They go in and block edits of global warming pages, including people editing their own biography to take away false material. All for the cause. The removal of William Connolley as editor didn't matter, as there were others who do the same thing, but the removal had the effect of making things worse because it also removed a number of skeptics who were trying to fix his work.
For a long time they had up on Richard Lindzen's page the claim that he was wrong about NSF, because he said their report was not from 'scientists alone.' They countered with the statement that the report came from 'science and policy advisers.' I tried to fix this saying that the two are obviously not contradictory statements, and my edits kept getting changed back to Lindzen lied. Eventually there was a big push that the page was more a hit job than an actual article about a person.
I do not trust wikipedia on political subjects. It can be good for things like basic math.
Don't trust anything online or in the real world. Only trust your own studies as most people have no idea. Too many theories and not enough real truth about the situation.
Till now wikipedia is the most reliable source of information...and i trust it.
Yes, it is an interesting insight in how science deniers are trying to infiltrate what is otherwise a good and objective source of information. You'll find similar Wikipedia Talk pages on any scientific issue which some deem 'controversial' (evolution, MMR vaccine, you name it).
There's already a Wiki for science deniers: it's called Conservapedia.
it is monitored and fact checked
unlike Conservapedia
and it is a lie to say anyone can edit wikipedia
conservatives only wish that were true
I think Wiki gets it right most of the time but not always. Unfortunately Wiki is subject to the same political forces as everything else, so politics does in fact slip into some articles that are supposed to be purely scientific and factual. Man-made Global Warming is mostly politics so you can expect some distortion in the Wiki articles that are about it, or are related to it.
To Wiki's credit they banned British scientist and Wikipedia administrator William Connolley from participating in any article, discussion or forum dealing with global warming. According to some accounts, Connolley rewrote climate history, editing more than 5,000 unique articles in the online encyclopedia to cover traces of the medieval warming period – something Alarmist scientists saw as a major roadblock in their effort to spread global warming propaganda. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/blog.html?...
So Wiki isn't perfect, it's always best to have more sources for whatever you are presenting than just Wiki, but for a fast reference on many things, I use them all the time and I'm glad it's available.
I think Wiki does far more good than harm and I think they try to get it right, even though, in my opinion they do not always succeed. But what does?
-----------------------
However, the Wiki article on Global Warming is VERY politicized. For example, to support the claim that 97% of scientists support the view that 'climate change' is man-made, they use the John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli 'study' which may be the most debunked paper in the history of science.
Under Solar Activity the article states: "Since 1978, output from the Sun has been precisely measured by satellites.[110] These measurements indicate that the Sun's output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth."
Here they got the facts right, but they did not present ALL the facts and thus their conclusion is not valid. Yes, solar activity has not increased since 1978 as they say --- what they fail to mention is that during that period of decline the levels of solar activity were STILL FAR HIGHER than normal. So solar activity WAS IN FACT responsible for the modern warming.
So Wiki is a useful resource but when highly charged politics are involved you need to go deeper than just Wiki.
-----------------------
What a ridiculous person you are Kano, to imply that we shouldn't trust Wikipedia, when you spend all your time on propaganda sites. Wikipedia is actually remarkably accurate, but the nature of it opens it up to people with an axe to grind. Garbage doesn't usually last too long on Wikipedia, but it is forever propagated in the blogosphere.
If you go to Wiki on a political issue, you are going to get political responses depending on who wrote it. I know alarmists think their politics is science but most of the rest of us know better.
I read Wiki then do my own fact checking. NEVER!
If you are asking if we should verify what we see in Wikipedia, of course. We also need to verify what we see in WUWT.
This is a look into what happens behind the scenes
I trust it a lot because I edit it to fit what I believe.
Wikipedia is definitely political when it comes to Global Warming. Your article shows it.
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-...
"Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica"
I do.
Certainly more than AGW deniers that we see around here.
i trust it more than YA.
