User:Isonomia

To email click here

Awards

		The All Seeing Eye
		A monumental work such as Wikipedia can only be constructed under "The All Seeing Eye." The Eye symbolizes all editors who watch for & defend; Neutrality, Truth and Fairness. Your struggle, against many attacks, to create a Wikipedia, free of bias & censorship makes you the worthy recipient of the "All Seeing Eye" ~ Rameses 22:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sperxios 12:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC): Well done for your excellent collection of quotes about democracy clarifying the misconception about its nature: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democracy_%28varieties%29#Very_disappointed

Current Status

I used to edit Wikipedia, I used to believe wikipedia was a fantastic idea. Then I had the singular misfortune to try to put a link from the article on Global warming to one on peak oil because as someone with a great deal of knowledge on renewables, I thought many people who were interested in (renewable) energy would also be interested in peak oil - I totally regret ever attempting to edit global warming now - ignorance is bliss! <SNIP>

What's wrong with wikipedia?

The truth is that no one who edits wikipedia does so for purely altruistic reasons. We all have our POV, and the single biggest failure of wikipedia is to deny the reality of this motivation amongst the the most enthusiastic editors. So, in a sense insisting on getting NPOV, is a bit like insisting that wolves and sheep live happily together --- it just is a stupid idea. Personally, I'm neutral on global warming, but I'm not neutral on bad science (which is abundant in climate "science") and on not neutral about the lack of neutrality of the global warming articles.

The simple fact, is that a few years ago Wikipedia allowed itself to be overrun by a vociferous group of climate activists with direct links into the climategate team. As we saw in the climategate emails, the climategate team have manipulated the peer review process and eliminated anyone who disagrees with their view, so that the "scientific" consensus was merely the consensus of a small group of activists. These activists then repeated those tactics in Wikipedia abusing the Wikipedia process of "consensus" to deny any information contrary to their views repeatedly using the excuse that it had to be "peer reviewed", when we now know that the peer review process itself had been corrupted.

The net result is that all climate articles have been heavily edited to ensure POV that fits the views of the climategate team and to remove almost every bit of information and every kind of article that would cast doubt on their so called "science". (YOu have to prove your assertions in real science!)

Thankfully, the truth is finally coming out. Climategate exposed the corruption in the peer review system, the way contrary views were kept out of the IPCC process, the way those who disagreed were kept out of conferences. Most scientists are now coming to recognise the rot at the heart of climate "science". The only place these charlatans still can use their heavy handed tactics is Wikipedia.

That is why Wikipedia has to change. It has simply refused to take the issue of climate corruption seriously. It has failed to take action to prevent this organised group taking over the editing process in Wikipedia and turning Wikipedia into their propaganda mouthpiece. In the end, they will be rooted out, but the shame of Wikipedia's collusion (even if it was unintended) will be used for years to cast doubt on the validity of all Wikipedia articles devaluing the effort of many many people who had absolutely no involvement in the climate articles.

Those editors and particularly those admins who simply refused to get involved and stood back and allowed this crowd to take over should hold their heads in shame! Isonomia (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What's right with Wikipedia

Reading my own comments, I thought I should try to balance the failure of Wikipedia on issues like global warming with its success on other issues. Perhaps 90-99% of articles on wikipedia are what they were intended to be: informative, useful to the common good. Perhaps saying Wikipedia is rotten isn't the right afterall. Wikipedia is mostly good. But then I am reminded of the Universities/councils that were also mostly good, but which allowed a small group of radicals to take over. Yes the vast majority of editors, the vast majority of articles are excellent, but unfortunately, that hard work has been undermined by a radical group on some issues.

My Links

• BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots, says Peter Sissons
• New Scientist view on the climate "science"
• Global temperatures in freefall
• 2000: CRU predicts less snow - Children just aren't going to know what snow is
• Algore's claim: scientists predicted more snow
• Point by point rebuke of the climategate inquiries
• MPs on the Science and Technology Committee have now concluded that both probes into the scandal had failed to “fully investigate” claims that scientists had deleted embarrassing emails
• Trenberth's attack on science: "the null hypothesis should now be reversed"
• The requirement for the Null hypothesis in science
• empirical falsification
• Karl Popper

• Understanding the Climategate Inquiries

• Carbon Dioxide - the prudent path
• My Antonine wall project