Tuesday, 26 May 2015

The sad tales of the Wikipedia gang war regarding WUWT – ‘creepy and a little scary’?

I tried talking a bit; see an archive.

One of my comments made it through:

 * Hello dahlings. How’s the paper coming along?

And so did another; and a third. But after that, things dried up, with the appallingly dangerous:

  wuwt-unpublished left which went unpublished so far, as well as at least one other. Well, glasnost was only going to last so long.

[Update: now published, it looks like. So they're just slow.]

Unlike the comment just after, which I've highlighted, which clearly met all the WUWT comment guidelines. At least, the unofficial ones which are actually implemented - the "official" ones are meaningless, of course.

A little later...



  1. William Connolley Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 26, 2015 at 11:31 pm

    > As for the discussion of the topic going dormant…

    The note I added to the wiki page was about the project going dormant. Which is does seem to have done – try following its pages. Or read http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/05/04/is-surfacestations-org-dead/

    > but fail to mention another: An area and distance

    That’s the poor dead stillborn thing, isn’t it? See http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/08/18/happy-second-birthday-to-watts-paper/

    > and has been in journal peer-review

    No. It was never submitted. Its still in undead draft, as far as anyone knows. So can’t possibly be ref’d on wiki.

  2. William Connolley Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 27, 2015 at 1:25 am
    > William Connolley says that WUWT is “a blog dedicated to climate change denial”.

    I didn’t write that. In fact, searching, I can’t find myself saying anything similar; though I don’t rule it out as a possibility. I have called you lot incompetent, of course (e.g. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/04/wuwt-taking-incompetence-to-a-whole-new-level/).

    > Yet when I try to comment on alarmist blogs, most often my posts never see the light of day.

    I’m dubious you have ever made such an attempt. Remember above, where you said “I would love to ask the person who re-edited that entry”, and when I pointed out that you could indeed ask that person, you ran away? You’ve never tried to comment on my blog. and unlike a number of people (including me) who have had comments refused at WUWT, you’ve not actually said what blog, and what comment, of yours was refused.

    > you’re saying that scientific skeptics take the position that the climate never changes.

    Err, no. I’m not.

    > Of course, that is a lie.

    It would be a lie, if anyone ever said it. But since no-one ever says it, its not a lie. Its a little shell, a semantic trick, that you’ve constructed for yourself. Over here, in the walled garden, with no-one to challenge you, it sounds really good; maybe. Out in the real world it just sounds stupid.

  3. William Connolley Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 27, 2015 at 5:24 am
    WMC> Happily, there’s an article on that which will explain it for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

    takebackthegreen> No, no no. You can’t change the meaning of words

    Well, firstly, I didn’t write that. But secondly, no, *you* don’t get to define things using your own pet meaning and then insist that all other meanings are wrong. Your own pet meaning “someone who denies climate change” is a useless phrase, because it describes no-one; as we all know, everyone accepts that the climate changes.

    thomam> It’s apparently supported by a huge raft of references to make it look authoritative. Only…

    So you’re sad about the references used. Can you propose any other ones that should be used? Anything that would constitute a reliable source? Blogs are no good; you need responsible newspapers. “you people” are rather reluctant to use, or discuss, the D-word; so its not surprising that sources on “your side” are in short supply. Perhaps you should try talking about it?

  4. William Connolley Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 27, 2015 at 6:34 am
    More spoon feeding: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/25/the-sad-tales-of-the-wikipedia-gang-war-regarding-wuwt-creepy-and-a-little-scary/#comment-1945581

  5. William Connolley Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 27, 2015 at 9:10 am
    > controversial topics should have a separate treatment, in which a bifurcated path provides a place for both protagonists and antagonists

    You’re welcome to propose that, of course, but wiki explicitly rejects that way of doing things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking). As already noted in this thread, other projects have gone down that route; wiki is more successful and will not be following.

  6. William Connolley Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 27, 2015 at 9:49 am
    The context here is wik; we’re speaking about updating a wiki article, so you need to follow its rules, or just mumble over your beer. Wiki’s rules for reliable sources are WP:RS, which is to say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. I dno’t actually agree with all that but meh; they’re the rules.

  7. William Connolley Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 27, 2015 at 9:54 am
    Sez you. But our host disagrees, because he’s asking people to edit the article (note that he’s wrong about the COI rules not permitting to do that himself; they aren’t so strict. and of course, COI doesn’t prevent him joining in on the talk page; only Fear does that).

  8. William Connolley Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 27, 2015 at 11:58 am
    > (Snip. Policy violation. – mod)

    Dahlings, you are delicate little flowers. Clearly you don’t favour anything like debate; anyone wondering quite how terrible the policy violation is can read the original at http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/the-sad-tales-of-wikipedia-gang-war.html and decide for themselves. And apparently even the phrase “spoon-feeding” is now verboten. Unlike comparisons to Goebbels, which are just fine – as long as they’re directed at people you don’t like.