Why Wikipedia cannot be trusted...
-
The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD. The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history. All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement. The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear. http://www.infowars.com/the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/[^] http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx[^] http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjU1ZDBhOGExOWRlNzc5ZDcwOTUxZWM3MWU2Mjc5MGE=[^]
-
The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD. The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history. All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement. The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear. http://www.infowars.com/the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/[^] http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx[^] http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjU1ZDBhOGExOWRlNzc5ZDcwOTUxZWM3MWU2Mjc5MGE=[^]
What is your response to the posts made in this forum explaining why 'ClimateGate' is a non issue ? Do you have a response ? I guess not, given that none of this is your opinion, or your thoughts, you just copied and pasted it from the web.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD. The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history. All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement. The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear. http://www.infowars.com/the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/[^] http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx[^] http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjU1ZDBhOGExOWRlNzc5ZDcwOTUxZWM3MWU2Mjc5MGE=[^]
-
Wikipedia can't be trusted since idiots like you are allowed to post and edit things there.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Even the guys that run it warn not to use it as a primary source. I don't see what the big deal is. Anything contentious, I would not trust Wiki for, I'd not even read there. I thought everyone knew that people can edit Wiki entries.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD. The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history. All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement. The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear. http://www.infowars.com/the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/[^] http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx[^] http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjU1ZDBhOGExOWRlNzc5ZDcwOTUxZWM3MWU2Mjc5MGE=[^]
-
The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD. The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history. All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement. The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear. http://www.infowars.com/the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/[^] http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx[^] http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjU1ZDBhOGExOWRlNzc5ZDcwOTUxZWM3MWU2Mjc5MGE=[^]
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia
I'd say more people read the bible everyday and consider it a source of facts than wikipedia
I doubt that is true.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Even the guys that run it warn not to use it as a primary source. I don't see what the big deal is. Anything contentious, I would not trust Wiki for, I'd not even read there. I thought everyone knew that people can edit Wiki entries.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I use it when I need a quick look at something technical, historic, or geographic. For anything political or religious, it's very questionable. I guess forcing people to register to be able to edit articles cut down the noise to a dull roar but I don't pay attention to those topics on there.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
I use it when I need a quick look at something technical, historic, or geographic. For anything political or religious, it's very questionable. I guess forcing people to register to be able to edit articles cut down the noise to a dull roar but I don't pay attention to those topics on there.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Yes, I agree. I'd read history on it, that's the main thing I'd use it for.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Wikipedia can't be trusted since idiots like you are allowed to post and edit things there.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
What's funny is he probably doesn't realize that's most likely the reason the scientist was so active in editing it. Makes me wonder if there's an academic/researcher only wiki out there that requires proof of work in the field before you can edit. That may actually be worth reading.
-
I doubt that is true.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Change Bible to "religious text" and it is true. And far too many people are literalists. I don't get that. One would think they would understand the concept of allegory and realize that stories are told to get people to understand hard concepts when you aren't sure how else to explain them. Considering the Bible couldn't manage to go without contradicting itself in less than 2 chapters I wouldn't consider it a good source of data. Far too many people shut off the part of their brain associated with reasoning when it comes to beliefs. ANY beliefs. We see it when people think there is a conspiracy out to get them. We see it when state rivals in football meet. We see it when a friend drives up in his new Ford and you have a Chevy (Insert any car manufacturer and it still works) and we see it a ton in political parties and religion. People can't stand the thought that they are wrong on some deep level and thinking you are wrong on religion is a huge thing because it then questions why you do things. I lost my ability to be too proud to question myself a long time ago. Maybe it was the fact that my pride nearly got me homeless in a harsh winter with no heat in my house. Maybe it was losing one of the lvoes of my life because I couldn't figure out that I was a stupid effing tard in an argument. Maybe it was that I just wanted to get past crap and move on to fix things in my life. Regardless, I find myself a lot more fluid. People that are more fluid tend not to blow up buildings, stab their friends over arguments, or attempt to control other people's lives instead of minding their own amn business. (I'm still taking over the world though. Ian, I have a position open in HR if you are interested. My chief recruiter decided he could do better on his own and attempted to take a bunch of henchmen with him.)
-
Change Bible to "religious text" and it is true. And far too many people are literalists. I don't get that. One would think they would understand the concept of allegory and realize that stories are told to get people to understand hard concepts when you aren't sure how else to explain them. Considering the Bible couldn't manage to go without contradicting itself in less than 2 chapters I wouldn't consider it a good source of data. Far too many people shut off the part of their brain associated with reasoning when it comes to beliefs. ANY beliefs. We see it when people think there is a conspiracy out to get them. We see it when state rivals in football meet. We see it when a friend drives up in his new Ford and you have a Chevy (Insert any car manufacturer and it still works) and we see it a ton in political parties and religion. People can't stand the thought that they are wrong on some deep level and thinking you are wrong on religion is a huge thing because it then questions why you do things. I lost my ability to be too proud to question myself a long time ago. Maybe it was the fact that my pride nearly got me homeless in a harsh winter with no heat in my house. Maybe it was losing one of the lvoes of my life because I couldn't figure out that I was a stupid effing tard in an argument. Maybe it was that I just wanted to get past crap and move on to fix things in my life. Regardless, I find myself a lot more fluid. People that are more fluid tend not to blow up buildings, stab their friends over arguments, or attempt to control other people's lives instead of minding their own amn business. (I'm still taking over the world though. Ian, I have a position open in HR if you are interested. My chief recruiter decided he could do better on his own and attempted to take a bunch of henchmen with him.)
ragnaroknrol wrote:
One would think they would understand the concept of allegory and realize that stories are told to get people to understand hard concepts when you aren't sure how else to explain them.
Agreed
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Considering the Bible couldn't manage to go without contradicting itself in less than 2 chapters I wouldn't consider it a good source of data.
I'd love to see proof of this
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
What's funny is he probably doesn't realize that's most likely the reason the scientist was so active in editing it. Makes me wonder if there's an academic/researcher only wiki out there that requires proof of work in the field before you can edit. That may actually be worth reading.
There are a number of web sites now that provide a place for scientists to "self publish" their work without having to go through the usual peer reviewed journal process which can often take up to 2 years. The journals themselves are published usually by book companies and are, to put it mildy, expensive. I think some of the sites have peer review panels while others are simply repositories. Certainly, people aren't allowed to go in and spray graffiti over things they don't like. Scientific Commons[^], DSpace[^], and Open Access Journals[^] are some I know about.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.