Connolley Slimes Again

[EricBarbour]

"How Not To Edit Wikipedia"

I still think the bastard does this for sick kicks, not to make Wikipedia "scientifically accurate".
Note the comments. Connolley and his readers deserve each other.

I wonder what real-world harm that guy is doing to climate-change issues.

[Hersch]

The idea that this guy could be actually competent in any scientific field is just too much for me to swallow.

[rhindle]

The user WMC refers to in his article, andrewedwardjudd, just opened a WR account.

[iii]

The idea that this guy could be actually competent in any scientific field is just too much for me to swallow.

What does the obsessiveness over Wikipedia editing have to do with science? Competence in a scientific field does not mean one is immune from being sucked into the morass of Wikipedia culture.

[DanMurphy]

I'm not competent (without doing a bit of background reading) to pass judgement on whether he's got the facts of the case right. But it certainly seems logical and sane, and not in any way suggestive that he couldn't be a good climate scientist.

[EricBarbour]

I'm not competent (without doing a bit of background reading) to pass judgement on whether he's got the facts of the case right. But it certainly seems logical and sane, and not in any way suggestive that he couldn't be a good climate scientist.

The opinionator

At Wikipedia, one man engineers the debate on global warming, and shapes it to his views
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post Published: Saturday, May 03, 2008

Next to Al Gore, William Connolley may be the world's most influential person in the global warming debate. He has a PhD in mathematics and worked as a climate modeller, but those accomplishments don't explain his influence -- PhDs are not uncommon and, in any case, he comes from the mid-level ranks in the British Antarctic Survey, the agency for which he worked until recently.

He was the Parish Councillor for the village of Coton in the U.K., his Web site tells us, and a school governor there, too, but neither of those accomplishments are a claim to fame in the wider world. Neither are his five failed attempts to attain public office as a local candidate for South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridgeshire County Council as a representative for the Green Party.

But Connolley is a big shot on Wikipedia, which honours him with an extensive biography, an honour Wikipedia did not see fit to bestow on his boss at the British Antarctic Survey. Or on his boss's's boss, or on his boss's boss's boss, or on his boss's boss's boss's boss, none of whose opinions seemingly count for much, despite their impressive accomplishments. William Connolley's opinions, in contrast, count for a great deal at Wikipedia, even though some might not think them particularly worthy of note. "It is his view that there is a consensus in the scientific community about climate change topics such as global warming, and that the various reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarize this consensus," states his Wikipedia page, in the section called "Biography."

Connolley is not only a big shot on Wikipedia, he's a big shot at Wikipedia -- an administrator with unusual editorial clout. Using that clout, this 40-something scientist of minor relevance gets to tear down scientists of great accomplishment. Because Wikipedia has become the single biggest reference source in the world, and global warming is one of the most sought-after subjects, the ability to control information on Wikipedia by taking down authoritative scientists is no trifling matter.

One such scientist is Fred Singer, the First Director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, the recipient of a White House commendation for his early design of space satellites; the recipient of a NASA commendation for research on particle clouds -- in short, a scientist with dazzling achievements who is everything Connolley is not. Under Connolley's supervision, Singer is relentlessly smeared, and has been for years, as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry. When a smear is inadequate, or when a fair-minded Wikipedian tries to correct a smear, Connolley and his cohorts are there to widen the smear or remove the correction, often rebuking the Wikipedian in the process.

Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, as well as a code of civility. Those rules and codes don't apply to Connolley, or to those he favours.

And not long after that article, Connolley tried to edit Solomon's BLP, in order to make him "look bad".

That is not the activity of a "good scientist".

[Cla68]

I'm not competent (without doing a bit of background reading) to pass judgement on whether he's got the facts of the case right. But it certainly seems logical and sane, and not in any way suggestive that he couldn't be a good climate scientist.

That is not the activity of a "good scientist".

Connolley was on the staff at RealClimate. RealClimate is a blog operated by several paleoclimatogists and climatologists who lobby for the theory of human-caused climate change. Among their activities is publicly disparaging and criticizing scientists who express any doubt at all that humans are primarily responsible for warmer global temperatures. Connolley carried this attitude with him into Wikipedia and has never apologized for it. That is the primary reason that he is still banned from editing BLPs.

[iii]

I'm not competent (without doing a bit of background reading) to pass judgement on whether he's got the facts of the case right. But it certainly seems logical and sane, and not in any way suggestive that he couldn't be a good climate scientist.

The opinionator

At Wikipedia, one man engineers the debate on global warming, and shapes it to his views
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post Published: Saturday, May 03, 2008

REMOVED:
Some long drawn-out obsessiveness about Wikipedia that is irrelevant to the facts of global warming.

And not long after that article, Connolley tried to edit Solomon's BLP, in order to make him "look bad".

That is not the activity of a "good scientist".

It's not the activity of a "scientist". It's the activity of a "Wikipedian". The "science", as I pointed out above, doesn't come into it and, indeed, Solomon and Singer are both pretty much as close to wrong on that front as one can be considering the topic.

But, that's not what concerns you, and I understand that you're pissed about the seamy personal mudslinging that is part-and-parcel to many activities on Wikipedia in stark defiance of the way the "rules" that are written there claim it is "supposed" to work. We all know that's a fairy tale.

My point is that Connolley is pretty much correct in what he has written vis-a-vis science. Feel free to bash the guy for his Wikipedian foibles, but it's assuming facts not in evidence that his personality flaws make him a "bad scientist". Science is totally irrelevant to his Wikipedia gaming.

[EricBarbour]

That is the primary reason that he is still banned from editing BLPs.

You ought to ask Fred Singer what he thinks of his BLP today. Most of that was the work of Connolley and his lads.
I don't see anyone volunteering to remove or moderate it. Indeed, anyone who does is liable to be blocked.

There is no "science" or "anti-science" in this whole thing. Just pests, shouting each other down. An extremely stupid way to
write a "reference work".

[Cla68]

That is the primary reason that he is still banned from editing BLPs.

You ought to ask Fred Singer what he thinks of his BLP today. Most of that was the work of Connolley and his lads.
I don't see anyone volunteering to remove or moderate it. Indeed, anyone who does is liable to be blocked.

There is no "science" or "anti-science" in this whole thing. Just pests, shouting each other down. An extremely stupid way to
write a "reference work".

Actually, SlimVirgin is primarily responsible for helping clean up Singer's article, although if you read more of that talk page, several of the climate change regulars, including Connolley, resisted her efforts.

[iii]

Actually, SlimVirgin is primarily responsible for helping clean up Singer's article, although if you read more of that talk page, several of the climate change regulars, including Connolley, resisted her efforts.

She definitely evinces a sort of ignorance about whether it is "balanced" to claim that there is a scientific controversy over the human causes of global warming. I suspect, however, that her primary goal was to look like she was somehow "above the fray".

[HRIP7]

Academic arenas are harsh, much harsher than most people, including you, realize. When scientists judge another to be wrong, the conflict can become personal very quickly. When they are wrong and political, the conflict can change from being solely about science to being a grudge match.

That Wikipedia is not set-up to handle this is unsurprising given its total lack of competent governance or consistent rules. But don't fall into the trap of thinking that a person who has been maltreated at Wikipedia is necessarily right about climate science solely on that basis.

These are sound points, actually. There have been epic grudge matches between world-class scholars throughout history that were every bit as childish as what passes for reasoned debate in Wikipedia.

[iii]

These are sound points, actually. There have been epic grudge matches between world-class scholars throughout history that were every bit as childish as what passes for reasoned debate in Wikipedia.

To a great extent, the "Great Man Theory of History" is still in vogue in a lot of informal discourse in the sciences. When you think you're vying for that fleeting fame that scientists so rarely enjoy with others of whose work you take a dim view, the vitriol can be palpable.

This is why scientists don't often publish biographies of other scientists, and, when they do, they tend to be almost uselessly hagiographic. Outside of tell-alls and tabloid-inspired exposes, is there even such a thing as attack biographies published in book form?

[Stan Dixon]

Most of the posts here are OFF TOPIC. The point about CONnolley is that he uses all the dishonest wikipedian tactics to ensure that his POV prevails. He also traduces his opponents and in real life too.

[Hersch]

Most of the posts here are OFF TOPIC. The point about CONnolley is that he uses all the dishonest wikipedian tactics to ensure that his POV prevails. He also traduces his opponents and in real life too.

Point taken. The off-topic posts are now here.

[EricBarbour]

Oh, yeah, he's "banned from editing BLPs". Suuuure.

What about his own?

[iii]

Most of the posts here are OFF TOPIC. The point about CONnolley is that he uses all the dishonest wikipedian tactics to ensure that his POV prevails. He also traduces his opponents and in real life too.

Starting from the second post of this thread, we have an opinion that Connolley's Wikipedia behavior is somehow indicative of his scientific aptitude. Further down, there is a claim that somehow Connolley's behavior can be explained by the scientists at the RealClimate website being in the business of "lobbying" for a scientific theory.

If someone like me doesn't take issue with a critique of "bad behavior" that seems endemic to Wikipedia culture, but finds certain anti-science bullshit to be... well... bullshit, please explain what best practice should be. You can PM me if you think this thread is already too hijacked.

[iii]

Oh, yeah, he's "banned from editing BLPs". Suuuure.

What about his own?

This looks like your standard case of daring one's enemies to stir up drama. A classic Wikipedia move.

[andrewedwardjudd]

Hi

I am the Andrew Judd who is mentioned on Connolleys Stoat blog and who was banned from Wiki.

I obviously feel I was very poorly treated on Wiki, and I am still quite actively attempting to do something about that.

My entire Wiki experience was odd. Reference 9 on the article page of Greenhouse effect totally supported the edit I wished to make, and after I was totally banned from Wiki I phoned up the writer of the reference to ensure there was no misunderstandings. When the editors found out about me phoning the reference writer, one of my principle abusers continued the strange obfuscation by saying telephone calls did not count as a reference for Wiki

I am really at a loss to understand why I was so badly treated by the clearly evident team of people who cooperated to ensure i was endlessly frustrated in my editing

My conclusion is either:

1. These people are ignorant and are unable to be educated or

2. They are working some kind of plan to obfuscate the true nature of the Greenhouse effect for some reason that is not obvious

Fairly obviously their behaviour was supported at all levels of the administration in Wiki, that must be particularly so because Connolley has a long history of being abusive, and it was fairly clear he was being protected and could do whatever he wanted.

Connolleys method was to just repeat i was wrong, i could not read the references, I was confused, and everybody agreed I was wrong. Zero attempt was made to discuss reference 9, dispite endless efforts by me.

Additionally John Tyndall who is also mentioned already on the page had an entirely different view of the greenhouse effect to the one that Wiki is putting forwards and all attempts by me to discuss that were shut down by Connolley.

It is evidently not allowed on Wiki to reflect the nature of the references available on the greenhouse effect page, and the efforts people are going to ensure that remains so are pretty extreme

Andrew Judd

[iii]

My conclusion is either:

1. These people are ignorant and are unable to be educated or

2. They are working some kind of plan to obfuscate the true nature of the Greenhouse effect for some reason that is not obvious

Yeah... about that:

The problem with the wiki model (which is the rape, pillage, divide, and conquer approach to content creation) is that it encourages conspiracy theories like your second point (the first point is facilely dismissed with a little digging, I'd say).

Now, in my unasked-for opinion, what's really happening is that there is a group of people used to fighting tooth-and-nail against any and all attempts to write this or that. It almost doesn't matter what the proposed change is, it is liable to be removed if it has the slightest bit of room for being misinterpreted. What you are seeing is the endgame of a process of attrition which has left a committed cadre of anonymous internet users as gatekeepers to content that, rightly or wrongly, they see as under siege. If you weren't around in 2009-2010, you probably aren't aware of what the worst of it looks like.

