As we have known for some time, global warming zealot and green party member William F. Connolley edited 5428 Wikipedia articles, mostly about climate. It seems some researchers have taken notice of this and other topics that are ruled by similar zealotry.
From the BBC and Fox News: Re-writing history? Wikipedia’s biggest ‘edit wars’ revealed
Scientists analysed page edits in 10 editions to find topics fought over by contributors to the open encyclopaedia.
While some topics were locally controversial, many religious subjects, such as Jesus and God, were universally debated, they found.
Further research is planned to log how controversial topics change over time.
Researchers from the University of Oxford and three other institutions analysed logs of the changes made to Wikipedia pages to identify those in the throes of an “edit war”. Such a conflict involves editors of pages making changes that are almost instantly undone by another editor.
Finding the pages over which editors scrap about such changes was a better guide to controversial subjects than simply picking out those that changed a lot, wrote the researchers in a paper describing their work.
Pages that get updated a lot might just be about a rapidly changing field or topic, they said. By contrast, a topic page in which words and phrases are constantly removed and reinstated gave an insight into the depth of feeling it evoked among contributors.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wikipedia is great for anything that is non-political. Which again shows CAGW is political in nature.
I had many ‘debates’ with these editors on Wikipedia. A number of times they went with a conspiracy rather then facts.
As an example: It was a consensus with Wikipedia that said, the Kuwait judiciary imprisoned fourteen men for an assassination attempt (Bush’s father) on false charges at the agreement of President W Bush. I asked for some kind of evidence they told me Kuwait needed Bush’s support. That was their ONLY ‘evidence.’
World of WikipœdiaⓀ, or Wikipedia, is a massive multiplayer online role-playing game in which some really cool dudes compete to paraphrase detailed information into a shorter, reader-friendlier format. However, unlike any other MMORPG, the major rewards and upgrades are to players’ perceived expertise on their own edits, which players can trade in for sparse IRL recognition or can add to their laundry lists of personal accomplishments.
During gameplay, Wikipedia players can gain more authority as they progress, with “Administrator” and “Double-O Licensed” rankings granting them access to GOD MODE. While the rules for winning the game are a tightly-kept secret, it is believed that the winner is treated to a night of accolades and praise from Wikipedia overlord Jimbo Wales.
Global Warming Controversy in Wiki is filled with information about vested interests funding skeptical scientists and challenges of the skeptical materials but does not present the skeptics papers detailing their points. The article creates the impression that special interests have bought some scientific reports to question the man-made causes of global warming. It does not discuss the funding for the advocates of global warming to any meaningful extent. It is long, dealing with controversy but not the case of the skeptics. I would rate it as better than nothing but not worthwhile.
The Global Warming Wiki article on the other hand includes considerable supporting material and raises no significant questions about funding, agenda of the advocates, etc.
The list of scientists is a good entry from my point of few and quick reading.
As for all of the material from others about the Clubby nature of Wiki and the impenetrability of the system, I stand educated. But, I ask again if we take a team approach and pile on when we are ready to post and all become active in Wiki for a few months, might we be able to accomplish something worthwhile?
Anybody want to take the lead?
=====================================================================
I like it. As much as Wikipedia is prone to “editing” in areas where opinion and beliefs are concerned, many still go to it (including me) as a quick and easy way to find facts. With such a title even someone who believes the skeptical view is just an opinion couldn’t claim the “views” stated are wrong. And they just might learn something from the facts given to support those views.
Wikipedophile
Etymology: a portmanteau of Wikipedia and pedophile.
Wikipedophile (frequently abbreviated to Wikipedo) is the preferred term for the glassy-eyed zealots on Wikipedia. A total sick fuck, the wikipedophile remains something of an underground, “in the know” nickname for Bureaucratic Fucks, so to score extra e-points with them, be sure to use it liberally. It can also refer to actual pedophiles who cruise for underage action on Wikipedia.
Just like inductees in a cult, the behavior of the Wikipedo appears inexplicable to a NORP, however a closer look reveals that many of them are manchildren who refuse to grow up, POV warriors with some agenda to push, Star Trek nerds arguing over the punctuation in the latest crap movie, and ordinary self-diagnosed aspies and OCD cases. Here are some examples:
Wikipedos always stalk. Chris Croy says “User:Charmeyn – She’ll always hold a special place in my heart for edit warring with me over the inclusion of an external link to a subject’s personal site, then going onto her MySpace and calling me a child molester.”
Former admin JzG says “If you have a job or a family, do not do get involved with controversial subjects on Wikipedia. There are people out there who are batshit insane and will genuinely try to get you fired from your job, call you at home, solicit burglars to raid your home, and invite predators to look at your kids. They might even think it’s not serious, that it’s only a bit of fun. Only one of the above has not happened to me, and that one happened to someone else. Yes, really.”
Read what this guy spends all his time on. -Singularly redefining shit nobody cares about (Ironically Ryulong banned him moments later rendering all his hard work pointless).
Why do people even want to be Wikipedia administrators? Check this: “I am an administrator here on the Wikipedia…[i]n my time here, I have received numerous personal attacks and more than one threat of a lawsuit. More troublingly, I have received the occasional death threat. My real name and photograph has been posted on the attack sites, along with my location, though not my exact address. Recently, I have started receiving telephone calls that have their caller ID blocked. These are the typical “hang-up” calls and I am no longer answering the phone to numbers I do not already recognize. Occasionally, I get voice mails though these are always blank. I do not consider any of the death threats I have received to be at all serious. None that I am aware of were made by someone in the same country as me and I never had any reason to believe this was more significant than a teenage vandal ticked off because I blocked him or her. And it is entirely possible (indeed, almost certain) that these telephone calls which have started in the past week are entirely coincidental. I am less happy with my real name and location, along with stolen photographs that are quite possibly not fair-use, being posted on attack sites. I’m considering changing my telephone number.”
Meh, it’s horses for courses. Wiki is a wonderful resource if you are reading an Elmore Leonard novel and want to find out what a “kinkajou” is. The CIA Factbook is numero uno for reliable information on country statistics, supplemented by the country’s statistical website if it is reliable. IMDB (and Wiki) are great for info about film and television. The National Library of Australia has a superb searchable archive of old newspapers, magazines and historical documents online. And so on.
I wouldn’t consult Wiki for information about anything even slightly controversial. But, it seems to me that we are luckier than any previous generation when it comes to being able to access – at no charge – information about anything and everything.
Notice what these people are doing at Wikipedia. Rather then allowing all sides views they have a need to restrict information.
There is no need to restrict information if it even has a minority opinion.
They could even have a paragraph on controversial posts ‘The minority view’
PMSL. So this puts Global Warming between circumcision and wrestling in terms of controversiality! I had to laugh!
“Bob says:
July 19, 2013 at 12:23 pm
He edited 5428 articles? Wow, I’m really impressed by that. He must be a really smart guy.”
That reminded me of a Spitting Image sketch back in the UK in the 1980’s with Jeffrey Archer (Writer, politician and criminal) where Archer is sitting at his writing desk with his typewriter that has one key with the word “CRAP” on it. All he did was just sat there and bang the typewriter with both fists to produce his next “novel”. I suspect Connelley deploys a similar approach when updating Wiki articles about AGW etc.
Ox AO says:
July 19, 2013 at 6:58 pm
Wikipedia is great for anything that is non-political. Which again shows CAGW is political in nature.
———————————————-
It’s worth clancing at the talk page of any article you consult.
You’d be surprised at the endless edit wars and personal vituperation that can lie behind a wiki piece on, say, an apparently uncontroversial and obscure beat group from the 1960s.
It only takes one monomaniac.
Due to the meddling of Connelley et al, I have come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is about on the level of trivial pursuit. I have encountered a number of things that I know to be false. I haven’t even been to their website in a number of years.
Wikipedia could solve its problems at two strokes:
1. Allow a “minority report” section for controversial topics. Don’t rely on the current consensus-seeking system.
2. Allow groups of credentialed experts to have the last word in editing the consensus version on topics that are over five years old. Offset the disproportionate influence of “Wikipedos.”
There are lots of contrarian scientists not on that list. It would be a good project for a WUWTer to submit their names there as additions.
CaligulaJones says:
July 19, 2013 at 12:17 pm
——–
For what it’s worth, the article on Philip Roth’s book now contains the proper background, even citing Roth’s letter to Wikipedia as its source.
