63 Comments

1. David:

My students may not use Wiki as a source. That puts a real crimp in some of their “styles”.

Tough.

Jul 28, 2008 - 12:48 pm 2. Captain Hate:

I don’t know who will be the bigger loser in this, Wiki or Silky, but I’m running out of popcorn, dammit!

Jul 28, 2008 - 1:13 pm 3. Lem:

You gotta hand it to Mr Americas.
Turning a love child into Elvis and UFO’s sightings.

Jul 28, 2008 - 4:11 pm 4. glenn:

I’ve looked things up on wiki before but to use it to make decisions, no way. There is a story making the rounds (local newspaper) that city employees of a certain central cal city spend more time editing entries in wiki than they spend on any other single activity. If you use wiki for anything other than amusement you might want to bear that in mind. P.S. The highschool dropout rate in that city is 54%.

Jul 28, 2008 - 4:52 pm 5. James:

I use Wiki quite often for physical laws. I generally trust its accuracy. What is the formula for a resistance to flow of a fluid through a pipe? I bet it (the wiki answer) is correct.

Of course, the answer to that question doesn’t impact the debate between individualists (conservatives) and tribalists (liberals). So there is no reason for bias.

However, for topics which have power implications (what should the government do and when?), its obviously a useless source. Would you entrust a college text book to teach you about the comparative advantage of individualism vs tribalism? Of course you wouldn’t. The author probably drives the debate according to his own preferences.

Thus you can expect that wiki is about as useful as that college text book in regard to questions of power. That is, just someone’s opinion. The only difference, is that you don’t know the name of the official arbitrator in the wiki case.

James

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:00 pm 6. Fidel, MD:

The wisdom of the right sort of (left?) crowds.

As far as using wiki, no way – not without checking the raw data personally. Too many personal biases, but of course that happens in Britanica or any other reference work as well.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:06 pm 7. Tom the Redhunter:

I agree with James. Wiki is useful for noncontroversial subjects. When I got back from Israel, I used it to look up facts regarding the Dead Sea vs the Great Salt Lake in Utah. I trust it for stuff like that. at

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:10 pm 8. renminbi:

James-absolutely right on physical laws and very convenient too,but on anything else fugeddabout it.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:13 pm 9. Donna B.:

Wiki is a great first stop for subject you’re unfamiliar with, but in no way should it be the last or most relied on.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:13 pm 10. Letalis Maximus, Esq.:

Amen. This thing Wiki is pulling with the Edwards entry is a bunch of crap. But, I think it is fair to trust Wiki about as far as you can trust any modern text book.

It would seem reasonable to include a statement about the National E story and simply state that the truth remains to be determined. But nooooooooooooooo.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:15 pm 11. willem:

I am reading there are similar problems with SNOPES. The with these social networking “sources” is how they are used by the less diligent. We all use them for short cuts and starting points. Many times we browse for the gestalt never to return again. Whatever impression is there, is there. We’re really talking about corruption of the meme which arises from the nature of this type of information.

Paul Murphy wrote an truly excellent essay on this topic regarding the problem of pernicious willful bias and pathological hubris within the WIKIPEDIA insider/elite titled “DO PROBLEMS WITH WIKIPEDIA PRESAGE SOCIAL NETWORKING’S END?”

ZDNet, 15 July 2008

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=1190

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:29 pm 12. Acad Ronin:

1) I second James’ comment. Wiki is a good place for non-controversial topics.
2) The coverage tends to focus on things that interest white males in the 25-45 age group. It is good, for instance, on military history (one of my interests).
3) It is better to light a candle than to curse the dark. If you find something that is wrong in Wikipedia, stop bitching and making snide remarks: fix it. It is easy to do.
4) David: Have your students check out an entry and try to improve it rather than forbiding them to use it.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:39 pm 13. Thomas Robertson:

James @ 5:00 nailed it.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:44 pm 14. edh:

LEAVE JOHN EDWARDS ALONE!

LEAVE HIM ALONE!

Oh, huh, “Leave Britney alone” isn’t topically funny anymore?

NEVERMIND.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:48 pm 15. jefered:

As long as we’re holding Wikipedia to some standards, let’s not ruin it by linking to an FNC story that barely has one first-hand account (by a man unfamiliar with what Edwards looks like, no less) and a whole lot of hearsay and unnamed sources.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:50 pm 16. Jamie:

Lately I’ve been using wiki to read the biographies of the Disney pop princes and princesses, ostensibly at the request of my children but in fact because that whole prince/princess-making phenomenon is fascinating to me. Mostly what I learn is that they all wear purity rings on their left hands (the left hand is always mentioned – perhaps I ought to wiki “purity ring” to learn if there’s some significance to its choice), which, well, thank goodness for that anyway.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:52 pm 17. saig:

James, that is a great insight:

Individualists (Conservatives) vs Tribalists (Libarals).

Yep.

And don’t think that your identification with any certain tribe will help you when the chips fall and tribal obligations/loyalties are redefined.

Like promises to those who show up to vote in the cacuses.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:52 pm 18. Tedd McHenry:

On the one hand, criticisms of Wikipedia seem rather pointless. If you find an error there, there sensible course of action is to correct it, not complain about it.

Having said that, though, I have run into at least one situation where “regular” editors of a particular page would not allow a small change I proposed that, though necessary for accuracy in my opinion, leaded in a political direction they didn’t like. So Wikipedia does have its limits when dealing with highly politicized subjects.

On yet another hand, though, wikis provide something no other information source does: powerful tools for assessing the quality of the article you’re reading, and, in many cases, the authors themselves. The “talk” section alone speaks volumes about the article, and that’s just the beginning. Critics often forget that, or perhaps don’t know it to begin with.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:54 pm 19. glenn:

Don’t get me wrong, I’d much rather have public employees editing wiki than f****ng up their regular jobs. Anybody who relies on wiki for facts deserves whatever they get. And probably isn’t smart enough to know the difference.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:54 pm 20. Mister Snitch!:

There is no “wisdom of crowds”. There is only the wisdom of individuals that a discerning eye may find AMONG the crowds. What happens so often on Wikipedia, Digg, and other sites, is the ‘wisdom’ of a mob. This is the very same groupthink that gives us corporate snafus, nonfunctioning government, hospital food, institutional art, and polyester pantsuits. That’s right – THAT is what the ‘wisdom of crowds’ really looks like.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:57 pm 21. ccoffer:

Roger is spot on when he says Witchipedia is less than authoritative. Its the equivalent of a bathroom wall.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:58 pm 22. Mike G:

Hey, try to add something, however well documented, about Ted Kennedy’s alcoholism. It’ll be gone in a flash. They bend over to protect liberal heroes.

Jul 28, 2008 - 6:04 pm 23. Chris:

Fascinating fact: until the 1970s, you could still find articles in Britannica written by Benjamin Franklin.

The ‘wisdom of crowds’ works when one or more people of integrity stake out a piece of territory and manage the drive-by editors.

Jul 28, 2008 - 6:23 pm 24. Casper:

If you want to see the history of the John Edwards article (complete with comments that there is “no consensus” regarding whether or not this is a story or not and “we should stop, this is making us look partisan” [you think?] statements), click on the history link at the top of the page. Or, on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&action=history

Jul 28, 2008 - 6:24 pm 25. dagwud:

“Wisdom of the crowds”? You mean, “None of us is as dumb as all of us”?

Jul 28, 2008 - 6:26 pm 26. Dave the Engineer:

You don’t have the “wisdom of crowds” in wiki. You are not aggregating the knowledge of the crowd, you are getting only the words of a few activists. Groupthink is not the “wisdom of crowds” that is merely the pressure of activists on the weak wills of their followers. If there is no cost to making a decision the decision has no value. The DOW index would be an example of the “wisdom of crowds”, an aggregate of decisions made each of which has a cost. If each congress critter could be personally sued for each dumb vote we might get closer to the “wisdom of crowds”.

Jul 28, 2008 - 6:27 pm 27. Letalis Maximus, Esq.:

Mike G is right. A lot of the hard core big shot editor weenies over at Wiki sure do *seem* to be left wing activists. Ugly truths about liberal icons do seem to disappear with astounding rapidity, and if you posted that info you usually get a scolding note from some big shot Wiki editor about how posting controversial material is frowned upon.

I read various Wiki entries a lot. But only because its free.

Jul 28, 2008 - 6:31 pm 28. Dave Eaton:

Its the equivalent of a bathroom wall.

Not quite. It is different like James said, if you want to know some objective fact. I use it to look up mathematical things all the time.

But your point is still well taken. It’s like a bathroom wall where you can find Bessel Functions plotted next to “For a good time call Johnny”. Cum grano salis, every word, but still not useless.

Jul 28, 2008 - 6:39 pm 29. Fred:

“I use Wiki quite often for physical laws.” – James

Then I’ll bet you haven’t looked at Wikipedia for the physical laws about global warming. The Cult of Warmermongering is camped on those posts. Nothing intelligent survives.

These Wiki Whackers are the people Orwell had in mind when he wrote 1984. In his day it would have taken the power of a state to rewrite history on the fly. Today it can be done by any toad with access to a PC and the interwebs. Ain’t technology wonderful.

Jul 28, 2008 - 6:43 pm 30. Mike_K:

Wikipedia is totally unreliable on global warming. There is a woman editor who is a zealot and will delete anything that does not toe the line. Having said that, there are undoubtedly topics I haven’t checked with the same problem. I have edited some Wiki entries but they are non-controversial.

Jul 28, 2008 - 6:50 pm 31. Anna Keppa:

Some clown named Connelly/Connelley routinely edits out anything in the “Global Warming” entry that does not support the theory that the warming is man-made. And no countering that there’s no warming at all — that will get snipped as well.

Lawrence Solomon, who wrote a series, then book, “The Deniers”, describing the many world-class climatologists who disagree with the so-called “settled” science, has had many tussles with Connelly, who doesn’t give a flip that he acts as a censor.

Moral: never trust Wikipedia on any current topic, but especially anything remotely sibject to “political correct” treatment.

Jul 28, 2008 - 7:08 pm 32. Doctor&Geek:

I disagree with Mr. Simon’s portrayal of the situation as a “liberal coverup” – why not try searching “Troy King is Gay”, and then read the Wikipedia page on Mr. King and its associated discussion page.

Troy King is the current Attorney General of Alabama, and was allegedly caught in bed by his wife with a male staffer. The major source is the blogosphere, which is not that much different from the National Enquirer. However, Wikipedia mods have prevented and redacted any mention of the scandal.

For another example, consider the edit reversions for John McCain and his alleged affair with a lobbyist as insinuated by the New York Times.

This in my mind shows that standards are consistently applied for politicians of both major parties.

Jul 28, 2008 - 7:25 pm 33. Assistant Village Idiot:

There are additional problems. They retain the bias even when it is pointed out. Though some editors on political topics attempt to be conscientious, many others simply refuse to acknowledge slanted language or clear bias in what they regard as a credible source. The phrase “reported only by right-wing blogs” occurs frequently, though they regularly credit websites leaning left.

I find the difficulties are nearly always with political subjects – though there are controversies about religious, philosophical, and historical subjects, there is some attempt to portray many sides.

As to correcting a Wikipedia article, several commenters have identified the nasty truth: you will be edited out immediately. After much effort, you may get a particularly egregious word choice changed. They display a remarkable tenacity in clinging to well-shredded claims until all reasonable doubt has been exhausted.

Wikipedia does provide a political service. If they concede some negative about a progressive figure or idea, you can be assured it is beyond debate.

Jul 28, 2008 - 7:29 pm 34. C Smith:

Wikipedia is great for math and science topics, where there is less room for subjectivity.
It still makes a good place to branch out for real research.
For a fun game, you can look up peoples’ birthday, and find out what (in)famous characters share yours.
Having said those things, the Joeseph McCarthy page lands somewhere between slur and joke.

Jul 28, 2008 - 7:29 pm 35. Wikipedia is just as leftist and worthless as ever « docweaselblog:

[...] Wikipedia is just as leftist and worthless as ever Wikipedia is a great source of info about computer games and 80’s sit-coms. Anything political is so biased left-ward as to be farcical rather than factual. Case in point, the Edwards imbroglio. [...]

Jul 28, 2008 - 7:47 pm 36. Third-rate-economist-in-flyover-country:

I would agree with some of the comments on this blog: I find Wiki useful for statements of fact that have little or no political content. If you want to know the melting temperature of benzene or the date WWII ended, Wiki is fine.

If you want to know something with political content, Wiki might not be wrong but it will usually be incomplete and full of spin.

Jul 28, 2008 - 7:49 pm 37. Jim:

A true encyclopedia contains facts. As an encyclopedia–with facts like the top speed of a P-51 Mustang, the name of the woman who fronted Romeo Void, or the aforementioned laws of fluid dynamics–Wikipedia is pretty good.

Even a real encyclopedia does not contain insightful information about politics until maybe 40 years after the event or person. So I am rarely disappointed by Wikipedia in such cases, because my expectations are so low.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go change the date of Warren Harding’s wedding. Because I can.

Jul 28, 2008 - 7:55 pm 38. WikipediaBiasDotCom:

I list some problems with WP at my name’s link. I don’t have many entries now, but hopefully that will change.

For a sample of how difficult it is to get negative info about a Dem to stick in WP, see the exchange I had with one of those activists/editors (Willmcw, who also goes by other names) here:

peekURL.com/zxqg41a

Also, I strongly advise everyone to either drop their links to WP or at least put nofollow tags on them. If enough people do that they might fall in search results instead of being at or near the top for almost every search.

Jul 28, 2008 - 8:02 pm 39. Matthew in Austin:

If you read the discussions behind Wikipedia’s decision to not print the Edwards story yet (see Casper’s link above), you might decide to temper some of your criticism. They have specific rules about not posting unconfirmed stories on personal biogrpahies. The Edwards story (that Hunter had his baby) has had no confirmation from any other journalists. Every article out there merely is reporting what the Enquirer is saying (no independent confirmations of their own), except for Fox News that was able to confirm that Edwards was at the hotel. So far, no one has been able to confirm Hunter had Edward’s child. Clearly, the circumstantial evidence is extremely suspicious – but that seems hardly sturdy enough to put into an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Really, should an encyclopedia have lower story confirmation standards than the New York Times or Wall Street Journal? I think it is quite reasonable to want to see the story proved before it becomes part of Edward’s biography.

I’m not defending Wikipedia against the general charge of liberal bias, or their shameful treatment of man-made global warning as settled science. But the editors in this case are reasonably following established guidelines, and have stated clearly that they’ll allow this story to be posted on his biography once it is confirmed by reliable sources.

Jul 28, 2008 - 8:03 pm 40. Gulf Coast Bandit:

I was going to bring up the same point as Doctor&Geek. I am one of those people who is “censoring” the Troy King article because of the reliable sources policy. And “Audemus Defendere” has listed a ton of Wikipedia policies on that Troy King discussion page that including the gay affair rumors would violate.
It’s the same principle behind the John Edwards “censorship.” For better or for worse, until such allegations are picked up and proven by a mainstream source, it is the policy of Wikipedia to not include such material.
That said, are some people acting partisanly on the John Edwards page? Definitely. But motives aside, they’re doing the correct thing with regard to Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria.

Jul 28, 2008 - 8:05 pm 41. Roy Lofquist:

Way off topic, but a particular bugbear with me is the disparagement of hospital food. Sorry, Mr. Snitch! – not directed at you personally. Patients are usually sick. I know, from personal experience, that you can bring them food from a very expensive Manhattan restaurant and they still won’t like it.

Jul 28, 2008 - 8:10 pm 42. Ian:

Wikipedia is useless regarding anything that is remotely politically controversial. It skews radically to the Left. Also because it is a public encyclopedia, it has very poor quality control for its entries. You or I can edit its entries. A few weeks back I looked up the Lancet study about Iraq casualties. The entry was very favorable. What was curious to me is that the National Post story that seriously brought this study into question was not mentioned at all. Nor was it mentioned in the footnotes. In fact the only mention of the National Post story was an unexplained citation in external references. In other words, the editors of this entry did barely enough to avoid charges of outright fraud by at least mentioning the National Post story, but then only in a highly concealed way that ignored it entirely. If you depend on Wikipedia for anything then you are being lazy. That said, Google any topic and it leads you right to Wikipedia.

Jul 28, 2008 - 8:58 pm 43. buddy larsen:

re wikipedia, i’m currently having an email exchange with a newspaper editor over a swiftboat reference in his recent article on Boone Pickens. His assumption that Pickens was wrong to’ve supported the swifties (and is redeeming himself via green energy plans) must rest on the swifties being wrong — that is, “liars” — which reciprocally makes Sen John Kerry a truth-teller? Anyhoo, my correspondent pointed me to the wiki on the celebrated million dollar challenge Pickens a few months ago made to Kerry, $1mm to disprove a single assertion in the swiftboat ads. Kerry (and entourage) it seems to me, quickly contrived the face-saving sidestep of branding Pickens’ deal memo (stating his terms of the bet) as actually a re-statement made to avoid having to pay up the lost bet. IOW Pickens is a low-down yeller-bellied bet-welcher. The wiki backs this up, claiming Pickens “…narrow(ed) the original challenge….”. I wonder if Kerry wrote the wiki.

No soup for truth –wiki just entertainment resource.

PS, BTW Thomas Lipscomb a few weeks ago wrote in Huffington Post what looks like the definitive story of ”the challenge” — to date, that is. It’s further analyzed by Newsbusters, which includes a link to the original correspondence, where you can see that the so-called ”bet welch” is actually the original memo stating the bet officially, in writing. The Kerry dodge is, apparently — and true-to-form as a Kerry-type M.O. –that the announcement of the challenge, made verbally, unrecorded, in a dinner speech, which included no details and critically no method of judgement–without which no bet can possibly be or has ever been in recorded history won or lost– since it antedates the “deal memo” is superior and thus has to stand as the terms, or more accurately, as the termlessness. IOW, Kerry can — and did, and does — just claim he won, and since Pickens won’t pay up, Kerry gets to add him too to the swifties on his name-calling abuse list. Oh, that Kerry — he’s so intelligent! Not only are his records saved once again, but it’s Pickens’ fault, right? Why, that Texas oilman is just like them swiftboat liars! Liars, liars, liars, all liars, everybody always lying about the pore senator, who would never tell a lie.

Jul 28, 2008 - 9:02 pm 44. A Grain of Salt « Buttle’s World:

[...] Grain of Salt Filed under: Posts — buttle @ 21:07 Remember this when you cite [...]

Jul 28, 2008 - 10:07 pm 45. John Moore:

In 2004, I was involved with the Vietnam vets movement against John Kerry. Wikipedia was remarkably wrong on issues I knew better than any of their activist editors. To this day, it’s article on the Swift Boat Vets is terribly biased. For that matter, look at comparative styles of the articles on Bush and Kerry – the bias is immediately obvious.

Two points:
(1) Being pseudo-academic, Wikipedia loves citations. Since the press is strongly biased left, it is much easier to find “acceptable” citations to support a left “fact” than a right “fact”

(2) O’Sullivans First Law states (roughly) that any organization that doesn’t start out with a conservative purpose will by nature become leftist. Wikipedia is a good example of that. The Ford Foundation is another.

I think the Wikipedia folks in general are trying to do “the right thing.” The problem is that their very process is inherently biased towards the left – both by #1 above and the fact that leftists tend to be more activist and ready to fight edits than rightists. This is a shame, because in theory (like most liberal social theories), it could be a really good thing, if only people weren’t human beings with their human nature.

The global warming example given above is well known and particularly egregious. While the media consensus is that the “debate is over,” in fact there is more scientific disagreement with the hypothesis now than ever before. But Wiki, naturally inclined towards the left/green, can use the pronouncements to stifle dissenting aritcles.

Jul 28, 2008 - 10:36 pm 46. CJ:

Wikipedia is best at uncontroversial topics that are new enough to be missing from dead-tree reference materials. If you want to know about different types of memory cards for digital cameras or what kind of audio and video files are used in DVDs, Wikipedia is a superb resource. Anything that has political controversy … that’s a different story. Although many editors are trying to maintain standards, of course Wikipedia leans left. The global warming and Ted kennedy examples mentioned above are classic examples, but there are lots more. Competition is coming for Wikipedia in the form of Google Knols.

One more thing you won’t find on Wikipedia — information about Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales’s fling with convicted stalker and nutbar Rachel Marsden, who got Jimmy to clean out embarrassing info in the entry on herself — info which is still unavailable on the big W. This is a great subject to bring up with see-no-evil Wikipedia fans.

Jul 29, 2008 - 2:15 am 47. Fortinbras :: Roger L. Simon » Edwards: Wikipedia engages in some ‘political cleansing’ :: July :: 2008:

[...] Roger L. Simon » Edwards: Wikipedia engages in some ‘political cleansing’ This censorship reminds us never to trust anyone. [...]

Jul 29, 2008 - 2:35 am 48. Dave F:

Re physical lawa: I can confirm Wikipedia is very good on Kryptonite

Jul 29, 2008 - 2:42 am 49. Neal J. King:

- Wikipedia is often a useful place to start. It usually provides lots of references, so you don’t have to be bound by the perspective of the article itself.

- wrt the global-warming page: Connolley is an actual climatologist: Ph.D., worked in the field for some 18 years, all that. You might not like him, but he has the qualifications.

Jul 29, 2008 - 3:34 am 50. JohnR(DC):

Who would trade the “madness of the majority” (i.e., Wikipedia) for a chance to heft a Britannica volume with its leather cover, excellent paper and stylish layouts? Not to mention authoritative editing and articles–although certainly the Brit’s articles can reflect biases such as bios of Kant and others. On the whole, though, if satisfaction is one of you life’s goals, I’d steer clear of Wiki unless you limit your searches (as I do) to old movies.

I have no idea what the on-line Britannica serves up.

Jul 29, 2008 - 5:58 am 51. plutosdad:

At least unlike the MSM, Wikipedia does not go on about the rumored affair of McCain last year. Funny how rumours and no evidence at all were enough for the NYT when it was McCain being accused.

Jul 29, 2008 - 6:39 am 52. MarkD:

The debate on Global Warming is over. We’ve been gagged.

Jul 29, 2008 - 7:30 am 53. OneDayAtATime:

I’ve tried reading the rest of the article three different ways, but can’t get there. Any suggestions?

Jul 29, 2008 - 8:07 am 54. DensityDuck:

Google must absolutely LOVE Wikipedia. Thanks to Wikipedia, Google doesn’t have to do any work to improve its search results–if you want general information, just go look on Wikipedia! This means that Google can cram ten zillion paid advertisements into its search results.

Jul 29, 2008 - 9:56 am 55. Sgt. Mom:

Sometimes even fairly obscure topics on Wikipedia are defended ferociously: I have another writer friend, Diane Salerni, who wrote a novel about the Fox sisters (of the 19th century spiritualist fame) for which she did an incredible amount of research on the Fox sister’s lives… but whenever she had tried to use some of that knowlege to expand on the Wikipedia entries about the Fox sisters, one particular wiki contributor almost immediatly edits them out again. It’s as if no one else is allowed to say or contribute anything at all on the subject.

Jul 29, 2008 - 11:36 am 56. Brendan the Wanderer:

- wrt the global-warming page: Connolley is an actual climatologist: Ph.D., worked in the field for some 18 years, all that. You might not like him, but he has the qualifications.

Qualifications for what? Big Swinging Dick of the Scientific World? His Holiness Pope of the Reordered Reality? Grand Vizar of the Left-Handed Universe? Get this, oh thou pathetic genuflector to the (iffy) academic reductors of the entire planet’s complexity into stupid GW zealotry….it takes a real ass to assert that anything as complex as planetary weather and solar radiant processes is the purview and express domain of a set of academic racketeers (money grubbers), whack-job economic tramps,scheeming ven-caps, carbon traders and their lobbyists, and the creepy, often murdering UN politicians and their lickspittles. Oh, and why does Gore refuse to debate GW? because GW is “settled science”? Or is it because he’d get his head handed to him?.

I’ve seen some real dogs walk off with advanced degrees at my institution, and I have two big fancy ones myself which I also fancy I actually earned…does this make me twice the man your admired propagandist/censor is? In my opinion no, but perhaps you would like to kiss my butt anyway. Thanks, but no. Fools are impressed by such stuff, but the more hard-headed, aka the real scientists, go over the data, not the transcripts. As it happens, I’m engaged in the search for truth and like real scientists I welcome and delight in other’s tests of my work. If they’re full of it, I pass their letters around to my friends andwe have a hearty laugh. If they’ve got something,it may put my work in the round file for this year. So what? It’s called SCIENCE,and it’s what I do. I don’t have to like it, but reality sometimes bites. However, when somebody says another scientist’s objections are junk because “its settled science” the bastard is up to something. When MSM pubs, and jokes like Wiki suppress dissent, the bastards are also up to something. Whatever it is, it isn’t SCIENCE.

Use your head…. Connolley is one guy with a degree in a “maybe” sort of discipline that is an amalgam of other disciplines, with a very wide range of technically accomplished people. Some climatologists are real scientists, but most of these guys don’t even do their own work…they just barf up NOAA scripts on the six o’clock news. Scientists, my ass. So follow the money. If that doesn’t work..look for the religious impulse.

Anyone who tries to shut up other scientists and suppress dissent is part of a long academic tradition but that doesn’t make it right (See: T. Kuhn; Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Under it all is a scumbag trying to feed on the technically unwashed, the chronically naive and worst of all, innocent children (usually in that poisonous font of socialist propaganda, the public schools). In summation, the GW witch-burners do not do science but anti-science, and all these GW-associated censors are just another brand of flat-earth morons and Lysenkoist racketeers.

Jul 29, 2008 - 1:22 pm 57. buddy larsen:

i guess wiki editors follow the curve — intellectuals are liberal about 3 or 5 to 1. The real question is “why izzat?”

Jul 29, 2008 - 5:00 pm 58. Brendan the Wanderer:

Buddy, you’re onto something. Talk is cheap, and primates delight in mouth noises. Thus the high concentration of howler monkeys in the soft-sciences (sciences, my ass). Those that can write a little, translate their highly derivative, shrieking jibberish into words. They style as “intellectuals” and like the way it rolls off the tongue and invitiates their naive targets. So stop being one.Stop believing their reeking cable passed off as intellectualism. Laughter fries these bastards faster than spiders under a magnifying glass at high noon. And let’s swap that “intellectual” term for “tribalist ratpacking sniveler” and it all makes sense. YOU ARE THE INTELLECTUAL, THE BRAIN…THE FREE SPIRIT, not these constricted little flatworms. Also, you should never meet these dorks on their own chosen territory, because while you are working on significant stuff they are hustling a free lunch or plumbing the depths of their nasal passages with an index finger. Instead, humiliate them with data, hopefully in front of their date, or bar girls, or better yet their students. I do it all the time. It’s fun. You just lay for them and then when they say something stupid like “let’s deconstruct that” you blow Derrida off, which is pretty easy. Even Derrida thinks they are a bunch of repulsive pussies.
Meanwhile, back at the lab, the real superchimps are putting the next revolution together in transport or energy or something , but in their lonely 2 a.m. hours, emerge only to get skunked by the shrieking howler monkeys of the intellekshul class. Wish they’d take a little time off to actually analyze what these loosers have to say. It’s high entertainment to corner these idiots, and its not difficult.

Jul 29, 2008 - 7:02 pm 59. Jake Was Here:

The whole reason why Wikipedia skews to the left is that it’s largely (though not entirely) patronized by halfwitted college students and liberals who are goofing off on their jobs — in other words, people who have or think that frittering their days away on shit like Wikipedia is a valid use of their time… whereas I don’t have an interest in Wikipedia because, like many other conservatives, I have something known as a life.

Jul 29, 2008 - 7:37 pm 60. buddy larsen:

yuk yuk — good post, BtW — ‘monkeyshines’ used to be the word for it alright — at least before that rancid movie copped it. Seems clear that so-called ‘progressives’ (which nowadays apparently means ‘reactionaries’), being devoted as they are to change they can ball Eve in, are much interested in control of the culture’s records. The other side, i guess that’s we who are devoted to change we can’t ball Eve in, tends to just let the record do whatever it wants, assuming the invisible hand will write it best — most truthfully that is — & understanding as we do that the only way to lose control of hmm the zeitgeist is to try controlling it in the first place.

Jul 30, 2008 - 3:34 am 61. buddy larsen:

PS, you’re right,
the way to get rid a
deconstructed polita
is deriding Derrida
(tho it make lefties bitta).

Jul 30, 2008 - 3:49 am 62. timekeeper:

Wikipedia is (for the most part) an adequate source of information on non-political matters, but for subjects which have political overtones(including topics such as global warming), Wikipedia editors have a pronounced leftward bias.

This is not to say that it is overwhelming; like the Troy King case above, Charlie Crist has been dogged by gay rumors. It appears that that section of the Crist article will not be reinserted any time soon.

Not all Wikipedia editors (or for that matter, Wikipedia admins) are left-wingers (I’m certainly not), but enough of them are that current events articles have to be taken with a grain of salt. And (as is pointed out repeatedly), Wikipedia shouldn’t be cited as a source, but well-written Wikipedia articles will be well-sourced, and using those sources (whether available through an online link or by going to a library and checking out the book) is the way to write a paper.

Jul 30, 2008 - 3:50 am 63. Brendan the Wanderer:

Great poem. A keeper.

Jul 30, 2008 - 10:12 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: