wikipedia
oracknows | January 3, 2017Back in the day, quacks and cranks liked Wikipedia. Because anyone can become an editor on Wikipedia, they assumed that they could just sign up to edit Wikipedia pages and change them to reflect their views on alternative medicine or whatever other pseudoscientific topic they believed in. When Wikipedia first emerged on the scene, I had to admit that I didn't think very much of it for the very simple reason that anyone could edit, and I did from time to time come across entries that were clearly too woo-friendly. Not surprisingly, I was also concerned that there would be an asymmetry of…
oracknows | June 5, 2014Quacks really hate Wikipedia.
It's understandable, really. Wikipedia has some fairly tight standards regulating its form and content. Quacks, thinking that because anybody can edit Wikipedia articles it must mean that they can edit the entries on their favorite bit of woo to their hearts' content in order to make it look more scientifically supported and to remove disconfirming information, are disappointed when they discover that it's not that easy. Now, I've been a critic of Wikipedia in the past, having found problems in entries on topics where I have deep knowledge and been concerned that…
oracknows | March 24, 2014After the last couple of days of depressing posts about the utter failure of the FDA to do its job protecting cancer patients from the likes of Stanislaw burzynski, it's time to move on. Given how utterly demoralizing it was to see the FDA, in essence, pass the buck when it comes to protecting cancer patients, I thought back to more amusing times. Oddly enough, some of these times involved Burzynski. Specifically, they involved Burzynski's propagandist Eric Merola, whose spittle-flecked rants never fail to amuse.
For example, a frequent charge made by Burzynski fans like Merola is that we "…
oracknows | November 4, 2013It occurs to me that things have been perhaps overly serious here at the ol' blog for the last couple of weeks. Don't get me wrong. I think I done good lately, if I do say so myself. However, the constant drumbeat of quackery and depressing stories takes its toll after a while. I need a break.
And our old buddy, Deepak Chopra, was kind enough to give it to me.
So what is it this time? Chopra's been a frequent topic of this blog for a long time, albeit nos so much lately. Indeed, longtime readers know that I was the one who coined a term—Choprawoo—for the pseudoprofound metaphysical mystical…
gregladen | June 6, 2013D-Day was today in 1944. My father was involved. Wikipedia is silly. Kids these days have no idea. There is, of course, a classic movie on the topic.
[A timely repost]
What does "D-Day" mean?
The term "D-Day" is military for "The Day" just like "H-Hour" is military for "The Hour" on which something will happen. However, once D-Day happened everyone started to use the term "D-Day" to refer to this event. The idea is you can put the date "D-Day" in your planning documents and refer to it without having the date set, or if you do have the date set, to avoid saying the date out loud.
So…
stoat | April 8, 2013Apologies; another wiki post. Though since palaeo reconstructions are in all the news, nowadays (sidenote: is [[Shaun Marcott]] notable? Or is it just his paper that is notable? I think I'd argue the latter. Discuss) this is topical.
So: the wiki Hockey stick controversy page is long and thorough (too long for some) and includes a section on an aspect I couldn't even remember, "Bradley and Jones 1993". I argued on the talk page that it wasn't really notable - obviously, if even I can't remember it, with my notoriously fine memory, it can't possibly be notable. But DS, who has put so much work…
stoat | April 6, 2013The answer, obviously, is that they're all controversial. And (as measured by talk page size) they're the top-5 most controversial articles on wikipedia: see [[Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size]] (I'm discounting #1, "Main page", for the obvious reason). The only surprising entry in the top 10 is #10, Prem Rawat, who I've never heard of outside wiki. But he's some quasi-religious figure, so it makes sense. Chiropractic and Homeopathy make 11 and 12. And so on.
I found this page via the ever-popular arguing about the [[Monty Hall problem]] (if you've never seen the problem, do go…
gregladen | March 31, 2013The current Wikipedia entry for Climate Change has about 7000 words on that one page (including notes, all the other words that show up on Wikipedia pages). The current Wikipedia entry for the Hockey Stick Controversy has about 25,000 words in all.
The controversy over one aspect of climate change, the basic observation of temperature change known as the hockey stick graph, is certainly not more complex than, more important than, or harder to explain than climate change as a whole. Is this a failing of Wikipedia? A success for the Climate Science Deniers who are also hoping to have the…
stoat | February 6, 2013Are the [[International Climate Science Coalition]] notable? (webcite in case they aren't and you care 7 days from now). By which I mean, in the sense of Wikipedia:Notability. Sources about them are thin on the ground, and those so far proposed only mention them in passing. Blogs don't count, of course, and nor does their own PR.
We'll find out in a bit, because its up for deletion (note: I didn't propose it, though I did PROD it).
I put this up just for fun. I don't encourage you to go there and "vote" (either keep or delete). You can if you like, but you'd have to have something to say -…
stoat | January 30, 2013 Its all about me refers. This wasn't terribly exciting the first time round, but now that dullard AW has finally noticed - its only taken him three+ weeks. And AW has only noticed because the Kalte cretins have recycled it.
Apparently I
openly sympathized with the views of the controversial IPCC
which is of course true, at least the "sympathising" bit. My position on GW is hard to distinguish from the IPCC's, and I've defended them in the past.
As for the rest: the substance of AW's regurgitation dates back to nonsense I refuted ages ago. AW deliberately gets my title wrong, but one learns…
stoat | January 5, 2013P points me at "Wikipedia knowledge: air-forger Connolley: The man who rewrote our worldview" and so on [cite]. Not even original there; earlier at here]. I'm reading it via google translate, of course. Its mostly a re-hash of the Solomon nonsense which I discussed in A child’s garden of wikipedia, part I. Obviously, the bit about me is the interesting bit, but they also whinge on about...
After a short pseudo-debate is from Wikipedia EIKE even on the blacklist has been set
This is the bit I'll tell you about, as part of your continuing education in the odd corners of wiki.
EIKE themselves…
stoat | October 4, 2012A somewhat unfair title; the person in question is Marcel Leroux and the "death" is the deletion of his wiki page. The "sales" is his wacko views on GW. I don't think ML is particularly interesting - wiki certainly thought not - but perhaps the way wiki deals with minor characters is.
Background: anyone is free to create a new page on wikipedia (there is probably a brief qualification period, but this is a trivial barrier), but there are various mechanisms for getting rid of pages that are junk, just offensive, or for some reason better not present. Any admin can delete a page; there is a…
stoat | October 1, 2012Continuing the theme of "how not to edit wikipedia" I bring you
Anouncement [sic] of damnation of wiki: That because in conspiracy of a group of Darwinists the encycopledia in practical effect surpresses [sic] freedom of expression, I hereby damn the encyclopedia.
from User:Syamsu [1]. Amusingly, that's in an unblock request; I don't think it will be successful. Its all about some argument at [[Free Will]]: people always have silly opinions about such things.
[Ah, that didn't take long: on to the next stage, talk page access revoked.]
stoat | September 6, 2012There's an interesting case of this recently. The prime examplar appears to be this edit which removes
For many years Spencer, along with [[John R. Christy]], has maintained an atmospheric temperature record derived from satellite microwave sounding unit measurements, commonly called the [[UAH satellite temperature dataset|"UAH" record]] record (see also [[satellite temperature record]]). This was once controversial as until the late 1990s the satellite record erroneously showed a net global cooling trend, at odds with the [[radiosonde]] and [[surface temperature record|surface record]]. A…
stoat | August 17, 2012Yes really, complete with miss-spelling of "enlightenment". Don't stop reading just because its about Hobbes, though :-). Its really about the LaRouche nutters, I think (the connection is via the Schiller Institute). My source is Brian Lantz, from the Spring 1996 issue of FIDELIO Magazine, found in the course of trying to work out the relationship between Hobbes and Francis Bacon (was he a pupil of, or just secretary to?). But moving on from that, we have a cornucopia of delights including
Over the past century, for geopolitical purposes, the British oligarchy has orchestrated a true…
gregladen | June 21, 2012There is an item in PLoS ONE on one of my favorite topics: Wikipedea. This study examines the Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia
... we build up samples of controversial and peaceful articles and analyze the temporal characteristics of the activity in these samples. On short time scales, we show that there is a clear correspondence between conflict and burstiness of activity patterns, and that memory effects play an important role in controversies. On long time scales, we identify three distinct developmental patterns for the overall behavior of the articles. We are able to distinguish cases…
stoat | April 2, 2012 Strange - you might think - but not so bizarre that some people don't think it. Here is the quote
William, given the article's clearly supposedly-sceptical viewpoint, I did not expect my edit to survive but, 8 minutes! Wow, you are red hot! I note your track record of getting into trouble with Moderators over edit-warring issues, so will not be so foolish as to do the same with you myself. However, is there anything you would care to say in your defence that will prevent me from writing you off as a climate change denier?
Why does he call me "William"? I don't know him, he doesn't know me.…
stoat | March 25, 2012Wiki isn't as exciting as it used to be - the days of vast opposing armies swirling across the blood-soaked plains of global warming laying waste to innocent and combatant alike have faded into myth. Nowadays we (or rather they; I don't even need to join in) have exciting discussions about exactly how to portray the 97%-of-scientists-agree stuff.
But now and again something interesting happens, and it has just recently, culminating in a chap called Andrewedwardjudd getting himself indef'd for legal threats. This throws up a couple of interesting issues. The first is, that though wiki can look…
stoat | January 17, 2012
"Learn more" is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more: SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a much broader problem. We are already seeing big media calling us names. In many jurisdictions around the world, we're seeing the development of legislation that prioritizes overly-broad copyright enforcement laws, laws promoted by power players, over the preservation of individual civil liberties. We want the Internet to be free and open, everywhere, for everyone.
Refs
* Google
* Beeb
* Wikipedia blackout forces students to copy from printed 'hardcopy websites'
illconsidered | December 28, 2011I received this in my email today and thought I would pass it on to AFTIC readers as I think Wikipedia is one of the greatest things on the web.
Dear Coby,
Here's how the Wikipedia fundraiser works: Every year we raise just the funds that we need, and then we stop.
Because you and so many other Wikipedia readers donated over the past weeks, we are very close to raising our goal for this year by December 31 -- but we're not quite there yet.
You've already done your part this year. Thank you so much. But you can help us again by forwarding this email to a friend who you know relies on Wikipedia…