Wikipedia and AGW

[Hallo Alfie]

Do you believe it to be true?

In general terms yes. Why wouldn't I?
Especially when coupled with other articles about and evidence about immediate changes that don't meet with his personal or groupthink opinions.

Read this.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...e/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx

Do you believe that is what is going on and why?

When do you answer my questions? This ^^ is your response to this..?

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

The only way you can disagree with my opinion is to argue the position that every edit was an article creation of rewrite.

In your opinion.
You have yet to ascribe to me the comments you made.
Nor for that matter have you acknowledged you were in fact in error when you made same.

Thats an IP with exactly zero edits to articles. Not someone who would generaly be considered a wikipedia editor. Serious appeal to non-authority logical fallacy there.

Correct me if I am wrong, is he or not an "uninvolved editor" of Wikipedia?
And is the article "under (or in) dispute" at the moment due (in part at least) to these objections and accusations of bias?

What exactly do you think the word "gatekeeper" means in the context of wikipedia.

Refer to the above article link, see if you can figure out where I'm coming from.

Insufficient information for a valid judgement.

Very poor dodge.
Now try answering the question. Even ask me a question on it. Or even simpler, just reverse the roles: The facts stay the same just swap Connolley for an oil company 'plant' and AGW theory for AGW discrediting.

You're welcome. Alfie has you on ignore, hasn't he? Great way to debate

I have precisely one person on ignore and it is him.
And only because he refused to debate like an adult, was repeatedly insulting and obnoxious. Called me a murderer, rapist and the like. Frankly I don't need to listen to put up with morons like that.

As to your "control of information" bunk: anyone can become a wiki-editor and edit pages. You too, you can make 5,000 edits too. It's really no surprise for me why the AGW denial crowd doesn't do it, as they'd have no substance to add whatsoever.

Refer to the article posted above.

Ok. Have you ready it?
Reeeeaaaaalllllly?

Let's assume it is true. Do you have a problem with it?
Next, assume my hypothetical that the editor was (say) an oil company employee.
Would you have a problem with that?

 

[ddt]

I have precisely one person on ignore and it is him.
And only because he refused to debate like an adult, was repeatedly insulting and obnoxious. Called me a murderer, rapist and the like. Frankly I don't need to listen to put up with morons like that.

That seems to me very out of character for Piggy. You can surely provide the evidence?

Refer to the article posted above.

You misattribute that quote of mine to geni. But why should I read a link just when you say so? You haven't given a hint about its contents.

Ok. Have you ready it?

Parse error. And no, I haven't read it. Give me a good reason.

 

[geni]

In general terms yes. Why wouldn't I?

And do you belive it happened in this case?

Especially when coupled with other articles about and evidence about immediate changes that don't meet with his personal or groupthink opinions.

Read this.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...e/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx

Someone tried to push a POV and got slapped down after not understanding wikipedia's no original research policy.

I'm a wikipedia admin. I don't read reports in the the popular media when I want to know what is going on.

When do you answer my questions? This ^^ is your response to this..?


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

Well if you don't think it's going on then there is little point in debating the matter. there are far more interesting wikipedia related matters to talk about. In adition if you don't think it's going on it's going to be a bit hard to get you to define "so much information".

In your opinion.
You have yet to ascribe to me the comments you made.
Nor for that matter have you acknowledged you were in fact in error when you made same.

Sigh. This grows dull. I have made my point. Time to let the audience to decide.

Correct me if I am wrong, is he or not an "uninvolved editor" of Wikipedia?

To be an uninvolved editor you are generaly required to have a non trival number of edits. The IP in question is best described as a drive by commentator.

And is the article "under (or in) dispute" at the moment due (in part at least) to these objections and accusations of bias?

And whenever the korean media mentions the Liancourt Rocks ariticle that ends up in disspute. It means nothing.

Refer to the above article link, see if you can figure out where I'm coming from.

No I want to know what you think it means.

Very poor dodge.

Not really. I'm a wikipedia admin. Strange as it may seem I tend to deal with situations on wikipedia in more depth than nonsensical 3 sentence summaries.

Now try answering the question. Even ask me a question on it. Or even simpler, just reverse the roles: The facts stay the same just swap Connolley for an oil company 'plant' and AGW theory for AGW discrediting.

Doesn't work. The massive imblance of evidence in favor of AGW means that a remotely precise global warming denier analoge isn't posible. In any case they would have been fired by the oil company when they got in a fight with Giano II.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

That seems to me very out of character for Piggy. You can surely provide the evidence?

Here's a taste, it is not isolated and I'm not trawling through for more.

By that token, Alfie is a mass murderer. After all, there's no evidence that he is, which means that he must be covering up the evidence. And why would he be covering up evidence if he were not a mass murderer?!

You misattribute that quote of mine to geni. But why should I read a link just when you say so? You haven't given a hint about its contents.

Fair enough. It gives a blow-by-blow, (near) real time account of how other submissions and dissenting opinions are manipulated.

Parse error. And no, I haven't read it. Give me a good reason.

You need a reason? Really? I'd have thought trying to garner some truth or balance would have been a prerequisite to informed debate. But what would I know?
In short, it is something of a forerunner to the article in the OP. As per above it gives a very good account of just how and how quickly opposing views are 'managed'.

Now, reverse the roles as per my hypothetical.

Do you now have a problem with either scenario?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And do you belive it happened in this case?

Someone tried to push a POV and got slapped down after not understanding wikipedia's no original research policy.

I'm a wikipedia admin. I don't read reports in the the popular media when I want to know what is going on.

Well if you don't think it's going on then there is little point in debating the matter. there are far more interesting wikipedia related matters to talk about. In adition if you don't think it's going on it's going to be a bit hard to get you to define "so much information".

Sigh. This grows dull. I have made my point. Time to let the audience to decide.

To be an uninvolved editor you are generaly required to have a non trival number of edits. The IP in question is best described as a drive by commentator.

And whenever the korean media mentions the Liancourt Rocks ariticle that ends up in disspute. It means nothing.

No I want to know what you think it means.

Not really. I'm a wikipedia admin. Strange as it may seem I tend to deal with situations on wikipedia in more depth than nonsensical 3 sentence summaries.

Doesn't work. The massive imblance of evidence in favor of AGW means that a remotely precise global warming denier analoge isn't posible. In any case they would have been fired by the oil company when they got in a fight with Giano II.

I get it.
Your answer to the OP is that you "don't have a problem", (my words and my assumption - I am happy to be corrected if I'm wrong).

That's fine, others do, I do.

Sadly I think you are just another victim of groupthink in my opinion.

And frankly I think your efforts to avoid the reverse comparison are weak in the extreme.

 

[Piggy]

Here's a taste, it is not isolated and I'm not trawling through for more.

By that token, Alfie is a mass murderer. After all, there's no evidence that he is, which means that he must be covering up the evidence. And why would he be covering up evidence if he were not a mass murderer?!

Well, there you are.

I think that pretty much speaks for itself.

Perhaps Alfie believes that I was accusing him of being a rapist by never claiming that he's a rapist.

 

[geni]

I get it.
Your answer to the OP is that you "don't have a problem", (my words and my assumption - I am happy to be corrected if I'm wrong).

I've long since accepted that the popular press will publish articles on wikipedia that have no relation with reality.

That's fine, others do, I do.

Sadly I think you are just another victim of groupthink in my opinion.

How exactly do you square that with my blocking of William M. Connolley on three separate occasions?

 

[ddt]

Here's a taste, it is not isolated and I'm not trawling through for more.

I see. He didn't call you a mass-murderer. He called you out on a flawed argument. And you didn't like it, and now you misrepresent what Piggy wrote.

Fair enough. It gives a blow-by-blow, (near) real time account of how other submissions and dissenting opinions are manipulated.

And it's by the same author as the "article" in the OP. Yeah right. The same author who wrote:

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

Shouldn't we finish up first tearing to pieces analyzing that article before continuing to the next?

Oh, and do you still stand by Solomon's statement above?

PS. Edit your previous post with the wrong quote attribution while you still can.

 

[ddt]

Here's a taste, it is not isolated and I'm not trawling through for more.

By that token, Alfie is a mass murderer. After all, there's no evidence that he is, which means that he must be covering up the evidence. And why would he be covering up evidence if he were not a mass murderer?!

Well, there you are.

I think that pretty much speaks for itself.

Perhaps Alfie believes that I was accusing him of being a rapist by never claiming that he's a rapist.

I think Alfie is dying to read your reaction. He'd kill for it.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I've long since accepted that the popular press will publish articles on wikipedia that have no relation with reality.

Fair enough

How exactly do you square that with my blocking of William M. Connolley on three separate occasions?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I see. He didn't call you a mass-murderer. He called you out on a flawed argument. And you didn't like it, and now you misrepresent what Piggy wrote.

Not at all.
I was asked to provide an example. Done.
There were others I took exception to so I have exercised my option to place him on ignore. My choice, end of story.

Oh, and do you still stand by Solomon's statement above?

The 5000 odd? Do try and keep up.

