot dissociate this action from Climategate. In itself it is a GOOD THING, but it would never be happening without Climategate.
Climategate was a tipping point. Perhaps THE definitive tipping point in our lifetime.
For what it is worth, I have suggested to WP that their Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy be modified to cover Controversial Topics. I suggested, among other things, that such topics have separate sections for PRO and for CON editors (who would be required to declare themselves). Editors would not be allowed to edit the opposing camp’s section. There would be a third section, a neutral section, which would have close oversight, and which could only have “facts” stipulated to by both PRO and CON side. WP needs to acknowledge that editors for all subjects cannot be trusted to act cooperatively. Those subjects which are open to actions like WC’s only drag the entire project down and make it unreliable. Therefore they must be treated differently. (Can you imagine the fallout if we here got in on Al Gore’s WP page and were the last editors every day?)
The issue for all of us here is that people are being misled, and especially so by people like Connolley. As an example, if someone edited in that Chas Dickens was born in the wrong year that may be incorrect and embarrassing to WP, but in the end, who cares? While incorrect, it does not materially mislead.
Connolley’s actions rise to the level of intellectual crime, no less so than those clerics who stifled Galileo 500 years ago. WP’s history has been till now like a police chief who always looked the other way. This action is a step in the right direction. However, they let it go far too long and have been injured by it. But this action alone will not prevent it happening again. Don’t forget that they have many attack dogs. WC will just be replaced by others – if WP does not take other actions to stop the practice altogether or to control it.
But for Climategate, we here all have to believe WP would still be letting him get away with it (i.e., our distrust is well earned).
But this action also says: WE ARE WINNING.
I’ve always wondered why WMC uses “Stoat- Taking Science by the throat” as his slogan for his blog.
Now I know. Stoat Rabett death match:
Looks cute and harmless, but Stoat really is a nasty little bugger.
If you go to the wicki link and actually look at the ban, you will find that Connolly is banned
from the English Wikipedia for six months (5.1), and banned for a full year from all Climate Change articles (5.2), and has a few other bans as well.
However wicki admins decided to ban a number of skeptics as well, probably because they were trying to fight back against Connolly and his army of propagandists. It is difficult to tell from what they have published.
Wikis likes Marley, dead as a door knob. Me I only ever come here to look fer girl friendand seeing Pamela Grey got married had 16 kids and her bum got a bit bigger not fat.
I am out of here. Teachers and kids don’t like Wiki don’t trust it. If you aint got the future you do not have anything.
Anyway it won’t be a debate. You can look for yer opinion and name in light. But wiki ain’t well. Call the black taxi.
I miss Doc Grey from the midwest. A rare woman, one with a sense of humor.
I ever thought Pam Grey was a mermink trapped in the midwest.
I wrote a Poem,
then I tore it up.
But I remember the first line
Aque Grey, silver light and mane so grey.
Shit Romance
Best Flicka on the blog.
About time!
Davidmhoffer
I made this suggestion on another blog which doesnt seem a million miles away from your comment;
“There has been some marvellous material which goes to the heart of the AGW debate on WUWT (and other blogs) but it soon becomes forgotten as the next item rolls up on the screen.
I am tempted to think that we could do with a ‘best of’ type of blog which would split into two sections. The first is where articles are ‘tested’ then perhaps rewritten or discarded and where comments are positively welcomed.
There would be a second section where the ‘good’ material that stands serious scrutiny would reside and no comments would be allowed.
The articles would be put into sections in their proper context with a linking narrative. In that way -like the IPCC assessments- they remain visible and readily accessible.
The blog format has an advantage in as much, unlike the IPPCC epics, new material can be tested quickly, the whole thing updated reglarly and any new interesting angle fed to the media.
Sure there are lots of blogs that list material but they don’t really put it into context and have a linking narrative, and sometimes the material covered can be off the wall. Whatever we think of the IPCC it comes over as a professional organisation to policy makers.
In this respect marketing of our own ‘product’ is terrible compared to the IPCC.
I think the first section would need to be as serious minded as Judith Currys new blog, as for the second section, I’m not sure there is a direct equivalent at present in the sceptics world.”
It would be excellent if WUWT could host something like this but Anthony already has a highly successful format and I’m not sure he would want to go off at such a tangent so its perhaps more an affiliated site but one that would certainly draw on the articles and expertise at WUWT.
tonyb
Poptech:
Good find on Britannica’s response to the Nature study.
I found this pull quote too interesting not to mention:
“Contrary to the usual practice of making all data freely available in order
to facilitate a study’s replication by others, Nature declined our repeated requests to make the full reports available.”
That modus operandi sounds awfully familiar. Now where have I seen that kind of thing before? =P
Connolley’s ban has limitations. He can do nothing temporarily, but how can all the crap and omissions he caused be corrected or removed.
There is another major source for climate science matters, Google, Yahoo and Bing. Each is set up to prefer the AGW point of view over the actual science that contradicts the AGW input. The public will continue to be misled until the search engine operators are induced to stop filtering search results.
I`m one of the banned 🙂 I see some comments on Kim taking over from billy boy, nope, he took a voluntary ban so he`s gone as well. Pity science apologist got off, he is as bad as connolley.
REPLY: Are you saying Kim Dabelstein Petersen has taken a voluntary ban? Citation? – Anthony
Wikipedia – a stinking cesspit of juvenile trivia.
Anthony:
About Kim Dabelstein Petersen: see item 19.1 on the same page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley_topic-banned_.28R3.29 ) which has the information about Connolley.
Page linked at Bishop Hill:
Anthony Watts says: October 15, 2010 at 8:45 am
Why man you aint seen nothin’.
Stoats terrify rabbits (the rabbit screams in a particular way) by hypnotising them with slinky dance. And – ever heard of Stoat Packs?
Stoat packs….
Josh? Josh?
If Connolley starts editing under another name, that will become obvious. His style is unmistakable. And from the subjects he edits and what changes he makes, he will be discovered. It’s easy enough to copy all of his posts and analyse them for word frequency and phrase frequency. Any “new” person posting about climate can be checked against Connolley’s past posts.
If Connolley keeps posting under another name, this will prove that Wikipedia cannot or is unwilling to control their editors. Sponsors will stop donating money to Wikipedia.
Hey Connolley, I know you are reading this, since you’ve got nothing else to do for six months. Why don’t you and your Wikipedia mates find something useful to do?
I invite suggestions for tasks for the unemployed Connolley.
Someone had mentioned using a different computer to circumvent an IP ban and that’s not true. Internet service providers (ISP’s) provide addresses which can be changed. A computer has a MAC address, but this can be changed/modified as well. Really, the easiest way is to use a proxy server and a new/different account (most dedicated trolls have several active accounts with proxy IP’s) for uninterrupted trolling fun.
Having taught math or management (not at the same time) at four different colleges and universities as an adjunct instructor, I can speak from experience in several different fields of academia at both graduate and undergraduate levels. NO instructor, professor, dean, janitor, etc., EVER accepted Wikipedia as source for ANY information. Citations have to be to copyrighted material, or published theses, dissertations, or similar sources WHICH REPORTED THEIR REFERENCES. I believe the discussion of Wikipedia is, unfortunately, a waste of electrons (it would have been a waste of paper a few years ago). As Poptech accurately noted, the basic premise is flawed. Group editing, whether internet, electronic or handwritten, does not create fact, only opinions, as long as there is no ownership and ultimate responsibility for accuracy. Because Wikipedia is ‘all volunteer’ and has no budget to control how posts and edits are conducted (and Connolley is only one example of the kinds of egregious conduct on view there; try to find any factual-but-unpopular statements about B. H. Obama’s early associations in Chicago that last more than seconds), this whole discussion is a waste of effort beyond the point of skeptic’s making progress even in the blogosphere…
“Move on, nothing to see here…”
Feet2theFire,
How is a “neutral point of view” determined on Wikipedia pages and who makes this decision? Could it be the person who edited it last? How is this a “neutral point of view”?
@Mark Nutley
‘I`m one of the banned 🙂 ‘
So essentially you went about and did your best to screw up one of the greatest ideas of the human kind in the information age since the idea of the library of Alexandria and then you just smile at your own it destructive work?
You must be ever so proud of your own work for why else destroy an information base used by a couple of billion people to date only based on your own preconceived notions and presumptions?
On the subject of wikipedia’s accuracy, it could be 100% accurate (it isn’t), but that wouldn’t be good enough. The accuracy isn’t the main problem; it is what is deliberately omitted and excised that is the real problem.
Also, it is logical that the studies that check wikipedia’s accuracy probably aren’t going to uncover every mistake in an article, which would tend to bump up any accuracy ratings they may assign.
So wait a sec…many “sceptics” were topic banned PERMANENTLY while WMC gets 6 months? The findings refuse to cite him for ownership or other such behavior but jsut do this cause hes a tough guy to get along with? They continue to praise his one off level of expertise in the field?
Read the whole page linked on wiki…you’ll find if anything they just through out anyone who would dare post antimanbearpig info..they also reaffirmed that the “science” pages shall not cater to “alternatives” which are reserved for the “political” sub pages (which sounds not surprisingly like what WMC and his cabal have been saying all along)
Timothy Ball was deleted from Wikipedia, with Connolley’s support (of course):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Ball
“William Connolley, now “climate topic banned” at Wikipedia”
Connolley is also a founder of Real Climate. When people are moved to write and promote propaganda they have seceded to look at the science concerning increasing atmospheric CO2.
Public policy must be based on facts. There is limited funds to spend on programs. There are other significant issues to address. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. The biosphere expands and is more productive when atmospheric CO2 increases and there is an accompanying small increase in temperature and along with an increase in precipitation.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpiration
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3Y-4N6FNPR-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1133437266&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=602850a304857db4767613a021735d61
“Impact of elevated CO2 and temperature on rice yield and methods of adaptation as evaluated by crop simulation studies
But increases in the CO2 concentration up to 700 ppm led to the average yield increases of about 30.73% by ORYZA1 and 56.37% by INFOCROP rice.”
http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm
“Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses. CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or four times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and improve plant will quality.”
Connolley had the Roman Warm Period article deleted. How to get this back permanently?