Wikipedia Follow-Up - The Wiki Is Dead

Some sites are reporting that the Wiki is attempting to shutdown and delete the Climategate Scandal page and its related history. As of this morning it is locked and the title has been changed to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. This is an attempted whitewash of the incident by the Wiki who has a strong bias towards the religion of Global Warming. This latest bit of news is not inconsistent with our previous posting about the validity and believability of the Wiki. Given this blatant attempt you should now understand that the Wiki is not your best source of accurate information on any subject. It is a forum where those with an interest, time and money can reshape history to their own view.

Fortunately, there is a new site called NeutralPedia that has picked up this topic and others to preserve the content and the history. The NeutralPedia site says the following:

Neutralpedia (NP) is an independent wiki platform that has been set up to complement Wikipedia (WP) by being a home to neutral documentation of controversial issues. This is a mission that we believe WP is unable to fulfill satisfactorily due to some of its organizational characteristics. See also Wikipedia - problems and solutions. While helpful for encyclopedic non-controversial issues, the setup of Wikipedia works against two issues in particular: subjects where original research is important; and "fringe" or minority interests. See also Original research. For now, Neutralpedia will focus on the science, data, history of, and discussion about, Climate Change.

We propose a modified system - inherently slower and less efficient, but since the amount of issues we want to document is limited, we can afford it. We propose to use the Wikipedia guidelines, but with a more firmly established committal to openness. This also means protection of individual rights to disagree, to state minority points of view, to reference original research, and to establish their own biography pages without the general public being able to edit them. All discussion is to happen publicly. For now, this means using the discussion pages for all discussion. We believe that this simple measure, even if it can't be totally enforced, and still depends on a degree of trust, will create an environment where abuse of power will be much harder to develop or get away with. Since every reasoning will be subject to scrutiny, and can build on the lessons of Wikipedia, intellectual corruption or heavyhanded bias will, hopefully, be much less frequent, and essentially reformable. If personal communication occurs between editors, log these on the discussion page of one of the editors.

Spread the word - the Wiki is dead.

ClimateGate & Healthcare Reform

Are these related? In a way they are.

Climategate - the exposure of emails, data, and computer programs from the university that the UN relies upon for its official reports demonstrates that people with an ideology will do just about anything to sell their ideology for a variety of reasons. In this case, manipulation of data and mathematical "tricks" to make anomalies disappear that are inconvenient to explain and would call into question conclusions reached.

In much the same way, healthcare "reform" has and is a manipulation of data to help push an ideology. You've all seen the numbers used to explain the reason for reform. Yet in each case, where carefully examined, those numbers simply don't hold up. Yet we press on and no one is challenging them.

In both cases, hiding data, manipulating formulas, excluding data and doing things that a mathematician would otherwise never do, for the purpose of selling an ideology usually motivated by those seeking power, control, influence and money. Mathematically, when someone proposes a theory like man-made global warming or healthcare reform legislation, if the theory does not hold true in all cases, the theory is invalid - period. Further, it is up to those postulating the theory to provide the proof positive that the theory is accurate and we should do x,y and z as a result. And please, show all work in your proof. In the case of the warmies and the reformies, the argument against the deniers is "show me its not". Now a half way intelligent school child knows that it is not up to those receiving someones theory to prove the theory wrong, it is the responsibility of the theorist to demonstrate it is right in all cases. The hapless "scientists" in Climategate simply haven't been able to prove their theories so their argument is "prove me wrong". Similarly, the hapless congress people complain (with the media's help) that their opponents are the party of "no" employ the same tactic. Show me we don't need reform and show me why what I am theorizing is wrong. Again, it is not up to the party of "no" to do anything - they didn't propose the need to legislate this issue in the first place. So like the hapless climate scientists, the hapless Democrats need something stronger than the argument they present.

All of this is predicated on the hope that the majority of people won't or can't do the math or understand the false logic being presented to them. If people would simply apply some math logic to a lot of these off the wall ideas, life would be simpler, cheaper and more enjoyable. And you'd have more money in your pocket.

Detroit - Terrorists

Maybe I'm slow but what the heck is she talking about - exactly what worked? And the wires at this hour are reporting yet another passenger on the same flight from the same origination point was taken off today's flight.

Updated: Sunday, 27 Dec 2009, 10:12 AM EST
Published : Sunday, 27 Dec 2009, 10:11 AM EST

By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says investigators did not have enough information to keep a terror suspect from boarding a flight bound for Detroit and that the system worked as it should have.

The father of the man accused of attempting to blow up the jetliner told U.S. officials in Nigeria he was concerned about his son's extreme religious views. However, Napolitano says there was no specific information to place Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on a no-fly list.

Napolitano says that within 60 to 90 minutes of the incident all 120 flights that were in the air at time were contacted to make sure the attempted bombing did not extend beyond the flight to Detroit.

Napolitano appeared Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

Wiki - Useful or Useless Information?

You may have noted an appeal by the founder of the Wikipedia for monies for support. I found that interesting and sent the following note off to the founder himself posing a question. Let's see if he responds.
--------------------------------------------------------

I note your appeal for support for the Wikipedia.

However, when I read about the ClimateGate issue and how information is being manipulated to serve an ideology, the value of the information becomes useless. Selective history utilizing the Wiki does a disservice to all. I refer specifically to William Connolley and this passage I recently read:

William Connolley has been (may still be?) a climate modeller at the British Antarctic Survey, in Cambridge, and a ubiquitous presence on Wikipedia, and someone many call a Wikibully. He's created or rewritten over 5,000 articles, all with his own true believer bias clearly evident. He's also had 2,000 heretics who didn't believe his message banned from Wikipedia.

His administrative privileges were recently revoked, but following that he continues to edit Wiki articles (while presumably still maintaining gainful employment somewhere. Perhaps the sponsors of Real Climate fund him? ). Within three days he edited at least 50 articles, including removing all references to climategate from an article on Michael Mann, which is interesting, because Connelly himself shows up several times in the CRU emails as one of the inside players in their efforts to secretly (and successfully) propagandize the public.

Banning people, ideas and information from any source is troubling. I note from James Smith:

The image that Wikipedia presents to the world is very different from the truth, as anyone who has been involved in editing it knows. Publically, the content of Wikipedia articles is arrived at by concensus. In fact, it is arrived at by stubbornness. The person who is prepared to keep reverting until the other party gives up is the one whose version you will find in Wikipedia. And that is usually either the fanatic or the person with a vested interest. That is what makes Wikipedia useless as a reference work for any but the most uncontentious information.

Exactly why would someone support such an organization?

Respectfully,