Elevated from a comment by Tom Rude.
Chronicle of an announced death, Wikipedia style.
I had not posted on this road movie for a while but the occasion is too good to resist.
In the Wikipedia world there are crimes that deserve harsh punishment. Yet those appear magnified when “the Cause” could be threatened by the presence of “Global Warming Deniers” in the vicinity of Climate Change greatness.
The late French climatologist Professor Marcel Leroux (d.2008) experienced a second death at the hands of William M. Connolley and his acolytes. In “Death of a Salesman” the renowned software engineer goes full steam ahead in justifying his execution to the outside world:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/04/death-of-a-salesman/
From the height of his pretentious bumptiousness, he dismisses the condemned scientist’s life and work and goes on indulging in conspiracy theory about some honorific title the long serving professor received ten years ago. That Connolley is now chasing ambulances should elicit a smile since having been restricted in his editorial prerogatives following a scandal; his wings appear to have been clipped, only dead climate scientists beware! Or so you may think…
But living scientists too should be on the lookout for Connolley’s grim ripping endeavour!
Professor Gerhard Kramm is about to experience it first hand if Connolley and Eli Rabett get their way. Check Eli & W’s dialogue on the Connolley’s STOAT blog link above.
In Wikipedia vocabulary this is called “canvassing” and quoting from one of Connolley’s “friendlies” admonishing a much too vocal pro-Leroux editor about the crime: “…off-wiki canvassing of the worst type (canvassing people of a specific viewpoint in order to stack a discussion).” Repent sinner!
Yet when it comes to Wikipedia royalty Dr. William M. Connolley, all is clear. So clear, they did not bother to sub-contract rolling the ball against Kramm two days after WMC asked him to “Well don’t just complain about it, do something about it! –W”?
The Good Samaritan Joshua Halpern a.k.a Eli Rabett himself took on the job! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gerhard_Kramm
And the boys are following the same, true and proven script than for the Leroux deletion, starting by questioning the victim’s “notability” and stacking up the deck against the poor professor’s unorthodox position on Climate Change during a likely one sided discussion.
Who will be expurgated next? If history repeats itself, let’s recall that Robespierre too was guillotined and with him, “his brother Augustin, Couthon, Saint-Just, Hanriot and twelve other followers, among them the cobbler Simon, were also executed”. It must be true: it is in Wikipedia!
Update 10/10/12 @6:32 am (GMT – 8): Rescued bio deleted by Connolley, h/t Lucy Skywalker & Mike Jonas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lucy_Skywalker/Marcel_Leroux
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Connolley is embarrassing to the real scientists. But that is the price we pay for free speech.
Wikipedia touts for donations: I think a few comments from WUWT followers about the unlikelihood of their contributing while this kind of thing is allowed to happen might have a salutary effect.
From the Donations page: “We are trying to make it easy for people in every country to donate. Please let us know how we could make it easier for you. Send your suggestions to: problemsdonating@wikimedia.org.”
It’s almost begging for a response.
«All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink’.»
«'”Who controls the present controls the past,”‘ said O’Brien, nodding his head with slow approval. ‘Is it your opinion, Winston, that the past has real existence?’
Again the feeling of helplessness descended upon Winston. His eyes flitted towards the dial. He not only did not know whether ‘yes’ or ‘no’ was the answer that would save him from pain; he did not even know which answer he believed to be the true one.»
[snip – I don’t like Connolley’s tactics but this is OTT – Anthony]
The games people play …
Why would anyone pay any attention to Wikipedia? That is a waste of time.
When Wikipedia realizes they have become irrelevant it, will be too late. They are already a non-authoritative source for research papers.
“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”
For everything else there is Connolley and his merry band of mental midgets editing wikipedia?.
.
Hysteria is a syndrome, fairly or unfairly, associated predominantly with hormone-battling ladies.
As much as I can sympathise with such unfortunates, I find it really difficult to understand this condition as it relates to Eli (aka Joshua^3rd Person) and William Connolly (self-annointed Wikki custodian)
It’s not their intellect that is lacking, I suspect that they are both ‘wise-savants’ and with certificates to that effect, but their CSQ (common-sense quotient) and SOD (sense of decency) are both highly undeveloped!
A word of advice guys. Attacking the deceased? RIP before letting rip!
He’s an insult to mustelids. I should know, I have had the honor of working with them http://kajm.deviantart.com/gallery/?q=otter#/dha1on
Making someone a non-person is such an odious thing, done only by communist and fascist diktats and immature people…
corio37 says: October 9, 2012 at 4:20 pm
“Wikipedia touts for donations:”
It is a ruse, check out their IRS Charity filings. Most of the cash comes from a few very large donors. If you map it all out it is interesting, map the inputs and the output and you will find that encompanses the parent of Real Climate. That and the six figure saleries of the ‘thought leaders’ of this ‘charity’ indicates a typical warmist organization.
What the atomic weight of Boron use wiki, want the radiative spectum of the Earth pay for Britanica.
“Professor Gerhard Kramm is about to experience it first hand if Connolley and Eli Rabett get their way. Check Eli & W’s dialogue on the Connolley’s STOAT blog link above.”
Are they writing in some sort of code? I found the discussion hard to follow … kinda like when two 3-year old twin brother talk between themselves and use inside-family ‘code talk’ …
.
Is it possible to sue wiki for defamation?
The question is, does he meet the wikipedia standards of notability “Wikipedia:Notability (academics)” and “WP:BIO” or not? From reading the page it’s a pretty close call, although one could argue that he squeaks in based on being “lead instructor of the Science Teacher Education Program (STEP) 2007 on Global Climate Change”, being on the “Editorial Board of the Datasets Papers in Atmospheric Sciences” and the “U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page” thing. It would be best to find some more press mentions consistent with “WP:BIO”.
I’m hardly in the AGW camp, but if you don’t like how WP is going, read the docs, register, learn the ropes, and start editing. That is how you affect change on wikipedia. I realize in the AGW realm it will be an uphill struggle but where isn’t it?
For the part I actually have the technical chops to have an informed opinion about, computer science, wikipedia is spot on.
This is too ‘inside baseball’ to understand.
Woaw! Thanks Anthony.
The Rabbett and The Stoat – strange bedfellows. And very strange people.
Isn’t a stoat some kind of weasle? At least Connolley got that right.
(Better watch your back, Eli!)
Well well well! It turns out that William M Connolley himself IS a notable person!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley
I haven’t found any errors on the Arduino uP board and associated IDE material either, but, that is an objective area rather than a subjective kind of evaluation as shown being discussed on Stoat.
BTW, wikipedia ‘blows the theory’ on such obscure topics as super-regen receivers however (unless the article has been re-written), missing the quantum-level level/internal device noise initiation of the ‘oscillation’ as modified by a weak incoming RF-signal (and at a sample rate which works to demodulate the received signal as determined by the ‘quench’ rate) …
.
corio37 said (October 9, 2012 at 4:20 pm
“…Wikipedia touts for donations: I think a few comments from WUWT followers about the unlikelihood of their contributing while this kind of thing is allowed to happen might have a salutary effect.
From the Donations page: “We are trying to make it easy for people in every country to donate. Please let us know how we could make it easier for you. Send your suggestions to: problemsdonating@wikimedia.org.”…”
You mean comments like “I don’t have problemsdonating AT wikimedia.org, I have problemsdonating TO wikimedia.org”?
Besides, I thought that William M. Connolley was banned from editing Climate Change articles – looks like he found another mindless minion to do his unquestioned bidding.
Just waiting to see how creative editing will be used to boost up the career of the esteemed bunny.
Problem is, as of now, “Eli Rabett” does not exist on wikipedia. Neither does “Josh Halpern”. Even his blog “Rabett Run” does not exist.
Must make him angry that according to Wikipedia, he does not exist.
For now, anyway…
I’m not up to speed on Wikipedia abuse by some of it’s users, but I have seen some bad examples over the years, even to a degree where the Guardian news paper and George Monbiot have been used as a reliable source of information on a persons life as a sort of effort to undermine the persons credibility or expertise on a subject/issue. I’ve noticed George Monbiot and co. have it nailed down to an art-form, they seem to raise a subject in a Guardian article a (British news paper), then bizarrely and somewhat coincidentally wikipedia reflects these views as fact.
have a look at this Wikipedia entry on David Bellamy and especially how his Views on global warming are refuted by alarmists for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy
I muddled my way though some of the “backstage” Wiki pages and found myself on Connelley’s talk page. A couple things worth sharing, I’m not sure why he does:
After he and 14 others were banned from editing climate change pages:
From a discussion about a one week block for being uncivil:
I got tired of the politics on wikipedia a long time ago and configured my google account to block it. I use academic search through the local university when I want to know something. Too much BS on wikipedia. Though I did enjoy a few years ago when someone kept editing the bio of a 60s rocker to say he was dead. The rocker put in the comments section something to the effect of “look bloke, I am me and very much still kicking. now [snip] off.” I had to clean my monitor after that one.