The Truth about Wikipedia
Posted by Jeff Condon on January 10, 2012
Some wonder why I’m tired and grumpy about climate blogging. Wikipedia is a great example. No matter the evidence, they will publish whatever revisionist truth compliments the leftist message. I will never contribute to that group although it could have been a wonderful source, it has become a biased propaganda engine of massive size. They are regularly asking people for contributions at a time when other websites of that size are rife with cash. Gee, does that sound like any newspapers you know? Media groups never seem to recognize that it is the message that is not selling, they always blame something else. Wiki claims that they don’t want adds to influence their content, but a few minutes of review by an unbiased individual reveals that the plain ain’t working. Today at WUWT, James Padgett has a nice post on the Wikirevisionist article on the Soon and Baliunas incident. The same SB paper which led to some insane behavior by the paleoclimatologist community which didn’t like the critique of their blatantly unreasonable methodologies.
I’ve been so frustrated with the constant untruths in media and climate science that it is hard to post anything. Last night I spent a few hours quietly looking back at Ljungqvist 2010 proxies and will likely have a post in the next day or two on that. It seems somewhat removed from the out-of-control political idiocy disguised as science. Numbers are calming.
Anyway, check this out. It is worth a read.
The Wonderful World of Wikipedia
Guest post by James Padgett
As many readers are aware, the culture surrounding the climate change topic area of Wikipedia has been a microcosm of climate science for nearly a full decade.
This is not a compliment.
When you read the Climategate emails and see discussions of finding people to investigate and discredit your ideological opponents – that is Wikipedia. When you read about the IPCC’s usage of the WWF and students in composing their Climate Bible (KJV) – that is Wikipedia. When you read about “climate scientists” conspiring to get other scientists fired for challenging the orthodoxy – that is Wikipedia.
In short, Wikipedia does not care about truth, and certainly not doubts, it cares about message.