PS. Edit your previous post with the wrong quote attribution while you still can.

What are you talking about now?

 

[Slayhamlet]

What are you talking about now?

In post #101, your last quote wrongly attributes ddt's statement to geni.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Then I apologise for that, it was unintentional.

 

[ddt]

Not at all.
I was asked to provide an example. Done.
There were others I took exception to so I have exercised my option to place him on ignore. My choice, end of story.

So you can't back up your claim that Piggy called you a murderer. That's clear. Consider yourself reported.

The 5000 odd? Do try and keep up.

I gather you have a busy Xmas ahead to analyze all 5,000 odd.

What are you talking about now?

In post #101, your last quote wrongly attributes ddt's statement to geni.

Exactly. You know you have a 2-hour edit window to correct a post, don't you?

ETA:

Then I apologise for that, it was unintentional.

No problem, happens to everyone. But it's nicer to catch and correct it while you can.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So you can't back up your claim that Piggy called you a murderer. That's clear. Consider yourself reported.

Great. I will be happy for Piggy's comments to be reviewed too.

For the record again, he said
"By that token, Alfie is a mass murderer".

Personally I find that disgusting and outrageous - I'm frankly surprised others (you) don't too - so I placed him on ignore.

I gather you have a busy Xmas ahead to analyze all 5,000 odd.

You gather incorrectly. I have already conceded that many may be/are trivial. Others are not.

Exactly. You know you have a 2-hour edit window to correct a post, don't you?

I am not exactly sure what I've done here, nor does it matter that much to me.
If I have made an error, I apologise.

 

[a_unique_person]

Great. I will be happy for Piggy's comments to be reviewed too.

For the record again, he said
"By that token, Alfie is a mass murderer".

Personally I find that disgusting and outrageous - I'm frankly surprised others (you) don't too - so I placed him on ignore.

He said that if he uses your logic, that is a logical conclusion to reach. It's the old "When will you stop beating your wife" argument. Someone told me you had, now you have to prove to me that you don't. But that is exactly the logic you use, you find any unbased rumour or claim out there, and make no effort to check yourself the validity of it, then expect us to convince you otherwise. Most people eventually tell you, you have no interest in evaluating the evidence, and stop wasting their time on you.

I find it disgusting and outrageous that you call me gullible, when I have made a significant effort to understand the complex science behind AGW.

You, on the other hand, appear to have made no effort at all, refusing to debate the merits of the science, and reduce what is fundamentally a scientific issue to a purely political one. That is certainly the tactic of many of the deniers out there, and I guess it works.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

After this, I am no longer discussing this 'Piggy' matter. It is irrelevant to the thread and the topic.
Someone asked me why I had him on ignore. I gave one example of the many posts that generated my decision; it was not isolated. It seems as though someone may have raised it with the mods, great!
If I had wanted anyone's opinion on it, I would have asked - and I do not recall doing so.
It was my choice to place him on ignore.
End of discussion.

I find it disgusting and outrageous that you call me gullible, when I have made a significant effort to understand the complex science behind AGW.

That's nice.
If you don't want names, then stop using them against others.

I have asked many times that you and others cease and desist with the names and aspersions you cast. If you choose not to, then expect a response in kind. I am not your doormat.

 

[a_unique_person]

After this, I am no longer discussing this 'Piggy' matter. It is irrelevant to the thread and the topic.
Someone asked me why I had him on ignore. I gave one example of the many posts that generated my decision; it was not isolated. It seems as though someone may have raised it with the mods, great!
If I had wanted anyone's opinion on it, I would have asked - and I do not recall doing so.
It was my choice to place him on ignore.
End of discussion.

Did you understand the point he was making, because he didn't accuse you of being a murderer.

That's nice.
If you don't want names, then stop using them against others.

I have asked many times that you and others cease and desist with the names and aspersions you cast. If you choose not to, then expect a response in kind. I am not your doormat.

Lol. I don't care if you call me names, but you insist on calling someone gullible when it is patiently, and repeatedly, explained why they are not.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Lol. I don't care if you call me names, but you insist on calling someone gullible when it is patiently, and repeatedly, explained why they are not.

Ah, you seem to have a double standard then.
Because you insist on calling someone a denier when it is patiently, and repeatedly, explained why they are not, you continue to do so.

 

[geni]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Which bit did you need clarifying?

 

[a_unique_person]

Ah, you seem to have a double standard then.
Because you insist on calling someone a denier when it is patiently, and repeatedly, explained why they are not, you continue to do so.

When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....

If you want to look at where the real debate is on AGW, stop reading Watts and right wing rags.