Monday, December 28, 2009

ClimateGate Page Deleted From Wikipedia. More Attempts To Block Skeptics


UPDATE: Wikipedia has moved the deletion discussion page to here.
========

In the middle of the night on Monday morning, enough believers posted they wanted the article deleted to tie the count evenly between delete and keep. Then the polling was shut down early and the page was deleted. It's now a redirect to the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article.

Editor Rd232 has tried to block the ClimateGate author from posting to wikipedia. This isn't the first time this has happened. Wikipedia previously blocked all known skeptics from posting on the ClimateGate article.

The deletion is under review, as it occured less than 12 hours after the delete notice was posted and there was no consensus for deletion. We need wiki editors to get over there and get this reversed.

And Rd232 needs to lose his editor privileges due to abuse.


Screen shot of editor Rd232 saying he tried to block the author of the ClimateGate article from posting.

References:
Wikipedia ClimateGate article
Wikipedia Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article
ClimateGate Deletion discussion page
ClimateGate Deletion Review Page
Wikipedia Blocks Skeptics From Posting

8 comments:

  1. Thanks for monitoring this. I've linked to this post at my blog CO2Realist.com.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was pissed off about that too, but you know what? F'em! I say let the Commies take over Wikipedia COMPLETELY! Because we all know what will happen: they will run it right into the ground like they have done so spectacularly with leftist talk radio and cable news (cats playing piano on YouTube are getting higher ratings than Chris Mathews) Because the cruel irony is that leftist audiences are just as bored by leftist antiques as conservatives are. The only ones who takes the Wikipedia Climategate article seriously are the same delusional "editors" who are jealously guarding it. They are so delusional that they don't even realize that the rest of the world is laughing at them. It wont be long before all of Wikipedia is deemed a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ...antics not antiques :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well I'm honoured to have a blog about my action, I'm sure, but it's a pity it's so full of errors. (a) the post implies I ''tried'' to block. I didn't - I proposed it, at the appropriate forum. (b) it implies the block would have been indefinite. I suggested 1 week. (c) nobody is blocked from editing the Climategate page. Skeptics are complaining they can't get their way; this happens all the time, and there are dispute resolution procedures for that. If they still can't get their way, well maybe what they want just doesn't fit within the requirements of Wikipedia (notably, reliable sourcing). (d) the deletion was closed early because Wikipedia doesn't permit more than one version of an article. This was a blatant copy of the original, under a previously-rejected title. That's not allowed, for good reason, and in a less contentious area I would certainly have blocked the editor for disruption. As it is, I'm happy to move on. Nothing has been deleted (the article was userfied - moved to within the editor's userspace), and the issues about the existing article's title and content can and should be addressed there without creating a fork.
    PS There are other timezones than the US, you know. It wasn't the "middle of the night" for me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rd232, thanks for showing up to give your side of the story.

    But reading the comments from other editors at wiki, this doesn't seem to be usual procedure to me. Hence the reason the deletion is being reviewed.

    And looking at the history of articles you've edited, on topics such as Hugo Shavez, Karl Marx, Socialist Action, and Gay Civil Partnerships, I'm having a hard time believing this is anything but part of your long effort (over 7000 topics edited over a 5 year period) to press your left-wing agenda via wikipedia.

    Now there's nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in, but there is something wrong with deleting articles without proper review and without consensus.

    You are not wiki's gatekeeper and wiki isn't there to push someone's political agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nobody edits Wikipedia without having a point of view, because everyone *has* a perspective on the world and it doesn't magically go away when they edit Wikipedia. The whole point of Wikipedia is that by bringing lots of people together from different backgrounds and perspectives, you can get a better picture of reality - as long as those people are properly open to evidence, debate, compromise, and ideally changing their minds based on evidence.

    As to the subject in hand, the fact is the creator of the article fork has himself recognised his error with both the content and the naming and is working on a new draft. No material was deleted, and the discussion will eventually continue at the appropriate venue, which is the talk page of the existing article, which may or may not lead to a renaming or a splitting.

    This is a lot of drama over nothing - just cleaning up a mistake, which was the creation of an alternate, virtually identical version of an existing article.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rd232, I'm glad to hear you and wikidemon are working things out.

    But if you want to clean up mistakes, follow the rules and don't try to get users banned. You'll have much less drama that way.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well I will note that "banned" in Wikipedia terminology implies permanent ejection, and my proposal was only ever for a 1 week block, and long since withdrawn. Also the balance of opinion in the Deletion Review, looking at more experienced contributors without an axe to grind, was that my action was both permissible and necessary.

    But perhaps the final word on this is the surprisingly amicable closure of the Deletion Review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_December_28/Climategate_scandal. The content issue moves forward (slowly, painfully, as these things do - but through collaboration), and I think in the long run my action involved less drama than letting the original deletion discussion run for a drama-filled week.

    ReplyDelete