I believe Vitruvius and I had a back and forth on this article about a month ago. Although Vitruvius (if I remember correctly) believes Wikipedia is a good source for general information taken with a grain of salt - my position is, why support a product that claims to be a definitive source of online information when it blatantly is not.

Wikipedia should be thoroughly discredited as a source for any information.

The main problem the destructive revolutionaries have with their plans for social justice, redistribution of wealth, and elimination of the property-owning class is that capitalism is working so well, globally raising standards of living.

"Climate Change" is, by far, the best scheme they've come up with in a while, it does have the potential to cripple North American and European economies. After all, their only hope is to somehow induce enough human misery and suffering to make their political message deceptively attractive. We shouldn't be surprised if the Climate Change agenda is pursued fanatically, they're unscrupulous and desperate.

So much for peer review, the internet being a democratic medium and the wisdom of crowds.

I may have to agree with Vitruvius on his view of Wikipedia.

If I want a quick biography of an actor, musician or artist, then it is a good starting point, but not the definitive source. However, citing Wikipedia should NEVER enter into any sort of political debate. I automatically ignore anyone who references Wikipedia to support their arguments.

Whoops, I meant definitive source, not definite.

Any point of reference should be questioned, not just Wikipedia. The authors of any encyclopedia are biased by the events of the day. Perhaps not so blatantly, which may be more incidious. Wikipedia, like other sources, is a source of information, not knowledge. Nullius inverba, - don't take anybody's word for it, think for yourself.

If I had a grad student that used Wikipedia as a source, I'd want to see their supporting evidence, just like any other citation.

Irwin Daisy:
Wikipedia should be thoroughly discredited as a source for any information.

Here here! I agree very strongly with that. A technical writing instructor of mine actually said he would not accept Wikipedia as a source. He said to go ahead and use it as a starting point to locate other sources, but he would not accept Wikipedia as a reliable source for information.

Exactly why Wikipedia is NOT a valid cite for pretty much any purpose. Use Brittanica of Am. Std. or something. Wikipedia is a "political" encyclopedia that changes like a dreamscape.

I agree with the general assessment of Wikipedia -- useful if one wants a quick look up on the dates of the Battle of Jutland or some such factoid -- very dubious as it comes to any in depth information, particularly anything that could have a political agenda -- and for lefties, everything is political.

1. Convince impressionable young people anyone who works for a corporation has an agenda.
2. Convince same people wikipedia is a good source of information because it is 'free'.
3. Zealously edit wikipedia.
3. ???? (Sell carbon credits?)
4. Profit!

I suggest readers search for several additional Solomon articles expanding on this topic. I had heard enough that I didn't expect Wikipedia to be an unbiased source on any political (in that word's widest meaning) debate. This however is over the top.

Come on now, people - let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. For most subjects - science, history, the arts, etc. - I have found it to be quite reliable when checked against other sources.

On the other hand, any thing that smacks of current political events does get hijacked in the manner Mr. Solomon suggests. For instance, I posted a comment on the Hillary Clinton page about the absence of the details of her fairy story about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Others had already complained about the lack of details of her Bosnia sniper fairy story. Both times, the page editor responded that these details were present - in the minute footnotes (of which there were over 100). In fact, although the Hillary story is there, there is no mention anywhere of the Bosnian fantasy, or of the death of Vince Foster. Although the page reads fairly neutrally, there are far more positive than negative comments. So when it comes to political themes, I don't trust Wikipedia to be neutral.

I agree with the general assessment of Wikipedia here. It is useful for pop culture and for the rest it may have some useful references.

However in regards to Solomon's piece, Peiser's papers did not support his position. I have posted a link to the analysis of his work a couple of times here already and would be pleased to post it again if anyone wants to try to defend it.

The only paper that Peiser presented that supported his point of view was a non-peer reviewed opinion piece so it would not have made it into Dr. Oreskes review.

Regards,
John

When you think about it, Wikipedia's kind of the eBay of "knowledge."  Those who most desperately want a certain "slant" to a topic to be widely broadcast are the ones who "bid" the most (by investing their own time entering, editing and monitoring the article or articles in question).  This can almost virtually guarantee zealotry.

Just like eBay, Wikipedia's rules have allowed for significant unintended consequences.  If you're desperate for information on a subject and are too lazy, too clueless or too unskilled to find better sources, Wikipedia will "do."  Sort of.

As others have said — it's not a bad starting point (kind of like a broad, fast, often sloppy overview), but it's a crummy finish.

I must admit I use Wikipedia often, and -for the most part- it seems reasonably accurate on things which are not politically "in contest", shall we say.

I will also say here that on the specific topic of gun control it is every bit as accurate as most encyclopedias, MSM reports, medical journals and information services, and indeed the CDC website.

Which is to say, not at all accurate and deliberately kept that way by an army of fanatical wankers with far too much time on their hands. Same as the MSM, medical journals, the CDC, and etc. Propaganda is a problem for Wiki too.

But if I want to look up something IMPORTANT, like The Ramones or Britney Spears or the periodic table, hey Wiki is right there.

Bottom line, our sources of information are every bit as meddled with as the ones available to Communist Chinese citizens. Its just that the people meddling with ours are sneakier than the Chicom ones.

There are some subjects where you just can't trust what's available through normal channels, and you are forced to go do your own investigations.

I have to agree with Vit as well. Wikipedia, like all sources need to be traced to the root. No article in Science, or Nature is gospel, but the readers of the journal are expected to react to the contrary if their findings contradict the story.

In this case Wikipedia keeps a log of all the changes to their pages. When reading an article, and seeing that it has been edited 28 times that day, you can suppose that something is up.

Wikipedia isn't the bible, you aren't just expected to believe it as truth. It's essential to dig below the original layer.

For example, at one point I found a page called the "Malevolent Reptilians". My first reaction wasn't... "this must be true it's on the internet", but rather "what kind of crap is this?". After confirming my instinct with a quick look at the sources I was assured: There are no malevolent reptilians who went to the moon to conquer those dastardly moon jews.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Wikipedia sounds the same as Goebles and others who did the same.Tell 99 truths and one lie and your supporters will say that they all must be true.After a while,you will be able to say 99 lies and 1 truth and they will all be believed by some.

FWIW, the successful defense of the biased view seems to be hinged on the fact that the research was mentioned more often in the MSM than the critique of the research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."

Wikipedia's own rules thus require that Wikipedia share the same bias as the MSM. Convenient!

The Wiki thing was a nice idea at the time but on a lot of information there are those zealots who have an agenda and have screwed up the whole ball of wax. It can still be a good place to start and get you in the ball park for general info (major industry or population of Akron Ohio) but if someone presented a paper or even argument(discussion) with wikipedia as their only source then I'd give it the same value as an editorial from the Toronto Star.

Recently I noticed that I've been quoted as an expert on a certain subject, on a German Wiki entry. The quote was taken out of context with added mis-spelling, from a casual post on a forum, written in English.

Flattering, but no, I don't have much faith in Wikipedia.

the only thing you check at wicka whatever is the meaning of a word ie webster's as in dictionary. as an expert on nothing i say nothing. just remember you do not need many words to tell the truth.

One more example of the zealousness in the Global Warming crowd.

Solomon is bang on, Wikipedia is increasingly being policed by zealots. I've experienced much the same thing he has regarding an article on Trudeau.

It is a shame really because the concept of Wikipedia isn't bad at all, but like all good things in the world its reputation has been tarnished by idiots.

What's telling is that the current crop of Wikipedia managers don't seem to be doing much to fix the problem, and as such I think Wikipedia will never get much beyond being a quick-and-dirty source of so-so quality information.

I have also attempted to edit articles at Wikipedia on global warming. All have been reverted; even the criticisms on the comments page have been purged.

There was originally an article called "Global Warming". This article remains, but all facts refuting global warming have been moved to "Global Warming Controversy". However, little controversy actually is allowed on the GWC page; any comments opposing the concensus will be removed immediately.

Also, there is a large section in GWC devoted to "second hand smoke", an entirely unrelated controversial topic, because it can be used to smear the credibility of GW "deniers".

Wikipedia is a wonderful example of revisionism in action.
Recall the recent (last Year) examples of WHO edits wikipedia.... over a thousand edits from CBC?

Just why would CBC employees be spending so much time editing an open source reference???

Global warmers deserve the cold shoulder.

"Wikipedia should be thoroughly discredited as a source for any information."

Well...for what it is worth,

If you are looking up anything that the left and right disagree on, then Wikipedia is not very reliable ( too many leftists activists erasing the truth )

But if you are looking up something like "sea salt" or "insomnia", then Wikipedia is as good a source as anything.

The problem is angry-lunatic-leftists more than Wikipedia...

Listen,

If you go to PMSH's wiki article, you'll see the image on the right hand side of the page. I'm responsible for getting that image there, and let me tell you it was one hell of a struggle to get it there. I wrote to the PMO's office and got express permission and confirmation that the image was in the public domain and that I could use it - and it still took about a week's worth of online arguing before people finally accepted it as being acceptable for wikipedia's copyright policies. Wikipedia editors are ENTIRELY without humour, and quite zealous. I picture them as mindless beauraucratic zombies, mindlessly chanting "fair use....faaaaaair use" over and over again, their eternal groaning burrowing into our souls.

Ugh.

Listen,

If you go to PMSH's wiki article, you'll see the image on the right hand side of the page. I'm responsible for getting that image there, and let me tell you it was one hell of a struggle to get it there. I wrote to the PMO's office and got express permission and confirmation that the image was in the public domain and that I could use it - and it still took about a week's worth of online arguing before people finally accepted it as being acceptable for wikipedia's copyright policies. Wikipedia editors are ENTIRELY without humour, and quite zealous. I picture them as mindless beauraucratic zombies, mindlessly chanting "fair use....faaaaaair use" over and over again, their eternal groaning burrowing into our souls.

Ugh.

Ugh.

If you ever come across a church with "free" in its name, beware.

If you ever come across an encyclopedia with "free" in its name, beware.

It's -100 degrees F in Vostok right now (early in the morning)

As I said above, I generally agree that you must be cautious of Wiki. However in this case it worked. Solomon tried to post something that was blatantly untrue and was called on it. So if you are looking for an example of Wiki not working this is exactly the wrong article.

Regards,
John

naomi oreskes - naomi klein - cut from the same empassioned "i'm right; you're wrong" cloth. who cares? both are pale imitations of sisyphus - they're mortals. good luck and a long life for both - they deserve each other.

Related link: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx

Solomon's Who is William Connolley?

"Connolley is not only a big shot on Wikipedia, he's a big shot at Wikipedia -- an Administrator with unusual editorial clout. Using that clout, this 40-something scientist of minor relevance gets to tear down scientists of great accomplishment. Because Wikipedia has become the single biggest reference source in the world, and global warming is one of the most sought after subjects, the ability to control information on Wikipedia by taking down authoritative scientists is no trifling matter."

wikipedia, proving the point that if you give liberal fascists a level playing field they will abuse it every time. How many on-line polls are ruined by the same little lefty morons erasing cookies and voting over and over and over again until they get their desired results.

Who is indignanat here at the Supreme Court's upholding the voter ID law in Indiana which would minimize fraud, let's guess? It's not the Republicans.

wikipedia is deluding itself and the public if they think that they've put in place a mechanism to resolve these problems other than the lame editor's review that Lawrence Soloman is up against.

The thing is, AGW is not a scientific issue. As a perspective and opinion, it's both a psychological act and a financial act. Both are fraudulent, or, unscientific.

Financially, AGW is based on a UN declaration that Western industrialism is guilty of well, of the technological brilliance of Western industrialism. The beneficial effects of this industrialism, which include better health, nutrition, housing, an informed citizenry, etc are ignored because the agenda is to instill guilt within Westerners. They must feel they are abusers of the planet; then, they will be asked to 'give alms' to absolve their guilt.

The absolution is by having the West hand over billions in guilt money to fund the industrialization of China and India. Interestingly, both China and India are totally exempt from any pollution and emissions standards. Obviously the UN's support of AGW has zilch to do with science.

The psychological structure of AGW is similar to the financial structure of the UN's AGW agenda. It too isn't based on science but on emotions. In this case, it's also based on guilt, defining the human species as 'guilty of sin' (emissions, pollution, harm to the purity of the world).

To absolve oneself of this psychological neurosis of 'feeling impure and therefore evil', AGW devotees consider that IF they can control what people do, THEN, this impurity will somehow..go away. It's a typical neurosis of guilt and control.

The individual who believes in AGW tries to cleanse themselves by assuming they can control this human impurity and 'uncleanliness'.

So, proponents of AGW, whether they are individuals or the UN, are involved, not in science, but in either a neurotic I Must Control the World to Purify Me..or..a blatant money scam.

Such a topic - which has nothing to do with science but everything to do with neurosis and money scams, can hardly be dealt with in Wikipedia because it is removed from scientific discourse.

Can't say I'm surprised; anywhere modern "liberals" (an oxymoron by any definition) are found, intolerance of different ideas runs amok.

and if i had a teacher like john nicklin who spelled insidious as 'incidious' i'd drop out of school.....and go sell encyclopedias door to door.

This whole AGW is a marketing exercise. You have sources like wikipedia for the pull side and people like John Cross for the push side.

Marketing is important for every product - a consistent message is a major key ... you must control the message.

Ural: No push required, just some simple understanding. Here is a list of the 34 abstracts for the papers Peiser says refute Oreskes by "rejecting the consensus position" . If you think any one refute Oreskes, please list it (along with why it refutes Oreskes).

Regards,
John

"Both push and pull marketing strategies work well to achieve specific goals. Integrating both strategies in a long term marketing plan is an effective way to promote any business or website."

A short overview can be found here:

http://www.doshdosh.com/push-marketing-vs-pull-marketing/

or you can google "push pull" marketing

wikipedia is now a greater source of lies than the church??????

Apologies to all the others commenting, but John Cross got me to bite.

2. Cloud Condensation Nuclei
Hudson JG
Journal of Applied Meteorology 32 (4): 596-607 Apr 1993
Abstract:

…“In spite of a promising beginning and much encouragement over the years, CCN knowledge has increased minimally. Significant uncertainties about global climate change cannot be reduced without expansion of the knowledge base of CCN.”
Let me write one part again:
“Significant uncertainties about global climate change cannot be reduced without expansion of the knowledge”

John, did you know this paper notes there are uncertainties about global climate change and that these uncertainties are significant? The opinion piece that lists these is pretty much a hatchet job on Peiser. It seems to me they put words in his mouth in such a way that they can refute the words they’ve added.

Peiser’s words: “there can be no doubt that most of them question that all uncertainties about anthropogenic forcing of recent global warming have been removed.”

Can't say I'm too surprised by Mr. Solomon's description of Wikipedia. It's very unrealiable indeed for anything remotely controversial. I do a lot of computer and audio-visual work. What it is often good for is a quick technical reference; if you need some quick facts about SD memory cards for your digital camera, or about the types of audio video files associated with DVDs, then Wikipedia will often provide some clear, accessible, up-to-the-minute information and good links to more. Some of the contributors have done a great job. However, if you're reading about Middle Eastern politics or environmentalism ... then what Mr. Solomon relates is all too true.

Agree with many about wiki, just like anything from the media, you MUST consider the source.

Actually hardly use it any more either.

RicardoVerde: But you are not addressing the issue. It does not matter if the paper supports Peiser's position or not. He wrote the response as a direct rebuttal to Oreskes post which is what I commented on. So what part of Oreskes statement do you think this disagrees with.

In fact, I think that Oreskes is quite accurate when she says:

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics.

So, I do not think that paper rejects her position, but if you wish to make the argument I would be pleased to listen to it.

Regards,
John

No John, the question is does the abstract support the position that Peiser spoke about. It most certainly does. "Significant uncertainties about climat change" is pretty straightforward English.

What Oreskes has to prove is that there are no significant publications about uncertainties. All Peiser has to show is that there are some. And there are several.

RicardoVerde: Why should Oreskes try to prove what she does not claim. Her statement above about the uncertainties is quite clear. What the paper you reference does not do is contradict what Oreskes claimed in her work.

If Pieser is making a claim that is not related to Oreskes, then you may have a valid point. If he is presenting evidence that he claims is counter to her work, then it is necessary that he (and consequently you) understand what she said.

Regards,
John

Wikipedia is the People Magazine of encyclopedias

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealot ;-)

RicardoVerde,

Why submit to push marketing? ... it's just best to say "I sent a check off yesterday" ... makes them feel good.

John Cross - I sent a BIG check to Al Gore yesterday ... you convinced me that the Sun has nothing to do with climate and man knows everything (at least where climate is concerned). Do you know where I can get a good used car?

John Cross: I respect your ongoing Scientific approach but where is your "gut intuition" , I'd say half the people out there got one sniff of "Global Warming" 8 or 10 years ago and immediately smelled a scam. Are you with me folks? Whats the percentage of people that are sceptical about all this? I'd like to know, and none of this asking people to in front of thier bosses, peers,etc.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is such a perfect cause for Libs, that if it didn't exist they would hafta invent it ... wait they didn't just invent it did they?

Well, let's see. Basically, all the miracles created by man to achieve the highest levels in history of health, prosperity and happiness are destroying the planet. In fact, our very breathing creates CO2 and is therefore destroying the planet.

The only thing that can save us now is a massive carbon tax, bigger government and less human productivity.

By the way, aren't we overdue for the next ice age?

If I were thinking of asking someone for information and knew they would lie, but didn't know when they'd lie, I think I'd ask someone else.

There are lies of omission and lies of commission. The first is aptly demonstrated when John Cross conveniently leaves out any measurements supporting his claim the cooler atmosphere can add heat to the warmer earth.

John Cross:

" ...In fact, I think that Oreskes is quite accurate when she says: 'Many details about climate interactions are not well understood'..."

So is that the new "consensus" then? That climate change requires "more study"?

I took peek at the Oreskes page on Wikipedia. Apparently her new (2007) study uses the criteria of a human effect on climate. So what? Even I wouldn't disagree with that. The real question is how many studies express the view that humans are the dominant effect on climate.

Regards, BRK

If it isn't a breach of etiquette to link to my own blog, there's more about Wikipedia bias (and Warman/Levant) here.

Wikipedia has been the greatest political coup carried off in the cyber age. The takeover of a reference encyclopedia by advocacy politics...gotta admit its pretty slick marketing for axe grinders...whether it was planned or spontanious, Wiki authoring is almost entierly done by special interest parties and the bulk of the info there reflects that bias.

Wikipedia has been the greatest political coup carried off in the cyber age. The takeover of a reference encyclopedia by advocacy politics...gotta admit its pretty slick marketing for axe grinders...whether it was planned or spontanious, Wiki authoring is almost entierly done by special interest parties and the bulk of the info there reflects that bias.

It seems more than a few peop[e are not understanding that this is Wiki editors themselves shoveling lies and propoganda. Not just your everyday moonbats.

So, perhaps it's a good reference for finding out about less politicized topics like Innuit soap carving, however, the fact that the site is owned and run by liars should give people pause to think and consider whether they should support or reference it at all.

Bob said,

"Whats the percentage of people that are sceptical about all this? "

I don't know but take a look at this CTV.ca poll from April 21/22 2008,

... ... ...

With Earth Day upon us, what are you thoughts on global warming?

Optimistic, we can stop it
1187 votes (31 %)
Pessimistic, we're too far gone
1155 votes (30 %)
I don't believe in it
1498 votes (39 %)

Total Votes: 3840

... ... ...

Close to half of them - average Canadians - do not believe in global warming.

I'm sure some will want to dismiss this as being a un-scientific poll but before rejecting this poll consider this,

The average scientific poll only asks a 1000 people,

This poll was answered by almost 4000 people.

ol hoss: absorbed, transmitted or reflected. The 190 watts/m2 must go somewhere. Where does it?

Regards,
John

BRK: The funny thing is that this has always been the position of the scientific community on global warming.

You also stated that:

I took peek at the Oreskes page on Wikipedia. Apparently her new (2007) study uses the criteria of a human effect on climate. So what? Even I wouldn't disagree with that.

Well, ol hoss does disagree with it and is violating the laws of physics while doing it. Could you please convince him of it.

Thanks,
John

Perhaps all you scholars can get the answers YOU need at www.conservapedia.com. Seems to be right up your alley!

ol hoss: absorbed, transmitted or reflected. The 190 watts/m2 must go somewhere. Where does it?

I don't know "where does it". Perhaps you should take some measurements.

Wikipedia is like letting the kids with the prettiest crayons and the most spare time write the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

The truly gifted kids can draw a Monet with only red, blue, and yellow crayon and never draw anything bigger than a dot.