Barabbas
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Posts
- 832
Another poster started a tongue-in-cheek thread concerning the validity of Wikipedia. I confess that as a quick compendium of basic knowledge, it's an invaluable source. However, one should be careful when using it as an authority on any topic.
Recently a National Post columnist found a bit of bias in it's heralded 'community editing' approach.
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=440268&p=1
In short, he was reading a column concerning a paper done by a professor of history and science studies at the University of California San Diego. That paper analyzed articles in peer-reviewed journals to see if any disagreed with the alarming positions on global warming taken by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The verdict? "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
This, of course, was ludicrous. Some of the very scientists on the UNIP had quit the panel in disgust and detractors of the panel's findings even include Reid Bryson, the scientist known as the father of scientific climatology, who is recognized as being the most cited climatologist in the world.
But what startled the columnist even more was a notation in the article concerning Benny Peiser. When the paper was published, it was immediately challenged by Benny Peiser, a prominent U.K. scientist and publisher of CCNet, an electronic newsletter which hosts articles disputing the conventional wisdom on climate change. That in itself was to be expected.
What was unexpected was a statement that said not only Oreskes had been vindicated but that Peiser had been discredited. More than that, the page portrayed Peiser himself as having grudgingly conceded Oreskes's correctness.
So, the columnist did what any journalist worth their salt would do. He contacted Peiser directly.
And so, he set about setting the record straight.
Then things get weird. The columnist began digging into the logs of the changes and found that an editor at Wikipedia was undermining his work. The exchange went like this:
The editor "Tabletop" (Kim Dabelstein Petersen.): "Note that Peiser has retracted this critique and admits that he was wrong!"
The columnist, Lawrence Solomon: "Tabletop's changes claim to represent Peiser's views. I have checked with Peiser and he disputes Tabletop's version."
Tabletop: "You cannot speak for Peiser."
LS: "Tabletop is distorting Peiser. She does not speak for him. Peiser has approved my description of events concerning him."
Tabletop: "We have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant."
The lesson is clear. When reading Wikipedia, you must approach it just like you would a blog or a opinion piece. There is no guard against bias, even if it drapes itself in academic robes.
Recently a National Post columnist found a bit of bias in it's heralded 'community editing' approach.
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=440268&p=1
In short, he was reading a column concerning a paper done by a professor of history and science studies at the University of California San Diego. That paper analyzed articles in peer-reviewed journals to see if any disagreed with the alarming positions on global warming taken by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The verdict? "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
This, of course, was ludicrous. Some of the very scientists on the UNIP had quit the panel in disgust and detractors of the panel's findings even include Reid Bryson, the scientist known as the father of scientific climatology, who is recognized as being the most cited climatologist in the world.
But what startled the columnist even more was a notation in the article concerning Benny Peiser. When the paper was published, it was immediately challenged by Benny Peiser, a prominent U.K. scientist and publisher of CCNet, an electronic newsletter which hosts articles disputing the conventional wisdom on climate change. That in itself was to be expected.
What was unexpected was a statement that said not only Oreskes had been vindicated but that Peiser had been discredited. More than that, the page portrayed Peiser himself as having grudgingly conceded Oreskes's correctness.
So, the columnist did what any journalist worth their salt would do. He contacted Peiser directly.
And so, he set about setting the record straight.
Then things get weird. The columnist began digging into the logs of the changes and found that an editor at Wikipedia was undermining his work. The exchange went like this:
The editor "Tabletop" (Kim Dabelstein Petersen.): "Note that Peiser has retracted this critique and admits that he was wrong!"
The columnist, Lawrence Solomon: "Tabletop's changes claim to represent Peiser's views. I have checked with Peiser and he disputes Tabletop's version."
Tabletop: "You cannot speak for Peiser."
LS: "Tabletop is distorting Peiser. She does not speak for him. Peiser has approved my description of events concerning him."
Tabletop: "We have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant."
The lesson is clear. When reading Wikipedia, you must approach it just like you would a blog or a opinion piece. There is no guard against bias, even if it drapes itself in academic robes.
