digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Wikipedia's zealots

nationalpost.com — Think you can put actual facts onto Wikipedia? Think again

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • felman87, on 04/21/2008, -249/+1427 diggs and on the front page?
    • goblindegook, on 04/21/2008, -6/+187It's as if there's some kind of algorithm that promotes stories based on the rate at which they're dugg. Crazy.
    • fakekevinrose, on 04/21/2008, -10/+124Why is there always one ***** who is shocked about the amount of diggs that a story has to get in order to be on the front page.
      • felman87, on 04/21/2008, -6/+70cause there's an infinite supply of assholes in the universe
        • ORBAT, on 04/21/2008, -0/+22Now that's a scary thought.
          • SurrealDream, on 04/21/2008, -1/+9And each of those assholes has a mouth through which to blow hot air. For every scary thought, there's a scarier one lurking round the corner. Or on this case, at the other end of a fleshy tube.
          • thashiz, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3"I'm surrounded by Assholes!"
        • robbiemuffin, on 04/21/2008, -5/+5great exemplification
        • twertyto, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5I think I remember that from thermodynamics in college.
        • TheMidnight, on 04/21/2008, -0/+6How many assholes we got on this site anyhow?
          YO!
          I knew it, I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes!
      • smacksaw, on 04/21/2008, -1/+52It's the new "First Post" of Digg.
    • robbiemuffin, on 04/21/2008, -22/+5I read people saying "its the new 'first post' of digg and I have to wonder ... how dense can you be? Yeah ok, THAT's true, its kind of an annoying thing t keep seeing, but you see the complaint based on someone rigging the algorithm ... this is what google would look like if it had comments.

      Note taht twenty posts got it on the front page and, heh wow imagine that... a tad over twenty people digg down these comments.
      • arobar, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2You might be taken more seriously if you used a little grammar and punctuation. Or you could just be full of *****. Who knows?
    • robbiemuffin, on 04/21/2008, -14/+3more to the point though, as any wiki fan knows, this is a reprint ... and its getting aeons old. this came out before citizenium existed.
      • Frou, on 04/21/2008, -4/+1A redigg of a redigg of a redigg.
      • fletcherrr, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Buried for "aeons" and other "colourful" spellings. Eons. Shut up.
        • robbiemuffin, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1aeons: I do crossword puzzles, so sue me.
          "other colourful": nothing is misspelled or even just spelled British. you're on crack.
    • Azimuth1, on 04/21/2008, -10/+3My first (and only) popular story got to the front page at 20 diggs.
    • robbiemuffin, on 04/21/2008, -9/+12I started investigating the digg trail .. I guess I really am activist when it comes to wikipedia. I did this last year as well .. the thing that is particularly disturbing to me is that not only is this a repost of the article (which is an vaguely excusable recycling of articles), but it is actually dugg up by many of the same people as the same-named article from last year. This time I went through with looking at their digg records, to see if there was a normal pattern of usage (ie, if they happened to be in digg long enough, did they have any activity from january to the beginning of march).

      Fully 8 poeple of the first 22 were active (including the poster, but that is an amazingly healthy-looking number). But, 8 people also have been on digg for a long period of time and yet have no activity this year except around the April fools marathon. Many of those have a cut off of about 12-16 pages of activity all in the past week, or in the past month, and no acitivty prior to that. None: they register an account in, say 2006, and did nothing with it AT ALL until march or april. There's one guy who has 16 pages of activity ALL TODAY. :)

      The other third are users who joined too recently to do the activity test with ... the first of whom actually joined on April first. :)

      This (the first users in the digg history for this article!) is the "April First Brigade." And if you scan through their diggs, and appropriate one third of dugg articles as intentional noise, you should be able to come up with a rather concise list of spam articles that are being minutely reworded and reposted.
      • robbiemuffin, on 04/21/2008, -4/+8further demonstration of the fact is that this article can already be found as the number 2 return on a google of "digg, wikipedia" — which can only happen if the article already has many links to it...which should not happen so soon.
        • digitalhair, on 04/21/2008, -3/+1I support your skepticism. this doesn't make mathematical sense. The article is good, but it's not a profound revelation. rather, it's indicative of the debate that has gone on throughout all of written history regarding encyclopedias and dictionary definitions, only this time we get to watch it happen as it unfolds, then write articles about it so others can read it and develop an opinion. I tend to remain skeptical because the article aims to try to discredit ALL the information on wikipedia using an edit that - according to the author - is known to be a false, then shaped the events that followed to comfirm his preconception.
    • yunus, on 04/21/2008, -5/+5Hey Digg. Just put a number next to each article that is the number of votes it took when the article first appeared on the front page. Then we can eliminate all these comments.
      • robbiemuffin, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1seconded ... a self-selected threshold value would be nice too, rather than going for the site-wide version.
      • IllBeBack, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3They would have to also supply the digg rate since this figures into the algorithm.
      • MrESaulved, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3Digg is gamed, editorialized and manipulated by a few by design. Stop thinking it isn't and more things about Digg make sense.

        Digg is not "user" driven.
    • twertyto, on 04/21/2008, -4/+11-81 diggs and not banned?
    • Vincent21212, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1felman must be puzzled by the fact that his internet dancing baby video isnt being dugg like it should, and hes or she is jealous
    • EwMo, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2GO AWAY
    • kevthecatslayer, on 04/21/2008, -0/+61452 diggs and it is top story?
    • LtXenodite, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1-190 diggs and you're still an *****?
  • Supernova36, on 04/21/2008, -139/+32Great, more wikipedia bashing..
    • Shadowgamers, on 04/21/2008, -5/+170He does have a point though, self-appointed wiki-patrollers aren't doing great for Wiki's credibility...
      • Jordan117, on 04/21/2008, -10/+5If they're patrolling for facts and proof and evidence, and require anonymous editors to back up what they say with reliable sources, then I think they're doing very great things for Wiki's credibility...
        • Railer, on 04/21/2008, -3/+6Bull, I've backed up hundreds of changes on wikipedia with sources, the sources themselves are then said to be biased, or inaccurate or "just a blog" or one of another 100 reasons they will not look at the facts. Funny thing is the most alarmist BS from green peace or exxon secrets (also green peace) gets a pass without question EVERYTIME. Wikipedia is a failure, it's majority of editors who edit are liberal and under 30, and Wikipedia shows that bias in SPADES.
        • WolfProtagonist, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2I'm sorry to disagree with you Railer since it seems that you have the popular opinion around here, but I fail to see how a blog could be considered a reliable source for information. Unless said blog is ran by a reputable organization in the first place. Anyone with access to the internet can create a blog and write whatever opinions they want, but that does not make it a fact.
          For all you or I know, Larry Solomon never even talked to Peiser. How would you expect Kim Peterson to know that he did? His word? I don't see how its so awful that Kim wanted a proper source. I am not taking sides on this issue one way or the other, I am not a scientist. But, from what I can see by actually reading the articles in question, as well as the talk pages and controversy Kim is doing the right thing and abiding by Wikipedia's policy's.
      • uberfu, on 04/21/2008, -3/+4Someone should make a Wikipedia PAge for "Kim Dabelstein Petersen" and defamate their good name_
    • Ouze, on 04/21/2008, -12/+53wikipedia bashing is well earned. It's sort of like democracy, in that it claims everyone can participate, but just like democracy, it's corrupt to the core and run by an elite few. I think it's one of the worst institutions on the web - because it has an air of authority and openness that it simply does not deserve.
      • LokitheComplex, on 04/21/2008, -16/+5So you don't like democracy? What form would you like instead? And lets see how popular and useful it is.
        • Metman, on 04/21/2008, -0/+18I believe he is referring to a representative republic, which is not the same thing as democracy.
        • schuder, on 04/21/2008, -1/+17Democracy blows, which is why our founders created a republic. Everyone knows democracy is mob rule, and democratic decisions are some of the worst. How much of our rights would be gone under a true democracy? That is why constitutional protections are paramount.
          • PURPLEDRINK, on 04/21/2008, -8/+1by mob rule, you "mean people voting", yes?
          • schuder, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2And by people voting I mean Adolf Hitler. People would easily vote away their rights if they weren't protected by the Constitution. Still kinda happening now...
          • PURPLEDRINK, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1this isn't a democracy, nor was germany. maybe u should like, wiki it.
      • KiraDnote, on 04/21/2008, -6/+23Digg is an excellent example of the failure of Democracy. Especially with regards to politics. The majority opinion on Digg completely represses the minority opinion. For instance, there are no pro-Hillary articles on digg, but anti-Hillary and pro-Obama articles appear every 15 minutes. Democracies do not necessarily represent the truth. That's why we need laws/rules to make sure that opposing points of view can be expressed as clearly as the supposed majority opinion. Digg has no such rules. The digg majority rules supreme.wpaj
        • Abomonog, on 04/21/2008, -6/+6Have you ever thought that the reason there are no pro-Hillary articles on Digg is that basically a VAST majority of people who come to Digg hate Hillary?
          • schuder, on 04/21/2008, -2/+11I hate Hil-dog too, but some of the crap is over the top in how blatantly Obama is supported. His electability is not questioned at all, he is not critiqued at all. I am more of a libertarian but found myself liking his message, however by not scrutinizing him you are not only dong a disservice to Digg and the voters who read Digg, but you are doing a disservice to him. Better to get whatever skeletons he has out now then wait till October, November.
          • FKnight, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3@Abomonoq
            Actually, that's exactly what KiraDnote was saying.
        • exeprime, on 04/21/2008, -0/+8This *is* democracy. Tyranny of the majority.
        • PURPLEDRINK, on 04/21/2008, -11/+2why don't you take that pro-hillary crap elsewhere *****
        • loquax, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4Kiradnote, I wanted to digg you down, but I didn't because you are correct (as much as I hate to agree with anti-democratic ideas). A pure democracy usually equates to mob rule, and the founding fathers of the U.S. knew this. That is why they built a republic that requires super-majorities in a number of cases (as opposed to a simple-majority). It is also why we (unfortunately) need things like the Electoral College.
          I'd like to see a version of Wikipedia that was a vetted or jury-selected edited with experts who where knowledgeable and credited within their particular area (if possible).
        • known, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Are you referring to lack of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
      • known, on 04/21/2008, -8/+2I agree. Direct Democracy is better.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
      • dinostabOMG, on 04/21/2008, -2/+18I dugg you up, but be fair. Wikipedia is excellent for anything that is not controversial. Any controversy, though, and it just comes down to who has the most time on their hands.
        • PURPLEDRINK, on 04/21/2008, -1/+4espcially videogame articles.. LOL. a videogame article is like 10 pages more indepth than something like i dunno a normal encylopdia would cover, like snakes, bears ,etc...
      • xsquirrel378x, on 04/21/2008, -5/+3***** you. if you dont like it dont use it
        • bluearyus, on 04/21/2008, -2/+4People in power who are unchecked can be abusive and can ruin any fairness in a system. Look at any moderators for internet forums, operators for IRC channels.

          If you want to ignore these flaws and still consider it reliable or unbiased then......either you are stupid or gullible
    • grungegbunny, on 04/21/2008, -4/+19I don't consider valid criticism as bashing.
    • PURPLEDRINK, on 04/21/2008, -3/+11Yeah a website where bots revert their owners original entry if *anything* is changed -- what a great website. So, so sorry to bash a *****.
    • uberfu, on 04/21/2008, -1/+11Does anyone not agree that most info at Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt and should be checked thru other sources before being deemed reliable?
      • ruug, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2any info anywhere should be. the information at wikipedia represents the viewpoints of the editors who have the most time to dedicate to the website.
    • twertyto, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3Please RTFA before you make yourself look like an ass.
    • marcus1060, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3Wikipedia needs to get all the bashing it can.
    • Vincent21212, on 04/21/2008, -3/+1Indeed, great!
  • fakekevinrose, on 04/21/2008, -126/+56I had a dream last night where Jesus came to me and endorsed barack obama. i took this to be a divine fact so i started to make a wikipedia entry on it. one of the wikipedia mods deleted my entry on it, calling my dreams "unreliable source", can you believe the nerve of that *****?
    • bimtott, on 04/21/2008, -3/+4APA.org has a great search tool for psychoanalysts...seriously, give them a call.
    • suzywang3000, on 04/21/2008, -5/+4lol...bravo.
  • popnwave, on 04/21/2008, -23/+211This is sad, while I know I don't agree with the contents of Wikipedia at times, having both sides to a story just as global warming is key to understanding the situation. These people who do nothing but reedit posts need to get a life and stop trying to cover up info when they are often the ones accusing others (such as the government) of doing themselves. If the information is STRONG it will stand on it's own no matter what someone tries to refute it with.
    • robbinzo, on 04/21/2008, -33/+8That's why it's been nicknamed wacky-pedia.
      • FlagrantDrugUse, on 04/21/2008, -0/+16wtf? by whom other than yourself?
      • Railer, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3There is a conservapedia, why no liberalpedia? Because we have one called Wikipedia, why do you htink conservapedia was born?
    • purzzzell, on 04/21/2008, -16/+12the problem is that, if this article is accurate, this person is an employee and this is their job.
      • dancercotillion, on 04/21/2008, -12/+2Your comment makes un-sense. Explain, ploz.
        • Abomonog, on 04/21/2008, -3/+5It makes perfect sense. The article says outright that the person is an editor for Wiki. As in is-paid-to-work-for-the-website type editor. It means that someone at Wikipedia is paying her to perform those edits.

          Never trust the wiki. It is a lie (much like the cake).
          • dancercotillion, on 04/21/2008, -2/+8You're an idiot. Anyone can register to edit on Wikipedia. The only people in the employ of Wikipedia are people who work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The article says NO WHERE that this Tabletop person is a paid employee of the Wikimedia Foundation. So, unless you're talking out of your ass, you didn't read the article. Or maybe you're a psychic who knows that Tabletop is really a sockpuppet for some Wikimedia employee? Use your psychic powers on me. What finger am I holding up?

            People abuse editing privilages on Wikipedia all the time. They don't have to be admin, they don't have to be paid employees of Jimbo Wales, they just ***** do it. I'd love to get paid for editing on Wikipedia. I don't, but I edit there anyway. It's fun, and I enjoy editing articles on things I know about. When I insist that Rob Halford's name be listed as Bob Halford in sections about him detailing his life from before he called himself Rob, I'm not being paid to revert people. Judas Priest isn't paying me, Wikipedia isn't paying me, no one is giving me money to edit at all.

            And by the ***** by, moron; if you add unsourced, contradictory information, you will get reverted. That's the rule.
          • formido, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3Wait, so a published journalist talking to the person the fact concerns isn't a source? Now that he's written an article about it, does it count as a source?
          • jggr, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1@dancer - You get more flies with honey than with vinegar my friend. No need to resort to name calling... That's just low class.
      • dinostabOMG, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1As a PR rep for some kind of political interest group? Or for Wikipedia itself?
    • SuperMoses, on 04/21/2008, -11/+38The problem was that the source was partisan. Read the actual edits in the history page. If there's another side to the story, then it'll be posted. Sometimes the facts do stand for themselves and there isn't a credible "other side". This reminds me of the creationists complaining that their side isn't heard.. well, their side isn't heard because they don't offer any credible science.
      • Coslenchip, on 04/21/2008, -15/+4This is not the place for this discussion, but for now I will simply ask that you read the articel at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/ ... so that you may better understand the creationist point of view.
        • dancercotillion, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3Neither of the men who wrote that webpage are evolutionary scientists. One of them isn't even a scientist. And I'm supposed to take their word that evolutionary science is wrong?
          "The Bible, in contrast, is the eyewitness testimony of the Creator, who tells us what happened to produce the earth, the different kinds of life, the fossils, the rock layers, and indeed the whole universe. The Bible gives us the true, “big picture” starting assumptions for origin science."
          Really? Eyewitness testimony? From an invisible man who lives in the sky?
        • Puppyfam, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1dancercotillion: That article was only written to present a response to "Creationism isn't science." It was written for the lay-person who wants to better understand the philosophy of creationism, not for scientists looking for concrete proof of creationism's theories.

          That being said, I do get really frustrated reading creationist "science" articles. They aren't as poorly constructed as most on Digg believe they are (many theories are surprisingly well thought out), but they are absolutely littered with Bible references that add nothing to the scientific validity of their theories and only alienate mainstream scientists.
        • sleepwalkers, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2Don't say this isn't the place for discussion then provide links to spur a discussion.
      • dancercotillion, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3Oh, wait. I just read that page even more closely. The guy who IS a scientist is a Doctor of the history of Geology. He's not even a geologist, he's a geologic historian. He's also got a Masters of Divinity from a religious school, so he's hardly an impartial judge of the evolutionary theory.
        (Pretend this comment is beneath my previous one to Coslenchip, not over here. Digg's comment system is kinda hard to follow sometimes.)
    • DangerCollie, on 04/21/2008, -27/+18"having both sides to a story just as global warming is key to understanding the situation"
      The article author had an agenda. Making it sound like there's serious debate about whether global warming is real. Let me say this clearly...there is no debate about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or the effect that gas on the climate. If there is any debate, it's about the expression of that temperature change, the pace of change and the extremity of what can be expected. Making it sound like there's serious scientific doubt about the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere is irresponsible. The debate is about whether the water stops rising in Orlando or Atlanta.
      You don't have to be a climate scientist to consider that the average global temperature going up just a 1/2 degree represents an unimaginable amount of energy. Energy drives our global climate like gasoline drives your car. So picture dumping a massive amount of gasoline into your running car engine then having a debate about whether anything bad is going to happen.
      • robbinzo, on 04/21/2008, -5/+16Buried for writing "You don't have to be a climate scientist to..."
      • KiraDnote, on 04/21/2008, -5/+15Wow! Our very own digg scientist who knows everything about climate change and who's opinion is irrefutable. Aren't we lucky to have unbiased totally credible information available from every brain washed jackass who thinks he represents Science with a capital S.
      • Groller, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0I think the debate at this point is whether or not its human caused or the result of sun spots or other sources.
    • Risingashes, on 04/21/2008, -16/+12Where did this whole "two sides" mentality come from?
      In some circumstances theories are debatable but that doesn't mean that all ideas are debatable at all times.
      Should the state have the power to kill a citizen? That's a question of morals and has two sides.
      Does gravity exist? That's fairly one sided.
      Global warming is a fairly new theory, but its more an argument of extent than existence. Just because you have a group who are paid to cause skepticism doesn't mean they should be given equal time.
      When did free speech start to become perverted by people trying to spread ignorance?
      • casuallyevil, on 04/21/2008, -4/+6Don't mean to be a jackass, but gravity is one of the most hotly-contested and controversial topics in physics, with the string theorists, quantum gravity theorists, and several others all having dramatically different explanations about what it is and the nature of it's existence. There are very few (if any) totally non-controversial facts, so it's the duty of any reference source to address scholarly challenges.
        • buckrogers1965, on 04/21/2008, -1/+7But gravity does exist, right? People might debate what causes gravity, but nobody is denying that it exists.
        • minoss, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1But there is a ton of theories on what causes gravity. Just like people debate about the causes of global warming.
      • Coslenchip, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2It is obvious that you do not understand what the debate is about. The two sides are:
        1. We, as humans, have been polluting our atmosphere with CO2 (and possibly other gasses). These gasses increase the temperature of the planet. This is a bad thing. If we continue to do so, which means continue to develop the world, the earth's ecosystem will go out of wack and be destroyed.
        2. We as humans have been using natural resources in order to better the average human life in our area and have produced CO2. This man-made CO2 will not have a negative effect on our ecosystem. The main beliefs are (1) The amount of difference that man has made is irrelevant when compared to the natural cycles of the earth. A secondary belief is (2) This increase in CO2 will actually be a benefit to us, causing increased plant life, etc... I debated (with myself) even bringing up item number 2, since it is usually a can of worms, but, there is some evidence for this, and in my limited experience, this is the argument that people that are screaming "save us from the CO2" tend to listen to more. My only assumption is that they have been engrained to believe that (1) is false, but (2) has not been an issue and are willing to consider it.
        • ChuqAU, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3There is a third point of view, the one that I believe. Well rather, it is two separate, unrelated things:

          3a. The earth is warming naturally, as it has been through the rise and fall of previous ice ages.

          3b. There is a limited amount of coal and oil in the ground. We should conserve the way we use energy, and switch to something else before we run out.

          Summary: We should still take steps to convert to clean, renewable energy regardless of whether global warming is true or not.
      • CCoe, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2"Where did this whole 'two sides' mentality come from?"
        JS Mill. Give him a read. America, for example, reserves the right to kill a citizen in certain states. Should we maybe stop debating and let that continue to happen? ALL ideas are debatable at ALL times, and I'm one of those crazy environmentalists. Does gravity exist? Come up with an argument against it and it will probably be proven wrong. What has been lost here? Nothing. What has been gained? Gravity has just become stronger. Now that's an extreme example, gravity really doesn't need to be strengthened, but the point is that nothing is lost and new ideas are encouraged. That's how we bloody work. That's how advancement happens. I'll agree that an irrational argument is rather pointless, such as someone arguing that gravity does not exist because there's a god in the centre of the earth that pulls us in with his love. This argument isn't backed with facts and experiments and arguing with it is similar to having a verbal dispute with the lump in your bed. But good arguments, however ridiculous they seem, should always be encouraged. This can do two things: strengthen the current argument, or possibly uncover a new truth. Both of which aid in the advancement of our society.
        • Lanlost, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1bravo, sir
        • Risingashes, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Yes but what is happening here isn't about 'good ideas' it's about bad unprovable ideas being rejected but being pushed forward regardless as the 'other side'.
          When I referred to the two sides thing I was thinking more the recent trend that all ideas must have two sides that are presumed to be equally valid. Questioning established theory is a must for the evolution of thought, but that means only that new ideas should be given a proper hearing- not that new ideas should continue on as an 'alternative' when they have no logical merit.
    • BayonetStrumpet, on 04/21/2008, -9/+22But -- the reasons his posts where deleted were because they didn't meet the standards of Wiki. What he is arguing aside, you can't post "Some guy told me so" on Wikipedia as a source of information. Solomon is just cranky that his usual yellow journalism, while standard for the National Post, is just bad writing and reporting.
      • Abomonog, on 04/21/2008, -4/+12Yes but the guy who did the actual research told him so. There is a big difference between "some guy" and the actual author of the research quoted.
        • zeromous, on 04/21/2008, -1/+11Exactly, since the "some guy" is a referred expert, and the guy "doing the edits" is a source reporter for a national newspaper.

          Couldn't the author just cite his own article now ? :)
        • jjesusfreak01, on 04/21/2008, -3/+12Ive read peer reviewed journal articles where the authors cite personal correspondence with other experts in the field. "He told me" is certainly an acceptable citation.
        • guyzero, on 04/21/2008, -2/+7The basic rule for wikipedia is that all information must be 1) reliably sourced (i.e. not posted on a blog), and 2) independently verifiable. The "some guy told me" sourcing here fails the second test. If Solomon really wanted this information to be posted on Wiki, he could have published an interview with the denier which clearly refutes whatever claims, and then posted a link to that interview on the denier's wiki-talkpage and let a 3rd party integrate his changes if they really provide notable information.

          Wikipedians are zealots ... but mostly about the rules on how to make changes -- which are required to when you have a million people collaborating.
          • formido, on 04/21/2008, -1/+5That's odd because you certainly can cite first hand communication in, e.g., peer reviewed articles and presumably peer reviewed articles are permissible to cite in Wikipedia. In fact, if you couldn't cite first hand information at some point in the chain, there'd be no chain, right? In fact, I'm pretty sure the rule you claim is not applied strictly and is at times used to selectively stifle dissent.
          • zeromous, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3reported by a legitimate reporter for the nationalpost is hardly 'some blog'
          • TeacherOfHeroes, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3The point is that wikipedia is not the place to cite that first-hand information. In peer reviewed articles, you know who the author is, and it would be very easy to disprove a claim like that in a later article. With Wikipedia, anyone could wander in and say "I checked with the guy, you're wrong" and even if it was proved to be a lie, there would be no permanent discrediting of the fake source - it could happen again and again and again.

            If I saw a claim like that in a peer reviewed journal, I'd figure that the penalty for fudging information like that would be so great that people normally wouldn't do it. If Wikipedia allowed that same behaviour, the articles would quickly devolve into the encyclopedia version of:

            I'm Spartacus
            No, I'm Spartacus
            No, *I'm* Spartacus
          • ChuqAU, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3(reply to zeromous)

            But he didn't write the story until AFTER he tried to make the edits. So at the time he wrote them, there was no source to back up these edits. It's nice that "Peiser told me so" , but tabletop had no idea as to who Solomon was, he could be just anyone. You can't just rely on "it's true, he told me" from an anonymous source.
          • zeromous, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I think I was getting at that he could simply publish himself AND THEN make the edit rather than causing a pointless ruckus.
    • libkarl2, on 04/21/2008, -3/+11"If the information is STRONG it will stand on it's own no matter what someone tries to refute it with."

      Now if only the world wasn't full of stupid people.....
      • EntangledPhysx, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2you talk like a fag and your ***** all retarded
    • Stormwern, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2Only one match on Kim Dabelstein Petersen, runs a consultant company called Lignus Inc in San Diego California.
    • themastersb, on 04/21/2008, -8/+3I thought zealots were the guys who sought world domination, contemplated with lizard men and were only discussed by guys in tinfoil hats.
      • slvrbullet87, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2Zeal "Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance. See Synonyms at passion"
        From dictionary.com
    • MrSlumberjack, on 04/21/2008, -4/+5There are not two sides of climatology, as there are not two sides of physics or chemistry.
    • homercles337, on 04/21/2008, -5/+3"Both sides?" Only the illiterate uneducated masses really believe that kind of tripe. Can all you idiots try doing the research for your selves rather than linking some other idiot blogger?
    • CrypticSkeptic, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1Just checked an article I added to back in May 2006, and found that some asshat edited out my work in Dec 2007. No explanation given, just didn't like what I had typed I suppose.
    • jiminez, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2Read the page's discussion. The journalist in question couldn't even get the editors name right in the article, nevermind the fact he also got their sex wrong. On top of that his comments on the page just didn't stand up to the wikipedia guidelines on neutrality. Incredibly sloppy journalism, that had me fooled until I checked the page under discussion itself.
  • peppaz, on 04/21/2008, -28/+85Everybody has an agenda these days. Are you really surprised? Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    • KiraDnote, on 04/21/2008, -5/+19trite
    • asherchang, on 04/21/2008, -2/+7How does that even play into this story?
    • Stupidumb, on 04/21/2008, -5/+2Absolute power absolutely absolutes powerful powers absolutely...or so some say.
      • Mattarang, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I have never said that. ABSOLUTELY NEVER... which means eventually always?
    • Username918719, on 04/21/2008, -0/+6But isn't knowledge power?
      • redneckblues, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1One could say absolute knowledge corrupts absolutely. For example, if the government knew everything you thought or did. This knowledge gives them absolute power over your life.
    • themastersb, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1I only ever tried putting a few things on Wikipedia once only to have it immediately deleted or reverted afterwards and it was just correcting some things or creating a new article for something. Now I just don't try doing anything on there anymore. Damn admin abuse.
      • slvrbullet87, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4I have had my changes reverted when they were fixing typos, it is pathetic
    • Kurlumbenus, on 04/21/2008, -1/+11[Citation Needed]
      • Keeper5, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0This comment needs additional citations for verification.
    • blinkin, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3Now now, that's "Power corrupts, but absolute power is actually pretty neat." Get yer quotes right.
      • shovelihave, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1I think it's called an allusion. Try looking them up.
    • Nudar, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2I don't think being an editor on wikipedia gives you "absolute power".
  • smacksaw, on 04/21/2008, -10/+53Hmm...that really reminds me of how the Co$ rolls.
    • Intamin, on 04/21/2008, -4/+3I'm sorry, but what on earth is Co$, google doesn't seem to return anything useful.
      I know this is a lame buzzkill... :-/
      • NodOfficer, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4Church of Scientology (S like Micro$oft) in relation that they attempt to censor opposing views and urge others to "find out for themselves" by only giving them their side's view on things. Some of their 'fact' sites are kind of hilarious if you read them.
        • Keeper5, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2I agree, it is very CoS-like in the oppression of valid information and absolutely ridiculous reasons that so blatantly ignore reason and truth.
        • Intamin, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3Thanks Nod, not sure why people digg me down just b/c I don't inherently understand something that's, quite honestly, not readily apparent.

          But whatever, this is digg--one must take the good with the bad!
    • Futile, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4Just like how all those darwinists are trying to cover up the ideas of creationism and intelligent design, right?

      It's a conspiracy man! The Cult of Climate Change is sending its zealots everywhere!
  • poidh, on 04/21/2008, -108/+31Well it isn't that much different that Digg. Try getting an article to the front page which criticises Hussein Obama for example.
    • stupidStan, on 04/21/2008, -13/+71I love idiots who refer to him as Hussein Obama, but don't refer to anyone else by their middle name/last name combination; so clever you are. Oh that silly Rodham Clinton or Walter(?) Bush, they are crazy...
      Why don't you go ahead and suck Ann Coulter's dick.
      • Endemoniada, on 04/21/2008, -4/+18I believe Rodham is her maiden name, so it would be Hillary Rodham, and Bush's middle name is Walker, so Walker Bush.
        Other than that, you are completely correct, it makes no sense whatsoever to refer to Obama by his middle name, except to make oneself look utterly stupid.
      • LOVEANDEQUALITY, on 04/21/2008, -15/+8HILARY CLINTON IS GOING TO WIN!
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/21/2008, -11/+4People call Bush "W", Hilary is only using Clinton when it's good for her. She emphasized "Rodham" while running for Senate. So why not call him by his middle name? It is his middle name right?
        • subliminalurge, on 04/21/2008, -2/+8The difference is that there's a legitimate, practical reason for referring to him as W. Just a few years back we had another president who also went by the name George Bush. Using W is a way to make it clear which one of the two you are referring to. Admittedly, this was more of an issue at the beginning of his presidency than it is today, but it's already caught on.

          If you say Obama during a conversation, is there a realistic chance anyone is going to say "which one"?
      • Dibou, on 04/21/2008, -5/+1W.
      • Wintermute426, on 04/21/2008, -2/+11Oh my God, billions of people on the planet and he happens to share a name with a dictator?!?!? Whatever will we do?!? I have a friend named Adolph; I'd better start keeping a close eye on him...
      • mattmy, on 04/21/2008, -2/+4dugg for ann coulter's dick ref
    • Lhurgoyf, on 04/21/2008, -12/+42I think you gave the reason why most anti-Obama articles don't make the front page: because they rely on character assassination and distorting of the facts, or misrepresentation, like you just did. Rather than write Barack, you gaver his Muslim sounding middle name, pandering to the anti-Islamic sentiment.
      • Bersy, on 04/21/2008, -6/+13I've seen plenty of Hillary character assassinating though, so I guess that's ok (note, I do not endorse her)..
        • Endemoniada, on 04/21/2008, -7/+7And you're implying, without basis, that Lhurgoyf makes a habit of assassinating Hillary's character?
          poidh commented about Obama, Lhurgoyf answered with a comment about Obama, you bring out Hillary out of nowhere.
          No one *here* has said anything about Hillary, so there's no need to bring her up, just as there was no need to bring up Obama either, regardless of his middle name.
          • poidh, on 04/21/2008, -10/+3His middle name? That'll be Hussein won't it?

            Allahu akbar!
          • KiraDnote, on 04/21/2008, -10/+2You obviously missed the point. But then your intention is to obscure the point. It's OK to diss Hillary on digg, and it happens all the time. But you never see any pro-Hillary or negative Obama article on digg. Unfettered deomcracy does not work. Zealots like you are the reason.
        • Phyraxus, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1She is assassinating her own character. Things that reach the front page about her are simply truth.
    • poidh, on 04/21/2008, -21/+8I'm being proven correct quite nicely here :)
    • Endemoniada, on 04/21/2008, -4/+10Try coming up with real criticism first. Just because I decide to call you poo-dh from now on, with the emphasis on poo, doesn't make it your real name (or nickname). Barack Obama has a middle name, which normally isn't used. The mere fact that he shares that name with a certain Saddam Hussein is nothing but a coincidence, and to believe otherwise is extremely childish and proves, without a doubt, they those to highlight his name have no other real criticism to present.

      Translation: You're a troll. Be gone with you!
    • smacksaw, on 04/21/2008, -2/+7I'd love to see an article criticising him because I'm all for debate.

      But you know...there's the Digg button and then the Bury button, and the Bury button includes Spam, Inaccurate and Lame.

      Submit legitimate articles that have more substance than the stupid posts the Obama-haters throw up in Obama threads and I'll Digg it. In fact I think I speak for most Obama supporters where I say we'll Digg it. I think we're all for intelligent, factual debate.
      • poidh, on 04/21/2008, -7/+2Intelligent, factual debate is something you might get when there are small, equal numbers of people with differing views, not at all like what you get on Digg. We saw it first with Ron Paul and now with Hussein Obama (PBUH): mob rule.
    • Squall722, on 04/21/2008, -2/+5It is considerably different from Digg. Wikipedia is ideally taken as a non-biased news and fact source, and to have censorship as stated in this article is troubling. Digg, however, is taken with a grain of salt (and not used as an encyclopedia, I might add), for many times it can be very biased and false.
      • dan222555, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1"for many times it can be very biased and false."

        Change "many times" to "almost all the time" and you've about got it.
    • grungegbunny, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1In your situation majority rules.
    • AzMegladon, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Its a majority issue, nice try though : )
  • Shadowgamers, on 04/21/2008, -7/+277[Citation Needed]
    • kaelyiesta, on 04/21/2008, -0/+15Exactly. From the edit page in question user Kim writes:

      "Peisers comment on Naomi Oreskes paper [...] hasn't been printed in a reliable source (in fact it was rejected by Nature), but only on Peisers own website."

      So, lets check his website here: http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/. And http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Sciencelette ... is the page Kim refers to. Upon reading this, it doesn't seem that Kim is correct about Benny Peisers admission that Oreskes is right. In fact he says quite clearly that "The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:"

      So, having done the research myself, I happen to agree with the case against Kim or "tabletop". He doesn't have a source to back up his claims, in fact he uses one that contradicts it! He insists that Benny himself be the one to contact wikipedia to make edits, and not by proxy through someone else yet he doesnt even have that much himself. He sources an editor from a institution that didnt even publish the content in question, and that very content happens to contradict the edits he has been making anyway. I'm siding with Lawrence Solomon on this one. Wikipedia is being corrupted by this user.
  • Sendai129, on 04/21/2008, -18/+263Wait wait wait... so you're telling me that when my grade 11 teacher told me years back that Wikipedia wasn't a reliable and unbiased source of information she was right?!
    • doshindude, on 04/21/2008, -4/+75but did she cite her source on that statement?
    • asherchang, on 04/21/2008, -16/+6No, she was being a douchenozzle.
    • TTURabble, on 04/21/2008, -1/+12Haha when I was in 11th grade all we had was the library and a card catalog. Even then it wasn't a reliable source of information..."where is 114.32? its not on the shelf." "What do you mean its missing/checked out?"
    • TeacherOfHeroes, on 04/21/2008, -6/+7Actually, looking more closely, it looks as if Wikipedia's quality control is working just fine. If you look at the history page, and look a the edits this guy has made, it's clear why they were removed. For a "journalist", it's surprising how unprofessional his edits seem to be; perhaps he's not used to having to provide rigorous citations. For example:

      Lawrence Solomon: Tabletop is distorting Peiser. She does not speak for him. Peiser has approved my description of events concerning him.
      KimDabelsteinPetersen: rv WP:OR - we have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant. using TW

      It caries on like this for a while, eventually he tries to link to some dubious sources to back up his claims. Despite whatever the truth is, Wikipedia can only safely contain information which is corroborated by good solid evidence that is accessible to all.
      • OneLess, on 04/21/2008, -3/+2Funny how none of that was mentioned in the column.
    • savethemooses, on 04/21/2008, -1/+5How many "years back" could that possibly have been?
      • Sendai129, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1That would have been 4 years ago now actually. You can say "years back" at four years no? Cause one year ago is last year. Two years ago is a couple years past. Three years ago is a few years past. So then after that I think it qualifies for saying years back. The next one would be many years ago... but I don't think I'd use that one unless it's been 6 or more years. I've put far too much effort and thought into this haven't I?
    • Elissar, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1But Wikipedia said it was a reliable source!
  • volksrabby, on 04/21/2008, -21/+16Sigh... she must be put to death. :-/
    • mrbeagle, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Well, no, she just needs to learn how to cooperate with other editors. I do agree with you on principle though, so dugg.
  • madroneDorf, on 04/21/2008, -25/+14Funny, you think the News Media will print actual facts?

    Everything has institutional biases, for better or worse consumers need to understand the political climate that what they are reading is operating from have their conclusions about the subject take that into account
    • dancercotillion, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3"News Media"? It's Wikipedia, dummy. Not MSNBC or the Times. The only systemic bias in en.wikipedia is the admin, since a few incredibly active admin go ***** and control all the controversial articles. If you really want a decent view of a subject, always ALWAYS read the talk page and browse through the article history.
    • Myonosken, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3I think he meant "new media" which people have been citing as some sort of saviour of independence.
  • SoxSweepAgain, on 04/21/2008, -98/+20This article isn't worth a comment.
    Don't waste your time.
    It's some anti-Gore dude pissed off because he's outedited on Wikipedia.
    Yawn.
    • stupidStan, on 04/21/2008, -3/+36but yet you commented...
    • robbinzo, on 04/21/2008, -3/+32Not worth a comment and yet you still couldn't resist commenting.
    • digsuxx, on 04/21/2008, -12/+3Republicans can't take the heat of losing, so they have to resort to crying. Republican always cry about not winning in academia circles. Figures considering how stupid republicans are. I mean these people just don't get it. They're literally brain damaged. If you still consider yourself a Republican and vote Republican this election after being robbed for the last 8 years by * industrial complex you get what you deserve. Go back into your closet and just don't vote morons.
    • LameTacomeat, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2If you don't feel this is worthy of your time, leave it alone and don't comment on it.
      Short version: Don't be an *****
  • jeremydouglass, on 04/21/2008, -16/+20this makes me sad for the state of free and public discourse. i can understand how big, bad government can be intimidating and difficult to butt against on issues like this. but surely wikipedia can be put to task for the tenacious bias of it's in-house editors. even though in this case i agree with the alarmists, that doesn't mean i can justify a forced perspective in a public forum like wikipedia.
    whereas i wouldn't exactly call it an outrage, it is troublesome and i wonder what can be done.
    • pahool, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3Did you read the article? This guy didn't follow Wikipedia editorial guidelines at all. If he had provided acceptable citation his edits would have stood. A claim of a conversation with the author in NOT an accepatable citation.
      • bernlin2000, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3It's a big Digg problem...people just read the title, or skim articles and don't actually do any research themselves. Not that hard...everyone knows where Wikipedia is. Jeremy, the problem is these are often just people with an ax to grind, and it's not always easy to spot them (unless they get mentioned in a news column, like she has now).
  • Elliottx, on 04/21/2008, -8/+105I wish you would all shut up about when a topic gets on the front page with low amount of "Diggs"
    It's not just based on Diggs, it's based on how many people within the time its submitted that view it as well as how many Diggs it gets. Simple saying "Oh xx Digg and front page? Seems fishy.." doesn't make you look good. It makes you look like a douchebag.

    Also I tried editing a lot of Wikipedia pages especially when the earthquake in the UK happened a few months ago and I got didly.
    • sillyoldbear, on 04/21/2008, -8/+3I've also had edits deleted by Nazi moderator's, I find Wikipedia generally frustrating and worthless.
      • alexforcefive, on 04/21/2008, -4/+4By that, do you mean someone had to revert all your ***** edits due to improper use of the word "nazi"?
      • skyroket, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Deleted by Nazi moderator's what?
    • Cruelapollo, on 04/21/2008, -0/+40Bunch of bastards over there, trying to tell me that Chamillionaire is not the evolved form of Charizard.
  • wowsah156, on 04/21/2008, -16/+97Having had experience of using Wikipedia and seeing this myself i totally agree that Wikipedia is becoming a liability. Anyone with an agenda can use Wikipedia articles and their distortions to fit their own argument and agenda. I can see Wikipedia becoming unmanageable and therefore useless in the future.
    • orangetiki, on 04/21/2008, -10/+3And you didn't see that from the beginning?
    • LokitheComplex, on 04/21/2008, -3/+19Some topics are always going to be contested. But most people will still find wikipedia very useful. Only people with far out opinions on everything have a problem with it.
      • controlguy, on 04/21/2008, -0/+11Lok has a point. I use Wikipedia all the time to reference mathematics articles, and the articles are generally spot on (I've only ever had to correct a typo). There's a difference between using Wikipedia to reference well-established facts or, at least, facts for which the laymen has little access/interest as compared to controversial topics such as global warming where everybody *thinks* they have something to contribute but are generally quite ignorant.
        • skyroket, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1What about the guy who gets on there and doesn't realize there is more than one side to global warming? What if they don't realize they're researching a contested topic? How do we mark topics as contested? Then can we contest whether or not something is contested? It's a never ending cycle. Truth is relative.
      • slvrbullet87, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3Fringe opinions like questioning global warming? Because afterall nobody chalenges global warming.
    • EthylAdded, on 04/21/2008, -1/+5Wikipedia is just a smaller, demo-like version of the evolving state of human knowledge over time.
    • DemonWasp, on 04/21/2008, -4/+2Probably the easiest way of slowing down the problem would be to limit the rate of edits that are allowed. People would just make more accounts, but it shouldn't be too hard to ban duplicates.
      • flyingmeteor, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1Go take a look at how many accounts exist on Wikipedia, it's ridiculous how out of control it is.
    • sonnybobiche, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1There should be full time employees of wikipedia to arbitrate disputes such as these. (And one I myself had, debating the merits of including an accusatory "list of alledged neoconfederate groups" in a wikipedia article about neconfederatism. I thought it was McCarthyism, some jerk disagreed and kept undoing my and others' deletions of the list.)
    • TheHolyLancer, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3wikipedia is great for logic based facts, anything that cannot be verified by logic and equations can and will be unreliable
    • bheilig, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4Because Wikipedia tracks edits and has a comment page, it will always have worth. If you are interested in only a cursory reading of an article, then you are opening yourself up to any bias involved. However, if you are looking for genuine research, then you must read the comments and the edits for an article, research the people making the edits, etc. Wikipedia tracks any controversy and this will ensure it is always an asset.
  • redcosmic, on 04/21/2008, -35/+96This guy is bitching because he doesn't understand the concept of the Wikipedia discussion page...
    • Haecceity, on 04/21/2008, -3/+40That was my thought exactly. If you want to add material you have to be able to do more than assert that someone told you something. Like it or not, you need some verifiable source, like a published letter, webpage, or paper. On the other hand, the writer could have challenged the sources that Tabletop was using, forcing her to justify her interpretation. A "yes he did, no he didn't" argument is a waste of time and energy.
      • zeromous, on 04/21/2008, -3/+2LIke being a reporter and holding a presscard? I mean that's practically a license to publish hearsay (or apparent heresy in this case).
      • leexy, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2[WP:Verifiability] is standard policy.
    • timla, on 04/21/2008, -2/+11If this is the case (and I have no reason to doubt you) then the immediate issue is one of education. Unfortunately wikipedia promotes it's self in such a way where they gloss over this type of thing, and it is not obvious to the newcomer what actions are to be taken when there is a disagreement over the facts.

      At the same time, when it became obvious that the author had a genuine issues with the facts of the article the editor for wikipedia should have pointed the author toward the next step in resolving the issue. The fact that the editor did not do this begins to point back to the problem the author describes in the article. The editor does not want to be provin wrong, he or she does not want the facts known, they want their version of the facts, and only their version.

      The editor should be taken to task, not for removing the edits, but for being so dam pig headed about the chance that they might be wrong.
      • SealandRes1, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1This is not about chances, this is about citing your facts. The author didn't cite his facts properly when he changed the article, plain and simple. You can't just edit a page and state a bunch of facts without having a credible source to back your facts up, that's asking for it.
        • timla, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1while I think you are correct in theory, that is not the way it works much of the time. I personally have made edits without citation (James Buchanan was Pensynvania state rep from 1814 to 1816 not 1814 to 1820) the edit sstill exist, the page has been edited many more times. no one doubted me (I was/am correct) So citation is not always needed.
      • cersad, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1You're definitely spot-on when you say it's a question of education (at least, education about the commonly accepted protocol on the site), and this education might need to include questioning the validity of the moderators.
    • sonnybobiche, on 04/21/2008, -2/+15The discussion page doesn't really matter when editors are unwilling to acknowledge the merits of your case.
      • SealandRes1, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1It sure as hell makes it easier to read what's going on though.
  • j0hnk377y, on 04/21/2008, -22/+34What's sad is the debate is being cut off, while at the same time the dollars are going to start flying out of your wallet in the form of new government regulations in the name of global warming. Debate is good and healthy and it's not like Gore stated that no believing is like thinking the world is flat. It's become a religion a lot like Scientology.
    • digsuxx, on 04/21/2008, -13/+4There is no god damn debate. You've obviously been brain washed by the page ***** gay republicans so they can rob you with your consent . Go ahead vote republican again i dare you (you'll be sorry if you do; if you aren't already). If Gore had been our president in 2000 we sure as hell wouldn't be seeing the 4 dollar a gallon we are seeing here in California.
    • controlguy, on 04/21/2008, -4/+7There's no debate that the planet has warmed -- it's an established fact. The scientific "debate" is over the magnitude of future warming, but that "debate" is really just scientific progress at work. As of now, researches are able to predict warming within a single-digit error (in centigrade) within a 90% confidence interval over the course of a 100-year period (or, at least, a friend of mine researching the field told me something along those lines recently). The problem is that it only takes single-digit variations in temperature to cause drastic changes in sea level, so much of the scientific effort in this field is in trying to better understand the processes on earth that help govern the dynamics of temperature.

      The social is the debate over how we should react -- should we conserve, move to other energy sources, or keep moving on. Frankly, if the science was a bit better, we could answer that question immediately. For example, we could just do an economic analysis that accounts for the effects of warming on the environment. So now we ask ourselves: do we act now in order to try to prevent a worst-case scenario or do we remain optimistic that the warming will be minor? That's the only *real* social debate.

      Any debate on warming beyond these two topics is a farce.
    • Brian48216, on 04/21/2008, -4/+1There is NO debate.
      Stop trying to pass off snake oil like it's a valid scientific argument.
      Arguing against global warming is akin to the the intelligent design people saying that there's a debate over evolution.

      No. There isn't any "debate". The science shows the consensus. Until someone shows up in a peer reviewed scientific journal and their conclusions are agreed upon by the scientific community that global warming isn't happening, then it doesn't count.
    • bernlin2000, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1The debate we should be having now is how to get out of this ***** situation the human race has throw itself headlong into. People can be really dumb sometimes: carbon emissions DO affect the environment, and we're adding more and more to the atmosphere every year. I wish people would cut the teenage-like "immortal" garbage and face reality. Also, we need to find ways that don't make things even worse, like our focus increasing the availability of ethanol as an alternative fuel (there was a recent TIME article that shot this fuel source down very strongly)
  • insomniacal, on 04/21/2008, -25/+15I, for one, welcome our anonymous Wikipedian overlords.
    • MalkyMalc, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3You won't be saying that when they put you to work in their underground sugar mines.
  • robbinzo, on 04/21/2008, -1/+37What's the difference between a 'fact' and an 'actual fact'?
    • queenstarsha, on 04/21/2008, -9/+2"actual facts" are truthier. like this guy's assertion that the oreskes article was wrong, for example. her article said all the scientists in a particular database (probably a reputable one) agreed on climate change. it didn't say every kook who doesn't know the carbon dioxide absorption wavelength from their ***** that some republican thinktank could dredge up later would agree.
      • Ouze, on 04/21/2008, -1/+5a fine example of critical thinking, sir. You're an asset to the hive
      • CynicSight, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1Truthier? You just lost all credibility you had as a person by saying "truthier". kthx
    • TreatsTheBear, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3Actual facts are more actual. By one.
  • senatorpjt, on 04/21/2008, -13/+51The person writing this article doesn't understand how it works. If you're going to change a page and expect it not to be reverted, you can't contradict what the page says without a citation.
    • robbinzo, on 04/21/2008, -15/+2Buried for not reading/understanding the article.
      • spencabt, on 04/21/2008, -3/+6@ robbinzo:

        Um...buried for not having read senatorpit's comment and/or for not reading/understanding the article?
        • robbinzo, on 04/21/2008, -7/+2Buried for the fact that the person writing the article does understand how it works - someone was deleting his entires immediately after he typed.
          The author of the article had the express permission to post a response on digg from Benny Peiser whom he was writing about and yet the wackypedia troll refused to accept the entry.
          The citation was the author he was writing about. Peiser was the source of the information. How much better does the citation have to be?
          • buckrogers1965, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4No original work may appear in Wikipedia. What is going on is that the person complaining is trying to subvert the peer review process of science. Get that study published, and then cite the study and it would be all good. Nobody on wikipedia cares about anyone's "opinion" on any topic.
        • SpencerMc, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3@ Robbinzo
          Um...Published somewhere would be a nice start.
    • Buzzbean, on 04/21/2008, -12/+15His citation was a conversation with the person who was quoted in the original article. Since when can an interview not be cited as a source?
      • Myonosken, on 04/21/2008, -2/+15When he didn't produce any sort of transcript or reference to the interview?
        • robbinzo, on 04/21/2008, -5/+2*citation required*
        • wettap, on 04/21/2008, -5/+0And the editor of the Wikipedia page had "what" for her proof???

          The very least she could have done was allow some sort of contrary view. I have seen it on many Wiki pages.
          • buckrogers1965, on 04/21/2008, -3/+2The burden of proof is on the submitter, not the editor.
          • SealandRes1, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2What existed on the page before the edits were cited properly, you can't just change the article and use improper citations to back it up.
      • Haecceity, on 04/21/2008, -1/+17When it's not published or otherwise verifiable.
        • zeromous, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3Sounds to me like he just published it. Nationalpost.com
          • buckrogers1965, on 04/21/2008, -3/+2Yeah, I goto national post for all my peer reviewed science needs.
        • formido, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Of course, as it turns out, her citation was wrong. Probably not just wrong, but willfully misleading, too. Which just goes to show that if you have a lot of energy and an agenda, it's fairly easy to play the Wikipedia game to manipulate public debate. The author of this article just has to match that.
      • senatorpjt, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1When there's no evidence of the interview. I could go edit the article about Fascism and claim that my information came from a personal interview with Francisco Franco but that doesn't make it so.
  • Stevo23, on 04/21/2008, -6/+65The fundamental problem with wikipedia is that the final product reflects the most dedicated (some would say obsessed) editors, rather than the best-informed. If somebody is willing to sit around like a hawk and constantly revert all the edits they don't like, it's going to be hard to beat that if you have a life. This is part of the reason I think Citizendium is a good idea: http://en.citizendium.org/
  • Bersy, on 04/21/2008, -8/+35While on some level I can sympathize with this person, I also learned pretty fast that Wikipedia requires citations, not "this guy says"... if the original info has poor citation then perhaps it does not deserve to be there either - but otherwise, get a grip.
    • formido, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1It's funny, though in some sense justifiable, that Wikipedia has stricter citation policies than sources that would actually qualify as citations for Wikipedia entries!
  • robbinzo, on 04/21/2008, -9/+4Apparently Wikiscanner allows you to see the IP address of those editing the pages.
    http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/
    • niczar, on 04/21/2008, -1/+8You don't need Wikiscanner to do that, you just need to click the "History" tab present on ANY WP page. Gee.
      • AROZ, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2What if they're registered?
        • niczar, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Wikiscanner doesn't show you the IP for registered people either.
  • atact88, on 04/21/2008, -19/+6Net neutrality my ass.
    • SealandRes1, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3I don't think that word means what you think it means.
  • magus_melchior, on 04/21/2008, -5/+22Had the reverted edits cited the full context of Peiser's comments, Solomon may have had a case. Unfortunately, since there are plenty of people who vandalize wiki pages simply because they disagree (they don't have a good source), Petersen set up a bot to monitor the page and auto-reverted anyone who disagreed with Oreskes. At best, Solomon can challenge Petersen based on assuming bad faith, but appealing to authority isn't a very good start for him, and Petersen's mind is already made up.
    • formido, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0One of the facts under dispute was what Peiser did or did not believe. While interview sources may not be allowed as Wikipedia citations (although they are of course in most other respectable manuscript creation), asking the subject of the fact what he believes is clearly not "appealing to authority".
      • TeacherOfHeroes, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2How does one tell, though, if a person is being honest or not? There is simply no way of knowing that kind of thing over the internet - it's too untrustworthy a medium; a price you pay in exchange for anonymity. I could go into a wikipedia article about Google, and post some information without a citation. I could then claim that "Larry Page told me so himself", but no one would believe me, nor should they.
  • Jenadae, on 04/21/2008, -4/+10It's true i tried to post that will smith WAS infact of african american decent and i got banned :(
    • queenstarsha, on 04/21/2008, -4/+8maybe it was for spelling, captain obvious.
  • ElAssoWipo, on 04/21/2008, -16/+67I'm so ***** tired of hearing about how many scientists are for or againsta certain position.

    IT'S NOT A ***** ARGUMENT.

    Instead of talking about how smart these people are supposed to be, why don't you show us the data they base their opinion on? Why don't you just give us their ***** arguments so we can see if they stand up or not?

    30 Helens agree: appeal to popularity is the worst possible way to convince an intelligent person.
    • KixEvilCereal, on 04/21/2008, -6/+5I agree with ElAsso!
      • rootfiend, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4That's what the digg button is for.
    • queenstarsha, on 04/21/2008, -9/+5you already know the science. they teach schoolchildren about the greenhouse effect, and everyone everyone everyone has seen the hockey stick graph showing the vast CO2 (greenhouse gas) spike in the atmosphere. republicans just want you to be too confused by their noise machine to apply the science you already know. you're right that it shouldn't be an argument. it's articles like this guy whining about wikipedia that want you to keep arguing. good scientists aren't arguing. really.

      just in case, the hockey stick:
      http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/hockey ...
      • Forsakenmantra, on 04/21/2008, -2/+5Well I am neither a republican or a democrat and I am still unsure as to whats going on with global warming. I've read quite a lot of scientific journals and things that make the argument not nearly as clean cut as the media would let you believe.

        Also The greenhouse effect is necessary for the survival on the earth, it's amazing how many people don't know this fact (I am not saying you don't),
        • buckrogers1965, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1There is no doubt about global climate change, only the amount and rate is being questioned. But the debate is more along the lines of will it be 4 or 5 degrees warmer in 75 or 100 years.
        • MrSlumberjack, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1Yes, the greenhouse effect is necessary for life on Earth, but that is a completely irrelevant statement. You are saying this in a way to make it sound like pumping carbon into the atmosphere is a positive thing for life, while in reality the composition of chemicals under which the greenhouse effect has occurred for hundreds of thousands of years is being tweaked by an external force. Not a good thing.
      • Lythium, on 04/21/2008, -1/+5You do NOT "already know the science." Beware of anything which seems like it's "really simple," because it's frequently really wrong. The environment, the weather, the climate - all of these are much, MUCH more intricate than you are taught in grade school.

        Come to think of it, pretty much everything I was taught in grade school turned out to be ridiculously simplified (the structure of cells), outdated (the structure of the atom), or even entirely bogus (pretty much everything related to American history). Since when is Mrs. Katz from fifth grade a viable authority on complex global phenomena?
      • AbsurdParadox, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3Interesting, this whole sort of statement reminds me of when creationists argue against evolution using pseudo-science
      • formido, on 04/21/2008, -1/+4Average global temperatures have not increased at the rate predicted by current models linking CO2 and temperature. This suggests that climate scientists do not yet possess a firm enough grasp of what's going on to accept their recommendations unreservedly.
    • zeromous, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Dugg for great kids reference.
    • taintedzodiac, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2It's a FACT: Kids in the Hall references will net you kudos from the Digg readership.
    • astrnomic, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2No, it shouldn't convince anyone. But if the majority of people who spend their lives studying it, agree on something...you had better have a damned good reason to doubt them.
    • libertao, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3Because the average person does not have the background necessary to understand complex climatology studies.
  • Rhodamine, on 04/21/2008, -1/+11Solomon seems to have spread his story ALL across the electronic world....

    google Kim Dabelstein Peterson" and at least the first two pages of results show Solomon's side of the story:

    'Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams ..'
    Hmmmmm......I wonder.
  • SuperMoses, on 04/21/2008, -8/+59Wow, this guy wrote an article because he doesn't understand wikipedia guidelines. He could have easily took this up on the articles "discussion" page. In case you are wondering, here is the the main edit he's talking about:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naomi_Or ...
    • Jordan117, on 04/21/2008, -0/+10The talk page for that article was the first thing I looked for, and it's laughable how bad it makes Solomon look. He got Kim's username and gender wrong, and apparently never posted anything to the talk page itself, which is what you're supposed to look to when there's an edit conflict. The author of this piece is just clueless about Wiki procedure and got burned for it, and now he's out to discredit the user (and by extension, the site) that did it to him.
    • krazikamikaze, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2He saw statements about Peiser he felt misrepresented him, so he did what any good journalist would do and went straight to the source (something that NOT ONE of the editors ever attempted to do). And now you're arguing he can't correct the article just because he's new to wikipedia? Sounds like it's a problem with wikipedia, not the journalist.
    • Nudar, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Forget the wikipedia guidlines. This Dabelstein girl seems to think there's no debate about global warming and is zealously guarding all articles on global warming to protect against dissent.
    • bernlin2000, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1It's all pretty unreasonable to me. The debate on climate change shouldn't be on a biography article...these debates should be on articles that are on climate change debate (duh). Oreskes might had used poor word choice, but the basic idea of her work was that global climate change is Almost universally accepted. She forgot the almost, but just because the author of this column found 40 scientists who don't quite agree with the exact details of climate change doesn't change the basic idea. Put it more succinctly: "There are no reasonable scientists that deny that humans have had, overall, a negative impact on the environment, which has led to global climate change" I think the word "reasonable" is key there, since there are no doubt plenty of unreasonable scientists out there
  • bsmang, on 04/21/2008, -8/+17Wikipedia is awesome. Would I use it to research something like global warming where the biggest of big money players have a huge stake in the information? Well, let's just say I would be wary. But for most things, it's the best. Sure, it's susceptible to vandalism and the refs should always be checked and evaluated, but that's just common sense anyway.
    • senatormac, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2I typically use Wikipedia as a jump-off point for more research, it has a good overview of the topic and a number of citations for further reading. Even if a page is heavily disputed there are a variety of sources that you can look into for more information that are right on the page.
    • Railer, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2"refs should always be checked and evaluated" here are the ref evaluation
      1. Still live at homes with your parents, and have no job so you have lots of free time?
      2. Are you in a liberal arts University course?
      3. .... Who am I kidding! You are IN!
      • bsmang, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Oooo, you sound so angry. Reminds me of my chihuahua when one of my larger dogs stops by for a pet.
      • ptanonimo, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Refs are not people
  • Ouze, on 04/21/2008, -14/+23Wikipedia is one of the most perfect microcosms of how a society decays and corrupts that we might ever see.
    • Slydevil01, on 04/21/2008, -6/+5Oh shutup Mr. Melodrama. No it isn't.
      • Ouze, on 04/21/2008, -4/+4YES IT IS, STUPID JERKFACE
      • rexreason, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2I'd point to Digg instead.
        • Ouze, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1i'd look at digg more of an example of how conformism is the prevalent human trait, above all others, and how it drowns critical thinking without hesitation. Digg didn't start out with high ideals and devolve into retardery, it was always sort of retarded. Also, comments are not buried on digg by a few elite pushing a specific viewpoint (ex. admins), they are buried by lynch mobs of people who share the prevailing popular sentiment (ex. OSX users)
    • dinot, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2I don't understand why you think Wikipedia represents a decay in society. Hmmm... let's see, Wikipedia gave me knowledge on Sir Manley Power, and American Idol has given me ... William Hung. Society decays because of the importance people put on superficial *****. Wikipedia is only a tool.
      • Ouze, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2I believe the analogy fits because WP started out with high ideals of serving the people, and in the end it is largely run by a relatively small group of people with power (admins) that are really only interested in continuing their perceived power and using the bureaucracy as a tool to smash dissent and opposing viewpoints. It still serves a purpose in general, but the ideals are no longer the primary goal of those in charge.
  • VinnieDaMac, on 04/21/2008, -15/+9Wikipedia is the best thing ever, anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information.
    • SuperMoses, on 04/21/2008, -8/+2It's evident you have little clue on how wikipedia works and it's reliability. Here's a start, search Google for the science journal "Nature's" study on Wikipedia's accuracy compared to Britannica.
      • Myonosken, on 04/21/2008, -2/+4It's evident you have little clue on how irony works.
      • beatercrew2005, on 04/21/2008, -1/+6It's evident that neither of you watch "The Office." Well done Vinnie!
        • Myonosken, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1I watch The Office. But the UK version, but of course that never existed!
    • heynoop, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2hey diggers! i'm mr. sarcasm! i'm more common than you think, so quit being so serious all the time and you might find me more often (like in this fellow's post). see ya later!
  • SuperMoses, on 04/21/2008, -10/+117Peterson's response to the article:
    I'm now an official Zealot - Wow!

    Mr. Solomon writes an excellent article - but unfortunately most of it is significantly biased and subject to interpretation.

    Wikipedia cannot take Mr. Solomon's word that Peiser has communicated with him - or that his interpretation of Peiser is correct. That can only be established via what Wikipedia calls reliable sources. So no matter how much Mr. Solomon complains it wouldn't matter.

    Wikipedia has such a reliable source - a communication from Peiser with the Australian ABC. And we have to rely on that.

    Now a bit of background here. Naomi Oreskes paper (the one mentioned here) has been published in the rather prestigious scientific journal Nature. While Peisers critique is unpublished and available on his website.

    Normally this would mean that Peiser's critique wouldn't be mentioned at all on Wikipedia - since there is a hard rule on not allowing self-published sources. But in this case Peiser has been commented on so much, that it merits a mention on Oreskes biographical article.

    Mr. Solomons edits were significantly partisan (as is his article above), and these kinds of edits are routinely reverted, especially when done on a biography of a living person - and doubly so - when the only documentation for the claims is an anonymous editors claim that "he got this from Peiser himself". (Yes - Mr. Solomon didn't identify himself).

    I've read Mr. Solomons deniers series, and i can't say that i'm impressed - specifically not when several of the subjects that he profiled have complained about his articles. (in one case with an official retraction in this newspaper). I here reference (amongst others) Dr. Sami Solanki (check his webpage for this - its linked on Wikipedia).

    Finally here - Wikipedia is not a free for all, write whatever you want. Its subject to editorial oversight - and all claims have to be backed by reliable sources relative to the reliability of each.

    In this case Oreskes is published in a peer-reviewed and highly regarded science journal - and Peiser is a self-published article on his own website.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 04/21/2008, -0/+39What? You mean we can't cite ourselves as sources?

      As an authority on all things, I think I should have the right to presume that my opinion is equal to actual facts, for I am omnipotent, and quite insane.
    • MoClippa, on 04/21/2008, -0/+9Exactly... I don't see what was wrong with what the editor was doing, and why this is causing an uproar. Read the article before you comment people. This guy was changing an article on wikipedia, claiming that a person had said something counter to what was reported in a major publication, and that his source was the person in question. While that may have validity, if he wanted to add Peiser's comments to wikipedia, all Peiser had to do was self publish them (seeing as he has his own website), and then the author could have cited that source. Since he did not, the editor was free to assume that Mr. Solomon, who at the time was an anonymous editor making uncited edits, was writing BS. He edits a wiki, without following protocol, and then complains when someone calls him out on it by publishing an article calling her a Zealot. Ridiculous!
    • Futile, on 04/21/2008, -0/+7This "scientist" Peiser is a social anthropologist and was a historian of ancient sports. Since when is anthropology a science?? It's a humanities subject. Here's his site: http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/

      Wikipedia says this about his objection to the Oreskes paper:
      "Peiser noted that Oreskes' original characterization of her survey was incorrect: the articles were drawn from the ISI database using the search terms "global climate change", though she originally claimed to have used the term "climate change". She also did not clearly specify that she had limited her search to just "articles" (i.e., peer-reviewed publications) rather than "all document types" (which would include non-scientific, non-peer reviewed publications)."

      So she used the word "global", big deal. And she only counted articles that were peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals instead of quack articles on quack websites paid for by big oil. Smells like these deniers are grasping at straws?
    • Intamin, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1No need to hold the plank anymore because you nailed it!
    • Railer, on 04/21/2008, -3/+4Of course there are ALWAY'S reasons for one source over another, it's total garbage. It's now been published on the national post or are they biased now? And of course who gets to say who the "reliable source" is now did the editor ask for the phone number of the quoter? No? Surprised?

      I have several times attempted to remove slanders and one sided language only to be rebuffed when the original post NEVER EVEN HAD A SOURCE! MY sources of course did not meet the "criteria" of a "reliable source" so they preferred to remain with the UN-SOURCED quotations!

      Don't give me ***** when real reporters cannot allow FACTS in wikipedia, you KNOW something is biased.

      Case and point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton, ...
      has the quote "showing Monckton presenting a slide show in a vitriolic attack on climate change science." is biased, in the same article they state "Monckton has obtained funding from a right-wing Washington think tank" both statements showing bias, while another quote more favorable to the documentary is consistently left out. Why? Because the quote is found on "biased" websites like the publishers of the documentary! So now all movie reviews that a movie company uses to promote it's movie are now biased???? Tell that to the movie reviewers.

      See " vitriolic attack" and "right wing sources" completely acceptable. The publishers of the documentary defending their work with accurate quotes from objective parties, mmmmmm no that's too biased to be let in.
      • SuperMoses, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1It hasn't been published in the National Post. All that was published was Solomon's rant on Wikipedia in his NP blog, which I doubt has much editorial review. If he is so adament about including this Peiser article, then why doesn't he write a real NP article (not a blog post) with an interview with Peiser. Then he can source that article and I am certain Wikipedia wouldn't take THAT off. But that's not what he did. What he did was source an article created by the guy who runs his own webstie. That is very much different than writing an article on NP that goes through an editing process.

        Anyone can do what he did. Think of it this way. This is the same as a creationist posting their "science" on their own partisan website becaues it's not peer-reviewed or published in any major science journal, then referencing this in Wikipedia. That violates wiki guidelines and for a good reason.

        Your Monckton example shows that you don't know what NPOV means. It doesn't mean you can't post an article that has some bias, almost all news articles are bias. It simply means, when posting the article you can't present it in a bias way. NPOV = Neutral Point of View. In other words, regardless of what the article states, the way you present the article must be objective.

        And again, that article that you say is bias is from a major UK newspaper, so it is considered a reliable source.. EVEN if that article is bias.

        You honestly don't see what's wrong with posting something favourable about a documentry that is from the documentary's website? THAT is not a reliable source. Show me where on Wikipedia do they quote favourable comments about "Inconvenient Truth" from the Inconvenient Truth webstie.

        You should prehaps read the wikipedia guidelines before you criticize it. Look, I admit to being wrong once as well. I edited out a piece of information on Alvaro Uribe that was bias, but the person who added that information pointed out to me that I misunderstood NPOV.. that was settled after I understood it.

        Here's something you should read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiabili ...
        • Railer, on 04/22/2008, -2/+1So every movie reviewer that gives a positive review then the movie company post that review on their website, because the reviewer does have a website cannot be used, and we should use a biased source? Why not just NO review if they are BOTH biased leave them BOTH out, I suggested that as well.

          No dice, the Liberal Biased review CONTINUES to stand NPOV or no NPOV, *****

          • SuperMoses, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1But what they posted WASN'T the review. Yes, the little tidbit came from a review, but the part that's on wikpedia is simply information about Moncton's second film, where he parodies Gore.

            Do you disagree with the description of Moncton's film "Apocolypse? No!" showing Moncton presenting a slideshow as a scathing attack on climate science? That part isn't bias. You're criticizing the source more than the little fact that the source mentioned which is presented in a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW.

            In fact, there aren't ANY reviews on the wikipedia article about Moncton's films.

            Again, read the wikipedia guidelines. You obviously fail to understand how a few positive reviews of Moncton's film adds nothing to the article. There aren't negative or positive reviews of that film. The problem you have with is the little tidbit about Moncton's second film, isn't presented in a bias manner.

            I'll do you a favour:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_poi ...
          • Railer, on 04/22/2008, -2/+1"In fact, there aren't ANY reviews on the wikipedia article about Moncton's films." - uh YES there is:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton, ... --last paragraph.

            Yes I'm criticizing the source and NO it is NOT a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. DO you really think phrases like "vitriolic attack" and lets see:
            - notorious documentaries of the year, attracting complaints from dozens of scientists and viewers
            - Viscount Monckton, who is part of a counter-campaign to "undermine" the scientific consensus on climate change
            - a right-wing group whose manifesto was written by Monckton
            - Monckton has obtained funding from a right-wing Washington think tank,
            - The FINAL 3 paragraphs against the documentary with the end:
            - He is trying to take on the global scientific establishment on the strength of a classics degree from Cambridge.

            So you SERIOUSLY think this was an unbiased article? Yet it get sited as a reference??

            Give your head a shake.

            I'll do you a favor:
            NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed

            IF YOU ARE GOING TO ADD A NEGATIVE REVIEW YOU SHOULD HAVE A POSITIVE ONE, OR NEITHER!

            As for NPOV ya is ***** and as BIASED as wikipedia itself