Connolleys method was to just repeat i was wrong, i could not read the references, I was confused, and everybody agreed I was wrong. Zero attempt was made to discuss reference 9, dispite endless efforts by me.

That's mostly because the proposal that people be educated rather than belittled when they wanted to contribute to Wikipedia died a horrible death many years ago. This is for want of a system that might determine who is or is not capable of writing a decent article. In the credential vacuum of Wikipedia where there are no experts vetting content or making the editorial decisions, there has arisen a type of game that you just lost.

Welcome to the other side!

[andrewedwardjudd]

My conclusion is either:

1. These people are ignorant and are unable to be educated or

2. They are working some kind of plan to obfuscate the true nature of the Greenhouse effect for some reason that is not obvious

Yeah... about that:

The problem with the wiki model (which is the rape, pillage, divide, and conquer approach to content creation) is that it encourages conspiracy theories like your second point (the first point is facilely dismissed with a little digging, I'd say).

Now, in my unasked-for opinion, what's really happening is that there is a group of people used to fighting tooth-and-nail against any and all attempts to write this or that. It almost doesn't matter what the proposed change is, it is liable to be removed if it has the slightest bit of room for being misinterpreted. What you are seeing is the endgame of a process of attrition which has left a committed cadre of anonymous internet users as gatekeepers to content that, rightly or wrongly, they see as under siege. If you weren't around in 2009-2010, you probably aren't aware of what the worst of it looks like.

Connolleys method was to just repeat i was wrong, i could not read the references, I was confused, and everybody agreed I was wrong. Zero attempt was made to discuss reference 9, dispite endless efforts by me.

That's mostly because the proposal that people be educated rather than belittled when they wanted to contribute to Wikipedia died a horrible death many years ago. This is for want of a system that might determine who is or is not capable of writing a decent article. In the credential vacuum of Wikipedia where there are no experts vetting content or making the editorial decisions, there has arisen a type of game that you just lost.

Welcome to the other side!

I realised a while a go on Wiki that the person who has the biggest army will always control the truth. But total failure on Wiki does not mean I lost. Somethings are worth fighting for even if you know the outcome can be death. I think it comes down to the nature of being a man. Do you just humiliate yourself by doing nothing or do you just go out there with your head held high and fight anyway? If a few more people come to realise the nature of Wiki then I will feel justified in spending so much time on this, but total sucess is also possible.

Wiki cannot survive unless most people are believers, and if Wiki does not do something then whatever feel good factor they get from running what seems to be a loss making business funded by porn, is going to evaporate fairly quickly.

[iii]

Wiki cannot survive unless most people are believers, and if Wiki does not do something then whatever feel good factor they get from running what seems to be a loss making business funded by porn, is going to evaporate fairly quickly.

You will find, here, that there are a number of people who hope wikipedia does not survive. If I want to make a good collaborative project among a community of allied experts, a wiki is a fantastic bit of software to help me do it. But Wikipedia's flawed notion is that the community will develop in a functional fashion around the software and the basic idea that there exists an "encyclopedia" that "anyone can edit". It's that kind of ineffective governance that dooms it to die or be destroyed.

[andrewedwardjudd]

Wiki cannot survive unless most people are believers, and if Wiki does not do something then whatever feel good factor they get from running what seems to be a loss making business funded by porn, is going to evaporate fairly quickly.

You will find, here, that there are a number of people who hope wikipedia does not survive. If I want to make a good collaborative project among a community of allied experts, a wiki is a fantastic bit of software to help me do it. But Wikipedia's flawed notion is that the community will develop in a functional fashion around the software and the basic idea that there exists an "encyclopedia" that "anyone can edit". It's that kind of ineffective governance that dooms it to die or be destroyed.

Are people here prepared to cooperate with me so that the behaviour of the editors can be observed by other people in real time?

There are limits to what I can do on my own. If there are already a large number of Wiki users available to make legitimate changes to that page which more accurately reflect the references and these changes are seen to be removed by the cabal in would help me progress this.

Also are there any administrators in wiki who have any clout who can be relied upon to be neutral?

[dogbiscuit]

Wiki cannot survive unless most people are believers, and if Wiki does not do something then whatever feel good factor they get from running what seems to be a loss making business funded by porn, is going to evaporate fairly quickly.

You will find, here, that there are a number of people who hope wikipedia does not survive. If I want to make a good collaborative project among a community of allied experts, a wiki is a fantastic bit of software to help me do it. But Wikipedia's flawed notion is that the community will develop in a functional fashion around the software and the basic idea that there exists an "encyclopedia" that "anyone can edit". It's that kind of ineffective governance that dooms it to die or be destroyed.

Are people here prepared to cooperate with me so that the behaviour of the editors can be observed by other people in real time?

There are limits to what I can do on my own. If there are already a large number of Wiki users available to make legitimate changes to that page which more accurately reflect the references and these changes are seen to be removed by the cabal in would help me progress this.

Also are there any administrators in wiki who have any clout who can be relied upon to be neutral?

A few thoughts:

- you need to understand that simply by making the suggestion to do things properly with help from this forum, you are going to make it an impossible task because as a matter of principle anything that emanates from here must be bad and must be resisted.

- it is generally held that fixing an individual article is a pointless activity - firstly, can you be watching the article for all time - you may think you have won but these people have long memories and will have a to do list to 'sort the article out' in the future.

- there is generally no need to document the activities of these people for two reasons: firstly, this site in its former incarnation has a pretty comprehensive understanding of the normal methods of abuse used by Wikipedians; and secondly aside from some exceptions, Wikipedians are so brazen that they are quite happy to leave the evidence lying around for all time as they don't see a problem to cover up.

We do have members who have gone through the process of butting heads with Wikipedia. It has rarely ended well and so we are developing other tactics like using UK institutions to put pressure on Wikipedia.

[Hersch]

Are people here prepared to cooperate with me so that the behaviour of the editors can be observed by other people in real time?

There are limits to what I can do on my own. If there are already a large number of Wiki users available to make legitimate changes to that page which more accurately reflect the references and these changes are seen to be removed by the cabal in would help me progress this.

Also are there any administrators in wiki who have any clout who can be relied upon to be neutral?

A few observations: first of all, you may safely ignore Mr. or Ms. iii. Secondly, with respect to any controversial topic, Wikipedia has developed what we are fond of calling the "House POV," which possesses remarkable inertia. Thirdly, over the past year we have begun to see an encouraging trend where editors who routinely abuse the so-called "core policies" may be subject to disciplinary actions, although it is generally a slow process. It is the arbcom, an organization which has not generally enjoyed a reputation for integrity or decisiveness, that has miraculously begun to do this. If enough of the entrenched abusive users bite the dust, then perhaps the "House POV" will not be such an immovable object.

There are several schools of thought about whether Wikipedia is capable of reform. I think we should examine all of them with open minds.

[iii]

A few observations: first of all, you may safely ignore Mr. or Ms. iii.

Was that necessary, Hersch? If you want to take side-swipes at me, there is a nice little "off-topic" area where you can vent.

[iii]

Are people here prepared to cooperate with me so that the behaviour of the editors can be observed by other people in real time?

Some may be. The ones that would be most firmly in your camp, however, may not necessarily be in the position to assist you on the Wikipedia website for sundry reasons.

There are limits to what I can do on my own. If there are already a large number of Wiki users available to make legitimate changes to that page which more accurately reflect the references and these changes are seen to be removed by the cabal in would help me progress this.

There are techniques you can use to circumvent the powers-that-be who have only blunt tools for stopping campaigns orchestrated by "large number of Wiki users". However, if you choose to go this route, you'll likely find yourself, I would contend, bogged down in the peculiar politics and style of Wikipedia interactions.

Also are there any administrators in wiki who have any clout who can be relied upon to be neutral?

Part of the way users become administrators is by convincing a bunch of other anonymous internet users that they won't disturb the status quo. In that vein, even if you do find a champion, if they want to remain an administrator they won't risk their own hide too much to save yours.

[andrewedwardjudd]

The only reason i came to this board is the expectation that somebody is prepared to help me.

If people here just want to bitch and whine then i have better things to do

[iii]

The only reason i came to this board is the expectation that somebody is prepared to help me.

If people here just want to bitch and whine then i have better things to do

It's not clear to me what kind of help you're hoping to get. If it is an army of on-wiki champions you're hoping to find, I'd recommend coordinating in a less public venue as those in control of Wikipedia can keep track of your activities on this board.

[andrewedwardjudd]

The only reason i came to this board is the expectation that somebody is prepared to help me.

If people here just want to bitch and whine then i have better things to do

It's not clear to me what kind of help you're hoping to get. If it is an army of on-wiki champions you're hoping to find, I'd recommend coordinating in a less public venue as those in control of Wikipedia can keep track of your activities on this board.

This board is just one of many places I have raised this issue.

I dont need an army. If people are paranoid about using the private message functions on various boards they can easily create anonymous emails. If you people want wiki to be different you have to do more than just talk about it.

Wiki is not going to be different if today a large number of people are available to make a small edit change that tomorrow can be reverted by the continuously available activists and other employed agents working against you.

What is needed is clear evidence that Wiki is a rigged game. In the climate change area we already know some of the names of the people involved and i dont think it is going to be so very difficult to find out more of the names involved if people cooperate with me and share information already known.

There must be somewhere a journalist or politician who would progress this if it did not require hard work on his/her part and only got him the attention he wanted.

The whole thing has the whiff of scandal. Surely somebody somewhere would think that can benefit them when they talk about it.

[thekohser]

There must be somewhere a journalist or politician who would progress this if it did not require hard work on his/her part and only got him the attention he wanted.

Larry Sanger and I are working on the journalist angle presently.

[iii]

What is needed is clear evidence that Wiki is a rigged game.

There is a lot of documentation of this already. There are those on this board like Peter Damian who can provide you with boatloads of data to this effect.

In the climate change area we already know some of the names of the people involved and i dont think it is going to be so very difficult to find out more of the names involved if people cooperate with me and share information already known.

There must be somewhere a journalist or politician who would progress this if it did not require hard work on his/her part and only got him the attention he wanted.

I think you may find that much of the media is not too interested in an internet dispute over whether a cold atmosphere can be thought of as heating a hot planetary surface or not regardless of how unseemly the whole interaction was. Maybe there are some outlets with political agendas that would be interested in your dispute; there are Conservapedia-like critiques of Wikipedia easily found with minimal effort.

[Hersch]

Bill Connolley got substantial coverage in Reliable Sources™ for his Wikipedia activities, particularly when he got topic-banned.

[andrewedwardjudd]

What is needed is clear evidence that Wiki is a rigged game.

There is a lot of documentation of this already. There are those on this board like Peter Damian who can provide you with boatloads of data to this effect.

In the climate change area we already know some of the names of the people involved and i dont think it is going to be so very difficult to find out more of the names involved if people cooperate with me and share information already known.

There must be somewhere a journalist or politician who would progress this if it did not require hard work on his/her part and only got him the attention he wanted.

I think you may find that much of the media is not too interested in an internet dispute over whether a cold atmosphere can be thought of as heating a hot planetary surface or not regardless of how unseemly the whole interaction was. Maybe there are some outlets with political agendas that would be interested in your dispute; there are Conservapedia-like critiques of Wikipedia easily found with minimal effort.

As it happens one of the 'enemy' climate scientists is providing a venue for me to discuss this issue on his blog and a member of the American Physical society is attempting to grind me down with silly reasons why he is correct and I am wrong.

So it is possible I will get these people to realise that reference 9 already on the Wiki article, correctly describes the Greenhouse effect and that their version is wrong and should be amended.