Wikipedia is in the hands of the zealots

[Paul's Here 0]

Readers, Beware.

For this reason, when visiting Oreskes's page on Wikipedia several weeks ago, I was surprised to read not only that Oreskes had been vindicated but that Peiser had been discredited. More than that, the page portrayed Peiser himself as having grudgingly conceded Oreskes's correctness.

Upon checking with Peiser, I found he had done no such thing. The Wikipedia page had misunderstood or distorted his comments. I then exercised the right to edit Wikipedia that we all have, corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.

Peiser wrote back saying he couldn't see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. Had I neglected to save them after editing them, I wondered. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again! I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.

Nonplused, I investigated. Wikipedia logs all changes. I found mine. And then I found Tabletop's. Someone called Tabletop was undoing my edits, and, following what I suppose is Wikietiquette, also explained why. "Note that Peiser has retracted this critique and admits that he was wrong!" Tabletop said.

I undid Tabletop's undoing of my edits, thinking I had an unassailable response: "Tabletop's changes claim to represent Peiser's views. I have checked with Peiser and he disputes Tabletop's version."

Tabletop undid my undid, claiming I could not speak for Peiser.

Wikipedia's zealots

[PhilO 0]

This is only one of the many fundamental flaws of Wikipedia. I sometimes refer to Wikipedia but always with some trepidation. (Fundamental because they're a logical result of the basic way that Wikipedia works, which could only be fixed by major structural changes.)

[JRoberts 0]

This is exactly why I use Wikipedia for non-controversial subjects only. I've found similar problems in articles about: Ayn Rand, Capitalism, Environmentalism, etc.

But the nice thing about Wikipedia is that it has information found almost nowhere else in the world about highly specialised but non-controversial subjects.

[Zeus 0]

Paul's Here notes:

Wikipedia is in the hands of the zealots

That's certainly my experience! Even if you have the unassailable truth in your hands, you can't write it. The reasons for this are various, weird, infuriating, and depressing.

[alann 0]

This is an interesting debate, actually, from the standpoint that the most important facts seem to be ignored as tangential.

Oreske's scheme, in the article you reference, used only "peer reviewed" articles, Peiser went wider. If the question is "do the journals discriminate based on an agenda?" then peer review represents a blockade to the publication of dissenting articles. Because of the massive government financial support of results biased in favor of AGW, peer review has, for the first time, become a major factor preventing objective scientific research reporting, where it was originally intended to insure proper methodology and objectivity.

Also interesting are the biases in Oreske's study that are mentioned but not commented upon, like her claiming her study proved no bias in the reporting of 'anthropogenic climate change,' even though her search terms were 'global climate change.' Since that was the basis of her major claim, that this search analysis is still being touted shows where the bias stands.

The whole thing is silly, though, since the question is essentially a popularity contest for a concept, not its proof or disproof. Maybe she should examine the hypothesis: "Scientists can be bought." That might be more productive.

[Stussy88 0]

This is exactly why I use Wikipedia for non-controversial subjects only. I've found similar problems in articles about: Ayn Rand, Capitalism, Environmentalism, etc.

But the nice thing about Wikipedia is that it has information found almost nowhere else in the world about highly specialised but non-controversial subjects.

Exactly right, but the range of subjects you can rely on it for are serioulsy limited. So much is politicised.

[Nicolaus Nemeth 0]

Alann:

I'm glad somebody else mentioned it! It really does seem that today's ideas are much more of a popularity contest than anything else. Rational thinkers (Objectivist or not) in their respective fields are almost impotent against it, too, since they actually focus on proof and not on winning the contest, making those who do focus on the popularity contest the winners by default. Such is the state of our culture.

[Arnold 0]

Speaking of which, I have found myself thrown in with 'Flat Earthers' and Holocaust Deniers, when it comes to questioning the science of Global Climate.

[Cometmaker 0]

[...]It really does seem that today's ideas are much more of a popularity contest than anything else. Rational thinkers (Objectivist or not) in their respective fields are almost impotent against it, too, since they actually focus on proof and not on winning the contest, making those who do focus on the popularity contest the winners by default. Such is the state of our culture.

Your assumption is that winners of any popularity contest are winners in reality. Rational thinkers, Objectivist or not, are almost never impotent in reality. Can't get something approved by the FDA by your timescale or at all, maybe one should fly to China and Japan and do it there. Can't get something published by peer-reviewed journals, maybe one should self-publish. The gift that every rational thinker, within their respective fields, has given to us is that with each successive technological advance, no matter how small, each us is able to exercise his or her free will to a greater extent than ever before. Planes and self-publishing software were not created and improved by popularity seekers. It is precisely the opposite of your statement that makes the world the wonderful place that it is and that it can continue being. According to answers.com, culture is "the totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought." I suggest you rethink who creates and defines the state of "culture".

[Stussy88 0]

Speaking of which, I have found myself thrown in with 'Flat Earthers' and Holocaust Deniers, when it comes to questioning the science of Global Climate.

If anyone resorts to the ad hominem argument, you can be sure you are winning.

[piz 0]

I agree completely about Wikipedia when it comes to "controversial" topics. However, the site nonetheless has value in many areas. For example, let me take you back in time to approximately 15 minutes ago...

I signed in to the Go server I regularly use, and join one of the chat rooms it has where I have some e-friends. One participant, a retired academic physicist from Britain, is describing (as ya do on an internet Go server) what he's recently learned about the origin of the name of the city, Istanbul. This leads me to quote a line from the old song "Istanbul (Not Constantinople)," to general laughter in the room.

My mind wandering at the speed of DSL, I go to Wikipedia to read up on the song. I find the appropriate article and, amongst the waaaaay more information than I needed, I learned that the version done by the band They Might Be Giants in 1990 has "a distinct klezmer influence." Having heard that version and not knowing what "klezmer" means, I immediately click on the term (as ya do) and discover that it's "a musical tradition which parallels Hasidic and Ashkenazic Judaism." Returning to the article about the song, I continue reading and find that it's "regularly covered by the" ...here it comes... "klezmer fusion jazz band, Hypnotic Clambake."

Let me repeat that, because I think you might not be coming along on the journey with me:

"klezmer fusion jazz band"

"Hypnotic Clambake"

There is something I must now do. This is not a choice I have, it is now required for my well-being: I must now find music by this...I have to say it again...KLEZMER FUSION JAZZ BAND! HYPNOTIC CLAMBAKE!

I call over my older son and describe to him what has just permanently consumed some of my neurons. He who replied with, "Klezmer fusion jazz band?!?! Hypnotic Clambake?!?! That's the most awesomest thing EVER!!!" (We tend to react that way to such things, though we try not to let the general public witness it.)

My day has been made.

[egochick 0]

Wikipedia is a brilliant and horrible idea all at the same time, depending on what you look up. I use it all the time to expand my knowledge on things that have little to no controversy surrounding them. It's a one-stop place for nifty stuff to read on. I find a cultural reference that I don't understand, I look it up. If it looks somewhat controversial, I discard what I read and go on to the links at the bottom as a place to start looking stuff up for myself.

As a note on the awesomeness of Wikipedia, I got about 1/3 of the way through the Illuminatus! Trilogy over winter break. It was written by two men when they were editors of Playboy magazine. I won't bother too much with the plot here, but it's very full of cultural references and weird conspiracy theories that I didn't understand without looking up on my own - here comes Wikipedia to the rescue. And when I run across really cool pictures (taken in London):

Wikipedia is always there for me to remember, "hey, wasn't there something in X about Y?", like this.

However, the idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is also remarkably silly because in areas where someone wants to put their agenda above the truth, all they have to do is sit there and reverse anyone's changes. It can allow everything from immature hijinks to giving lies some sort of validity. If you use it responsibly, it's a wonderful tool. The ability of anyone who can to add to easily available knowledge for others is very good and very bad. Use your own judgement and you'll do fine on Wikipedia.

[Carlos 0]

Also, wikipedia is a surprisingly good math resource, and (disappointingly) can sometimes explain concepts better than my Physics textbooks! (as long as one is wary to check the article's validity)

When I took a graduate Classical Electrodynamics course last fall, I used wikipedia countless times to quickly look up some obscure math item:

Take this article for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics

[piz 0]

[Wikipedia is] a one-stop place for nifty stuff to read on.

Yeah, though sometimes it gets addictive. One day last week I started out looking up something about the platypus, wound my way through the French Revolution, and ended up on a 40 year old unsolved murder in the library at my alma mater, Penn State. I couldn't tell you how many diverse things I read along the way (IIRC, quasars, a spice called star anise, and Moe Howard were some of them).

[Carlos 0]

[Wikipedia is] a one-stop place for nifty stuff to read on.

Yeah, though sometimes it gets addictive. One day last week I started out looking up something about the platypus, wound my way through the French Revolution, and ended up on a 40 year old unsolved murder in the library at my alma mater, Penn State. I couldn't tell you how many diverse things I read along the way (IIRC, quasars, a spice called star anise, and Moe Howard were some of them).

That is the typical atypical progression of surfing on wikipedia!

[Capitalist Man 0]

Wikipedia is frustrating. It's fine if you're looking up basic information, but if you try to participate, you learn pretty quickly how it is run.

It boils down to two things:

- The revision stalker: These people appear to do nothing but sit in front of the computer and watch revisions. They're not necessarily moderators or admins, they're just people that watch for changes. If they like the changes, they leave it. If not, it is gone.

- The admin: You'll run into admins that have power that basically lay down their iron fist and say this is the way it is.

I'm going to make an effort with people I talk with. If they tell me they think wikipedia is good, I'll try to convince them just to try to edit an article an add in some information and see what kind of experience they have. Than they can move onto more controversial topics and see how impossible editing becomes.

[Capitalist Man 0]

Well, I just got blocked for 48hrs for "Vandalism". What was my act of vandalism? Correcting a sentence and adding a few words in. Some immediately comes in and reverts it. I put it in again stating it is the correct information.

I don't understand. I asked repeatedly to these admins what exactly am I don't wrong and none would take the time to answer. It's okay for some people to delete, but not okay for others.

I figured out the perfect phrase to describe that place, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

[MichaelJ 0]

One thing that makes it a lot harder is that these days, governments and political parties have 'wikipedia divisions', to try to make their candidates appear as clean as possible, and muddy the oppositions candidates too. They also do the same to issues they consider to be central to their strategy.

[ewv 0]

Someone should start a wikipedia entry on how wikipedia is manipulated and abused for political and ideological purposes, rendering it useless as a reliable, credible source of information.

[piz 0]

[Mercury 0]