With regard to 'global warming', Wikipedia's pro-AGW bias is well known and has led to editors being sacked or suspended -- notably William Connolley, who has 'contributed' -- if that's the word -- to several thousand articles relating to AGW. Unfortunately Connolley has now been reinstated and the bias continues.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/15/another-wikipedia-editor-has-been-climate-topic-banned/

Wikipedia amounts to history being rewritten by the mob. When there are strong motivations for bias it is of very little value.

Although I support the Greens I agree with the author. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. However, it points one to source documents. If one really wants to know about a particular area one should check the documents Wikipedia cites and look for other non-cited documents on the same subject.

The problem with John Miller's argument is it uses democracy as the yardstick of balance, as if entries should reflect popular concensus on the respective topic. If Wikipedia was to be truly democratic it would report AGW denialism as legitimate, though it flies in the face of scientific consensus. Racist and sexist sites too could demand equal space and positive spin, or they could insist that an anti-racist agenda is anti-white. The ACL position on various issues is based on antedeluvian subscription to literal readings of ancient, foreign texts; the ACL position on abortion, for instance, is incongruous on an over-populated planet, and when large families often reflect disadvantage. The ACL position on school chaplains is incongruous with the idea of "education" and an affront to progressive sensibilities. How are editors to ignore the various negative social impacts that backward religious conservatism propagates? It was recently revealed in the census that religious-conservatives are more likely to be minimifidianists (surprise surprise).
I would argue that modern rationalism precludes too much, but the simple fact of the matter is the ACL is at odds with general trends and ideology and can't expect to hide behind democratic populism. There's much to criticise about democratic rule in any case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy

Like the Greens or not, their position is scientifically and ethically defensible, the ACL's is not and Wikipedia reflects that.

The author says

"through our democratic processes, the Australian nation is poised to formally ratify ACL's position on marriage."

This is nonsense. The ACL's position is clearly that homosexuality is, to a Christian, more important than other issues such as (for example) war and peace, caring for the poor, refugees, and, more weirdly, even other sexual-moral issues such as adultery/divorce.

I can't see how you get their outlook from reading the Bible, and, more to the point, what's likely to happen in Australia's democratic processes can't be said to endorse their view.

So many people damn Wikipedia because it has many angles. Yet it is a huge and democratic human construct that frustrates those who would wish for comfortable pre-internet order.

Given Wikipedia would run to as many pages as a large city library it often seems critics criticise the whole of Wikipedia on the basis of isolated articles they disagree with their views. Or they can find factual inaccuracies that are as frequently found in printed books.

Is it possible that conservative scholars believe in hard copy books because books have a traditional and physical nature?

In contrast Wikipedia is more readily available for public scrutiny and revised as new attitudes towards (socalled) facts emerge?

A belief in the efficacy of hardcopy over Wikipedia is tantamount to belief that the Bible is the literal work of a God.

Planta
(a sceptical agnostic somewhere between the Greens and the National Party)

plantagenet and Squeers

Fellas, look, go back and read the article. You've allowed yourself to get caught up in defending particular issues. Miller article clearly shows that the Wiki editors adopted quite different approaches in what was or was not permitted on different sites, and never mind the details of the individual arguements.

Wikipedia has long been known to be biased in favour of activists causes - global warming and so on - and cannot be relied on for information in such areas. But it is good for links, and for history and science.. stuff where there is no reason for activists to write their version..

Squeers - your claim about AGWs stance on global warming being indefensible is wrong. What you mean to say is that it is clearly against the scientific consensus, which is correct. That consensus, especially when it comes to the temperature projections, has yet to be shown to be valid.

Pointing out the author's citing of Conservapedia says far more then anything else I could post. If readers have some time to kill go read it, remember to play safe their TARD is strong.

The author should be commended for his scholarship.

His suggestion that Conservapedia be consulted as an alternative to Wikipedia has merit.

That Wikipedia is biassed in favour of man-made global warming and against Christianity, mirrors the bias prevalent in our Left-leaning, supposedly-impartial ABC.

This only really matters if you actually care about the credibility of Wikipedia.

Oh, my mistake, you don't actually care so much as are worried that the people who are neutral and you want to influence might think that Wikipedia is credible.

The reality is that noone really cares about what your Wiki page says about you or the ACL, except the people who edit it, which is probably why the page is in the state is.

So it doesn't actually matter if you are correct or not in your conclusion of bias, but you scored your 'point', eh?

I strongly recommend anyone reading this article take a look at the talk pages of both the ACL and Greens wikipedia articles. For starters, none of the top editors of either page are heavily involved in the other, whereas Mr Miller seems to be implying that this "bias" has intentionally been done by a group of people who are interested in promoting the Grenns and denouncing the ACL: not true, this is two separate articles edited by different people. Secondly the only editor of the ACL article that has been temporarily blocked from editing wikipedia for vandalism is User "Sam56mas". Sam56mas is a pro-ACL editor who has been caught completely removing criticism of the ACL from the ACL article, and has been disciplined by wikipedia administrators accordingly. Funny how Mr Miller didn't mention that isn't it? I guarantee you if a wikipedia editor had of been blocked from editing for trying to make the ACL look bad Mr Miller would have told us all about it.

David F summed up the situation re Wiki - it provides potentially useful resources and links with which to investigate any and every topic.

I wouldnt be at all surprised if, for instance, the "catholic" church and opus dei (etc) have full time operatives that try to manage and censor whatever content is posted on their Wiki entries - censor any perspective and information that quite rightly criticises these outfits, and their totalitarian agendas. Would either of these sites provide any references to the important book by David Yallop titled The Power and the Glory- The Dark Heart of John Paul II's Vatican? A book which thoroughly deconstruction the pretense that the Vatican is the source of truth and morality in the world, and the only bulwark against the curse/plague of relativism. Or to The Criminal History of the Papacy by Tony Bushby, or The Popes War Against the Church by Matthew Fox?

Curmudgeon writes that Wiki provides a source for promoting "activist" causes - perhaps so.
But what is an "activist" cause? Only those that Curmudgeon disapproves of!
In my opinion the most powerful "activist" source on the planet is the right-wing noise machine, the power of which is described in the book Global Spin by Sharon Beder.

Anyone who proposes that covervapedia provides acurate and useful information or resources for evaluating anything, whatever the topic, is seriously deluded. And in the case of the USA essentially subscribes to the toxic "world"-view described in this essay.

http://tpjmagazine.us/adams29

Or as described in the book by Chris Hedges American Fascists.
Which is also to say that thet are the American equivalent of the taliban and other anti-modern islamic fundamentalists - no fun to be found there!

A few years ago I questioned wiki as to certain information provided - which in this particular instance was faulty. They advised that as wiki is an open source to which any person can contribute, such could happen.

It is up to an individual to verify facts, even from wiki.

"If Wikipedia was to be truly democratic it would report AGW denialism as legitimate, though it flies in the face of scientific consensus."

Unmitigated drivel; there is no consensus, merely a dog's breakfast of various individuals and groups with their snouts in the ideological and money pot which is AGW.

And anyway, consensus is NOT a scientific proposition.

More drivel:

"Like the Greens or not, their position is scientifically and ethically defensible"

The Greens' position is misanthropic and pseudo-religious cognitive dissonance; it is devoid of both ethics and science.

Curmudgeon and Cohenite,
I just cited a couple of issues Wikipedia covers that are "controversial"--AGW, prejudice (and you can include ACL prejudice against gays in that) and school chaplains. None of these issues are in fact controversial, that is scientifically, ethically or philosophically. The science on AGW is just as "in" as it is on evolution (which ACL probably also denies); you can prevaricate around the bush over projections but like all big science, like physics recently, dotting all the I's and crossing the t's takes time. The fact that Quantum physics was once a mystery didn't undermine Newtonian physics, nor does the discovery of the higgs boson invalidate theoretical or practical physics hitherto. There have been many amendments to evolution and there will probably be more, but that doesn't change the big picture. The scientific consensus on AGW simply means it's as scientifically stable as the theory of evolution. But don't pay any attention to me, I defer to higher authorities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

The issues of discrimination and school chaplains ACL supports are similarly "uncontroversial", that is they are ethically reprehensible and retrograde, respectively, as administered by the State.

I defend Wikipedia utterly, so long as its rigorous standards are maintained, indeed I see the system as superior to peer review, which is more about protecting academic privilege than learning, and nowhere near as agile in response to knew knowledge.
Wikipedia is the modern interface between often abstruse scientific knowledge/philosophy and popular ignorance, naturally that's going to ruffle the feathers of the pigeons of pseudo-science, discrimination and voodoo, whose proponents have managed to keep the mental shutters downs to date.

Well said, Squeers,

But Mr cohenite and co are under the impression that "they" are in fact the one's that understand the science, and that scientists working in the various fields associated with climate don't - that it's a conspiracy and a fraud.

I'm constantly intrigued that they don't question the scientific "consensus" on evolution or the many discoveries in medical science. I believe Einstein had the same effect on a few quarters in the wake of his Theory of General Relativity - even amidst the raging consensus.

The science is never settled, as we crawl along in the infancy of our knowledge. Scientific consensus and its reflection in popular mediums of interface is certainly nothing new.

The motivations of the custodians of the Green and ACL Wikipedia sites were obvious after the publication of the above article in OLO. Firstly they removed any evidence of dispute from the Greens and ACL pages. Against the spirit of the Wikipedia Guidelines, which state: Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. However that removal was virtually predictable - refer to the futility of editing tags reference above. Like King Midas and his lack of clothes, one editor decreed, despite the above, there is no dispute. They also said any opinion in OLO is not acceptable for Wikipedia, completely ignoring a prior Wikipedia determination to the contrary. Labelling the OLO article as 'laughable' represents other great intellectual insight enlisted to help resolve this problem. Another criticised someone who apparently removed some text within Wikipedia ACL. (pots and kettles come to mind) Further, the left-theologians deemed any contribution by a 'Christian' must be biased and therefore can not be accepted. While the comment noting that Wikipedia pages are updated by different authors, might represent a revelation to the statement's author, otherwise I am not sure of its relevance. In actually responding to the concerns raised, someone did fix two missing [citations needed]. While that is good he/she obviously did not read the OLO article and fixed the wrong citations.

That's it. Debate now over. Back to business-as-usual. The issue is not so much Wikipedia being corrupted. It is Wikipedia being used as propaganda.

Poirot, normally I ignore you, since I get banned when I describe you in what I consider a fitting way, but your tired, beyond cliche argument of comparing the consensus[sic] supporting the corpse of 'climate science' with the science supporting the consensus about evolution [which I agree with, so, so much for that feeble attempt to taint by association, another favourite tactic of the acolytes of AGW] is egregious enough to take me away from my weekend reading.

The consensus around evolution and a host of other scientific paradigms exists because the science is valid; the science 'supporting' AGW is riddled with contradictions, which even I, a humble lawyer, can understand but which apparently a host of PhD's, all of whom are on the government payroll [see how easy it is to sink to underhand guilt by inference tactics?] cannot and in fact use the most insulting arguments such as consensus and authority to excuse.

The point is, the science comes first and is validated by independent and repeated replication of the results; then the consensus occurs. With climate science [sic] there has been no such initial ratification. What we are left with is a political and ideological agglomeration which is largely sustained by billions of government subsidy and perfidious media propaganda.

As usual I will provide a fundamental scientific disproof of AGW [there are many] which again, Poirot, I invite you and your erstwhile genuis fellow frenchie to repudiate.

Hoyt C. Hottell was a chemical engineer who measured the emissivity of CO2 in air over various path lengths so he could predict the emissivity/absorptivity of GHG-air mixtures of various temperatures; an essential thing to know for all sorts of industrial applications. Hottell found that CO2 emissivity levels off at ~200 ppmV in an infinite optical path; an infinite optical path is the basis of the AGW modelling. Hottell Charts are a scientific paradigm. Hottell's data was confirmed in the 1970s by Leveck. So there can be no CO2-AGW because it's effect ceases at about 200ppmV.

AGW is a scientific lie and merits no consensus.

cohenite,

You never ignore me - (fair enough, coz I am a tad irresistible - and we only got banned once for arguing with our mate bonmot when the pie fight got out of hand.)

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll draw your attention to this link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/30/belief-climate-change-scepticism

".....the more scientifically literate people are, the more their ideological filters kick in when reading information about climate change. It might seem counter-intuitive, but the more confidence people have in their ability to grasp the science, the more able they are to slot it into their world view..."

(The article by senior Met Office scientist, Vicki Pope, embedded in the above is worth a read as well)

Describes yourself (as a humble lawyer) to a tee.

"Describes yourself (as a humble lawyer) to a tee."

And you and every other AGW believer; the point is the only world view being promoted is the pro-AGW world view; and the believers of that world view believe in it so passionately and virtuously that that belief becomes its own ethical justification; it's called Noble Cause Corruption;

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/is-corruption-noble-if-it-as-for-noble.html

And what about Hottell?

cohenite,

from experience, I've lived a much more comfortable life just laughing inwardly at global warmers/climate changers/climate extremers, rather than arguing with them, especially since the world, krudd (as well as backstabbing backflipping Julia ... one time) and the majority of Australian voters have rejected doing anything about GW/CC/CE. (Gee is that a concensus?).

I wonder what they'll turn into when Abbott's PM.

It's a metamorphing I'm looking forward to ... silently of course.

Cheers

@ imajulianutter,

<< and the majority of Australian voters have rejected doing anything about GW/CC/CE. (Gee is that a concensus?).>>

No, no, no, imajulianutter, you've go it all wrong!

You have to think in the groove. It isn’t any old consensus --it’s, a consensus of the elect.

The elect is made up of two broad groups. Scientists who agree with the IPCC, and who on account of their training can see trends and associations that no one else can see. And left leaning *thinkers* who on account of having been born that way can see the big picture.

And as for the electorate not seeing eye-to-eye with the climate elect . All it means is that they have to be ED-U-CATED.
When they are ED-U-CATED they will see it the elects way.

And rest assured, the elect will run multi-million dollar tax payer funded campaigns to ensure that electorate are well and truly ED-U-CATED!

cohenite,

I read your blog.

"....How can a strategy to put an enemy like the Nazi's off guard or the release of documents which contain important, relevant information for citizens in a democratic society be compared with fraudulently obtaining irrelevant information about a private entity in a democracy?"

Heartland?

Heartland "is" at the forefront of denialism.

I know you won't bother with this article by Naomi Klein which I've put up before, however, it's relevant to Heartland's influence in the climate debate.
http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate

Poirot, you don't or won't get it; Heartland is small potatoes; it has a budget of a couple of mill; compare that with the EPA or NASA or CRU or CSIRO, Department of Climate Change etc, all or any of these organisations that you and every other believer wheel out to cry 'consensus'; it's a flea gainst a herd of elephants.

Yet the flea is winning. Why?

2 reasons; firstly the flea s right; AGW is shot to bits; the average punter can see that; you can't fool them all the time.

2ndly, the nature of the sceptical position is that we individualy inform ourselves; I don't care what Heartland says; I inform myself.

The believers are different: herd animals, no matter how smart. It makes you gullible and susceptible to ideologically based plausible garbage; you've switched off the massive intellects and been conned.

Go and study who is making money from AGW; report back, inform yourself.

And what about Hottell?

Amie de mon coeur, cette fille est non seulement moche, mais en plus c’est une vraie cretine.

Hélas, you can lead a dumb ass to water but you can’t make it drink : )

Ex parum mens quod magnus egoes adveho idiocy

Bingo!

Anthony Cox just proved my point ... rofl

bonmot,

"Amie de mon coeur"...as Flaubert often expressed to George Sand during their long correspondence....I've always wished for someone to say that to me : )

cohenite,

Don't put yourself down like that : )

Flaubert eh? An epileptic misanthrope who wrote as conscious a literary masterpiece as exists; his other work is rubbish. Flaubert was both repulsed and fascinated by the bourgeois. He had a gigantic ego; only a supreme egoist could deliberately write a novel devoid of the ego of the author about the mundane with the intention of elevating the mundane to the artistic through the prism of the author's style. What a loon.

He would have been an exemplary AGW believer.

What a pair of snobs you are.

The only point bonmot has is on his head.

Poirot, merci beaucoup

I did not know much about Flaubert - so looked him up on Wiki :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaubert

Seems he was just as much a realist as he was a romantic ... me too :)

Oops, that's right, the naysayers round here say Wiki lacks cred ... oh well :(

.

@ Anthony Cox, the only snobs around here are those who 'speak' Latin.

cohenite,

"...Flaubert was both repulsed and fascinated by the bourgeois...."

Me too!

(J'ai un coeur simple)

Off to bed now children, it's getting late. Poirot make sure your younger sibling has on fresh diapers.

Don't forget to dream about Hottell.

Don't forget that there are other children who might like to play in this sandpit sometime…

I was interested in the sober tone of the article, but would have been more engaged if presented with any evidence of errors of fact.

Though I think it's problematic to compare entries for a political party whose support can be counted by votes actually cast, with a lobby group whose wholly immodest name claim of representing all Australian Christians can at best only be lobbied against.

Maybe the easiest solution to satisfy Mr Miller is for both editorial teams to swap for a bit?

But putting aside the article's ideas of compromised credibility for a second… cohenite, you might be excused a typo of Prof Hottel's name in your first post – to repeat it three further times when you want us to follow your presentation of some of his research might be interpreted as lazy.

In any event – for those of us who are interested, how about putting up a link or reference? Preferably one not behind an MIT paywall. Thanks.

My apologies Mr Trevor; I came across Hottel not through direct experience since I am not an industrial chemist but through Nasif Nahle's work on the emissivity of CO2 as it is applied, incorrectly, to AGW; for instance:

http://www.biocab.org/ECO2.pdf

cohenite,

I came across this conversation (in the comments section) on emissivity when looking up Hottel. You're in full flight and Nasif Nahle is there too! It seems you encountered a bit of opposition to Nahle's work though.

http://theconversation.edu.au/hear-ye-hear-ye-moncktons-medieval-warming-tale-is-climate-heresy-2326

"It seems you encountered a bit of opposition to Nahle's work though."

So what?

What is your take on the issue?

Poirot,

Anthony Cox/cohenite is engaging in 'bait and switch' ... typical of someone who is 'losing it'.

Ok, you are showing how distorted his beliefs are. However, by engaging with 'stupid', you are only giving it a platform to regurgitate stupid mantra.

This may be entertaining (or perplexing) for the onlookers but really, is this what you/me really want to achieve?

My POV? Best treat stupid with the recognition it deserves.

Btw, zombies don't have hearts :)

You're a troll bonmot.

boo-hoo :(

While I had some time for the post, then this came up: "Conversely, in the real-world, through our democratic processes, the Australian nation is poised to formally ratify ACL's position on marriage."

Perhaps you can now contrast how "our democratic process" is flawed because on "gay marriage" and "euthanasia", our democratic process is diametrically opposed to the wishes of the vast majority ?

I had a bit about Curmudgeon's nonsense about AGW as activism but thought better of it based cohenite's nonsense, Poirot made the points.

Perhaps it's just me but I find the entire idea of the existence of the ACL repugnant and it's existence the antithesis of Christ(ian) values. No, I don't vote Greens and don't support the Carbon Tax.