Wikipedia and AGW

[Hallo Alfie]

There are plenty more too.

So folks, it really isn't just one man's opinion is it?

 

[elbe]

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

So one article is biased, an article he wouldn't have to tbe admin to edit, nor even register, so that's evidence that he's somehow maliciously created/edited over 5000 articles o form his evil pro-AGW slant, like your links imply? From what I saw it doesn't even look as much intentionally biased as just a topic that hits home with him, but I don't know him. You know what it feels like when no matter how much you try to correct people about something they still wallow in what their ignorance? It can be frustrating.

 

[elbe]

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

It's only "smelly" if you want it to be; and that says more about your own biases than reality, doesn't it?

Wikipedia isn't, really, even that important, is it? I know some weird people seem to think it is, hence the creation of things like conservapedia. He could have, if he wanted to, trolled the entire site, but it still doesn't affect anything, does it?

This is just, really, only one more attempt by deniers to attempt to discredit person or persons in the climate science because if there is one weak spot the whole thing will so obviously collapse. They can't argue it, so they try to kick in the nads and declare themselves the winner.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So one article is biased, an article he wouldn't have to tbe admin to edit, nor even register, so that's evidence that he's somehow maliciously created/edited over 5000 articles o form his evil pro-AGW slant, like your links imply?

Not at all. Like I keep saying, some are trivial, others are not.
You (not specifically you) wanted more than just these trivial items so I produced one.
Still not good enough though is it?
Why?

Here is a possible clue

You know what it feels like when no matter how much you try to correct people about something they still wallow in what their ignorance? It can be frustrating.

I sure do!

 

[elbe]

Not at all. Like I keep saying, some are trivial, others are not.
You (not specifically you) wanted more than just these trivial items so I produced one.
Still not good enough though is it?
Why?

The problem is that your article wrote a check it couldn't cash. It was intentionally biased to shine AGW in a bad light. Was he biased? Maybe. Was it an evil conspiracy by the climate scientists to alter the reality that is wikipedia? That's just conspiracy nonsense. Nonsense that your article implies.

What is your goal, Alfie? It isn't skepticism, and it isn't a quest for knowledge; all it appears to be is to tarnish legitimate scientists just because you don't like what the science shows.

I sure do!

Yes, because all those actual climate scientists are completely ignorant of climate science...

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The problem is that your article wrote a check it couldn't cash. It was intentionally biased to shine AGW in a bad light. Was he biased? Maybe. Was it an evil conspiracy by the climate scientists to alter the reality that is wikipedia? That's just conspiracy nonsense. Nonsense that your article implies.

More opinions and and ad homs?

How about a hypothetical; let me ask you this.

If (say) an 'operative' of the oil companies 'infiltrated' Wikipedia and actively took part in the impact reduction of the manbearpig theory. Amending over 5000 articles, etc as per the inference in the original OP article.

If journalists were talking about a scandal, if "uninvolved editors" accused them of extreme bias and this person was removed from their editorial position due to "misuse of administrative priveleges".

What would your reaction be?
Storm in a teacup?
Misrepresentation?

Review your own biases rather than guessing what you think mine are.

Seriously, let's have an honest answer.

 

[elbe]

More opinions and and ad homs?

Supposition. And could you kindly point out the ad homs? I'm not sure you're using that right.

How about a hypothetical; let me ask you this.

If (say) an 'operative' of the oil companies 'infiltrated' Wikipedia and actively took part in the impact reduction of the manbearpig theory. Amending over 5000 articles, etc as per the inference in the original OP article.

If journalists were talking about a scandal, if "uninvolved editors" accused them of extreme bias and this person was removed from their editorial position due to "misuse of administrative priveleges".

What would your reaction be?
Storm in a teacup?
Misrepresentation?

Review your own biases rather than guessing what you think mine are.

Seriously, let's have an honest answer.

Honestly? Wikipedia? Couldn't care less. In fact, that's already happening! There was a website, I don't recall where it was, which identified edits done by specific companies by IP address, it was a little amusing but it was, and is, irrelevant. Why do you think wikipedia, a popular site* that anyone can edit, is somehow super special? This isn't the press, where facts should (I did say should) be carefully researched, and it certainly isn't a journal where papers are peer reviewed by experts for factuality. It is Wikipedia!

Sure, it's fun, and it's a fount of useless information, but the OP is, quite frankly, depressingly obsessive over nothing. This has about as much importance as a member of the WWF getting drunk and spray painting "Polar Bears Rule!" on the wall of a zoo.

And once again, as has been pointed out by geni, those 5000+ articles are all over the place - probably because he was an admin. Stop trying to embellish what little there is in this "story" to make it seem more devious. And, from what geni posted, his admin privileges being revoked had nothing to do with climate change, it was because he did something stupid. And, even still, he wasn't an "operative" of anything, he joined wikipedia before realclimate, the organization the OP accuses of planting him, was even founded.

* used to say "cite", I found the slip amusing enough to document

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Honestly? Wikipedia? Couldn't care less. In fact, that's already happening! There was a website, I don't recall where it was, which identified edits done by specific companies by IP address, it was a little amusing but it was, and is, irrelevant. Why do you think wikipedia, a popular site* that anyone can edit, is somehow super special? This isn't the press, where facts should (I did say should) be carefully researched, and it certainly isn't a journal where papers are peer reviewed by experts for factuality. It is Wikipedia!

Sure, it's fun, and it's a fount of useless information, but the OP is, quite frankly, depressingly obsessive over nothing. This has about as much importance as a member of the WWF getting drunk and spray painting "Polar Bears Rule!" on the wall of a zoo.

And once again, as has been pointed out by geni, those 5000+ articles are all over the place - probably because he was an admin. Stop trying to embellish what little there is in this "story" to make it seem more devious. And, from what geni posted, his admin privileges being revoked had nothing to do with climate change, it was because he did something stupid. And, even still, he wasn't an "operative" of anything, he joined wikipedia before realclimate, the organization the OP accuses of planting him, was even founded.

* used to say "cite", I found the slip amusing enough to document

Hmmm

Thought as much.
It is so unimportant you feel the need to continue the argument about how unimportant it is.

Anyway, you wouldn't answer my hypothetical. I am pretty sure I know how critical your thinking is(n't) now.

Thanks for playing.

 

[elbe]

Hmmm

Thought as much.
It is so unimportant you feel the need to continue the argument about how unimportant it is.

Anyway, you wouldn't answer my hypothetical. I am pretty sure I know how critical your thinking is(n't) now.

Thanks for playing.

I gave my answer, which might show how good your reading comprehension is. I, like most people, would rather not be pigeon-holed into one of two possible answers. Life isn't that simple. To clarify, then: my biases have nothing to do with this. It is a non-issue. I feel like I should be trying to reenact the dead parrot sketch...

ETA: Let's adjust the rules, then. What, pray tell, are my biases?

I'm not a big fan of some people trying to discredit scientists because of their own incredulity. You think "if you explain how they are wrong they'll see the truth, right?", but no, they'll just go dragging legitimate science through the mud to further their own agenda. Creationists have the same tactic, try to discredit some tiny bit, or make the public think it's been discredited, and then claim they've won the entire battle - a battle that existed only in the minds of the creationists "fighting" it.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I gave my answer, which might show how good your reading comprehension is. I, like most people, would rather not be pigeon-holed into one of two possible answers. Life isn't that simple. To clarify, then: my biases have nothing to do with this. It is a non-issue. I feel like I should be trying to reenact the dead parrot sketch...

ETA: Let's adjust the rules, then. What, pray tell, are my biases?

I'm not a big fan of some people trying to discredit scientists because of their own incredulity. You think "if you explain how they are wrong they'll see the truth, right?", but no, they'll just go dragging legitimate science through the mud to further their own agenda. Creationists have the same tactic, try to discredit some tiny bit, or make the public think it's been discredited, and then claim they've won the entire battle - a battle that existed only in the minds of the creationists "fighting" it.

Who's trying to discredit scientists here? Not me.

We are discussing a person who has taken certain liberties at Wiki. No?

Is he or is he not bias?
Is there a problem with the levels of influence?
Has he acted inappropriately?
If the shoe was on the other foot, how would you react?

These (among others) are the things under discussion here.

Adjust the rules is right.
Now, do you want to play with regard the OP or not?

If so, you might answer my hypothetical.
If not, I know of a rolling doughnut you can chase.

 

[elbe]

Who's trying to discredit scientists here? Not me.

We are discussing a person who has taken certain liberties at Wiki. No?

Is he or is he not bias?
Is there a problem with the levels of influence?
Has he acted inappropriately?
If the shoe was on the other foot, how would you react?

These (among others) are the things under discussion here.

Adjust the rules is right.
Now, do you want to play with regard the OPor not?

If so, you might answer my hypothetical.
If not, I know of a rolling doughnut you can chase.

Who? That's pretty much been your shtick in these threads, hasn't it? [hyperbole]I'm just being skeptical, but there's a conspiracy by climate scientists to take all our money and take over the world!!![/hyperbole]

I told you how I'd react, I answered your naive little question where you were, oh so clearly, fishing. I've been talking about the OP, I've been talking about how it's rubbish. It's a conspiracy theory wrapped in "climate skepticism", I know it, and I should hope you would too. They took something boring and blew it out of proportion, exaggerating and lying by implication to sell their own biases to the people who share them.

Yeah, everyone has a bias, but we don't always act on them. If I have a bias toward pepperoni on my pizza that, oddly enough, doesn't impact what color socks I wear. Most people aren't political ideologues and can act in a consistent and, somewhat, rational manner. It's seems to be the ideologues themselves who imagine everyone else as one instead.

And once again. I answered your irrelevant "hypothetical" (hell, I even pointed out that it isn't even that hypothetical), even if you didn't like the answer. You said my biases would judge how I reacted, and even hinted that you knew what those biases were, so, please, why don't you tell me?

Is that meant to be some sort of, I don't know,fat joke? Is that what you've become?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And once again. I answered your irrelevant "hypothetical" (hell, I even pointed out that it isn't even that hypothetical), even if you didn't like the answer. You said my biases would judge how I reacted, and even hinted that you knew what those biases were, so, please, why don't you tell me?

Is that meant to be some sort of, I don't know,fat joke? Is that what you've become?

I don't know what your biases are, I simply asked you to look at them and see if you could come to the same conclusion you are under now if the circumstances were different. I just can't see that you've done that.

Hence, I feel ..

my hypothetical was dodged, not answered - all you told me was Wiki was irrelevant (or similar). Sorry but that doesn't seem an answer to me.

Fat jokes?
Are are you overweight? How would I know? I wouldn't go there anyway. Please don't be offended on that score - it was not where I was coming from.

By way of explanation, try googling something like "go take.. at a rolling doughnut" and see what you get.

 

[elbe]

I don't know what your biases are, I simply asked you to look at them and see if you could come to the same conclusion you are under now if the circumstances were different. I just can't see that you've done that.

Hence, I feel ..

my hypothetical was dodged, not answered - all you told me was Wiki was irrelevant (or similar). Sorry but that doesn't seem an answer to me.

Fat jokes?
Are are you overweight? How would I know? I wouldn't go there anyway. Please don't be offended on that score - it was not where I was coming from.

By way of explanation, try googling something like "go take.. at a rolling doughnut" and see what you get.

*sigh* I answered, but it didn't meet the narrow set of answers you were fishing for so you assume I dodged it. How very... expected.

As for you doughnut thing, I hadn't heard it before, and it's rather stupid, but it's not like I don't have stupid turns of phrase so to each their own. Still, based off the google results I saw, it isn't very nice, now, is it?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

OK so you wont answer it based on my apparent narrow field.
I honestly think it a fair question to ask. So be it.

As for the doughnut thing, I disagree. Heh, heh.
The definitions I read say it is a "nice way" to pass on the intended message.

Are you American? Leroy Brown, Jim Croce - Chicago I'm guessing - anyway, I have heard of your presidents using the phrase (Regan, I think), senators etc etc.

I reckon it's funny. But then again, I find amusement in absolutely everything.

I get heaps worse here on the forum - please take it in the vein intenteded, i.e. nothing personal, I'm just having fun.

By the way, one of the major shortcomings of this form of communication is that one can't fully see the glint in my eye and the grin on my face when I post 95% of my posts. Not to say I am not sincere, just that nearly everything I say, I say with good humour.

Now, the OP.

We seem to be getting nowhere imho.
I can do this all night if you want, or we can let some other kind folk have a go.

Sincerely
AAA

 

[geni]

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

Do you believe it to be true?

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

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

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.

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

 

[geni]

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

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.

 

[BenBurch]

Anybody who thinks Wikipedia is the seat of scientific debate needs some help.

 

[geni]

Really? Even if he is the gatekeeper?

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

 

[geni]

More opinions and and ad homs?

How about a hypothetical; let me ask you this.

If (say) an 'operative' of the oil companies 'infiltrated' Wikipedia and actively took part in the impact reduction of the manbearpig theory. Amending over 5000 articles, etc as per the inference in the original OP article.

If journalists were talking about a scandal, if "uninvolved editors" accused them of extreme bias and this person was removed from their editorial position due to "misuse of administrative priveleges".

What would your reaction be?

Insufficient information for a valid judgement.

 

[ddt]

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.)

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

Alfie, why do you keep harping on about these 5,000 wiki edits? You came up with the article claiming that's so bad. Geni already showed from a small subset how most edits are simple corrections. Now, instead of beating this dead horse over and over again - why don't you go find all those 5,000 edits, and categorize them into corrections, and major rewrites and new articles. That's a nice job to do over Xmas, and report to us back next year, will you?

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.