[quote from an article that introduced this topic]
Thoughtcop - William Connolley
In George Orwell’s 1984 Winston Smith and thousands of co-workers diligently work to re-write history. It has been clear to many that much the same thing has been going on over at Wikipedia. It turns out that one of the champions of the historical rewrite is a fellow by the name of William Connolley, who has taken it upon himself to re-write the thermal history of the planet at Wikipedia to juice-up global warming fears.
Lawrence Solomon, from Canada’s National Post explains…
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx
Wikipedia Propaganda
Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by shodan, Jan 7, 2010.
-
Thoughtcop
From the article linked above:
All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. 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. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions... -
Wikipedia is just that: a wiki. A wiki is a user-input site, and relies primarily on individuals contributing and correcting information. That's why it's typically not a valid source for information, unless the information includes citations. On the OP topic, the "global warming" entry is rather detailed, contains extensive citations, and includes a section on debate and skepticism (including links to other wikipedia articles on arguments against global warming). As such, it's a bit of a stretch to imply a "propaganda" on a part of wikipedia.
-
Is there anyone who thinks of Wikipedia as a reliable source?
-
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Libbies.............but no one credible -
-
Your examples may show that they have sought to remedy this outrage.
I simply will not go there anymore. I have seen the same prejudice and slant in the past regarding articles on Christians and Christian organizations that are not liberal.
Of course, those promoting the global warming agenda make many citations, the trouble is that much of the work cited is based on Climategate stuff. The media are always quoting those pushing the agenda and censoring world class climatologists who expose the falacies, like Richard Lindzen of MIT, John Christy of U. of Alabama-Huntsville, etc. -
preachinjesus Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I don't know of anybody who uses Wikipedia without some kind of lens or tries to pass it off as a qualified source.
Occassionally I will hit up a topic on it for some general knowledge. I never consider it completely objective or the final place for research. Often it is a good starting place.
I don't know of any academics or serious thinkers (conservatives, moderates, liberals, and anyone else) who allow it to be used in research or presentations. It will never replace established norms for academia. -
Conservatives are not always the most reliable sources either. Test everything to see if it is so.
Cheers,
Jim -
So true, Jim, no group has cornered the market on sin.
-
-
-
-
That's somewhat human nature, though. Just look at this, or any BBS. You'll see people post links as sources as though they were authoritative, yet many of those links are commentaries or blogs. -
-
So, in other words, all we have to do is look at the IPCC's footnotes and say, YUP, its true.