Someone is wrong on Wikipedia…

According to today’s Telegraph Global Warming is the fifth most edited entry in Wikipedia. This is of course no surprise, with the well-known hyper-revisionism of climate zealot William Connolley.

Wikipedia

No wonder it is not to be trusted on climate-related topics. The data was taken from pages edited throughout 2010, when Connolley was active, then banned (see here, here, here, here and here).  Who knows – it could even have been higher up the list without his ban.

With all the edit wars on climate, I imagine there were many late nights.  As Wikipedia itself puts it

“One person’s improvement is another’s desecration”.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in CAGW, Climate, News and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Someone is wrong on Wikipedia…

  1. Love that XKCD cartoon, Verity 🙂

  2. Bloke down the pub says:

    What would be so difficult about having separate entries so that both views can be expressed? Someone needs to knock heads together.

  3. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Thanks for clearing up the “late night” link. One restless night was enough.

    BTW, can anyone summarize where the Wikipedia/GW battle stands just now?

  4. j ferguson says:

    Verity,
    Thanks for this. It is quite a list. One (me for example) might wonder if this odd combination is possible because there isn’t all that much editing. On the chance that there is, I suppose these to be controversial subjects; but Wrestling Entertainment Employees? Who would have thought?

  5. Verity Jones says:

    If you look at the Wikipedia ‘Talk’ pages, you can see the debates amongst the editors, however these are removed/replaced eventually. When writing about Ian Plimer, https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/what-planet-is-he-on/ I got a blog comment that said:

    If you fancy yourself an intellectually honest person, you ought to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ian_Plimer#Volcanoes_.26_CO2_section.

    The page of WP has now been replaced but I saved a copy here. Evidence of a lot of editing, and that one perhaps less than some.

  6. petermg says:

    Verity I have these observations about Wikipedia that I think could apply to any on-line information source and I think is the result of our obsession with “expertise” and our almost wilful ignorance of for want of a better phrase, joined up thinking. Because climate science has impinged on our everyday lives, we the unwashed have cast our microscopes over both the climate scientists and our political leaders who love to quote “experts” as if this absolves them of having to think and take personal responsibility for their decisions. They have all been found wanting and they don’t like us telling them so. What we have found is to be found in every walk of life. 20% do all the real work with 5% actually knowing what they are truly talking about; 60% are journeymen just along for the ride contributing little and the remaining 20% completely useless.

    When it comes to the quality of work in Wikipedia it is not just climate science where there are glaring errors. They are everywhere, but the difference is they don’t cost us money, so in the main we don’t care. My children know that when looking for information Wikipedia is there only to get them started and everything needs to be corroborated.

    Science in particular has an issue that it is not confronting. What we find in Wikipedia is far too often found in other on-line scientific sources not to mention printed media.

    Let me give an example. I have been looking to plot CO2 concentration in the earth’s atmosphere over Geological time going back 4.5 billion years. You would think this would be easy to get (OK so its educated guesswork) given the number of geologists, chemists and physicists that have published works on this. But what I have found is that recent papers only quote percentages without absolute values and if the evidence they quote contradicts climate science orthodoxy they completely fudge the results.

    So doing some lateral thinking I looked at papers looking at O2 concentrations, as these have to be related to available CO2, as free O2 only exists as a result of life. I also thought that as CO2 wasn’t the main focus of attention the “greenhouse gas” word wouldn’t be mentioned.

    So all the papers I have read agree that the amount of CO2 could have been up to 10,000 times the amount we have today, in other words CO2 has always been the predominant gas in our atmosphere (until recently in geological time) and the atmospheric pressure has for the most part been far greater than today, perhaps in excess of 100 bar to begin with. This all makes sense given what we see with Venus. Yet some of these very same papers will then insert something like this which I quote here in full in their summary, which completely ignores all the previous evidence.

    “Assuming that atmospheric pressure was the same as that today, which seems to be a reasonable assumption, according to climatologists, this would be equivalent to between 15-16 percent oxygen, compared to 21 percent present today”
    This is a reference about the last 410million years, and is buy no means an isolated instance. It seems to me that the entire scientific community remove their brains when it comes to evidence that contradicts the current climate orthodoxy.

Comments are closed.