[WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
Now has a Slashdot story: http://slashdot.org/submission/1137140/Climategate-spreads-to-Wikipedia Which links to two articles: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409 http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx At a minimum this sounds like conflict of interest, and worse if any of these accusations are true (although the article counts are probably misreporting, and I bet they include all articles he deleted and all banned users regardless of associations with climate change). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
Ken Arromdee wrote: > Now has a Slashdot story: > > http://slashdot.org/submission/1137140/Climategate-spreads-to-Wikipedia > > Which links to two articles: > http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409 > http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx > > At a minimum this sounds like conflict of interest, and worse if any of these > accusations are true (although the article counts are probably misreporting, > and I bet they include all articles he deleted and all banned users regardless > of associations with climate change). > > Erm, you wouldn't be jumping to any conclusions here? And misinterpreting what we mean by "conflict of interest"? Which does not equate to academic involvement in a topic (no longer William's situation, by the way?) Or neglecting quite a substantial history of dispute resolution down the years, which at minimum involves people who actually understand policy looking at actual edits? Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
2009/12/19 Ken Arromdee : > Now has a Slashdot story: > > http://slashdot.org/submission/1137140/Climategate-spreads-to-Wikipedia > > Which links to two articles: > http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409 > http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx > > At a minimum this sounds like conflict of interest, and worse if any of these > accusations are true (although the article counts are probably misreporting, > and I bet they include all articles he deleted and all banned users regardless > of associations with climate change). > > The user in question has been involved in a number of arbcom cases. If they were any problems I 'm sure arbcom would have addressed. I would be more worried if our climate change articles were not upsetting the likes of the national post. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
I'll add that it doesn't appear to actually be a story yet, just a submission made through Firehose. Regular /.ers have clearly spoken as to how they feel about it, as noted by the colorful tags placed on the submission and its poor rating. Meanwhile, the article itself is a misleading, erroneous opinion piece by a very clearly biased individual. In other words, nothin' to see here. ~Amory On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 17:12, geni wrote: > 2009/12/19 Ken Arromdee : >> Now has a Slashdot story: >> >> http://slashdot.org/submission/1137140/Climategate-spreads-to-Wikipedia >> >> Which links to two articles: >> http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409 >> http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx >> >> At a minimum this sounds like conflict of interest, and worse if any of these >> accusations are true (although the article counts are probably misreporting, >> and I bet they include all articles he deleted and all banned users >> regardless >> of associations with climate change). >> >> > > The user in question has been involved in a number of arbcom cases. If > they were any problems I 'm sure arbcom would have addressed. > > I would be more worried if our climate change articles were not > upsetting the likes of the national post. > > -- > geni > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
2009/12/19 Amory Meltzer : > I'll add that it doesn't appear to actually be a story yet, just a > submission made through Firehose. Regular /.ers have clearly spoken > as to how they feel about it, as noted by the colorful tags placed on > the submission and its poor rating. Meanwhile, the article itself is > a misleading, erroneous opinion piece by a very clearly biased > individual. Indeed. Ken was presumably sent this link by a troll and mistook it for something that actually had any chance of ending up published. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
We all know William Connolley is an advocate for taking climate change seriously. However there remains a lack of reliable information which negates his position. If there was such information, those of us who follow this issue would have settled his beeswax fast enough. Fred > Ken Arromdee wrote: >> Now has a Slashdot story: >> >> http://slashdot.org/submission/1137140/Climategate-spreads-to-Wikipedia >> >> Which links to two articles: >> http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409 >> http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx >> >> At a minimum this sounds like conflict of interest, and worse if any of >> these >> accusations are true (although the article counts are probably >> misreporting, >> and I bet they include all articles he deleted and all banned users >> regardless >> of associations with climate change). >> >> > Erm, you wouldn't be jumping to any conclusions here? And > misinterpreting what we mean by "conflict of interest"? Which does not > equate to academic involvement in a topic (no longer William's > situation, by the way?) Or neglecting quite a substantial history of > dispute resolution down the years, which at minimum involves people who > actually understand policy looking at actual edits? > > Charles > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
2009/12/19 Fred Bauder : > We all know William Connolley is an advocate for taking climate change > seriously. However there remains a lack of reliable information which > negates his position. If there was such information, those of us who > follow this issue would have settled his beeswax fast enough. Yeah, pity he's one of those evil conspiratorial climate scientists and actually knows much more than you or others about the issue. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
Clearly this is just a plot by scientists to take money from oil companies (well, only some of them, because Shell and BP support action) and give it to investment bankers in order to build bird-killing windmills. This plot was hatched back in the 1960s, when MIT climatologist Ed Lorenz discovered that butterflies cause hurricanes and birds cause tornadoes. So they've launched a plan to deploy solar thermal plants and windmills to kill off flying creatures. On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 2:43 AM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/12/19 Fred Bauder : > > > We all know William Connolley is an advocate for taking climate change > > seriously. However there remains a lack of reliable information which > > negates his position. If there was such information, those of us who > > follow this issue would have settled his beeswax fast enough. > > > Yeah, pity he's one of those evil conspiratorial climate scientists > and actually knows much more than you or others about the issue. > > > - d. > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
Climate change is a myth. There have always been palm trees on the Antarctic peninsula... On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 8:11 PM, The Cunctator wrote: > Clearly this is just a plot by scientists to take money from oil companies > (well, only some of them, because Shell and BP support action) and give it > to investment bankers in order to build bird-killing windmills. > > This plot was hatched back in the 1960s, when MIT climatologist Ed Lorenz > discovered that butterflies cause hurricanes and birds cause tornadoes. So > they've launched a plan to deploy solar thermal plants and windmills to > kill > off flying creatures. > > > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 2:43 AM, David Gerard wrote: > > > 2009/12/19 Fred Bauder : > > > > > We all know William Connolley is an advocate for taking climate change > > > seriously. However there remains a lack of reliable information which > > > negates his position. If there was such information, those of us who > > > follow this issue would have settled his beeswax fast enough. > > > > > > Yeah, pity he's one of those evil conspiratorial climate scientists > > and actually knows much more than you or others about the issue. > > > > > > - d. > > > > ___ > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, David Gerard wrote: > Indeed. Ken was presumably sent this link by a troll and mistook it > for something that actually had any chance of ending up published. Actually, I routinely browse Firehose and didn't realize that I had jumped the gun by sending the link here while it's still in Firehose. I did catch the probable distortion of the deletions and bans, though. But the original messages that the Slashdot article links to do sound a little worrisome, though. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, David Gerard wrote: >> Indeed. Ken was presumably sent this link by a troll and mistook it >> for something that actually had any chance of ending up published. > > Actually, I routinely browse Firehose and didn't realize that I had > jumped > the gun by sending the link here while it's still in Firehose. I did > catch > the probable distortion of the deletions and bans, though. > > But the original messages that the Slashdot article links to do sound a > little > worrisome, though. There is not a lot we can do about it. Sometimes fanatics are right. Consider the case of Pythagoras: The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle DOES equal the sum of the other two sides. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
At 03:08 PM 12/19/2009, Ken Arromdee wrote: >Now has a Slashdot story: > >http://slashdot.org/submission/1137140/Climategate-spreads-to-Wikipedia > >Which links to two articles: >http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409 >http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx > >At a minimum this sounds like conflict of interest, and worse if any of these >accusations are true (although the article counts are probably misreporting, >and I bet they include all articles he deleted and all banned users regardless >of associations with climate change). The article was likely overstated. However, the editor involved did have a substantial history of using administrative tools with respect to global warming and related articles, as well as extensive editing in the area, taking a consistent position, supporting a consistent point of view. I encountered this myself when I helped avoid the deletion of an RfC that was written by Raul654, certified by WMC, then it was noticed that Raul had not certified it. Then I read the RfC and was horrified, and that was the beginning of my involvement with WMC and others active with the global warming article. My point of view is sympathetic to the position that global warming is a serious problem, but what I saw was administrative bias, tools being used to preferentially block and ban editors on one side of dispute on the topic, tag-team reversion and avoidance of the seeking of consensus, and other signs of a neutrality problem. I then saw the same constellation of editors acting in similar ways with respect to other fringe science and pseudoscience articles, and there has been much conflict over these areas that would be resolved with more attention from ArbComm to fringe issues and how to find genuine consensus, the kind that resolves disputes instead of burying half of them, whereupon they rise from the dead and walk. There is a current sockpuppet report on Scibaby, and, from the history of Scibaby and how this prolific creator of sock puppets came to be such, it was tag-team reversion and abuse of administrative tools from the beginning, that predated the creation of sock puppets, which were a rather understandable if dysfunctional response. WMC lost his admin tools over his block of me during RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, but that was not by any means an isolated incident. Many times WMC used his tools while involved. There would be an AN report over it, his friends would pile in, and the result would be no consensus, which was then presented as if it meant "no problem," i.e., that WMC had been confirmed. He had been admonished by ArbComm previously, but so mildly and so narrowly, given the fact that his alleged abuse of tools had received media attention before, that he had nothing but contempt for the decision. ArbComm, I'm afraid, will strain at a gnat and swallow flies. And when there is a substantial faction of editors who circle the wagons to protect their own, and they include a few administrators, it can be an enduring problem, and the result is Wikipedia bias, a fundamental mission failure. I'd watched WMC's actions as a administrator. He was a cowboy, so to speak, quick draw, quick decisions, not a lot of thought behind them. He was often right, more or less, but he also would get it wrong sometimes. Sometimes he backed down. By no means was WMC the worst administrator I've seen. But he frequently acted while involved and with insufficient caution, and he was utterly unwilling or incapable of addressing that, hence it was necessary for ArbComm to remove the bit. It took a totally blatant violation, under the noses of ArbComm, during a case where he and I were the primary parties, to jolt the Committee into action, though. It had been obvious to anyone watching for a long time. And there are other administrators who are probably worse, just not as open as he was, perhaps a bit more careful when they think the community is watching. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > WMC lost his admin tools over his block of me during RfAr/Abd-William > M. Connolley, but that was not by any means an isolated incident. > Mmmm, no. William's fuse is shorter than ideal. Obvious enough to many people, and over the years there has been much provocation over at the climate change articles. Now what was that word they use on the Internet for a provocateur? Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Charles Matthews wrote: >> > Mmmm, no. William's fuse is shorter than ideal. Obvious enough to many > people, and over the years there has been much provocation over at the > climate change articles. Now what was that word they use on the Internet > for a provocateur? > > Charles Sprite? Spriggan? Boggart? Ogre? Hmm... Can't quite put my finger on it. -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
2009/12/21 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax : > The article was likely overstated. However, the editor involved did > have a substantial history of using administrative tools with respect > to global warming and related articles, as well as extensive editing > in the area, taking a consistent position, supporting a consistent > point of view. I encountered this myself when I helped avoid the > deletion of an RfC that was written by Raul654, certified by WMC, > then it was noticed that Raul had not certified it. Then I read the > RfC and was horrified, and that was the beginning of my involvement > with WMC and others active with the global warming article. This is the one you were taken to arbitration over, and was the source of your proposal that experts be banned from editing articles on their expertise. Global warming nutters are really special. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
At 12:04 PM 12/21/2009, David Gerard wrote: >2009/12/21 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax : > > > The article was likely overstated. However, the editor involved did > > have a substantial history of using administrative tools with respect > > to global warming and related articles, as well as extensive editing > > in the area, taking a consistent position, supporting a consistent > > point of view. I encountered this myself when I helped avoid the > > deletion of an RfC that was written by Raul654, certified by WMC, > > then it was noticed that Raul had not certified it. Then I read the > > RfC and was horrified, and that was the beginning of my involvement > > with WMC and others active with the global warming article. > >This is the one you were taken to arbitration over, and was the source >of your proposal that experts be banned from editing articles on their >expertise. Not at all, completely incorrect, even though asserted with succinct confidence. (1) The RfC mentioned did not lead to any ArbComm case. I was not "taken to arbitration." I filed the case over a ban by an involved administrator, and no RfC was undertaken because it had become apparent that it would merely multiply words with no benefit, and ArbComm agreed and took the case. (2) The only mention of global warming in the case was evidence that I presented that WMC was involved negatively with me prior to his unilateral declaration of a ban of me from Cold fusion. I did not claim he was involved with Cold fusion, but that he was involved with me, that it was a personal dispute. With regard to a situation where he wheel-warred with Jennavecia over the protection of the Global warming article, I pointed out that he quite explicitly, in discussing this, admitted a view of a clique of editors maintaining that article, against outsiders and interlopers and trolls, and anyone disagreeing, not merely on the topic of global warming, but simply with WMC's approach as being in conflict with fundamental Wikipedia policy, was one of these. Meddlers. These meddlers, in fact, include sitting arbitrators. (3) I did propose, not that experts be banned from editing articles in their field of expertise, but that they be, on the one hand, considered to have a conflict of interest in general, and thus obligated to refrain from controversial editing *of articles*, but, on the other hand, generally protected as to expressing expert opinion on Talk pages. We should respect experts. WMC sometimes was quite reasonable when it came to actual facts and finding compromise text; the problem was when he used his administrative tools to enforce his position. >Global warming nutters are really special. Not. Nutters are nutters. But I'm not a global warming skeptic, is Mr. Gerard attempting to imply that I am? My concern wasn't WMC's point of view on global warming, as such, but the use of administrative tools by him and others, to favor that point of view, by quick blocks and bans of editors with different points of view, and the support of this by a clique with consistent, long-term revert warring as distinct from following consensus process. The skeptical position was utterly rejected, instead of appropriately being incorporated as supported by reliable sources, and according to due weight, as found through consensus. As an example, the major scientific report on global warming, I forget the title, contained precise definitions of the terms used, which were not necessarily what one would commonly assume. Incorporating these precise definitions into the article, however, would slightly dilute the polemic effect of simply presenting the conclusions without defining the terms. And that was rejected. Too much detail. Too confusing to readers. Whitewashing. Anyone who has watched the global warming articles, long-term, would see what was happening, and it happened over and over for years. This produces a reaction, which reaction includes Scibaby and all the rangeblock damage, negative press, etc. Predictable. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 12:04 PM 12/21/2009, David Gerard wrote: > >> This is the one you were taken to arbitration over, and was the source >> of your proposal that experts be banned from editing articles on their >> expertise. >> > > Not at all, completely incorrect, even though asserted with succinct > confidence. > > (3) I did propose, not that experts be banned from editing articles > in their field of expertise, but that they be, on the one hand, > considered to have a conflict of interest in general, and thus > obligated to refrain from controversial editing *of articles*, but, > on the other hand, generally protected as to expressing expert > opinion on Talk pages. We should respect experts. WMC sometimes was > quite reasonable when it came to actual facts and finding compromise > text; the problem was when he used his administrative tools to > enforce his position. > We have moved from the "smoke without fire" assertions at the head of this thread to this "distinction without a difference". It needs to be said, tirelessly, that we do not consider anyone to have a conflict of interest unless they are putting their other interests ahead of the encyclopedia's. (Strangely enough, in a part of the post I snipped, you were making some comments and claims about the misuse of technical language in climate change articles. You are doing precisely this shuffle in involving COI in a sense that has no necessary application to WP in this manner.) Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
Nathan wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Charles Matthews > wrote: > >> Mmmm, no. William's fuse is shorter than ideal. Obvious enough to many >> people, and over the years there has been much provocation over at the >> climate change articles. Now what was that word they use on the Internet >> for a provocateur? >> >> Charles >> > > > Sprite? Spriggan? Boggart? Ogre? Hmm... Can't quite put my finger on it. > > > This may not be the best time to bring this up, but I am sort of annoyed that perfectly fine mannered (relatively speaking) mythological beings have been smeared in this manner. Vandals being used as a smearword for folks who show disrespect for places where they pass through, is really borderline understandable, though I have it on good authority that they are getting a serious bum rap on that deal. The historical Vandals were nothing like what their name has been put to carry as significance. The Trolls of mythology, however, totally got the shaft. In internet terms. "Trolling" was always a verb, originally, and never a pronoun; and it referred to techniques of fishing. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > The Trolls of mythology, however, totally got the shaft. > In internet terms. "Trolling" was always a verb, originally, > and never a pronoun; and it referred to techniques of fishing. > > Thank you. I have often despaired of finding anyone on the net who understood that. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
