Wikipedia_ministry

William Connolley demonstrates once again why Wikipedia is an untrustworthy reference source

I saw this coming a mile away. On Wednesday August 20th, Dr. Roy Spencer noted how John Cook’s well debunked 97% ‘consensus’ claim, based of statistical sleight of hand and pal review, was used as an example of propaganda techniques Wikipedia Page on Propaganda Techniques Uses 97% Meme Roy opined:

Pointman’s: The scorning of William Connolley

Pointman writes: I think we’ve all had that pleasant surprise when something totally unexpected just drops out of the sky and into your lap. That happened to me last weekend when a creature called William Connolley attempted to comment on a piece I’d written about the Bengtsson scandal. If you’re unfamiliar with him, he’s infamous for editing…

Article: ‘Wikipedia is worthless and damaging’

You only need to read a few climate entries on Wikipedia to know this Spiked Online article rings true We have watched how people like Wikipedia climate fiddler William Connolley rides shotgun on just about any climate related article on that website. As of a year ago Mr. Connolley has edited 5428 Wikipedia articles, almost…

RealClimate Co-Founder Exposes His Inability to Grasp Complex Subjects

And most regulars will recall William Connolley. Connolley’s likely best known for his hijinks as a former editor at Wikipedia. (See the WattsUpWithThat posts here, here, here, here, here, here here….and here.) But Connolley is also a former climate modeler with the British Antarctic Survey…plus a co-founder of, and former contributor to, the blog RealClimate,…

Connolley’s Wiki-wars get a science study

As we have known for some time, global warming zealot and green party member William F. Connolley edited 5428 Wikipedia articles, mostly about climate. It seems some researchers have taken notice of this and other topics that are ruled by similar zealotry. From the BBC and Fox News: Re-writing history? Wikipedia’s biggest ‘edit wars’ revealed…

Why I no longer subscribe to Popular Science

I actually stopped subscribing some time ago, but this would be enough to justify it all over again. Over at the magazine Popular Science, they’ve taken to shaming volunteers on Wikipedia if they don’t “toe the line” on climate change. First, what Wikipedia says about volunteer contributions, bolding mine: Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/wiki-wars/
wattsupwiththat.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2015-11
126242
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:VENGQLZDDCQSP2MTE7ERJSFFVUVWB3MV
<urn:uuid:831fb218-82bd-4ae8-88d8-75042218f58e>
2015-03-04T16:50:54Z
192.0.78.25
sha1:ZLRPFGF5IHUXWKB5OYUPYINOPYNOZGFE
<urn:uuid:af11d25b-9417-4a81-ae6a-69f5281ecf2a>
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/wiki-wars/
length
response
<urn:uuid:ebae7506-c608-4f0e-96ba-60e2f59bb838>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-28-5-156.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-11
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for February 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf