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.
@Lucy Skywalker
It shimples, all you have to do is emulate William Connoley, and just move the article into user space as he did when he didn’t like the result of the “The Science is Settled” article deletion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley/The_science_is_settled
Amazing what you can find lying around, the last version of the article before it was deleted.
So please feel free to copy below with formatting into a new article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lucy_Skywalker/Timothy_Ball
though you may wish to remove the categories and interwiki links
”’Timothy Francis Ball”’ (born c. 1939) is a British-born [[Canada|Canadian]] environmental consultant and former professor of [[geography]] at the [[University of Winnipeg]]{{Cite news| last = Harper| first = Tom| title = Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’| work = Telegraph.co.uk| accessdate = 2009-12-21| date = 2007-03-11| url = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-climate-denial.html}}{{Cite news| url=http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/aug2008/gb2008081_625649.htm | title=Beijing’s Olympic Smog: How Bad Will It Be? | last=Gershkovich | first=Tatyana | coauthors=Arnst, Catherine | date=August 1, 2008 | work=[[BusinessWeek]] | publisher=businessweek.com | accessdate=December 27, 2009 }}{{Cite news| url=http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2002/11/13/warm_climate021113.html | title=Greenhouse gases barely impact climate: scientists | date=November 14, 2002 | work=[[CBC News]] | publisher=[[cbc.ca]] | accessdate=December 27, 2009 }}{{Cite news| url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/03/08/cooling.html | title=Expert puts chill on global warming | date=March 8, 2000 | work=[[CBC News]] | publisher=[[cbc.ca]] | accessdate=December 27, 2009 }} Ball disputes that humans have a significant impact on climate change.Ball, Timothy. [http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts]. ”Canada Free Press”. February 5, 2007. He heads the [[Natural Resources Stewardship Project]] and is on the Scientific Advisory Board of [[Friends of Science]], organizations that reject the likelihood of human-caused [[global warming controversy|global warming]].{{Cite web| url=http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/175673 | title=Who’s still cool on global warming? | accessdate=2007-03-31 | date=January 28, 2007 | author=Peter Gorrie | publisher=[[Toronto Star]]}}
== Global warming activism ==
== Academics ==
Ball has a [[Bachelor of Arts|B.A.]] degree from the University of Winnipeg, an [[Master of Arts (postgraduate)|M.A.]] degree from the [[University of Manitoba]] in 1970 in Geography,{{Cite web| title=The significance of grain-size and heavy minerals volume percentage as indicators of environmental character, Grand Beach Manitoba : a case study| first=Timothy | last=Ball | accessdate=2007-12-31|url=http://bison.umanitoba.ca/web2/tramp2.exe/see_record/A0abko4e.001?server=1home&item=2&item_source=1home}} and a [[Doctor of Philosophy|Ph.D.]] degree in geographyhttp://catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/search~S16?/aBall,+Timothy+Francis./aball+timothy+francis/-3%2C-1%2C0%2CB/frameset&FF=aball+timothy+francis&1%2C1%2C from the [[University of London]], England in 1983, writing a thesis on 18th- and 19th-century climatic change in central Canada.[http://catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/search/?searchtype=a&searcharg=Ball%2C+Timothy&searchscope=16&SORT=A&Submit.x=48&Submit.y=27 Ph.D. thesis titled “Climatic change in central Canada : a preliminary analysis of weather information from the Hudson’s Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850”] Ball taught geography at the [[University of Winnipeg]] from 1971 to 1996, starting as a Sessional Lecturer and retiring as a Professor.{{Cite web| title=Biography | first=Timothy | last=Ball |accessdate=2009-10-24| url=http://www.cariboord.bc.ca/crddirectors/2007%20agendas/Dec2007/December%2014,%202007/Biography.pdf }}
In 1984, he founded the Rupert’s Land Research Centre,http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2ffpFoic23YC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=timothy+ball+climate+change+human+settlement&ots=dxSOwhJtsV&sig=epN8NMsgOyizIRWFNce8wN01UDk#v=onepage&q=timothy%20ball&f=false now called the Centre for Rupert’s Land Studies, dedicated to research and publication of human history in the Hudson Bay watershed.http://uwwebpro.uwinnipeg.ca/academic/ic/rupert/index.html
== Public appearances ==
Ball was featured in ”[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]”, a documentary film produced by [[Martin Durkin]] that was first aired in March 2007. The film showcased scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who disagree with the [[Climate change consensus|scientific consensus on global warming]]. {{Cite news|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/21/climatechange.carbonemissions1|title=Why does Channel 4 seem to be waging a war against the greens?|last=Monbiot|first=George|date=21 July 2008|publisher=[[The Guardian]]|accessdate=21 December 2009}}
[[Hannity & Colmes]] hosted Ball to discuss ”The Great Global Warming Swindle”. He appeared in ”Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack H. Obama”, a documentary by conspiracy theorist [[Alex Jones (radio host)|Alex Jones]] that claims to expose an agenda of “globalist eugenicists” to establish a world order that would reduce America to tyranny.http://www.archive.org/details/falloftherepublic Other right-wing or extremist venues in which he has appeared are [[The Michael Coren Show]]http://www.fcpp.org/media.php/1370, [[Coast to Coast AM]] with [[George Noory]],http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/ball-tim/6869, and The Corbett Report.http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20091120_cru_hacked.htm
Ball speaks often to civic clubs, farm groups, and members of the insurance industryhttp://www.thestar.com/printArticle/175673 and is a member of the [[Canada Free Press]] Speaker’s Bureau.http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/speakers-bureau He has made presentations to American senators.http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031207.htm
== Criticism ==
== Personal ==
Ball lived for many years in Winnipeg, Manitoba. After retiring from his position at the University, he moved to Victoria, British Columbia.http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/864 He is married to Marty Ball.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ad-campaign-takes-aim-at-climate-change/article1367291/
== Awards and Honours ==
*Honours Gold Medal, 1971, University of Winnipeghttp://geograph.uwinnipeg.ca/awards_dept-medals.htm
*1976 recipient of the Clifford J. Robson Memorial Award for Excellence in Teaching.http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/index/robson-index
*Geography Teacher Book Prize awarded each year by the University of Manitoba in Ball’s honor; provided by the Manitoba Social Science Teachers’ Associationhttp://www.uwinnipeg.ca/index/cms-filesystem-action?file=pdfs/awards/awards-handbook-08.pdf
== Publications ==
* {{Cite book
| first1=C. Stuart | last1=Houston
| first2=T. F. | last2=Ball
| first3=Mary | last3=Houston
| author2-link=Timothy F. Ball
| title=Eighteenth-century naturalists of Hudson Bay
| publisher=[[McGill-Queen’s University Press]]
| year=2003
| isbn=0773522859
| pages=333
| place=[[Montreal]]
| postscript=
}}
* {{Cite book
| first=Timothy F. | last=Ball
| author-link=Timothy F. Ball
| editor1-first=Raymond S. | editor1-last=Bradley
| editor2-first=Philip D. | editor2-last=Jones
| editor1-link=Raymond S. Bradley
| editor2-link=Phil Jones (climatologist)
| title=Climate Since A.D. 1500
| publisher=[[Routledge]]
| year=1995
| contribution=Historical and instrumental evidence of climate: Western Hudson Bay, Canada, 1714–1850
| isbn=0415075939
| postscript=
}}
* {{Cite journal
| first1=Timothy F. | last1=Ball
| first2=Roger A. | last2=Kingsley
| author1-link=Timothy F. Ball
| title=Instrumental temperature records at two sites in Central Canada: 1768 to 1910
| journal=Climatic Change
| volume=6 | issue=1 | pages=39–56 | year=1984
| url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/l51087083622ll24/
| doi=10.1007/BF00141667
| postscript=
}}
* {{Cite journal
| first1=Timothy F. | last1=Ball
| author1-link=Timothy F. Ball
| title=Climatic change in central Canada: a preliminary analysis of weather information from the Hudson’s Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850
| publisher=Ph.D. Thesis | year=1983
| place=[[Queen Mary, University of London]]
| url=http://catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/search/?searchtype=a&searcharg=Ball%2C+Timothy&searchscope=16&SORT=A&Submit.x=48&Submit.y=27
| postscript=
}}
* {{Cite journal
| first1=Timothy F. | last1=Ball
| author1-link=Timothy F. Ball
| title=The migration of geese as an indicator of climate change in the southern Hudson Bay region between 1715 and 1851
| journal=Climatic Change
| volume=5 | issue=3 | pages=85–93 | year=1983
| url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/l1412752642704v3/
| doi=10.1007/BF00144682
| postscript=
}}
* {{Cite journal
| first1=A.J.W. | last=Catchpole
| first2=Timothy F. | last2=Ball
| author2-link=Timothy F. Ball
| title=Analysis of historical evidence of climate change in western and northern Canada
| journal=Syllogeus
| publisher=National Museum of Canada
| issue=33 | pages=48–96 | year=1981
| url=http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/CatchpoleAnalysisThis1981.html
| postscript= }}
== References ==
{{reflist}}
== External links ==
* [http://www.fcpp.org/files/1/Section%202%20-%20Table%20of%20Contents,%20Foreword,%20Author.pdf Biography] Table of Contents, Foreword, The Author from ”Whither the Weather?”
* [http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/17102/Ball/ Archive of recent articles] on [[Canada Free Press]]
* [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_492572.html February 10, 2007] Interview of Ball in the Pittsburgh Tribune: ”The politics of global warming”
* [http://straight.com/article-67107/trust-us-were-the-media January 25, 2007] ”Trust us, we’re the media”, Georgia Straight
* [http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html August 6, 2006] article from The Globe and Mail “Focus” section: ”Mr. Cool”
* [http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=aeb40fd9-f370-4057-8335-bc7345bf2e10 June 15, 2006] National Post article for the Financial Post: ”Warmer is Better: Junk Science Week”
* [http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/29/1/ October 3, 2007] AllPoliticsNow news report ”Winnipeg bred global warming denier Tim Ball avoids embarrassment at Peoples Court” w/ links to court documents.
*[http://www.fcpp.org/images/publications/FifthEstateDeniersCBC-whole%20piece.pdf The Fifth Estate] Ball’s response to “The Denial Machine”
{{Persondata
| NAME =Ball, Tim
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES =
| SHORT DESCRIPTION =
| DATE OF BIRTH =
| PLACE OF BIRTH =
| DATE OF DEATH =
| PLACE OF DEATH =
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Ball, Tim}}
[[Category:Alumni of Queen Mary, University of London]]
[[Category:Year of birth missing (living people)]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[es:Timothy F. Ball]]
[[nl:Tim Ball]]
cirby,
I see that you did not read the article, which was not about board games. Rather, it concerns censorship.
WIki has always been corrupted, even over non-controversial issues. Of every subject I am expert in, I find untruths in WIki about it. And as commented above, anything can be controversial to someone, somewhere.
Then there is the issue of intellectual vandalism, like saying Ishi made arrowheads from “bottoms of beer bottles {true} and cans {false}.” Wiki contains thousands of these examples of minute, hard to detect, deliberate lies. When Wiki is correct, it is an accident and the issue will soon be ‘fixed’.
Ben Kellett says:
January 10, 2012 at 9:38 am
“…what we can not escape is the fact that AGW proponents argue that this warming is accelerating and due to human activity. ”
Ben,
Check out the link below which shows satellite temperatures since 1979. Can you point to the acceleration of global temperatures, especially on the 13 month centered smoothed graph (which has leveled out and appears to be dropping), because I don’t see it? Satellites show no “acceleration” in temperature increases (acceleration is non-linear so you have to see an increase in the increase, second derivative). But let’s ignore the data and pretend the graph is accelerating. How do we separate out man-made from natural changes in temperature if we are to attribute higher temperatures to humans?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
And that’s the main reason wikipedia should be funded properly – its a common portal for everybody. The more accurate it is the better it is.
ThePowerofX says:
January 10, 2012 at 1:57 am
PowerofX, what you seem to have missed is that under the Wikipedia rules you point out, Wikipedia itself is not a “reliable source” …
w.
IMO,
A cure for wikipedia would be to allow for different points of view rather than trying to stay “objective”. Controversial topics could be split with just urls to different povs at the main article. Let each side make their best case and let the reader decide. Hiding behind the NPOV rules is just censoring by another name.
I taught math and management (not in the same course, unfortunately) at several colleges as we moved about the country during my career as an engineer. In NO CASE did any of the colleges allow Wikipedia as a source or reference. I told all MY classes that use of a Wikipedia article as a reference would lose them a letter grade since it showed they weren’t thinking, only Googling.
Not one of the other teachers, instructors or professors (at least, of whom I am aware – don’t want to make an unsupportable generality) at ANY of the four schools allowed Wikipedia, either.
Of course, math and management both have to function in the real world, with provable consequences, so that may be part of the reason.
Nick Shaw said:
January 10, 2012 at 7:36 am
Is it just me or are there an unusual number of grammar and spelling Nazis on this thread?
————————————
It would be just you characterising them as Nazis. I would say, rather, that there are a lot of people here who care about accuracy and details.
It is worth looking up the term “wikiality”.
anon says: January 10, 2012 at 10:27 am
@Lucy Skywalker
It shimples, all you have to do is emulate William Connoley, and just move the article into user space…
Well that’s a nice idea. Here’s Tim Ball back at WP. Wonder how long it will last? and how long will my old user page stay undefaced this time?
But if it becomes target for deletion, I’ll copy the markup text this time. Thanks. Could not find it before. Welcome back Tim Ball.
If wikipedia was actually made of paper…I wouldn’t wipe my arse with it!
With wikipedia, as with most things, taking the middle way has always sounded to me as the best way to rely on its information. The only “facts” in wikipedia that can be taken as such are those that are uncontested, dry bits of data. It surprises me that some people seem to rely on it in areas that *are* contested.
Steve Fox, I have pondered why the leftists have a much greater tendency to take things like that over as well. My conclusion is that liberals tend to identify much more strongly with groups and causes than conservatives do. Conservatives tend to focus on individuals rather than groups. Many, many organizations and ideas that start out apolitically become strongly leftist over time for the same reason (EPA, equal rights, etc.). I believe this is because liberals tend to recommend and promote based on ideology rather than competence and experience.
In fairness, when you get away from AGW and a couple of other things, Wiki is a fairly neutral platform. I have done a couple entries on the works of Erasmus and all that mattered was the scholarship. Other areas have been hijacked to the general discredit of Wiki.
Ben Kellett says:
January 10, 2012 at 9:38 am
“…what we can not escape is the fact that AGW proponents argue that this warming is accelerating and due to human activity. ”
Ben, they can argue all they want. Shouting does not make them right any more than the mythical *consensus* makes them right.
We need to continue to insist they show us evidence, not projections, which supports their claims and also insist they openly debate all the evidence.
Q: What do the following things have in common: Marxism, Communism, Fascism, Stalinism, Maoism?
A: All were created by progressives!
JPY says
So not only should incorrect statements in Wikipedia be corrected…
As I already reported, it has been corrected. In fact it was corrected on 22 December, before this article was written.
Wikipedia has many problems, and should never be relied upon completely, but this issue is overblown.
Louis Hooffstetter says:
January 10, 2012 at 9:49 am
Wikipedia has known for decades that William Connolley and other Real Climate Scientists have blatantly manipulated their articles. Their gross negligence in ensuring the accuracy of their climate science articles borders on complicity. As a result, the reputations of Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, and Chris de Freitas’ have been severely damaged and continue to be damaged to this day. They should sue Michael Mann, William Connolley, and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales for slander. Please set up a tip jar to pay their legal fees. I’ll gladly donate.
Louis, I think that you have stated the one solution that these “cretins of scientific manipulation and intentional disinformation” will understand and that is to be bought to account for the harm caused in a court of law. The actual remedy in terms of dollars should be substantial enough to deter others from Internationally propagating falsehoods, or to continue publishing material that is defamatory even when others point out the glaring errors. My only concern is that litigation could also be used to stifle dissent, legitimate discussion and other freedoms as an unintended consequence. Be that as it may, it seems the only way to go, in defending truth and freedom and respecting the scientific method and the reputation of scientists.
Wikipedia is best when it stays on topics related to pop culture. TV shows, movies and video games. The more serious or controversial the topic, the less reliable Wikipedia is.
Wikipedia has lots of good article on non-controversial topics like populations, matrix decompositions, etc. It’s unfortunate that on anything controversial it tends to be taken over by partisans of one side or the other.
However, it must have mechanisms to deal with this on political issues, biographies, etc. I suspect that if several skeptics were to give up their day jobs and make a full time effort of it, they could, with patience, make the articles at least a little more balanced.
I’m not volunteering, however, since it’s frustrating to write something and then have it revised beyond recognition by someone else. The few times I have edited Wikipedia it has mostly been just to add an “external link” to a webpage I control. Usually this is stays put even if it goes against the grain of the people who have written the page.
@ur momisugly Ben Kellet
“I must confess that I find it hard to believe that any scientist can seriously make the claim that AGW is fact on the basis of a 30 year warming trend. ”
++++
A short period of reading at WUWT whill show that no reputable scientist seriously makes any such claims. The claims are made only by climaticus hirundinea a class of annelids invading certain areas of the Media. Fortunately they are in danger of overwhelming the food supply and the population is expected to crash soon. The only problem then remaining will be the stink lingering in the nostrils of true science. That too shall pass.
BullDurham says:
January 10, 2012 at 11:41 am
I think that is a very bad position. Personally, I used Wikipedia’s Kepler’s laws of planetary motion to attempt to understand the GISS GCM ModelE code used for AR4. As a result, I found that Hansen, Schmidt, et al, used a climate model with a very specific design problem. The error was not large, but they used the wrong equation and I discovered this by using Wikipedia. (Of course, I eventually used other references [found on the Wikipedia page] to verify that Wikipedia was correct.)
I had a similar experience with Wikipedia, though on a different subject (Hanukkah). The official Wikipedia moderator ruled against inclusion of certain information (the evangelical and Messianic Jewish celebration of Hanukkah). I said the information should be included because the article should reflect what IS (millions of non-Jews celebrate Hanukkah); he rejected it on the basis that the article should only include information about what SHOULD be (in his narrow minded worldview those who are not Jews should not celebrate Hanukkah, therefore any information about how other people view and celebrate it should be excluded). That was quite some years ago, and it taught me that Wikipedia is first and foremost a tool of propaganda, not of information. I had similar experiences in other topics where I consider myself an expert (or at least very well informed). Politically incorrect information (facts and paradigms) are routinely squashed instantly and vigorously.
Steve Fox says:
Why? Because Jimbo Wales is one of them, and he likes it that way. See how he sings the praises of Wm Connolley.
Lucy Skywalker says:
Lucy, Connolley is just Wales’ henchman. They are a team. Wm Connolley and his ilk rule Wikipedia, flouting the rules, crushing dissent, and enforcing the Leftist Party Line, for one reason: because Wales wants them to.
Jimbo Wales is the problem.