{"id":2782,"date":"2010-01-11T12:12:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-11T17:12:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stonescryout.org\/?p=2782"},"modified":"2010-01-11T12:12:00","modified_gmt":"2010-01-11T17:12:00","slug":"climate-information-photoshopped-in-wikipedia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stonescryout.org\/?p=2782","title":{"rendered":"Climate Information "Photoshopped" in Wikipedia"},"content":{"rendered":"

Information gleaned from Wikipedia should always be taken with a grain of salt.  As much as open-sourcing a knowledge base has certainly given the site a well-deserved reputation for being a first-stop in doing research, this situation<\/a> points out (again) that bias can creep in, even with multiple hands contributing.<\/p>\n

\n

Lawrence Solomon at the National Post writes about a topic that WUWT readers have known about for a long time: How Wikipedia\u2019s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles. <\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

We\u2019ve known for some time that Wikipedia can\u2019t be trusted to provide unbiased climate information. Solomon starts off by talking about Climategate emails.<\/p>\n

\n

The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world \u2014 Wikipedia \u2014 in the wholesale rewriting of this history.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

He then focuses on RealClimate.org co-founder William Connolley, who has \u201ctouched\u201d 5,428 Wikipedia articles with his unique brand of RC centric editing….<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It just seems that almost all the time, especially for highly-political issues, the censorship winds up leaning to the left.  This goes against what the Left says they stand up for; truth, free-speech, the marketplace of ideas, blah blah blah.  It’s just that when many of them are given power over ideas they do precisely what they accuse of Right of doing; censoring, silencing dissent, and all that.  Textbook projection.<\/p>\n

But at least the "many eyes" principle, of having many editors attempt to ensure fairness and full disclosure, is working.  Now, at least.  It’s too bad that it took a major Canadian newspaper to finally get some traction in this<\/em> particular case, and that the editors at Wikipedia were blind to it, but at least we might get some pullback from the bias.  Now, at least.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Information gleaned from Wikipedia should always be taken with a grain of salt.  As much as open-sourcing a knowledge base has certainly given the site a well-deserved reputation for being a first-stop in doing research, this situation points out (again) that bias can creep in, even with multiple hands contributing. Lawrence Solomon at the National […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,16,17,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2782","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-doug","category-environment","category-global-warming","category-politics"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t