Wikipedia and AGW

[BenBurch]

Slowly?

But somehow its not nearly as funny.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

AGW denialism ... and conspiracy theorists.

I actually take issue with the implicitly exclusive distinction you draw here.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

They are missrepresented. While I don't keep track of how many articles I've edited it is over 8 thousand. I've deleted over 10,000 items. I've only blocked about 500 odd people but thats because I haven't focused on areas where the use of blooking tools comes up for a long time. So William M. Connolley stats are pretty typical for a fairly active wikipedia admin.

But are they untrue?

Here is wikipedia's blocking policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLOCK

Feel free to show which bits apply.

It was breaches of policy that caused hime to be dismissed, wasn't it? I have quoted Wiki's reasons already. Was it gross misuse of priveleges? Seems he was not in line with policy, hence his marching orders.

No, I didn't have an "issue" with the sentence. It is factually incorrect. Wrong. In error.

Second, it is an erroneous statement originating out of the denier movement, debunked, and yet still repeated. It inclusion at the very outset of the opinion piece demonstrates the mindset of the author.

I think it is reasonable to reject that opinion piece on that basis. After all, it is not a journal article or a piece claiming to be a review of climate science or global warming or whatever. It's just an opinion piece by someone who apparently wants his own set of facts to back up his own opinion. I think it is well within the zone of critical thinking to thus reject his opinion as being worth reading to see if I should re-evaluate my own perspective.

So I was correct. One sentence you feel is incorrect and the rest is damned.

Critical thinking at its best.

Yeah, well, that's all it takes, isn't it. Skepticism requires more than just 'on the face of it'.

As does gullibility.

 

[a_unique_person]

As does gullibility.

The irony, it burns. You swallowed that story intact, and never checked to see if it was true. You were presented with evidence who it was wrong in numerous ways, but just respond with pointless retorts like that. You may have noticed, more and more people are just ignoring you, as you are just a self confessed troll. You will not debate the substance of anything to do with AGW.

 

[SezMe]

This only proves he's a more insidious figure than we thought. By shortening articles, thereby improving their readability, he's promoting the AGW hoax. I mean really, HELLO, did anyone else hear about the BLIZZARD that just struck the eastern seaboard. A BLIZZARD hitting the EAST coast... in the middle of December??

Poe's Law?

 

[godofpie]

I had a quick look at the contributions using the link kindly provided by gtc and that statistic seems to be completely bunk.

I wouldn't consider this kind of pages as "articles" (and they comprise the vast majority):

Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Feedback
User talk:Glenfarclas

And as of "created or rewrote", I have edited wikipedia articles and know what an edit is. Just to be clear, adding a comma is also an edit. Of the pages that aren't talk pages, I had a look at one at random to see what kind of edits he does (Climate change on 14 of December 2009).

His last "rewrite" are 3 edits in succession. The first one changes


into


It seems to be a simplification of the article, and a good one at that. Refers to the same topic with much more elegance. You don't need to refer on the definition to articles of temperature records and the presumed cause. His edit improves the article.

The second edit:


into



A style correction that does not change the meaning.

And the third edit changes this



into



That also seems to me more of a style correction than content correction.

So, if you look at the revisions:

Something between 10 and 20% seem to be for real articles, the rest for discussion pages.

He makes quick edits of a couple of words, adds links and reverses vandalism often, adding to that number. He does not change all the things he wants to change in an article at the same time, so that number greatly overestimates the number of articles "rewritten" (those 3 edits would count as 3, instead of only one, even if done the same day to the same article in a 15 minute period)

On the real articles rewritten, most changes seem make the article more readable instead of changing the content. I'm sure he has changed the content at some point, but I couldn't find an example in a superficial look.

So it seems to me that the number is completely bunk.



After seeing how the created and rewrote claim fared, I would actually need some kind of proof before assuming those contributors were not vandals or spammers (the main causes of being blocked from Wikipedia).



Again, after seeing how the created and rewrote claim fared, I would like some example before assuming the articles removed were genuine articles that followed the policy of Wikipedia. I would think inappropriate long titles, too specific subjects (a person not well known, for example) or things like that cannot be considered censure. I haven't found a single instance of request from deletion, so he doesn't seem to make a habit out of it.

