Skip to content

December 20, 2009

One person in the nine-member team — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.


So it wasn’t just peer reviewed literature that feel under the sway of this group it was popular informative tertiary source material. The type of thing the average citizen would use to write a school paper or for quick reference on a topic.

What is scariest about this to me is how easily these people have co-opted the idea of transparency in science. I saw somewhere that 60 individuals control almost all funding and access to scientific journals dealing with climate studies, they are all AWG supporters. If this is true it makes the idea of peer reviewed science a joke. It would be like putting the Galileo era Roman Inquisition in charge of modern Astronomy journals and funding and asking people who disputed the geocentric view of the universe to submit their work for review.

(h/t Portlandic)

Little Miss Attila also has some comments on this story
as well as a link to a Canada Free Press article, which includes this –

Wikipedia – A Falsified Resource For Students and Media

The most insidious activity included controlling climate information through Wikipedia. When I ask students how many use Wikipedia for their research all hands go up. I know most media rely on it. Most have no idea how the material is entered or edited.

William Connolley knew and exploited the opportunity. A participant in computer modeling he was as nasty as Mann and Schmidt. His activities are shocking. He established himself as an editor at Wikipedia and with a cadre (I use the term deliberately) of supporters he controlled all entries relating to climate, climate change and the people involved. This included putting up false material about skeptics. They constantly monitored the entries and if you tried to correct anything it was rapidly returned to the original false information. With so many people they could easily circumvent the limit on number of edits per person. Connolley as a designated editor had even more latitude. Here is just a brief example of his recent work.

She also points out that back in September Connolley was finally relieved of his administrative privileges for a pattern of abuse. The question is how much damage had been done by that time?


The Classic Liberal accuses Denise Milani of Inflating Away Our Rights

She is inflated alright 😀

but I am confused – at first he lists her as 38-25-36 then 2 sentences later as 34DDD-19-34. There seems to be a need for peer review. I am sure that if I woke Mr. X he would volunteer for the job so we will just leave him sleeping for awhile.

The Other McCain has the weekly Rule 5 line up. I got lazy this week and let my Cory Everson post stand but be forewarned next week Rick Donovan. That’s a fine (NSFW) example of inflation to offset Ms. Milani.

3 Comments leave one →
  1. December 20, 2009 9:17 am

    Wow! People do read the article. OK, so maybe the Chickapedia isn’t the best source …

    • jenn1964 permalink*
      December 20, 2009 9:37 am

      Of course I read the articles, and that little glitch fit in perfect with my point about peer review 😀


  1. Daily Pundit » Today wiki, tomorrow the world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: