| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Climategate: how the cabal controlled Wikipedia |
| 2009-12-20 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #7 When you get into opinion-based stuff its not very good (Mac vs PC for example). Truly. Opinion-based stuff like anthropogenic global warming. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-12-20 22:41 |
| #6 I've always felt they were good for distant history. When you get into opinion-based stuff its not very good (Mac vs PC for example). |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2009-12-20 19:55 |
| #5 #1 This article is depressing. One person (ostensibly) has re-written history, and it stands today, as re-written, intact. His censure by Wikipedia is hidden, but his impact lingers on. Hiding the censure signals implicit agreement. It is unreasonable to assume that writing the Wiki board will correct the situation, insofar as they are complicit and are trying to hide the problem. It follows then that everything you read on Wikipedia is suspect. Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2009-12-20 04:42 #2 Wikipedia is absolute crap for anything having to deal with politics or social norms. Posted by: lex 2009-12-20 06:04 This is why (when I was teaching Social Studies/History/Civics) I refused to accept Wikipedia as a source for any papers and projects I assigned my students. |
| Posted by: WolfDog 2009-12-20 12:07 |
| #4 But it's back. Still has some weasel words about Mikey Mann. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2009-12-20 11:34 |
| #3 Consequences for the misbehaviour are piling on. From the article's comment thread: From the wattsupwiththat site: In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. ConnolleyÂ’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. This has now been added to his article. - reply from Wikipedia Management |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-12-20 09:19 |
| #2 Wikipedia is absolute crap for anything having to deal with politics or social norms. |
| Posted by: lex 2009-12-20 06:04 |
| #1 This article is depressing. One person (ostensibly) has re-written history, and it stands today, as re-written, intact. His censure by Wikipedia is hidden, but his impact lingers on. Hiding the censure signals implicit agreement. It is unreasonable to assume that writing the Wiki board will correct the situation, insofar as they are complicit and are trying to hide the problem. It follows then that everything you read on Wikipedia is suspect. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2009-12-20 04:42 |