The other Phil says:
July 19, 2013 at 5:50 pm
——–
Thanks for pointing to the “List of scientists opposing…” It’s on my Watchlist. It would be wonderful if the readers of this blog would Be Bold (as is Wikipedia’s mantra to new users) and contribute to these types of pages. As others have pointed out, the Talk pages, Revision History, and References certainly make Wikipedia a worthwhile (and sometimes fascinating) resource, even if some controversial topics aren’t fully or correctly covered. And for non-controversial topics, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be the first place to look.
I often wonder why people complain about incorrect information, when it is so easy to fix. In the long run, the fixers have more influence on an article than the vandals. Be a fixer.
Connolly is a joke. He has derailed the Wikipedia project. Not single-handedly but sufficiently on his own.
This research sounds rational and relevant. Personally, I have felt that Connolly’s actions are just a minor part of the damage done to Wikipedia. Yet no-one has done the legwork to prove it, until now.
Good work BBC (I don’t say that often).
So the boost my natural cynicism somewhat again, here is a controversial finding…
So, proof God is everywhere – even cyberspace!
Does Connelly have a day job? Who is paying him for his Wikipedia propaganda?
James Ard says:
July 19, 2013 at 11:49 am
What’s so touchy about circumcisions?
It’s a sore point.
Wikipedia is fine for initial research on non-controversial topics. The non-English language versions are even worse regarding controversy than is the English language. Some editions contain one sided view points of ethnic grievances, imagined histories and so forth. It’s the Achilles-heel of crowd sourcing an authoritative document.
Bill Illis says:
July 19, 2013 at 3:19 pm
Wiki had the potential to be the greatest source of information that the human race has ever known. I mean game-changer here.
But now it is just a joke (people really make jokes about it) and Connolley …
Totally agree Bill. I also saw a great potential in wikipedia and was supporting in the early years. However as many have seen it fails to give a fair sight on a controversial item. This is a huge failure and may lead to its marginalisation.
DirkH says:
July 19, 2013 at 4:49 pm
John, as I said – you are up against an organized force.
Very true, as Dirk says, Global Warming pays big $$ so you have the PR hacks, the whole gang of beneficiaries, & the religious fanatics – who form the backbone. Don’t forget that Global Warming movement has all the characters of a religion, it describes new behavioural rules, new morale, new sins and new absolution.
rogerknights says:
July 20, 2013 at 7:03 am
Wikipedia could solve its problems at two strokes:
1. Allow a “minority report” section for controversial topics. Don’t rely on the current consensus-seeking system.
2. Allow groups of credentialed experts to have the last word in editing the consensus version on topics that are over five years old. Offset the disproportionate influence of “Wikipedos.”
Exactly Roger, that was also my thought. Why don’t they allow one or more minority reports? So that the reader sees the various answers and makes himself a better judgement?
The solution could be found, if the will would be there.
@RogerKnights
There are lots of contrarian scientists not on that list.
If you provide an example, with some evidence that s/he qualifies as a scientist, I’ll try adding the name.
Fair enough?
J. Sperry says: “Be a fixer”
It can not be fixed if the fundamentals of the site are broken.
The perfect analogy: Wikipedia is the Church and Galileo is the minority view.
Galileo is not the conciseness
I quote the late, great Sledge Hammer: “I prefer to get my information from more reliable sources, like rumors and small children.”
Actually, kind of same-same.
The real problem with Wikipedia is that, even in the case of casual looking or seeking “non-controversial” information, you always have to go somewhere else for the last word.
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” RWR 1964. What a visionary, describing Wikipedia 49 years ago!
Tussles with Wikipedia about my entry have gone on for so long in ding-dong fashion that I’ve had to give up. At present it gives me a wrong birth name and has changed the sex of one of my children. It’s amazing what spite plus ignorance will do. .
Here from 3 years ago is a comment I made about Wikipedia and William Connelley on my blog:
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/wiki-witch-of-the-west/#more-1123
Conneley has commented on my remark here, not on WUWT but on my blog post shown above. He claims to be barred from WUWT.
As a by-product of this exchange I’ve found this entry about me, which is reasonable, from 3 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nigel_Calder&oldid=343454824
It can be contrasted with the current entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Calder