Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Newsnight | Main | Helmer withdraws apology to Houghton »
Sunday
Aug222010

Enjoying Wiki

I'm thoroughly amused by the latest contribution to the Wiki talk page on the Hockey Stick Illusion. As previously, please don't get involved. Leave this to those who are already there. This avoids trouble with Wiki's canvassing rules.

Just get some popcorn and have a good giggle.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (22)

The enormous effort to find the smallest inconsistency in THI shows how worried the alarmists are about the excellent reception that the book has been getting.

Aug 22, 2010 at 10:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

I'm quite enjoying the incredulity at finding no critical reviews to "balance" the POV.

Aug 22, 2010 at 10:20 PM | Unregistered Commentermrsean2k

Amusing to see the discussion precessing down to the positioning of references relative to quotes. The next stage will be debating the number of hockey sticks able to dance on the head of a pin.

...and elsewhere the diehards are writing statistical packages in VB2008 (shudder) because R is too much trouble. One really can't help forming the impression that there are too many climatologists with too little to do.

Aug 22, 2010 at 11:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

went through an entire bag of mw popcorn reading the Wiki debate.

great fun !

Aug 23, 2010 at 12:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterEd Forbes

From the discussion pages:

The current synopsis is not very satisfactory - it's drawn directly from the book, in effect being an individual editor's summary of a primary source, rather than reflecting reliable secondary sources. I therefore propose to rewrite it as follows, drawing on McIntosh's handy summary of the book:

So according to wiki, when you write a synopsis of a book you shouldn't use the book's contents to write the synopsis, you should instead use secondary sources!

Aug 23, 2010 at 12:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

I know its bad form to reply to you own comment but...

Re: TerryS
To paraphrase one of the legendary scientists from the CRU

We'll change the synopses somehow - even if we have to redefine what synopsis is !

[BH adds:LOL!!!]

Aug 23, 2010 at 12:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

That cathedral of impartial wisdom appears to have convened, in an inner sanctum, a special disciplinary court of the ecumenical council of high priests, to decide how best to denigrate the wayward bishop, and at the same time eject one of their own.

Aug 23, 2010 at 12:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

The Bishop is like Martin Luther.

From Wikipedia:
"His translation of the Bible into the language of the people (instead of Latin) made it more accessible, causing a tremendous impact on the church and on German culture."

Aug 23, 2010 at 2:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterShub Niggurath

ZT,
Surely winding the friction tape on the blade of the hockey stick should be counterclockwise when facing the stick from the end of the blade - or maybe that's before MM's time.

Aug 23, 2010 at 3:11 AM | Unregistered Commenterj ferguson

Nice one, Shub ;)

Onto the Bishop....Wow! If this were the "Pear Review Process", none of the "young sciences" would be in the "big books". I am unsure we would be 'bitchen' about anything. All from just a "logical" and "cited" level, this is evaluation on a level I have never seen in anything so precise (good and bad 'analysis').

<thumbs_up>All I can affirm, you are making people think, keep it up!</thumbs_up>

See if you can get Connelley to join in ;)

Aug 23, 2010 at 4:15 AM | Unregistered Commenterintrepid_wanders

Some Google numbers -
The Hockey Stick Illusion 282,000
The Hockey Stick Illusion Review 104,000
Andrew Montford 236,000 (the may be other AMs of course)

The Wiki Article
Words 1,880
Lines 218

The Wiki "Discussion"
Words 20,917
Lines 1,822

They really just can't comprehend that the more they try to confuse the issue, the sillier they look.

Aug 23, 2010 at 7:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterGrantB

GrandB

In that context, perhaps: "Never in the field of Human Climatology has so short an article been discussed so much by so few!"

Aug 23, 2010 at 10:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

The ecclesiastical allusions remind me of the words that George Bernard Shaw put into the mouth of the Archbishop of Rhiems, in response to a question of what a miracle is - “A miracle, my friend, is an event which creates faith. That is the purpose and nature of miracles. They may seem very wonderful to the people who witness them, and very simple to those who perform them. That does not matter: if they confirm or create faith they are true miracles”.
And then in reply to “Even when they are frauds, do you mean”, the Archbishop replies “Frauds deceive. An event which creates faith does not deceive: therefore it is not a fraud, but a miracle.”
For members of the church of AGW, replace miracle with “science” – their new definition of what science is!

Aug 23, 2010 at 10:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterThe Lesser Plank

But, of course, as we all know, the hockey stick graph is not important for the CAGW case, and in fact, even if it was proven wrong, that would only mean that the case for action is even stronger. </sarc>

Aug 23, 2010 at 12:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter B

Ah, it's Wiki. Let the wiki-heads do their mental masturbation in private.

Aug 23, 2010 at 4:59 PM | Unregistered Commentermojo

.....and just how many other recently published books are scrutinised in microscopic detail?

This is a complete farce. Someone really needs to get a grip before Wikipedia loses what little credibility it still has.

Aug 23, 2010 at 5:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Carter

Wait Wikipediea has credibility?

Aug 23, 2010 at 7:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterTomT

this rubbish happens all the time. the wiki page about energy&environment, as written by Citizen Connelly, was hugely scoffing at first. While its still pretty scornful, Conn and his acolytes have had to tone it down a bit. The discussion pages are good fun, it seems Conn and his mates can say whatever they like, no-one else can, and they decide what wiki rules mean. Still, the changes show that pressure has a liitle bit of an effect eventually. So hang on there Bishop, one day Wiki might go as far as saying your book's not complete balls.

Aug 23, 2010 at 9:26 PM | Unregistered Commenterbill

Just a note on the Wiki-game, in case anyone's thinking of getting involved. It is actually official Wikipedia policy that the only hard and fast rule is IAR: Ignore All Rules when not doing so makes Wikipedia obviously worse. Without that, the whole thing is a giant game of Gnomic, but once you know that it makes strategies for cutting through the chaff a bit clearer.

Still, why bother? You'd have to be pretty dumb to get any information from that Wikipedia page other than 'this is not a topic on which Wikipedia can be trusted'.

Aug 23, 2010 at 11:57 PM | Unregistered Commenterdave

"this is not a topic on which Wikipedia can be trusted."

Hey, that is a good idea. Wiki pages that have had controversy (locked down, tons of back and forth, whatever) should get that disclaimer!

James

Aug 24, 2010 at 6:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames

Wow. It's like pulling teeth.

If even a tiny fraction of this sort of scrutiny had been applied to the warmist claims...

Aug 24, 2010 at 10:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterWat

We'll change the synopses somehow - even if we have to redefine what synopsis is !

The Bishop is like Martin Luther. WP: "His translation of the Bible into the language of the people (instead of Latin) made it more accessible, causing a tremendous impact on the church and on German culture."

"Never in the field of Human Climatology has so short an article been discussed so much by so few!"

If even a tiny fraction of this sort of scrutiny had been applied to the warmist claims...

Methinks Josh has some more good material here.

Aug 24, 2010 at 10:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterLucy Skywalker

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>