Zealots Hijack Wikipedia?
Tags: abortion, global warming, Science.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Lawrence Solomon of the National Post notes his experience in trying to correct a Wikipedia entry:
when visiting Oreskes’s page on Wikipedia several weeks ago, I was surprised to read not only that 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.
Upon checking with Peiser, I found he had done no such thing. The Wikipedia page had misunderstood or distorted his comments. I then exercised the right to edit Wikipedia that we all have, corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.
Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. Had I neglected to save them? After editing them, I wondered. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again! I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.
Nonplused, I investigated. Wikipedia logs all changes. I found mine. And then I found Tabletop’s. Someone called Tabletop was undoing my edits, and, following what I suppose is Wikietiquette, also explained why. “Note that Peiser has retracted this critique and admits that he was wrong!” Tabletop said.
I undid Tabletop’s undoing of my edits, thinking I had an unassailable response: “Tabletop’s changes claim to represent Peiser’s views. I have checked with Peiser and he disputes Tabletop’s version.”
Tabletop undid my undid, claiming I could not speak for Peiser.
Why can Tabletop speak for Peiser but not I, who have his permission?, I thought. I redid Tabletop’s undid and protested: “Tabletop is distorting Peiser. She does not speak for him. Peiser has approved my description of events concerning him.”
Tabletop parried: “We have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant.”
Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I — no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone’s views but her own.
The primary lesson here is to take Wikipedia data with a grain of salt if it relates to any issue of modern controversy. I can’t imagine anyone having too large an axe to grind over, say, a description of the Battle of Austerlitz, but when it comes to issues like Iraq, Darwinism/Intelligent Design, abortion – or, as in this case, global warming, I wouldn’t trust Wikipedia…just too much opportunity for axe grinders to make their point of view a “fact” by means of writing it up as such on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has turned out to be an important an useful addition to the internet, and it is a shame that a few pinheads are taking it as an opporuntiy for propaganda. Wikipedia needs to work out a solution to this, lest the whole thing crash in a sea of partisan hackery.
HAT TIP: Dean’s World.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
13 Responses to “Zealots Hijack Wikipedia?”
Caucus of Corruption
A liberal lying is a surprise to you? It’s what they do, it’s who they are.
Wikipedia has a long history of these kinds of dishonest/questionable edits.
I think the only solution is for a reputable organization like Encyclopedia Britannica to have a free online version (supported by ads) which cannot be changed, altered, or otherwise edited by partisan hacks. Just my 2 cents.
Wiki is linked here mostly by the kooks, probably right after they’ve edited content.
Wikipedia, NY Times, National Enquirer–what if that stuff were true?
It’s amazing that the resident libs use Wikipedia as a “legitimate” source but easily discredit all non-liberal sources as propaganda.
As seen in this blog, they constantly use it as fact. They are so laughable it’s really pathetic.
she really needs to be fired on the spot for what she is doing
from what i understand of Wikipedia, they have basic standards that this woman is violating, and she is circumventing every moral aspect of truth that an encyclopedia should stand for
now, if the liberals had thier way, and a conservative did this, they would introduce 22 bills into congress to make a law criminalizing it….
Mark,
Your assessment of the weaknesses of Wikipedia is precisely correct. It is often a good guide to the general contours of a contentious subject and, ideally, should provide links to sources for the curious to follow and try to look at source material.
PO,
It’s amazing that the resident libs use Wikipedia as a “legitimate” source but easily discredit all non-liberal sources as propaganda.
Slight difference here. Wikipedia can be altered by ANYONE regardless of political affiliation.
What us “libs” discredit is when you link things from other conservative blogs (i.e. Freedom1 with his links to littlegreefootballs website).
As Diana says in #6, if you think something on wikipedia is a lie, follow the links and check out the sources. If you can disprove it, then update wikipedia.
Joe,
just keep dreaming. Evidently, you do not read your fellow libs posts that use wiki. I guess you assume that they regurgitate the same garbage you do. You and your fellow libs deny any legitimate news source not liberal.
Stop lying Joe.
You show me where anyone has questioned a valid source.
A valid source would be from something who’s stated mission does not include pushing conservative issues. 8 out of ever 10 posts by Mark and Matt come from another conservative blog.
Have you ever followed any links that conservatives give on this site? Or do you just accept whatever it is as fact.
Unlike you, I actually follow the links to see where these people are getting this from.
Meanwhile… you people claim that the NY Times and WAPO are “liberal” sources.
And did you notice my comment about Wikipedia. It doesn’t matter what political party you belong to, you can add to it. You, as a reader, can follow the links to the sources and disprove anything you want to disprove.
So you can claim I am lying all you want. Just saying it won’t make it true.
Joe – READ the story. The liberal editors of Wikipedia have veto power and can undo entries they don’t like. Everyone on the farm is equal…
Joe: “What us ‘libs’ discredit is when you link things from other conservative blogs (i.e. Freedom1 with his links to littlegreefootballs website).”
Joe, you are so clueless. LGF is a collection of news articles from all over the world. The ACTUAL NEWS SOURCES for LGF are from: Associated Press, Reuters, MEMRI.org, Telegraph.co.uk, Jerusalem Post, Agence France Presse, Washington Post, New York Times, Investor’s Business Daily, National Review, Wall Street Journal, International Herald Tribune, etc.
I seriously doubt that you are capable of comprehending this, since this is not only the second time I’ve explained it to you, but because you don’t READ the ACTUAL NEWS SOURCES of the links I post- ie. Reuters, AP, AFP, NYT.
Get a clue.
Joe’s stupidity gushes forth!
“A valid source would be from something who’s stated mission does not include pushing conservative issues.”
Uh, do you agree with this statement – “A valid source would be from something who’s stated mission does not include pushing liberal issues.” This rules out the other half of the media as being “legitimate”.
Don’t bother answering because you would be lying.
“So you can claim I am lying all you want. Just saying it won’t make it true.”
I don’t have to say anything. The erroneous and untruthful content of your posts prove my point for me everytime.
Resveratrol
I have mapped out a hand full of small goals that I want to achieve during these next couple of days off. Learn more about Google Adwords. Join another program, I’ m thinking about anti- wrinkle cream…. LOL Catch up on some coding, I have a bunch o…