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.