Tuesday, 23 February 2016

What’s Wrong with Wikipedia?

Heartland are sad. I asked them if they needed any help:

Hi. I thought I really ought to show up and tweak you a bit, it would be a shame not to.
Are there any aspects of wiki policy that you'd like clarified?

1 comment:

  1. That appeared (after some delay I think). And got a reply, so I replied:

    > Al Gore

    AG has gone quiet recently. We don't talk about him much.

    > but a simple look at the history page

    (your link is a bit odd because it goes back into 2105; you probably meant https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Heartland_Institute&action=history)

    Check the timestamps old fruit. My post was written on the 22nd, 3 days after this, and no-one had showed up then. PT didn't show up until late on the 22nd (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Heartland_Institute&diff=706367328&oldid=706326835).

    In fact, if you were so minded, you might well think that people had showed up in response to my post, rather than to this one :-)

    > There isn't a lack of "help" to get the Heartland entry accurate

    Well, yes, there is a distinct lack of help. Not only that, there's even less clueful help. See the comments on my blog, if you can bear it, you might find them instructive.

    > the 'fossil fuel industry buys lies' falsehood at Wikipedia is hopeless under the current setup

    You're wrong about that, too. See for example the article on the GCC (remember them? Probably not...) where I (yes, really, me) toned down the language (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition&diff=705619973&oldid=705565799).