I saw this coming a mile away.
On Wednesday August 20th, Dr. Roy Spencer noted how John Cook’s well debunked 97% ‘consensus’ claim, based of statistical sleight of hand and pal review, was used as an example of propaganda techniques
Wikipedia Page on Propaganda Techniques Uses 97% Meme
Roy opined:
I wonder how long the example will stay there, without William Connolly to play gatekeeper. I also see “Hope and Change” is given as an example. Hmmm…sounds vaguely familiar.
Like a moth to a flame, William M. Connolley showed up in comments, and accused Dr. Spencer of adding the 97% example himself:
You’re fast. That example was added only a few days ago. Its almost like you did it, or someone did it and then told you. No? Seems like a pretty bizarre coincidence otherwise.
Having boobed the date, he later had to retract that statement:
> only a few days ago
A month and a few days. So, not so fast.
Connolley is equally fast it seems, because he immediately went into Orwellian 1984 Winston Smith mode and re-wrote the entry, simply because he himself believes in the 97% consensus meme. Roy writes today:
Censorship Alive and Well at Wikipedia
That didn’t take long. Less than 24 hours after I noted the use of the “97% of scientists agree” meme as an example of “propaganda techniques” on Wikipedia, the example has disappeared.
And who did the change? Well you know who:
07:29, 21 August 2014 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) . . (16,792 bytes) (-53) . . (Undid revision 617361920 by 130.22.49.227 (talk) better to use a non-controversial example)
In science, citations are done on published works knowing that good or bad, they’ll be there in 10-20 years for the most part, except in cases where the work is so bad, it has to be retracted, such as the Lewandowsky-Cook Recursive Fury paper.
Wikipedia, being at the mercy of thousands of Winston Smiths in the form of the banned and maligned William Connolley, is like a shape-shifting information portal at the will of the controlling Wikipedians. It might be good enough for a passing blog reference, but there’s no guarantee it will have the same meaning as a citation tomorrow or even an hour from now. With such shape shifting references at the mercy of often politically motivated editors, it certainly isn’t good enough for scientific publication citation.
Maybe that’s why there has been a movement at colleges to ban Wikipedia as a source, even going so far recently as to remove it from college dorm WiFi connections.
Zealots and activists like Connolley should never be trusted as editors, (his track record speaks for itself) and Wikipedia edit wars were even the subject of a study. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not very good at self-policing such editing zealotry, and this is why Wikipedia will eventually fall by the wayside as a serious reference source.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wikipedia is about as democratic as a banna republic. Connolleys unbaning proves that. When he was banned for life, there is a long debate and a large vote involving many wikipedians. When he was unbanned his friends put quickly forward the measure and voted him back with little discussion under the cover of night. It was over and done with before anyone knew it was happening.
That is pretty much how Wikipedia operates in a nutshell.
JohnWho says:
August 21, 2014 at 7:26 am
@ur momisugly rogerknights:
How about “Wiki’d down” as in “dumbed down”?
======================================
Just shorten it to “Wiki’d”
Subjects that should have real citations or references – the Wikipedia entries for them have nice collections. Wikipedia itself hammers editors (article authors) for “sources”; they want real citations to back-up any kind of statement or assertion. They don’t want your opinion (no matter how erudite or decorated), and more importantly they do not want to see or hear about your “original research” – which is explicitly banned. That bears some thought.
Writing and editing on Wikipedia, in & of itself, is not hard. Though I am a long-time and slightly rabid supporter of WordPress … I much prefer the Wikipedia editing-system for content creation & modification. Wikipedia themselves have considered more-sophisticate & ‘cooler’ editing-facilities … and they quickly saw the error of their momentary infatuation. It is so easy, efficient and effective, even many academics are capable of participating. That’s a joke, son.
That William Connelly appears to be some kind of ‘case’ isn’t any definitive reflection on Wikipedia … any more than the fact that no small number of scientists (and an even less-small cohort of academics & scholars) are likewise various kinds of ‘case’, is a reflection on the journals that publish their work, or the schools that shelter them. Indeed, all of these institutions go out of their way and are proud, to harbor specimens who are ‘visible & notorious cases’. Just mind the rules that don’t bend…
The authors of our peer-review literature include many who will ‘see’ Connelly’s antics-anty, and ‘raise’ him every time. Stickler for consensus, science isn’t.
Connelly is a known-known, and therefore among the least of our worries. And remember, even more so than in peer-reviewed literature, his every creative move is meticulously recorded for posterity. Literally, every keystroke.
Wikipedia takes or allows the positions that we see on climate-topics, because both science and government back & sanction those positions. I happen to disagreed with them; I am skeptical of the “official” societal position on climate … but it is unrealistic to expect Wikipedia to buck both the Ivory Tower and City Hall.
A bit of historical perspective might be in order here; back in the late 70s when I was a grad student in library science we were given a reference assignment to choose one of Dr Harvey Einbinder’s (a scientist who wrote a popular book called “The Myth of the Britannica”, and several followup articles on the same subject) criticisms of the Britannica’s editorial policies, and try to find an example where it lead to the sort of problems Einbinder claimed. I examined the result of an editorial policy of choosing local authorities, and found that the main article on Czechoslovakia in the Britannica 3 at the time had been written by a professor at a university in Brno, and contained no mention whatsoever of the 1968 Warsaw Pact invasion that ended the Prague Spring.
Wiki says it itself: “Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose.” [Emphasis original.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
‘Nuff said.
Plenty of people here saying that Wikipedia can be useful for non-controversial subjects. I would recommend first checking the “talk” page of any subject as what may, on the surface, seem uncontroversial can generate as much bitter infighting and edit wars as any article on the Middle East.
@Alfred Ledner Clayton
Indeed, reference and citation are being forced down the throats of (some) editors but this is based on survival instinct (internal wars) not on comprehension of what it means to use a reference. For instance, it is common to find that the referenced material HAS NOT BEEN READ and, rather, it has simply been used to justify the editors’ views based on a headline or a single line in an abstract or conclusion. Consequently, referencing in Wikipedia has some “link value” but near zero content value.
And, yes, the notion of using references comes from academia, indirectly attempting to gain some credibility from this established method of literature review. Wikilords are amusingly and tragically unaware that the use of references is just as incompetent in the academia itself where blatant fallacies survive for decades due to a failure to read the cited material.
If you have the time, look up the “discussion” pages that have not been nuked out of existence. You will find the most bizarre abuse imaginable as editors try to justify their incomprehensible “reasons” for censoring whatever they dislike.
Wikipedia and Google are two of the most powerful forces in today’s digital society. I use them as a to find entries on whatever topic that is on my mind and then as the first source of information. I know that I must not trust Wikipedia as the last word, the final say, the ultimate judge of all matters but greatly appreciate that thousands of well meaning people have assembled a huge reservoir of historical, technical, geographic and biographical information for my quick and easy access and they provide a sizeable list of links to original data sources at the end of most entries.
I have read and appreciate the numerous examples of distorted and agenda driven entries in the comments above. And, I also appreciate the position of those involved in higher education. But as an old man who for the first 55 years of his life had to rely on limited, old and hard to find entries in a my set of encyclopedias and often had to make long and difficult trips to the library and then thumb through index cards, and then look through dusty, dark shelves to find the tidbits of information I needed, I am thrilled to be part of the age of Google and Wikipedia.
The only force of greater power is the system that brings these two tools to my home, the internet.
It is a wonderful world we live in today.
There have always been bad guys messing with us. William Connelly is one of many today. But look, we know all about him today and can cleanse our lives of his vendettas. In the 30s and 40s I mostly didn’t know who were the bad guys messing with my quest for information. That lead to me cast lots of dumb votes and hold incorrect options.
Without the internet and all the tools and sites we use today, where would be climate skeptics be in our quest of information and efforts to spread our point of view? Wikipedia is far from perfect but not a total loss to us. And another and increasingly powerful internet source, You Tube is wide open for us and spreads our work far and wide.
I would love it if a group of global warming skeptic climate scientists would set out to work every day to present a balanced scientific perspective to our topic via Wikipedia. Just as they have created such a great document in the NIPCC (both hard copy and on-line), I wish they would tackle Wiki and Google search results. Rather that complain, enter the cyber battle, please.
I’m not ashamed to use Wikipedia. It quickly provides me access to subject summaries and material that is either inaccessible or not able to be accessed in a timely fashion. Why dig through references and articles for a two-minute blog reply? How can I justify buying a paywalled paper to verify a source for one or two facts?
In many ways, it’s like using a book review to evaluate a book. You haven’t read the book yourself, but you can learn enough to know what the book was about. You can also gauge if it is worth the investment of your time and money to read the book, or if you’ve saved both by reading the review instead.
And if all you needed to know was a lead character’s occupation for a trivia question, why not just read a review? Many times, reading the whole book makes no sense.
Wikipedia shows up quickly on Google, because Google knows people likely only want to refresh their memories on a few facts, or glance at a subject, garner some factoids. They’re likely not looking for books for their reading list, or to study an internet-posted 328-page treatise to get the gist of some minor movement in the art world.
Wikipedia is the McDonalds of facts, quick and easy, safe and comforting. I’m reading here comments from those who insist it’s not acceptable dining without a proper wine list, none of that peasant-grade Bulgarian and Aussie dreck. If you can’t see the problem with your own perspective, you’ll never understand why Wikipedia will remain popular and trusted.
Stargazer says:
August 21, 2014 at 12:43 pm
DuckDuckGo (duckduckgo.com) is an excellent search engine that does not track your searches like Google, etc. And yes, ‘Anthony Watts’ can be found along with his rugby player namesake.
———–
Having never previously visited this site I tried it with “climate change” as the search phrase.
I was immediately overwhelmed with a flood of information on marches , conferences , announcements from Greenpeace ,and speeches by politicians and the great and the good of the academic world.
Just one mention of any sceptical input to the general argument. The impression is of a vast and overwhelmingly popular movement aimed at tearing down and rebuilding the global economy on strictly green lines.
I realised at that moment that all resistance is futile . For me “ze war is over”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuckDuckGo
(bold added)
*smirk*
BTW, I was trying a DuckDuckGo search, it complained the page required Javascript and gave me a “non-JS” version link. I was searching for “duckduckgo revenue”. Wikipedia was the third result.
The thing about DuckDuckGo is not that it’s a super search engine, but rather it doesn’t keep a record of what anyone searched for. So when the Secret Service wants to know which enemies of the state have been searching for “Obama SAT score,” DuckDuckGo doesn’t know. It’s a privacy thing, not a quality thing.
If anyone want to understand the Wikipedia bias
Go to the page of Fidel Castro. He is called a Leader.
then go to Pinochet page: He is called a Dictator.
From AlexS on August 22, 2014 at 2:31 am:
Pinochet assumed power after a military junta overthrew the government, and was very brutal. Dictator is appropriate, search results for “pinochet” show that to be a widely used term for him.
Castro is referred to as a leader, uncapitalized, used as a description.
How does that show bias?
Castro and Pinochet both came to power through a violent military overthrow of the existing government. The difference is one is considered right and the other left.
Only a dunce would not see the bias in their descriptions.
There is no such thing as a noncontroversial topic. Except maybe Abe Vigoda’s date of death.
A bit harsh. I find Wikipedia very useful for reading plot summaries for science fiction books and comic book superhero origins.
If they could propagandize the dictionary, they would.
97%
it’s one of those disingenuous numbers,
when you see it, you just know the rest
of the story whatever it is, will be rubbish.
About 117,000,000 results
have a look through for a good laugh
many of the 97% stories are hilarious.
On page 9 for instance …..
“McLane Stadium 97% complete with 8 weeks ’til kickoff”
“Golden North Vanilla 97% fat free”
“Slaughter and May is to keep on 97 per cent of its qualifying trainees”
“Hebrew National 97% Fat Free Beef Franks 11 oz”
….. but best of all on page 9 is this “Tweet”
from that great advocate, Barking Obarmy
“FACT: 97% of scientists and NASA accept the science of climate change.”
On page 17 of results, it is revealed that …..
“Survey finds 97% of GPs prescribe placebos” (in the UK)
and …
“97% of all new mobile malware is targeting Android”
and …
“The North Carolina Housing Finance Agency has just
released details on its new conventional loan product,
and it’s a good one. 97% Conventional loan with
2% Down Payment”. Whooeee !
and … according to “eMarketer” …
“97% of female internet users planned to use
social media while watching the Academy Awards.”
Yes Siree, it’s mostly all Bull$h1T this “97%”
https://www.google.com/search?&q=97%
As for William Connolley ….. Meh !
John Coleman says:
August 21, 2014 at 9:58 pm
Wikipedia and Google are two of the most powerful forces in today’s digital society.
Yes whole heartedly agree. Denigrating Wikipedia because of corrupt and/or dishonest and/or stupid individuals is rediculous. If that was the case we would have to abolish democracy itself since it is teeming with corrupt and/or dishonest and/or stupid politicians.
Or to go further, why not ban or demean the dicipline of science since it is working so poorly in the case of Climate science.
Fight the Connelys and their mis-information not the incredible information tools we now have instantly at our fingertips
Beyond the editing of wiki pages, Connolley often tries to rebut arguments in comments by giving references to wiki pages, claiming they give the “correct” view on the topic. A quick check of the edit history will reveal Connolley’s dirty paw prints all over the page.
Self-referencing. The man appears to have a huge ego and no shame.
Brute says @ur momisugly August 21, 2014 at 8:38 pm;
I was hoping for more along the lines of ‘at the point of a bayonet’, but I’ll settle for ‘forced down their throats’.
The moon-landing was a Hollywood production? Microelectronics are voodoo-props? Operating System and Internet software comes off the Harlequin Romance press?
Technical and scientific progress & achievement builds on successive layers of verified citation & reference. The system is subject to imperfections & even occasional corruption … but it put a live human being on the moon. It transplants human hearts from cadavers, to save lives.
We know there are downsides & costs to Democracy, and even the very concept of Freedom itself … but I’m not signing on to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
John Coleman makes some profound points. The way that the internet has changed the world is akin to how harnessing electricity changed it……. only in a different way and much faster.
I have learned 10’s of thousands of things, in an instant. Used sources to make house repairs, diagnose and treat medical conditions, save money……my wife uses it to spend money, so we come out even (: email 5 siblings that live thousands of miles apart and one hundred parents of children that I coach in chess……with one email(15 years ago, calling that many on the phone would take days).
Like with everything powerful that can be used to accomplish good, there will be those that attempt to use it for bad and sometimes, be successful.
I remember the days when we only had 3 tv stations to choose from and chuckle when somebody says there’s nothing on tv.
It’s all relative………Compared to the internet, where you type in whatever it is you want to see, hear(music), learn about or be entertained by, 1,000 channels on tv today, is nothing!
Wikipedia is just one of countless info sources on the internet. It is an option to include or exclude in info corroboration and searches. Unless it dramatically evolves, it is one of my lesser choices for info corroboration and search.
John
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 21, 2014 at 10:53 pm
I’m not ashamed to use Wikipedia. It quickly provides me access to subject summaries and material that is either inaccessible or not able to be accessed in a timely fashion. Why dig through references and articles for a two-minute blog reply? How can I justify buying a paywalled paper to verify a source for one or two facts?
—————-
I agree. It’s a fantastic resource; you have to know its limitations, but you have to know the limitations of ANY source of knowledge on the Internet, even wattsupwiththat.com.
Why are you guys being so hard on William Connolley? He is really really funny – a total crackup. Oh wait… maybe I’m thinking of William “Billy” Connolly, the Scottish comedian. My bad. Never mind.