Bishop Hill Wikifun
Jan 11, 2012 Climate: MWP Climate: Sceptics Further to yesterday's post on Wikipedia's Soon and Baliunas article, do go and take a look at the talk page for the article, where the usual suspects are going through agonising contortions over why the allegation - that Chris de Freitas accepted an article that had been rejected by four peer reviewers - should stand, despite the retraction of that claim that Fred Pearce sent me.
Much of this seems to centre around whether I am a reliable source under Wiki rules. This is not a question that bothers me hugely, but I must say, I thought that as a published author in the area, I might carry some weight.
Perhaps more importantly though, given the damaging nature of the allegations for de Freitas's reputation, I would have wanted quite a lot of documentary evidence to support them. If there was even a hint that they were wrong, I would be erring on the side of caution. Each to their own, I suppose.
(As always with Wikipedia, please don't get involved - there are rules against canvassing for support).
Bishop Hill
TerryS in the comments notes that the text of the article has now been changed, and also an ongoing discussion on Jimmy Wales' Wiki page.
Reader Comments (78)
Bless Darkness Shines...noticed he even got a dig in about the other chaos religious views :)
But seriously, Pearce says he got it wrong? Surely that's enough to remove ALL references to the four reviewers "myth"? Maybe Bish should send a copy of the email to the powers that be or get Pearce to email the clerics at Wikipedia?
Mailman
Why isn't there a Wikipedia reference for 'Cognitive Cacaphony'?
========================
Bishop
Do you know if Pearce will be issuing a retraction?
Bish:
You have shown yourself to be unreliable and at best, you are a clown!. You are running a fringe blog (how many hits was it to date?) and it is an unreliable blog. I'll just have to stop coming here!
The one undeniable good thing about wiki is that even if there is a lot of crap on offer for the casual shopper to get fooled into buying, they do allow the curious to peak behind the curtain and see the process that created it.
Bish
I am very concerned about the impact on Chris d F. He is a bloody stalwart academic with a sense of balance, and the frothing disparagement that has gone on is unjustified.
As has been minutely examined on the S&B/CdF 'Discussion' thread (before it descended into Polar bear nonsense), the S&B paper did have academic merit, in showing via metastudy that the MWP was globally widespread and significant (I think I even got BBD to agree to that). On the other hand its conclusions were overstated.
That Chris should be the subject of such opprobrium for passing this, when crap like Mann's 'Hockey Stick' not only passes peer review but gets to be a central tenet of the CAGW scare, is telling. Why are those who calmly passed MBH98 and the like not under greater pressure?
I read up yesterday on the Johann Hari plagiarism and wikipedia shenanigans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Hari
It seems that wiki's credibility (in climate science at least) may be slipping even further than it did due to the Conolley, Dabelstein et al serial re-editing and smearing of opponents.
The Hari "outing" is demonstrating just the tip of the iceberg of dirty tricks in the media promotion of the IPCC and climate alarmism and the self-serving malice of perpetrators.
I once tried to modify Joe Romm's Wikipedia entry so that it would reflect Joe Romm's definition of himself (and the Center for American Progress').
Well, it was not possible to get that in.
The self-anointed priests of Romm-hood could not get around to grant Romm the credibility to explain who he is, and what he does.
Since those people are obsessive in the extreme, they will always have the upper hand in changing articles against those that simply want to contribute in their spare time.
IOW Wikipedia is a collection of the works of unhinged characters with too much time in their hands. DNA readers should have expected that, with the uninterrupted lineage from the time of the Golgafrinchans and all that.
"That Chris should be the subject of such opprobrium for passing this, when crap like Mann's 'Hockey Stick' not only passes peer review but gets to be a central tenet of the CAGW scare, is telling. Why are those who calmly passed MBH98 and the like not under greater pressure?"
At least it seems virtually all climate scientists I've seen are willing to stake their professional reputations in defending the hockey stick. So if (when) it is conclusively laid to rest it should at least have some impact when looking back at all the comments that have been made over it.
This is from the talk page and is a comment by Dave Souza claiming The Climate Wars is a reliable source.
This is from the talk page of the Hockey Stick Controversy by the same wiki editor Dave Souza.
It seems a reliable source is only reliable if it agrees with your POV
The article has now been changed but you might be interested in Jimbo Wales talk page as well since it mentions the article.
I noticed that the Wikipedia entry on Piers Corbyn mentions erroneous forecasts he made way back in 1989 and 1997 but it does not mention his stunning success just over a year ago when he predicted the coldest December in Britain and northwest Europe for 100 years!
The reason for this apparent bias could not possibly be that Piers Corbyn does not believe that CO2 is the main factor in climate change, could it?
Reliability is in the eye of the beholder -- summed up by one of those irregular verbs that dominate discourse in climate science:
I am telling the truth,
You are biased,
He is spreading disinformation on behalf of Big Oil,
We are saving the planet,
You are selfishly polluting the atmosphere
They are destroying the future for our children and our children's children.
My favourite quote by Dave Souza from the page referred to above:
How entertaining, a fringe blog seems to be trying to recruit meatpuppets to change articles to support their own version of reality.
There aren't enough sceptics to be everywhere though, and at least it keeps them out of worse mischeif.
I should have also mentioned I originally got the above info from WUWT
Re: Scotts
A curious quote to choose. The version of reality that Souza is referring to is the truth. That is, that all four reviewers did not reject the manuscript (in fact non of them did).
Do you really believe that it would be a good thing to maintain Dave Souza's false reality?
I didn't see this on WUWT so thanks TerryS for the pointer to read Jimmy Wales on his own talk page:
That's from 18:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC).
Re: Richard
The "I should be clear on something..." tacitly acknowledges that he believes he will be discriminated against unless he maintains his belief in AGW
The simple answer is to send Jimbo the message that hundreds of thousands of us will NOT donate (to what is otherwise a worthy cause) until he deals with WMC, David Souza, and the other activists that are deliberately, and knowingly, corrupting truth.
I urge readers here to contact Wikipedia and tell them so.
I just realised who Jimbo Wales is...hope he'll appreciate my frankness (user:mmorabito67) 8-D
Terry, I see the "I should be clear on something..." as standard boilerplate these days. Who wants to be called a denier? It's an indication of the way the intellectual tide is. And the tide will change. Jimmy Wales is helping that happen right now.
BBD - Without wanting to hijack this thread (so perhaps limit yourself to 5 lines?) I'd love to hear your energetically sufficient explanation for this (h/t lapogus) :
map of Glacier Bay in Alaska, which clearly shows that the glacial retreat in the last 50 years is actually very small fraction of the total glacial retreat since the end of the Little Ice Age.
Interesting - Dave Souza seemed to ignore every attempt to get him to fix the problem until Jimbo Wales says that it's obviously wrong, then it gets fixed.
matthu
Glaciers are a complex proxy for climate change. Glacial advance (and retreat) is a function of air temperature at the snout and precipitation above the snow line. Glaciers are highly sensitive to regional conditions (DeBeer & Sharp 2007). Cherry-picked examples are misleading. The facts about global glacier change are available from the World Glacier Monitoring Service. N. America summary here.
BBD - Thanks for the reference.
mondo Jan 11, 2012 at 10:34 AM
Well, I last time they were asking for funds I got a message purporting to be a personal message to me from Jimmy Wales.
I sent a message back to Jimmy Wales mentioning issues with William Connolley but clearly (see below) it did not reach him and the reply did not really satisfy me.
Here is what I found in my email archive:
________________________________________________________________________
Dear Dr. Axxxxxxxxxx,
Thank you for your email.
12/22/2009 17:33 - Martin Axxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Dear Wikipaedia Representative,
> >
> > I was pleased to find on my screen the message from Jimmy Wales appealing for
> > financial support for Wikipaedia. I shall be grateful if you will kindly
> > forward
> > my response, below, to Jimmy Wales.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Martin Axxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Dear Jimmy Wales,
> >
> > I read your appeal for money to support Wikipaedia. I admire Wikipaedi and
> > I think it is of great benefit when it deals with uncontroversial matters.
> >
> > However, on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), I believe
> > that Wikipaedia is doing immense harm by presenting AGW scaremongering as
> > established fact. The issue is so serious that, in my opinion, the benefit
> > Wikipaedia provides is more than negated.
> >
> > I hope that this issue will be recognised and addressed by Wikipaedia. When
> > that happens, I shall be delighted to contribute to Wikipaedia's finanacial
> > support.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Martin Axxxxxxxxxx, PhD
> >
> >
> >
Mr. Wales does not have an active role in administering Wikipedia.
We are aware that there has been substantial coverage of global warming and
Wikipedia and also administrator William Connolley. We note that the coverage is
very one-sided, and fails to indicate that Mr. Connolley was stripped of his
administrative privileges over three months ago as part of several sanctions
against users involved in the behaviour mentioned.
Yours sincerely,
Joe Daly
-- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
steveta_uk:
This is no surprise for those of us watching Wikipedia from its inception. It's how he uses the power he's gained that will determine how history judges Mr Wales. And he's done well here.
(Can I add a plea that this thread stays on the theme of Wikipedia. Someone with a three-letter pseudonym seems not to want this important issue to be the focus, even as we discover the Wikipedia founder drawing some really important lines in the sand. I don't care why anyone wishes to divert this thread but I do care that they aren't allowed to succeed.)
As an example of why diversion of the thread may matter:
Nobody has commented on this. Personally I think the double standard over published authors in the climate area would be well worth the attention of the Wikipedia founder.
Not everyone who comments in a digressionary way wishes to dilute such important points from receiving due attention, I should hasten to add. Perhaps some do. The best solution either way is for the digression to go elsewhere.
Does the word "wikipaedophile" exist?
Lots of off topic stuff deleted. The subject is Wikipedia and the review of S&B.
Jimbo Wales has hit the nail on the head.
The claim that a journal would publish a paper when all four reviewers had recommended rejection is extremely far-fetched.
Anyone making such an extraordinary claim would need very strong evidence to support it.
This should have been obvious to Fred Pearce and the wikipedia editors.
"Does the word "wikipaedophile" exist?"
Google:
About 1,630 results (0.18 seconds)
Under Wikipedia rules, as I understand them, neither this blog nor WUWT can be cited for what is effectively hearsay evidence. Could you ask Fred Pearce if he would publish a correction on his web site?
http://authorsplace.co.uk/fred-pearce/
That could be cited in Wikipedia.
You shouldn't be surprised the warmists have the high ground, they started the war (metaphorically I hope) many years ago, while we were sleeping, and infiltrated the IPCC, and places like wikipaedia, while we were sleeping. they are going to be darn difficult to dislodge even though we're now awake. I believe now we're awake, we are conscious of the fanaticism that's driving these people and ohter scientists, who disagreed with the rubbish put out by the activists were all but silenced. But sense a growing fight back, with more people getting published with views that don't agree with the mainstream if that's the new name for consensus, both mean the same thing "Ya boo, there's lots of us so we must be right!" I believe the HSI will be a landmark book in showing the corruption inside the science and as it's pubication all but coincided with climategate 1 there was no need to show the evidence of the corruption it was in those emails and remains there. Others have followed, like Donna Laframboise, but the problem is that the constant campaign waged by the alarmists has included, when not being holocaust deniers, that sceptics are odd ball, flat earthers, not scientists. or technically inept or belong to strange religioius sects. Not like John Mitchell, John Houghton and Mike Hulme who belong to a perfectly normal religious sect called the John Ray Initiative.
Bish, you appear to have a Philip Bratby impersonator on the thread. How do I know that? Well Philip is too well educated to follow an exclamation mark with a full stop.
Sara Chan
Surely Fred Pearce's original comment was hearsay evidence also?
Wiki is garbage.
Did anybody even read the notes at the top of the talk page?
By Wiki's only policy the claim should not have been added in the first place as it is potentially libellous of De Freitas and a journalistic claim should surely be "poorly sourced".
Geckko:
Sigh. Can we at least distinguish between Wiki, the invention of Ward Cunningham in 1995, and Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that decided to use the wiki idea after Ben Kovitz, who I knew on Ward's original Wiki from 1999, recommended it to his friend Larry Sanger, who was then working for Jimmy Wales. I think they had that conversation in 2000.
Second, is Wikipedia really rubbish? I had an interesting email interaction with Stephen Fry in 2010 after he praised Wikipedia on a BBC programme on the Internet generally. I completely agreed with what Fry said about the wonders of Wikipedia but put him straight on a few points of the history, which I have to say he accepted very graciously. It helped that I'd spent significant time with 'the great Ward Cunningham' as Fry put it, which he had not, though he counts Wales as a friend.
I also raised the Open Climate Initiative in the same email to Fry. In the end he elected not to meet me about this but I have reason to think I got close.
But what if I had begun with "Wiki is garbage"?
We seem to be witnessing something of importance in the evolution of Wikipedia and it grave deficiencies in the area of climate. We do well not to throw out the baby with the bathwater and not to put unnecessary obstacles in people's minds.
Re: Richard Drake
In general wikipedia is pretty darn good. However, with anything even remotely contentious you need to also read the talk pages. Contentious items range from climate, religion and politics to sports events and teams.
While Wiki-bashing is obviously a lot of fun to some folk here, as long as you read it using correct content-filter loaded into you brain, I think you'll find it is a fantastic resource.
I personally use it several times a week for all sorts of general knowledge stuff, and for this it really can't be beaten.
And it has been compared in a serious way against Encyclopedia Britannica and found to have a similar error density.
About a year ago, I read through the process how Wikipedia referred to Climategate as something like the Stolen email incident involving the CRU. It was hilarious to see that the justification for using the word stolen came from an CAGW advocacy website. To Wikipedia's minor credit it has changed the title of its Climategate article to "Climatic Research Unit email controversy." However, the article refers to 8 committee investigations when it should have instead referred to whitewashes. For instance, an effort, such as Oxburgh's, that didn't even ask Jones whether he deleted emails is in no sense of the word an investigation.
JD
There is a clown from the technical university Munchen busy scoulding people in Wikipedia?
a Stephan Schulz, Dr. rer.nat., Dipl. Inform.
it writes:
Now this is from the side that never wrote inaccuracies in their books (Al Gore) , adhere to objective unbiased process (climate gate 1 ,2 ) and advocate people discussing diverse opinions (the tw-ts ate realclimate.org)
This just slightly lefwing German nannystate parasite seems to have too much taxpaidfor time on its hands, maybe he can explain himself here ?
We can have a look at its informatics achievements as well, then.
it refers on its homepage to its phd thesis (mathematical proofs of correctness for software..like in : anybody needs and uses that one) in a postscript format ??
this is with the reader in mind, you see.
less than 0.01% of pc owners have a pure postscript viewer installed
twenspewency lefwing style
I just dipped my toe into this snakes' pit and soon leapt out again, which all here would be advised to do if you value your health and sanity.
Slightly off topic, but does anybody know why the UEA crowd didn't like the S & B paper? I read it about a year ago, and to a non-climatologist (I'm a metallurgist) it seemed quite reasonable. Agree with steveta -on non contentious issues Wiki is very good, plus the links at the end of the entries can point you to more serious sources.
Has anybody asked Fred Pearce nicely, if hevcould publish his corrected thoughts on his own blog..
That should satisfy, the wiki gstekeepers..
Their response should be interesting.. is only to see if there are any further contortions
it is interesting to compare the treatment of Soons and Baliunas with the page devoted to Michael Mann. Nowhere on that page are the objective facts stated that his temperature reconstructions are intrinsically worthless and that the "enquiries" essentially avoided all controversial issues.
Re: Barry
If Fred Pearce published it on his blog and the newspaper and then took out full page ads to inform everybody there would still be some at wikipedia who would find some excuse to try and keep out the corrected information.
When it comes to climate and wikipedia, truth takes a back seat.
Re: diogenes
Contents page for Willie Soon
Contents page for Michael Mann
The content pages by themselves tell their own story
"Much of this seems to centre around whether I am a reliable source under Wiki rules."
Ta Bish! Just got back from a nice lunchtime do with the guys in the pub and can now rest in sleep this evening smiling myself to sleep ! Has anyone one ever refuted anything in HSI with a threat legal
to you? LMAO!