And by the way, after seeing his contributions, it seems to me that he is a valuable Wikipedia contributor, that he is more or less courteous but enters heated discussions and that he seems to be arguing on the talk pages much more than modifying articles. Seeing that, I actually fail to be outraged by him. An specific example instead of vague claims of his perfidy would actually work wonders.

Welcome to the forums Aracne! A³, no comment?

 

[geni]

But are they untrue?

Yup

"All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles."

False. Most of the edits were minor changes that can not sanely be considered rewrites.

"over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. "

False. Most of them ran afoul of wikipedia's 3 revert rule. Heh William M. Connolley was the person who replaced me as the main admin dealing with that. In those days we used a very literal interpritation of the rule.

"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."

False. Articles he removed were mostly Candidates for speedy deletion and IDON'TLIKEIT is not a valid CSD criteria.

It was breaches of policy that caused hime to be dismissed, wasn't it? I have quoted Wiki's reasons already. Was it gross misuse of priveleges? Seems he was not in line with policy, hence his marching orders.

Wikipedia recognises that there is a difference between admin actions and editing. There are plenty of good editors who would make poor admins (and realisitcaly admins who are at best mediocre editors). He was never blocked from editing because arbcom which looked far more closely at the issues than you have decided that there was no reason to do so.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

"All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles."

False. Most of the edits were minor changes that can not sanely be considered rewrites. .

What you mean is "true, but..."
You are endeavouring to minimise or mitigate.

"over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. "

False. Most of them ran afoul of wikipedia's 3 revert rule. Heh William M. Connolley was the person who replaced me as the main admin dealing with that. In those days we used a very literal interpritation of the rule.

Again, you mean "true but.."
You may well be right, certainly your working knowledge of the nmachinations of Wikipedia is superior to mine.

"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."

False. Articles he removed were mostly Candidates for speedy deletion and IDON'TLIKEIT is not a valid CSD criteria.

Perhaps, but what were the reasons for his being dismissed?

Wikipedia recognises that there is a difference between admin actions and editing. There are plenty of good editors who would make poor admins (and realisitcaly admins who are at best mediocre editors). He was never blocked from editing because arbcom which looked far more closely at the issues than you have decided that there was no reason to do so.

That is probably true and simply makes good business sense. But it does not correlate with the reason for his dismissal, now does it?

 

[geni]

What you mean is "true, but..."
You are endeavouring to minimise or mitigate.

You are not useing a sane defintion of rewrite. According to your definition I rewrote wikipedia's Marlboro Man article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marlboro_Man&diff=prev&oldid=332344186

Please your position has no credibility.

Again, you mean "true but.."

Know I mean false. That your idiological position prevents you from understanding this is your problem not mine.

You may well be right, certainly your working knowledge of the nmachinations of Wikipedia is superior to mine.

Perhaps, but what were the reasons for his being dismissed?

That is probably true and simply makes good business sense. But it does not correlate with the reason for his dismissal, now does it?

"but what were the reasons for his being dismissed?" "But it does not correlate with the reason for his dismissal"

You either know or don't know the reasons. Trying to base your claim on something you admit you don't know seems to be a bad idea.

Arbitration Committee rulings are publicaly viewable along with the evidence pages and associated cabbage-hurling and dead-catting that is an accepted part of the wikipedia process.

You also appear to be under the impression that William M. Connolley was somehow employed by the wikimedia foundation. He was not. The wikimedia foundation has fewer than 40 employees. Admins are not wikimedia foundation employees. There are about 1700 odd of them (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&group=sysop&limit=5000 for a full list).

Arbcom decided that William M. Connolley should not be an admin but did not see any reason for him not to be an editor. Heh matters actualy came to a head due to William M. Connolley trying to deal with an editor promoting cold fusion.

 

[a_unique_person]

A few things pop to mind here:
- Is it untrue?
- How is it "wrong".
On these two points, all I have seen is supposition, shallow point scoring and derails. Where is the evidence you allude to?
- When did I "self confess being a troll"?
- When do I not debate the points I raise?

