The Wonderful World of Wikipedia

[IanC]

The Wonderful World of Wikipedia | Watts Up With That?

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.

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 use 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.

the climategate2.0 emails have a lot of background on this story. funny how all the people who cried "taken out of context" when the first batch of emails came out are not being very vocal anymore. the emails show the context very well, thank you.

I wonder who mastcell is? W Connelly was banned from Wiki a while back for being obnoxious in rewriting climate articles that had any criticism of 'consensus' so its probably no him. I bet it is one of the other peripheral members of the hockey team though.

 

[RollingThunder]

The Wonderful World of Wikipedia | Watts Up With That?

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.

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 use 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.

the climategate2.0 emails have a lot of background on this story. funny how all the people who cried "taken out of context" when the first batch of emails came out are not being very vocal anymore. the emails show the context very well, thank you.

I wonder who mastcell is? W Connelly was banned from Wiki a while back for being obnoxious in rewriting climate articles that had any criticism of 'consensus' so its probably no him. I bet it is one of the other peripheral members of the hockey team though.

LOLOLOL....you are such a nutjob, falling for anything that that professional liar Watts publishes.

Here's the actual scoop on the fossil fuel industry sponsored stooge Willie Soon and his bogus paper.

CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal
(excerpts - much more info on original website)

This investigation shows that Dr. Soon has received substantial funding from the fossil fuel industry for most of his scientific career and heavy corporate funding in the last decade.

 

[skookerasbil]

The Wonderful World of Wikipedia | Watts Up With That?

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.

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 use 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.

the climategate2.0 emails have a lot of background on this story. funny how all the people who cried "taken out of context" when the first batch of emails came out are not being very vocal anymore. the emails show the context very well, thank you.

I wonder who mastcell is? W Connelly was banned from Wiki a while back for being obnoxious in rewriting climate articles that had any criticism of 'consensus' so its probably no him. I bet it is one of the other peripheral members of the hockey team though.

LOLOLOL....you are such a nutjob, falling for anything that that professional liar Watts publishes.

Here's the actual scoop on the fossil fuel industry sponsored stooge Willie Soon and his bogus paper.

CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal
(excerpts - much more info on original website)

This investigation shows that Dr. Soon has received substantial funding from the fossil fuel industry for most of his scientific career and heavy corporate funding in the last decade.

lmao.........is this guy not the chief architect of the irrelevant link on thIs forum........like a mental patient screaming from inside the padded room.

So fcukking what..........green energy is a laughingstock outside the world of the radicals, and I posted up about 15 links the other day spelling it out.........WSJ.......Forbes.........Realclear........the links went on for pages and pages.

Meanwhile......for all the BS science links RT posts up in here, he has yet to post up a single solitary fcukking link that displays for the readers that the science is matterring one iota in terms of how it is influencing public policy. And ummm..........know what that means????

 

[IanC]

Rolling Thunder- first off, the article was not written by Anthony Watts. it was presented on the website run by Watts just as many other interesting articles are. I dont pre-emptively dismiss anything posted by SkepticalScience even though SkS seem to have a very skewed position and questionable practises, at least in my opinion. you may enjoy living in an echo chamber but I like reading both sides of the issue as I find it gives me a better perspective and a better chance of picking out the wheat from the chaff.

back to the OP. the article is about wikipedia retaining incorrect statements in a history of the Soon Balunas/ DeFrias controversy. they continue to quote a second hand source that gives the hockey team's side of the story even when there is first hand sources that contradict it, not to mention the absolute stupidity of even considering that a science paper can get published with all the reviewers recommending rejection.

this is yet another story where the climategate2.0 emails has show the skullduggery, conspiracy and generally low class and unethical behaviour of many of the climate science principals. it is very interesting that you fall into the same tactics. rather than just admit that the whole affair was handled badly by the scientists and wikipedia (and the media in general) you just try to deflect criticism of the hockey team by accusing S&B of being tainted by Big Oil. I didnt read your link but I have seen it before. I think it is hilarious that S&B are castigated for defending the old consensus opinion that there was a MWP and LIA, by cataloguing historical evidence. but you dont have a problem with M Mann using the Tiljander cores upsidedown and against the wishes of the scientist who took them. RT, you are a closed minded hypocrite.

 

[Old Rocks]

Watts publishs much shit on his site. It is his site, therefore, he is just as responsible for that as the Wickpedia people are for what is on their site.

 

[IanC]

Watts publishs much shit on his site. It is his site, therefore, he is just as responsible for that as the Wickpedia people are for what is on their site.

Watts puts all sorts of articles on his site, and anyone is more likely to get a more complete idea of what is going on in climate science by reading WUWT than by reading just SkepticalScience or Real Climate. plus the links to other sites are more comprehensive and the moderation of the comments is kept to a minimum. you cant say that about pro-AGW sites.

 

[bripat9643]

LOLOLOL....you are such a nutjob, falling for anything that that professional liar Watts publishes.

Here's the actual scoop on the fossil fuel industry sponsored stooge Willie Soon and his bogus paper.

CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal
(excerpts - much more info on original website)

This investigation shows that Dr. Soon has received substantial funding from the fossil fuel industry for most of his scientific career and heavy corporate funding in the last decade.

Ad hominem argument - a logical fallacy.

Only morons find logical fallacies convincing.

 

[IanC]

Ideas stand or fall by their own merit. it does not matter who voices them.

opinions are a different matter altogether. an opinion is only as strong as the number of people who will agree with it even though they dont know if it is true or not. appeal to authority is the basis of consensus and settled science.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK. A site by real scientists, not a dumbass like Watts.

AGW Observer

 

[bripat9643]

OK. A site by real scientists, not a dumbass like Watts.

AGW Observer

Your link times out.

 

[IanC]

Watts publishs much shit on his site. It is his site, therefore, he is just as responsible for that as the Wickpedia people are for what is on their site.

you are certainly within your rights to start a thread attacking Watts and his website. actually I think you already have a few times.

do you have any opinions on wikipedia putting up false information to support the members of the hockey team that chose to attack the character of authors who wrote skeptical papers, and attempt to get them fired, rather than the usual method of just disputing the findings? of course not! I have asked you numerous times in the past to comment on the underhanded methods of Mann, Jones,etc and you always choose to deflect and divert instead.