Free In Idaho: Fraud That Is Wikipedia

12 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  Smacky on December 22 at 12:29 p.m.

  Most of the time, yes. It’s not too difficult to tell when one of their pages is lacking objectivity. But, that’s no reason to throw the whole thing out. I’ve found that the same people that complain about wikipedia are those that rely on drudge and fox news for their “facts”. It’s the whole “plank in eye” thing.

• 

  Fixer on December 22 at 12:55 p.m.

  I wouldn’t use Wikipedia as my sole source for research, but there is no reason to suspect that the majority of articles contain distortions or fabrications.

  However, I do find that contentious topics are more likely to contain inaccuracies, so I wouldn’t be in a hurry to reference a Wikipedia entry when discussing such a topic.

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 22 at 1:13 p.m.

  I don’t use Wikipedia, except for trivial pursuit type stuff. I agree that it is not authoritative.

  The quote “The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear” however, is just another example of hysterical disinformation.

  No one has ever tried to make the Medieval Warm period “disappear.” The existence of this period, followed by what is often called the “Little Ice Age” is well documented. I first learned about it in college in the 1970s in paleoecology classes, among others. No one can, or has ever tried to “make it disappear.” No can remove it, any more than they can remove the well-documented warming during the middle Holocene (named the Antithermal by Antevs and called the Hypsithermal by others). Climate change has always occurred, and it is caused by many factors (changes in earth orbit, changes in the earth’s tilt, changes in solar irradiance, volcanoes, deforestation, changes in atmospheric chemistry, and many more).
  The existence of previous warm periods does not, ipso facto, disprove current models of climate change.

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on December 22 at 1:43 p.m.

  I do use Wikipedia with a grain of salt for emerging stories. A good read on the development of Wikipedia and its value is in Shirky’s book on the new/alternative/social media:

  Here Comes Everybody

  http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/28/clay-shirkys-masterp.html

  Give Wikipedia a little while to sort through the emerging Climategate story. Of course a good source from the right of center portion of the Blogosphere is:

  http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-the-perils-of-global-warming-models/

  Click around on their site for an index of their previous stories.

• 

  BillH on December 22 at 1:46 p.m.

  Thanks for the link DFO. The post I wrote contained a link to an article about a “global warming scientist” who, uh, edited literally thousands of articles on wikipedia to fit with his particular understanding of the topic (iykwim).

  I sometimes look at wiki articles to refresh my memory, but I would really have to think twice about using it for a reference.

  An interesting question for all the Huckleberries would be “what are your favorite unbiased news and information sites?” heh heh

• 

  scootermom on December 22 at 1:56 p.m.

  I check Wikipedia for pop culture references. Actors and singers that I’ve never heard of, but that’s about. I would never use it for serious research or reference.

• 

  Charlie on December 22 at 2:06 p.m.

  We use Wikipedia to find those little know facts about little cared about items, you know, for crossword puzzles. For me, I try and use as many information sources as possible, not just one as I’ve seen done here a few times. Sometimes the search is more fun than the subject. For some reason the old song “Searchin” popped into my head, got to go look it up!

• 

  LifeAquatic on December 22 at 2:38 p.m.

  http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

  Here’s a reference for you.

  Please, please tell me that rocket scientist and climatologists are supremely wrong….oh wait they get paid to do their job….they must be lying I mean they make literally tens of thousands of dollars a year. That’s just not right.

  Oh and your link has one scientist referenced as a denier. A geoscientist, who is a professor at the University of Oklahoma, associate editor of Petroleum Geoscience the magazine and has written a few textbooks. I’ve even read one of them. One persons opinion is not a great start. But I assume thats all you’ve got. The other primary author referenced is Larry Solomon a man who writes for a rag Canadian paper (National Post) which has been rebuffed multiple times for its printing errors.

  To write an article discrediting an internet information page is a sad way to spend a day. Oh wait….

• 

  Phaedrus on December 22 at 2:57 p.m.

  It’s a whole lot better than this site:

  http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

• 

  Sisyphus on December 22 at 3:03 p.m.

  Best laugh all day Bill. You seem to have some misconception on how wikipedia works. Its a compendium of knowledge on a variety of subjects in which anybody can participate by adding to the topic. Of course, one should use a source for any additions. Additions not sourced are suspect and I personally don’t use them. If they are sourced I usually cite to the sourced material. But as a whole its far from “fraudulent” or full of “lies and fabrication.” If’n you wanna use it as an encyclopedic pedestrian knowledge on a common subject its a great starting point even for controversial matters. Seemingly many conservatives seem to have much difficulty with the concept of reference and source when endeavoring to critically analyze matters. They seem to go from skepticism, jump over critical analysis, and straight to denial.

  But the laugh came from you using a World Net Daily article as authoritatively denouncing Wikipedia. Irony much? At least wikipedia isn’t a propaganda outlet.

  Chekc out this parody piece on the Climate-gate fanatics. Its pretty funny.

  http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2009/12/the-hole-i-dig-is-bottomless.html

• 

  BillH on December 22 at 5:55 p.m.

  I thought you’d get the joke Sis.

• 

  BillH on December 23 at 5:30 a.m.

  So, here’s a link to an article about a scientific study that suggests CFCs and cosmic rays are behind any warming we’ve seen, which by the way has dropped back some. Not sure if this is an approved-by-Hucklers link, but hey, run what ya brung

  http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012

  And, so that Sis knows that some right leaning people know how references and sources work, here is a link to the abstract, which has a tab for you to buy the pdf of the paper itself, in case you want to participate in the next AGW debate here.

  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVP-4XVC4M5-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f16d0fd89651f3da2143b7aa4c85445c

  Merry Christmas everyone. See you when it’s over.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic