Tue 7th February 2012, 4:51pm
QUOTE(iii @ Mon 6th February 2012, 6:03pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 6th February 2012, 4:41pm)
The request was not, "Name a global warming denialist who defended Abd."
That's irrelevant. I saw that GoRight was working for fairness in the global warming articles, and was attacked by WMC and Raul654. Take a look at RfC/GoRight. It was appalling. I helped with the certification of that RfC -- GoRight was trying to wikilawyer it out of existence -- and then I read it and was horrified. That was my first contact with WMC and Raul654. I then researched the history. GoRight originally assumed that I was aligned with the cabal, but he quickly got that I was interested in fair process, and he was grateful. So when I was blocked as part of a misunderstanding with Fritzpoll, and a little demonstration of the ability of a certain sock master, Fredrick day, to fire up the crowd -- he was really good at it, he'd drop an IP comment and editors would rush in with pitchforks, he could manipulate them like puppets. He claimed to have a number of "respectable" accounts, and to be an admin, and I saw some evidence that he was. I lost interest, though, never completed the study of evidence that would have been required to file an SSP report, and, of course, it would have been extraordinarily disruptive. Aw, geez, sorry about that run-on, broken down sentence...
GoRight took over my defense of Wilhelmina Will, showing great ability as a researcher and presenter of evidence. He was under constant attack by the cabal, however, and they finally stirred up enough reaction that he was blocked and banned. In any case, he did think that anthropogenic global warming was a crock, though I'm probably not fairly presenting his case. He wasn't a nutter. He might be wrong, that's different.
There are scientists who are "denialist" -- or considered such by the cabal. Scientists are scientists, you know, and someone who, as a scientist, attaches to a position has lost their character as a scientist and has become an advocate. The cabal attacks them because the scientist reports something that, in the cabal's judgment, conflicts with the cabal's own conclusions. "Attack" means BLP violations.
I'm not aware of any climate scientists who were editing Wikipedia, beyond WMC himself, who really was peripheral and no longer involved in climate research. So if the questioner was insisting on a scientist, no, I don't know of any. There might be some, though, it's just that I don't know. I don't think GoRight is a scientist.
The statement of the controversy by iii is that of the pseudo-skeptics and cabal editors. Interesting, indeed.
I know you are, but what am I?
Seems unintelligible to me. I could make an attempt. I won't. Not worth the effort.
Seriously, the claim I question is that there are or were global warming denialists editing on Wikipedia who exhibited the competence that would be requisite to contribute to a serious reference work about the general topic of climate science. I contend that there have been none who have demonstrated such. What I have seen is a lot of Randies in Boise have fun arguing on the internet.
there are lots of those, and yourself?
Wikipedia isn't a "serious reference work on the general topic of climate science." It's a tertiary source, created through it's own bizarre process that sort-of works sometimes. In my view, such a crowd-sourced project could be highly competent, with appropriate structure. As I'd see it, experts would comment and contribute, but would not control; rather, the job of the experts would be to educate interested non-expert editors on the topic, in two ways: they would suggest and help arrange material from reliable sources, and they would review article product for errors and misunderstandings.
Essentially, the editors would be a stand-in for the public. (Alternatively, they could be considered volunteers working for the management of Wikipedia. Problem is that the WMF relies upon the trope that the community runs Wikipedia; it does, but "the community" has no reliable decision-making process, it's chaotic, not rule-of-law, so it's largely unpredictable, especially in the outer reaches, where editorial activity is largely unnoticed, as long as it doesn't look like vandalism, and even then....)
I've seen what happens when experts write articles on Wikipedia, they are frequently unintelligible. They may be perfectly correct, but are effectively useless, the experts are talking to themselves. Examples can be shown from Mathsci, who is, apparently, an expert mathematician. Problem arose when another mathematician showed up who had a different point of view on how to present the subject.... Mathsci, being connected with the cabal, blasted the guy.
No, experts are properly treated as COI. One has to be careful about leaving some of them alone in a room with others, they tend to savage each other. Adult supervision is required.
Experts are the editors most likely to fall into the newbie error of repeatedly reverting what is to them an obvious error. After all, they *know* it's an error.