Wikipedia and AGW

[Hallo Alfie]

Whilst I do not want to play scemantics here..
You said (my bold)

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?

I said:

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

You replied:

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

It seems to me that is not the same as what was bolded above. I was pointing out there are no absolutes in your statements, you are claiming otherwise - and more to the point, you try and make out I am claiming absolutes.

As I said, I am happy to review my position if you can show where I said "every edit was an article creation of rewrite" (or similar).

 

[CatInTheBag]

You may be right. What you have done is picked off a few minor amendments it seems, no doubt there were some of those too - perhaps now you could pick off some biggies.
That said he was removed why?

Because he overstepped the mark in an article about cold fusion?

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley&oldid=315690726#William_M._Connolley.E2.80.99s_controversial_action_as_an_administrator

 

[geni]

Whilst I do not want to play scemantics here.

So why do you do it so much?

You said (my bold)



I said:



You replied:



It seems to me that is not the same as what was bolded above. I was pointing out there are no absolutes in your statements, you are claiming otherwise - and more to the point, you try and make out I am claiming absolutes.

Both true and false are absolutes. By trying to argue that my argument was consistent with the position ""true, but..." You are tying to advance the position that every edit was an article creation or rewrite.

 

[lomiller]

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

Alfie, the only reasonable interpretation of your OP in this thread is that you believed the article you linked to was factual and represented a “problem” .

That article specifically says these were “rewrites or creations” you even quoted that part. It also went out of it’s way to imply that the number involved was uncommonly large. As we have subsequently seen, neither of these are true.

If you are truly earnest about withdrawing or apologizing you should admit that the article you linked to in your OP is untrue and your OP itself is baseless and should be disregarded.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So why do you do it so much?

I wanted to avoid scemantics and stay with thye facts of what had been written.

Both true and false are absolutes. By trying to argue that my argument was consistent with the position ""true, but..." You are tying to advance the position that every edit was an article creation or rewrite.

No. I am pointing out that the statement is true, but may be minimised via the use of the wrod "but"..

Alfie, the only reasonable interpretation of your OP in this thread is that you believed the article you linked to was factual and represented a “problem” .

I asked if "anyone else has a problem with this". Your interpretation may be reasonable in your eyes - in fact correct to a point.
The question remains however, that if the allegations are true would or would you not have a problem with it?

That article specifically says these were “rewrites or creations” you even quoted that part. It also went out of it’s way to imply that the number involved was uncommonly large. As we have subsequently seen, neither of these are true..

Fair enough - one thing though, just because I quoted something does not automatically mean I fully believe it.

If you are truly earnest about withdrawing or apologizing you should admit that the article you linked to in your OP is untrue and your OP itself is baseless and should be disregarded.

I haven't stated any of that. My remarks about withdrawing or apologising were in regard to a small point within the context of the whole.
As far as the article goes - sure it may be overstated to a point, but nothing I have seen here suggests the general thrust untrue - quite the opposite in fact.

I will (and do) apologise when there is something to apologise for.

 

[geni]

I wanted to avoid scemantics and stay with thye facts of what had been written.

Let me know when you start doing that ja?

No. I am pointing out that the statement is true, but may be minimised via the use of the wrod "but"..

So you continue to hold the position that the "statistics" you posted are true? but you just denied holding that position.

 

[geni]

As far as the article goes - sure it may be overstated to a point, but nothing I have seen here suggests the general thrust untrue - quite the opposite in fact.

1)Please describe in your own words what you belive the ah " general thrust" of the article is.

2)please state if you belive it to be true.

 

[gtc]

More on the man's use of wikipedia here, I don't support the quip about his ponytail at the end.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

1)Please describe in your own words what you belive the ah " general thrust" of the article is..

You start. I'll follow.

2)please state if you belive it to be true.

I believe I have already said my piece on that.

Now, back to our original disagreement - show me where I said "every edit was an article creation of rewrite".
That is where your meandering logic began and I would like to complete that part before moving on.
That was your assertion, is it true or not?

 

[geni]

You start. I'll follow.

So you think the "general thrust" of the article has not been countered but you are not prepared to state what you consider the "general thrust" to be?

I believe I have already said my piece on that.

Feel free to elaborate

Now, back to our original disagreement - show me where I said "every edit was an article creation of rewrite".
That is where your meandering logic began and I would like to complete that part before moving on.
That was your assertion, is it true or not?

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

posted in responce to "False. Most of the edits were minor changes that can not sanely be considered rewrites. . " as an attempt to defend the claim "All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles."

 

[geni]

More on the man's use of wikipedia here, I don't support the quip about his ponytail at the end.

Well I fail to see what a post by a random IP has to do with what wikipedia's "moderators" (I assume it means admins) think.

Was there any part of the telegraph blog you wanted addressing and if so why?

 

[lomiller]

I asked if "anyone else has a problem with this".

generally people do not ask that unless they have a problem with it themselves...

 

[Hallo Alfie]

generally people do not ask that unless they have a problem with it themselves...

Correct - to repeat

I asked if "anyone else has a problem with this". Your interpretation may be reasonable in your eyes - in fact correct to a point.

And I ask again

The question remains however, that if the allegations are true would or would you not have a problem with it?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So you think the "general thrust" of the article has not been countered but you are not prepared to state what you consider the "general thrust" to be?

The "general thrust" is the allegation that one person can manipulate Wikipedia. If true, I would have a problem with it.

