In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Wikipedia in the news - rip and read.
User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
kołdry
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by Mancunium » Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:21 pm

Can You Trust What Wikipedia Tells You About Science?
Editing wars shape science ideologies spread to public
Epoch Times, 19 April 2014 link
[...] A team of activists under the label “Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia” are making concerted efforts to change science content on Wikipedia. Some are concerned this group could skew public perception of scientific principles and studies. The Guerrillas started their work not long after so-called “Climategate” scandal in 2009. Green Party activist William Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 articles on Wikipedia, including many related to the politics of global warming and scientists whose views did not correspond to his own on the issue, according to reporting by Lawrence Solomon of the National Post. When Connolley became a Wikipedia website administrator, he removed 500 articles and barred more than 2,000 contributors “who ran afoul of him,” wrote Solomon. [...] “Everyone knows that there are opposing views on politics and religion, and many people recognize a biased account when they see it. But in the realm of science, things are different,” wrote Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, a biochemist and author educated at Cambridge University and Harvard who is known for his controversial theories. [...]

He accuses the Guerrilla Skepticism team of systematically abusing the trust of the Wikipedia readership. Susan Gerbik runs the team of almost 100, said Sheldrake, and “their aim is to ‘control information’ … Ms Gerbik glories in the power that she and her warriors wield.” Guerrilla Skepticism’s website states: “The mission of the Guerrilla Skepticism editing team is to improve skeptical content on Wikipedia. We do this by improving pages of our skeptic spokespeople, providing noteworthy citations, and removing the unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific pages.” [...] In December 2013, two and a half years after starting its work, the group tallied the articles it had “either rewritten or created from scratch.” The group had almost 100 on its list (not counting duplicates for the same article in multiple languages), including topics such as “rationalism,” and “spontaneous human combustion.” They worked on the biographies of scientists, boosting those they approve of, said Sheldrake, and defaming those they don’t. Sheldrake’s biography was “captured” by “a commando squad of skeptics,” he said. [...]

Concerns remain about the quality of information. The Wikipedia entry on the topic “Wikipedia” states: “A 2005 investigation in Nature showed that the [Wikipedia] science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of ‘serious errors’. Britannica replied that the study’s methology [sic] and conclusions were flawed.” If people take Wikipedia for what it is, a quick reference resource that may not be entirely accurate, its potential flaws will not have as big an impact. “Skepticism is a normal, healthy attitude of doubt,” Sheldrake wrote. “Unfortunately it can also be used as a weapon to attack opponents. In scientific and medical contexts, organized skepticism is a crusade to propagate scientific materialism.” He said: “Fortunately, a few editors arguing for a more neutral point of view have not yet been bullied into silence. An editing war is raging as you read this.”
Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia : link

Image
former Living Person

User avatar
Johnny Au
Habitué
Posts: 2618
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:05 pm
Wikipedia User: Johnny Au
Actual Name: Johnny Au
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re: In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by Johnny Au » Sat Apr 19, 2014 9:46 pm

What is next? Young Earth Creationists under Ray Comfort systematically editing Wikipedia articles on biology, geology, and astronomy?

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by Mancunium » Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:18 pm

Johnny Au wrote:What is next? Young Earth Creationists under Ray Comfort systematically editing Wikipedia articles on biology, geology, and astronomy?
Per our colleague enwikibadscience, they couldn't do much worse than the current editors of these topics.
former Living Person

User avatar
Johnny Au
Habitué
Posts: 2618
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:05 pm
Wikipedia User: Johnny Au
Actual Name: Johnny Au
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re: In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by Johnny Au » Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:33 pm

Mancunium wrote:
Johnny Au wrote:What is next? Young Earth Creationists under Ray Comfort systematically editing Wikipedia articles on biology, geology, and astronomy?
Per our colleague enwikibadscience, they couldn't do much worse than the current editors of these topics.
That is both good and bad at the same time.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by Poetlister » Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:58 am

It's a pretty safe bet that if anything's remotely controversial, people on at least one side and often two or even three sides will be found on Wikipedia trying to manipulate relevant articles. And I have given up being amazed at what can be controversial.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
iii
Habitué
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:15 am
Wikipedia User: ජපස
Wikipedia Review Member: iii
Contact:

Re: In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by iii » Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:27 pm

Hmm, The Epoch Times (T-H-L), you say?

What an interesting Wikipedia article on this source! Note that the lede does not indicate in any way that Falun Dafa groups are primarily responsible for funding this free periodical.

I wonder why that is.

User avatar
Johnny Au
Habitué
Posts: 2618
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:05 pm
Wikipedia User: Johnny Au
Actual Name: Johnny Au
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re: In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by Johnny Au » Sun Apr 20, 2014 4:31 pm

iii wrote:Hmm, The Epoch Times (T-H-L), you say?

What an interesting Wikipedia article on this source! Note that the lede does not indicate in any way that Falun Dafa groups are primarily responsible for funding this free periodical.

I wonder why that is.
It does not say where The Epoch Times belong on the political spectrum.

Hex
Retired
Posts: 4130
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Wikipedia User: Scott
Location: London
Contact:

Re: In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by Hex » Sun Apr 20, 2014 5:16 pm

Johnny Au wrote:
iii wrote:Hmm, The Epoch Times (T-H-L), you say?

What an interesting Wikipedia article on this source! Note that the lede does not indicate in any way that Falun Dafa groups are primarily responsible for funding this free periodical.

I wonder why that is.
It does not say where The Epoch Times belong on the political spectrum.
Epoch fail.
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)

enwikibadscience
Habitué
Posts: 1423
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:58 pm

Re: In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by enwikibadscience » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:33 pm

Johnny Au wrote:
Mancunium wrote:
Johnny Au wrote:What is next? Young Earth Creationists under Ray Comfort systematically editing Wikipedia articles on biology, geology, and astronomy?
Per our colleague enwikibadscience, they couldn't do much worse than the current editors of these topics.
That is both good and bad at the same time.
:deadhorse:

:rotfl:

enwikibadscience
Habitué
Posts: 1423
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:58 pm

Re: In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by enwikibadscience » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:44 pm

Johnny Au wrote:What is next? Young Earth Creationists under Ray Comfort systematically editing Wikipedia articles on biology, geology, and astronomy?
This might explain the need to invoke imaginary rock formations and time travel when writing about geology.

enwikibadscience
Habitué
Posts: 1423
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:58 pm

Re: In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by enwikibadscience » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:49 pm

Mancunium wrote:Can You Trust What Wikipedia Tells You About Science?
Editing wars shape science ideologies spread to public
Epoch Times, 19 April 2014 link
[...] A team of activists under the label “Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia” are making concerted efforts to change science content on Wikipedia. Some are concerned this group could skew public perception of scientific principles and studies. is.”
Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia : link

Image
A team of activists under the label “Friends of Cwmhiraeth (T-C-L) on Wikipedia” are making concerted efforts to change science content on Wikipedia. Some are concerned this group could skew public perception of scientific principles and studies. But for most en.Wikipedia editors it is business as usual.

Meet AfadsBad's :deadhorse:

justdroppedin
Contributor
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by justdroppedin » Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:30 pm

Mancunium wrote:Concerns remain about the quality of information. The Wikipedia entry on the topic “Wikipedia” states: “A 2005 investigation in Nature showed that the [Wikipedia] science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of ‘serious errors’. Britannica replied that the study’s methology [sic] and conclusions were flawed.” If people take Wikipedia for what it is, a quick reference resource that may not be entirely accurate, its potential flaws will not have as big an impact. “Skepticism is a normal, healthy attitude of doubt,” Sheldrake wrote. “Unfortunately it can also be used as a weapon to attack opponents. In scientific and medical contexts, organized skepticism is a crusade to propagate scientific materialism.” He said: “Fortunately, a few editors arguing for a more neutral point of view have not yet been bullied into silence. An editing war is raging as you read this.”
Emphasis added... because it sounds like this Sheldrake is concern trolling on behalf of superstitionists. I've yet to encounter any actual science that doesn't "propagate scientific materialism."

enwikibadscience
Habitué
Posts: 1423
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:58 pm

Re: In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by enwikibadscience » Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:39 pm

justdroppedin wrote:
Mancunium wrote:Concerns remain about the quality of information. The Wikipedia entry on the topic “Wikipedia” states: “A 2005 investigation in Nature showed that the [Wikipedia] science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of ‘serious errors’. Britannica replied that the study’s methology [sic] and conclusions were flawed.” If people take Wikipedia for what it is, a quick reference resource that may not be entirely accurate, its potential flaws will not have as big an impact. “Skepticism is a normal, healthy attitude of doubt,” Sheldrake wrote. “Unfortunately it can also be used as a weapon to attack opponents. In scientific and medical contexts, organized skepticism is a crusade to propagate scientific materialism.” He said: “Fortunately, a few editors arguing for a more neutral point of view have not yet been bullied into silence. An editing war is raging as you read this.”
Emphasis added... because it sounds like this Sheldrake is concern trolling on behalf of superstitionists. I've yet to encounter any actual science that doesn't "propagate scientific materialism."
These organized skeptics appear to be something else entirely, though--like the weird American atheist cult.

User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by Jim » Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:44 pm

enwikibadscience wrote:
justdroppedin wrote:
Mancunium wrote:Concerns remain about the quality of information. The Wikipedia entry on the topic “Wikipedia” states: “A 2005 investigation in Nature showed that the [Wikipedia] science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of ‘serious errors’. Britannica replied that the study’s methology [sic] and conclusions were flawed.” If people take Wikipedia for what it is, a quick reference resource that may not be entirely accurate, its potential flaws will not have as big an impact. “Skepticism is a normal, healthy attitude of doubt,” Sheldrake wrote. “Unfortunately it can also be used as a weapon to attack opponents. In scientific and medical contexts, organized skepticism is a crusade to propagate scientific materialism.” He said: “Fortunately, a few editors arguing for a more neutral point of view have not yet been bullied into silence. An editing war is raging as you read this.”
Emphasis added... because it sounds like this Sheldrake is concern trolling on behalf of superstitionists. I've yet to encounter any actual science that doesn't "propagate scientific materialism."
These organized skeptics appear to be something else entirely, though--like the weird American atheist cult.
Yeah, the "organised" skeptics remind me a lot of the old "involved cop gone bad" meme, (like Pacino in Serpico, for old farts like me). They "become" the "enemy", to a degree, after long-term exposure. Maybe it's like cooties, and you can catch it.

enwikibadscience
Habitué
Posts: 1423
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:58 pm

Re: In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by enwikibadscience » Mon Apr 21, 2014 4:31 pm

Jim wrote:
enwikibadscience wrote:
justdroppedin wrote:
Mancunium wrote:Concerns remain about the quality of information. The Wikipedia entry on the topic “Wikipedia” states: “A 2005 investigation in Nature showed that the [Wikipedia] science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of ‘serious errors’. Britannica replied that the study’s methology [sic] and conclusions were flawed.” If people take Wikipedia for what it is, a quick reference resource that may not be entirely accurate, its potential flaws will not have as big an impact. “Skepticism is a normal, healthy attitude of doubt,” Sheldrake wrote. “Unfortunately it can also be used as a weapon to attack opponents. In scientific and medical contexts, organized skepticism is a crusade to propagate scientific materialism.” He said: “Fortunately, a few editors arguing for a more neutral point of view have not yet been bullied into silence. An editing war is raging as you read this.”
Emphasis added... because it sounds like this Sheldrake is concern trolling on behalf of superstitionists. I've yet to encounter any actual science that doesn't "propagate scientific materialism."
These organized skeptics appear to be something else entirely, though--like the weird American atheist cult.
Yeah, the "organised" skeptics remind me a lot of the old "involved cop gone bad" meme, (like Pacino in Serpico, for old farts like me). They "become" the "enemy", to a degree, after long-term exposure. Maybe it's like cooties, and you can catch it.
:blink:

:fear:

User avatar
Captain Occam
Gregarious
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:08 am

Re: In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by Captain Occam » Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:17 pm

The guerrilla skepticism group was also discussed in this thread.

I think Cla68 was considering writing a blog post about them. It looks like he eventually decided against it, but I still think it might be worthwhile.

enwikibadscience
Habitué
Posts: 1423
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:58 pm

Re: In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by enwikibadscience » Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:22 pm

Captain Occam wrote:The guerrilla skepticism group was also discussed in this thread.

I think Cla68 was considering writing a blog post about them. It looks like he eventually decided against it, but I still think it might be worthwhile.
I think, overall, letting the world know, even if only a small way, just how susceptible to manipulation en.Wikipedia is, is a good thing and should always be at the forefront of Forum and Blog posts.

Wikipedia refuses to police its own; and they're incompetent to do so. Let's continue to talk about it.

User avatar
Captain Occam
Gregarious
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:08 am

Re: In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by Captain Occam » Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:50 am

enwikibadscience wrote:I think, overall, letting the world know, even if only a small way, just how susceptible to manipulation en.Wikipedia is, is a good thing and should always be at the forefront of Forum and Blog posts.

Wikipedia refuses to police its own; and they're incompetent to do so. Let's continue to talk about it.
Would you be interested in writing a blog post about this group? Even though I think it ought to be done, I don't think I've been paying enough attention to the group to do a good job writing it myself. (I've also been slowly working on a draft for an unrelated blog post, about Wikipedia's inconsistent application of BLP policy.)

enwikibadscience
Habitué
Posts: 1423
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:58 pm

Re: In Wikipedia, science is a matter of opinion

Unread post by enwikibadscience » Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:09 pm

Captain Occam wrote:
enwikibadscience wrote:I think, overall, letting the world know, even if only a small way, just how susceptible to manipulation en.Wikipedia is, is a good thing and should always be at the forefront of Forum and Blog posts.

Wikipedia refuses to police its own; and they're incompetent to do so. Let's continue to talk about it.
Would you be interested in writing a blog post about this group? Even though I think it ought to be done, I don't think I've been paying enough attention to the group to do a good job writing it myself. (I've also been slowly working on a draft for an unrelated blog post, about Wikipedia's inconsistent application of BLP policy.)
I don't have the time right now (WalMart big night clerk season), and it will be a few months before I would. I don't pay a lot of attention to these things. I really am just obsessed with seeing bad science promoted on en.Wikipedia's main page, by Cwmhiraeth, by Blofeld, by anyone. Even with the bad science I miss the biggest issues, like penguins with blocks of ice as feet, because I just start at the top, find four or five and move on (it is all of Cwmhiraeth's articles, by the way), because of time constraints.

Post Reply