UPDATE: The error has now been completely eliminated from the article. Details below.
Guest post by James Padgett
As many readers are aware, the culture surrounding the climate change topic area of Wikipedia has been a microcosm of climate science for nearly a full decade.
This is not a compliment.
When you read the Climategate emails and see discussions of finding people to investigate and discredit your ideological opponents – that is Wikipedia. When you read about the IPCC’s usage of the WWF and students in composing their Climate Bible (KJV) – that is Wikipedia. When you read about “climate scientists” conspiring to get other scientists fired for challenging the orthodoxy – that is Wikipedia.
In short, Wikipedia does not care about truth, and certainly not doubts, it cares about message.
And that’s what this article is about, how the truth, when made plainly clear, is suppressed in favor of misinformation that is on message.
Early last month I was browsing the Wikipedia article on the Soon-Baliunas controversy. The “mainstream” view on the topic is that the paper was so horrible that several editors resigned from Climate Research in protest. Those following the Climategate emails know that there was a strong and shady behind-the-scenes effort to both discredit the paper and show journals what happens to their reputations and hairlines when you dare to publish research contradictory to the “settled science.”
Part of this public relations process, of which Wikipedia is an integral component, involves rewriting facts, refocusing views and never ever giving in to rationality or reality.
How was this done in the Soon-Baliunas article? I don’t have the time or inclination to point out all the bias and opinion-herding in the article, but I’ll show you the sentence that initially caught my eye back in early December:
“The Soon and Baliunas paper had been sent to four reviewers during publication, all of whom recommended rejecting it.” (1)
Now isn’t that interesting? Why would they publish the paper if all of the reviewers recommended rejecting it? It certainly would be quite the scandal if that villainous Chris de Freitas pushed to publish it under such conditions.
A little digging shows that Wikipedia used to have the correct sentence – that none of the reviewers recommended rejecting it. In fact, an anonymous user tried to revert the article back to this correct version. The response was typical – change it back and then have one of the administrator gatekeepers, “MastCell,” protect the article from anonymous users. After all, the only people who could ever be correct are the Champions of the Earth.
But that wasn’t the end of it. That wouldn’t be a good demonstration of the obstinacy of the keeper of climate truth.
The few non-anonymous users who cared about the article being accurate pointed this out. Pages and pages of argument resulted, with the typical gatekeepers like Dave Souza and Stephan Schulz relying on a single source to make their claim, while ignoring numerous other sources, not to mention common sense, which contradicted their assertion regarding the reviewers.
What was their source?
An article in the Guardian by Fred Pearce.
What sources contradicted this?
Chris de Freitas himself publically showed this email (also here from Climategate), which would support my view – and he privately made it crystal clear to me that everyone recommended publication.
Of course, de Freitas would be biased….
But Clare Goodess, of the ever-reputable University of East Anglia, an editor who resigned over the incident, ambiguously intoned in a manner subject to much interpretation:
“The publisher eventually asked to see the documentation associated with the review of the paper – which had apparently gone to four reviewers none of whom had recommended rejection. Otto Kinne concluded that the review process had been properly conducted.” (2)
So instead of relying on common sense, original documents, and the statement, at the time, of an involved scientist certainly not supportive of the Soon-Baliunas paper, weight was given to Fred Pearce’s article which was written seven years after the fact.
Naturally, I was curious as to where Mr. Pearce received his information. He was friendly and helpful, despite his busy schedule with the holidays and Durban, and attempted to find the original source for the claim in his article. Unfortunately, he could not find the original source in his records. He does agree that the statement was, in his words, “almost certainly wrong” and theorizes that he may have misread Clare Goodess’ statement on the matter.
So that should settle it right? This article itself could be a “reliable source” to remove the error from Wikipedia. After all, Real Climate is quoted extensively throughout the climate change articles. Perhaps, but not when you have obsessive-compulsive activists who care more about their cause than their integrity.
However, this incident does bring some other questions to mind.
Andrew Montford, author of the Hockey Stick Illusion, was inquiring with Pearce about his source as well and was curious if Michael Mann had been the one to mislead Pearce. This is an interesting theory, and I had been wondering if this was the case myself both due to Mann’s behavior regarding this incident, his well-known inclination towards manipulating journalists, as well as the original wording in Pearce’s article, which was:
“But many on the 10-man editorial board agreed with Mann. They concluded that their colleague de Freitas had ignored the anonymous advice of four reviewers to reject the paper.”
There is no way to know for certain; it certainly isn’t clear. All I know is that Mann and his friends, and this is the short list, when confronted with a paper that challenged their own work, threatened to boycott the journal, tried to get the editor fired, tried to get the authors fired, and was even so juvenile as to file a complaint against the New Zealand Herald for not letting him publish his attacks against de Freitas.
Obviously, he is the quintessential climate scientist of our day – and I hope one day that Wikipedia gives him due credit as such.
Cheers,
James Padgett
=======================
UPDATE: Following a conversation on Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales’ talk page the error has been removed despite initial resistance from those who perpetrated the misinformation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Activism_at_Wikipedia.3F
Also, I’d like to thank Nona, who tried to correct the error earlier as an anonymous user.
Make sure to let Jimmy Wales know why you aren’t donating to Wikipedia.
“Wikipedia is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. Questions or comments? Contact the Wikimedia Foundation: donate@wikimedia.org“
All of the points raised here are examples of why I only trust Wikipedia on totally non-controversial subjects, and even then, for nothing more than a starting point of research. It’s good for identifying terms related to a topic, and occasionally has a link to a few good articles in the references section. But as soon as controversy rears it’s ugly head, Wikipedia immediately becomes the most unreliable source of information I’ve ever even known to exist and purport itself to being a knowledge base.
Does anyone else chuckle at the advertisements for supporting Wikipedia, when they have a picture of a “long time editor” or something else along those lines, who looks like a Birkenstock wearing, card-carrying member of the People’s Democratic Republic of Cambridge?
More wobbly wiki !
Fred Pearce admits ‘rejection’ error re Soon and Baliunas, but lie continues on wiki.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/1/10/james-padgett-on-wikipedia-and-soon.html
“This is not a complement.”
This works if you meant that your article gives the rest of the story that will be 180 degrees from your opening statement. Otherwise ‘compliment’ would work better ;o)
“This is not a complement.”
Compliment, I presume.
FD
1984?
What exactly was wrong with the S&B paper?
Wonderful stuff.
I’ve had many common sense edits reverted within seconds on wikipedia.
I think more articles like this one are called for.
Perhaps focus on the behaviour of that ‘Weasel’ fellow?
It’s amazing that this continues in broad daylight.
It’s a shame that we live in what has basically become a “10 second society”, meaning that if it takes more than 10 seconds of work to delve into something, people just won’t take the time to do it.
JimB
Great job. Shows that Pearce is a gullible tool of Mann. By now anyone must know that Mann is not someone to be trusted with the truth.
Don’t forget the role of William Connolley as Wikipedia administrator until 2009, who has changed far more global warming related articles than anyone else there…
Are the owners of Wikipedia liable for libellous information on their website?
“That is not a complement.”
It’s not a compliment either.
Eventually someone will write the book on those scientists who have made their careers by “gaming the system” of science. It is likely to be a messy job, because it will be found that the perversion of true science goes far beyond just climate science, which many now know has failed ludicrously, into fields that are still looked upon as unassailable (“settled” is the word, right?). Most skeptics still don’t even understand that the “greenhouse effect” was fundamentally wrong because the radiative transfer theory underpinning it fails the test of thermodynamics.
Par 2: presumably ‘compliment’
Has anyone actually read Soon and Baliunas? I did, well before I was aware of any controversy. It is a review of previously published works (very plural, that ‘works’) Lots and lots of people had found evidence for it being warmer during that time often described as the Medieval Warm Period, and only one or two found that it might have been cooler. A huge range of proxies was considered, and the weight of evidence was strongly in favour of it having been warmer.
It is very difficult to be controversial in a review paper. Indeed, Soon and Baliunas is the only review that I know of which has been the subject of such extensive controversy. They just reported what others had found, no more, no less. If I had been a reviewer of the paper (which I could well have been) I would have approved it for publication without hesitation. If I had been the editor (which I would never have been), I would have been grateful for the contribution. But because they had found hundreds of publications who disagreed with the view of a few researchers, it has become a cause celebre in its own right, and Wikipedia is being blamed for furthering the cause.
I agree the Wikipedia story needs to be set right, and set right without further ado. No Manners are needed – the story is just plain wrong. What currently appears there defies all logic
James, good article and some points well made. However, I think we need to be careful that we don’t engage in similar rhetoric at the other end of the debate. Often I read comments from contibutors on this site where there is clearly no eveidence of balanced opinion. For example, I don’t know how many times I have read the claim that “warming as ceased” during the last decade. I find this quite incredible when we we have actually seen 8 out of 10 of the warmist years on record in the last decade. Ok, so this might have nothing to do with human actvity but the fact remains that over tha period in question, taken as a whole 1980 -2011, warming continues apace – human induced or otherwise.
This does not excuse Wikpedia or any proponent of AGW to suppress other opinions but let not the pot call the kettle black!
“This is not a complement.”
Should be This is not a compliment.”
Sorry, it just affronts my eye.
Otherwise, I agree with everything said here about Wikipedia.
In the future, the Wikipedia project will become a textbook example of the ideological manipulation and corruption of our times.
I’ve given up trying to edit Wikipedia.
There is a few typos on this article- the first two that I noticed were “This is not a complement” should be “This is not a compliment” and “A little digging shows that Wikipedia use to have the correct sentence – that none of the reviewers recommended rejecting it.” should be “A little digging shows Wikipedia used to….”
re: “This is not a complement.”
*compliment
‘Obviously, he is the quintessential climate scientist of our day’ – Sorry but that has to be Al Gore or so he thinks.
And although it’s 4 years old now try :-http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia/
for an idea of the brain trust that is Wiki, now imagine it’s not one member of a cult but a world wide cult of ecofreaks bent on the destruction of the human race, except those wearing hemp underwear.
Totally agree James, I’m very careful as to what information I cite from Wikipedia particularly in relation to Climate Change.
Lawrence Solomon did an excllent article in the National Post on one such ‘gatekeeper’ – William Connolley, who was revealed in the Climategate mails to be one of the Real Climate team.
“All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.”
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409
Connolley was later suspended from Wikipedia for his activities but it was a temporary suspension and I’m not sure how effective it was.
Should be “compliment” in second sentence.
The article in Wikipedia currently reads, ‘…partly because they found out that the four reviewers of the paper had recommended rejecting it,[29] although this view is disputed by an editor of the journal who states that the paper had “apparently gone to four reviewers none of whom had recommended rejection” [22]’