My question to you is: is OK for one person with a totally bias perspective to have control of so much information?

Feel free to elaborate

Feel free to ay attention or review.

posted in responce to "False. Most of the edits were minor changes that can not sanely be considered rewrites. . " as an attempt to defend the claim "All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles."

So you are asking me to accept your descrition of "sanely".
Now I think I see where you are coming from. So, No - on that basis I don't resile from what I said - you are just giving your opinion, and I am (for the time being at least) disagreeing with that opinion.

That said, you are moving from your original accusation where you stated I said "every edit was an article creation of rewrite".
When you prove that I will reconsider my position.

 

[Piggy]

My question to you is: is OK for one person with a totally bias perspective to have control of so much information?

Since the premise of that statement has already been proven false, right here on this thread, why in God's name are you still asking such a question?

(Kind soul please repost.)

 

[elbe]

The "general thrust" is the allegation that one person can manipulate Wikipedia. If true, I would have a problem with it.

My question to you is: is OK for one person with a totally bias perspective to have control of so much information?

One person could manipulate wikipedia, but then all the other users can go in and "fix" it. But since that didn't happen, your premise is flawed.

 

[lomiller]

And I ask again

Nope, not biting on your attempt to change the topic. You said you would retract/apologize for any post where you implied re-writes/article creations when it was really simple everyday editing.

I showed that you did this in the OP of the thread by quoting and endorsing a link that said just that. Now I await your retraction, that's all.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Welcome to the forums Aracne! A³, no comment?

No I hear what was said, just that is shows what I have already conceded, that there are certainly some trivial items in there but they do not negate the whole.

One person could manipulate wikipedia, but then all the other users can go in and "fix" it. But since that didn't happen, your premise is flawed.

Really? Even if he is the gatekeeper?

Just by way of a further example of his activity, the link gtc posted earlier has made this observation.

This followed on after outlining his dismissal* in September...

If this is true*, it doesn’t seem to have made much difference to his creative input on the Wikipedia’s entries. Here he is – unless its just someone with an identical name – busily sticking his oar in to entries on the Medieval Warm Period (again) and the deeply compromised, soon-to-be-leaving (let’s hope) IPCC head Dr Rajendra Pachauri. And here he is again just three days ago, removing a mention of Climategate from Michael Mann’s entry. And here is an example of one of his Wikipedia chums – name of Stephan Schulz – helping to cover up for him by ensuring that no mention of that embarrassing Lawrence Solomon article appears on Connolley’s Wikipedia entry. And here he is deleting criticism of himself.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/

Are these trivial matters too, or driven by less, er .. honest purposes?

 

[elbe]

Really? Even if he is the gatekeeper?

Just by way of a further example of his activity, the link gtc posted earlier has made this observation.

This followed on after outlining his dismissal* in September...



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/

Are these trivial matters too, or driven by less, er .. honest purposes?

It would depend on the situation, wouldn't it? But what's to stop someone else from changing it back? Or involving another of the many, many admins they have? All you've managed to demonstrate is that he was (potentially still is) a somewhat prolific wikipedia user, and that's hardly a crime. According to the logic of your original link he could have changed the grammar of a paragraph about He-Man and that would have added to his list of diabolical "Rewrites".

Geni has explained why this holds no water, and he (or she) clearly has better understanding of wikipedia than you, or your links, have demonstrated. He made changes to pages, it's sort of what wikipedia editors do, and apparently he was a poor admin and had those rights removed.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It would depend on the situation, wouldn't it? But what's to stop someone else from changing it back? Or involving another of the many, many admins they have? All you've managed to demonstrate is that he was (potentially still is) a somewhat prolific wikipedia user, and that's hardly a crime. According to the logic of your original link he could have changed the grammar of a paragraph about He-Man and that would have added to his list of diabolical "Rewrites".

All fair ponts indeed.
And it is fun to speculate on what may or may not be the case, no doubt.
For some of us, we think it is a bit smelly - for others perfectly innocent.

One thing I am sure of, is that this will not be the last we hear of this

Geni has explained why this holds no water, and he (or she) clearly has better understanding of wikipedia than you, or your links, have demonstrated. He made changes to pages, it's sort of what wikipedia editors do, and apparently he was a poor admin and had those rights removed.

I disagree. Geni has shown why it might not hold water. That said, I absolutely agree Geni has a working knowledge of Wiki's internal machinations that I don't.

However, another (or other) uninvolved editors have a rather different take on some of his work.
Have you read the commentary?

Here's the link..

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...=historysubmit&diff=331711452&oldid=331711409

And here's an example

As it currently stands, the page title and opening paragraphs essentially read as:

"Very bad people wrongfully inflicted themselves upon innocents to hack their computers and slander them with innuendo. This is a very serious crime and law enforcement is treating it as such all over the world."

Even if the above is true, it is not what all the fuss is about.

and

As does the title, the opening paragraph is prejudicial in the extreme. It looks as though it might have been written as an apologia by the people under investigation. Here it is, as of this writing, along with my comments:
As it stands:

The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as "Climategate",[1] began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents made over the course of 13 years.[2] The university confirmed that a criminal breach of their security systems took place,[2] and expressed concern "that personal information about individuals may have been compromised."[3] Norfolk police are investigating the incident[4] and, along with the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), are also investigating death threats made against climate scientists named in the e-mails.[5]

==== Article content is extremely biased ====