You tell lies.

Is it I just gotten under your skin for you to do much homework on me. I am truly flattered.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5429454#post5429454

You debate anything but the basis of AGW, the actual science.

And I use the word 'debate' loosely, as a debate with you just involves you denying all evidence, this thread being a prime example. The article implied Connelley was using his authority at Wikipedia to censor AGW articles and delete other evidence. The evidence is, he didn't, it has been listed in this thread. It claims he was assigned the task of loooking after Wiki while the rest set up RC, that never happened. He was editing Wiki a year before RC was up and running.

Remember what you said?

In short, climate scientists created Realclimate (no surprise there) for their self indulgence, mutual ego stroking and selective science, but then placed a staff member on to write or rewrite (hijack?) over 5000 Wikipedia articles on climate science.

* You have provided no evidence he was 'placed' there by anyone, at all.
* He was editing Wikipedia before RC was created.
* He has not 'rewritten (hijack?) over 5000 Wikipedia articles on climate science.

You have been provided with evidence to the contrary, but will accept none of it. When presented with evidence, you just accuse the person of presenting it with avoiding the evidence. Smarten up, Alfie.

 

[varwoche]

Perhaps, but what were the reasons for his being dismissed?

If you weren't busy filtering the facts to fit your biases, then maybe you'd have noticed that one of the pages you quoted from contained...

In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming.

 

[Morrigan]

What you mean is "true, but..."
You are endeavouring to minimise or mitigate.

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 12/Be Polite & civil removed.

he doesn't mean "true, but", he means false. An edit to a Wikipedia article isn't a rewrite. Adding a comma or fixing a typo is considered an edit.

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 12/Be Polite & civil removed.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 12/ Be Polite & civil removed.

he doesn't mean "true, but", he means false. An edit to a Wikipedia article isn't a rewrite. Adding a comma or fixing a typo is considered an edit.

My point is, how many are edits, how many are rewrites etc.

A sample of comma's do not change the thrust of the article.

btw, your ad homs simply show a decided lack of class, try and keep a lid on it.

 

[a_unique_person]

My point is, how many are edits, how many are rewrites etc.

My point is people have told you where the information is, get off your ****, find out the answer, and get back to us when you have it. You are the one making the claim, it's your job to prove it.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

My point is people have told you where the information is, get off your ****, find out the answer, and get back to us when you have it. You are the one making the claim, it's your job to prove it.

Actually that's where you are wrong.

I am a JREF contributor - I am not a journalist any more than you are a scientist.
I put up a journalists article for discussion, I have ackowledged some shortcomings and defended some inferences/interpretations.

It is not my job to investigate all aspects that the man is claiming. To repeat, it has been put up for discussion.

Tell me, when you put up a scientific piece, have you checked all its data, claims and conclusions? If so, then I will gladly listen to your advice, in the meantime.....

 

[a_unique_person]

Actually that's where you are wrong.

I am a JREF contributor - I am not a journalist any more than you are a scientist.
I put up a journalists article for discussion, I have ackowledged some shortcomings and defended some inferences/interpretations.

It is not my job to investigate all aspects that the man is claiming. To repeat, it has been put up for discussion.

Tell me, when you put up a scientific piece, have you checked all its data, claims and conclusions? If so, then I will gladly listen to your advice, in the meantime.....

It's your job to look at the rewrites and edits log for Connolley.

 

[Cuddles]

As usual, this is not a general discussion thread or a place for insulting each other. Either stick to the topic or post somewhere else.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[geni]

My point is, how many are edits, how many are rewrites etc.

This is not consistent with your earlier argument that every edit was an article creation of rewrite. Do you wish to withdraw from that position?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

This is not consistent with your earlier argument that every edit was an article creation of rewrite. Do you wish to withdraw from that position?

Certainly. If you show me where I said that I will glady explain, withdraw and/or apologise.

 

[geni]

Certainly. If you show me where I said that I will glady explain, withdraw and/or apologise.

When you charactered my rejection of the claim as "true, but...".