\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=440268 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Beware zealotry. It takes many forms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=440268 I've heard the same complaints from the creationists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Erm, the moderator is right to change that back, as there is no link to what Peiser said to the reporter. According to Wikipedia's own help pages, "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." Just because he contacted the author doesn't mean that he's allowed to make that change. The Wikipedia entry in question was linked to a published science blog (which linked to a University of Colorado page where the mistake was admitted). If Peiser and the other guy want to be able to make their change without having it revered, they should actually publish the damned comments to be inside Wikipedia's standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 To add, this was the response by the editor on the Wikipedia page * The editor might be a journalist - he never identified as such (even if i suspected) - but is still under the same rules and guidelines as everyone else. That means adherence to WP:RS,WP:SPS and WP:BLP. You do not get more credibility or lenience for being a journalist. I significantly contest that the journalist has expert knowledge on this subject. I've read his articles. * He may have been in contact with Peiser - i really do not know (or care). We need reliable sources! An editors word is worth nothing. * Peiser would have to go through a reliable source. Now to comment further - Peisers comment on Naomi Oreskes paper in Nature is a self published source. To be more specific: it hasn't been printed in a reliable source (in fact it was rejected by Nature), but only on Peisers own website. Despite this we include a mention of his critique, because its notable. It is presented in due weight and in accordance with WP:BLP. The edits of Mr. Solomon changed that - and introduced a significant bias towards an unpublished critique of a scientific paper, and (might i mention) a critique that the author (Peiser), according to the ABC source - doesn't support anymore. The journalist frankly doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 To add, this was the response by the editor on the Wikipedia page The journalist frankly doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. Are you a contributor on Wiki? Edit? Just curious as I play around on there to steal stuff for my company Wiki. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Are you a contributor on Wiki? Edit? Just curious as I play around on there to steal stuff for my company Wiki. Neither actually. I've never edited a page in my life, though I've read all the rules. I enjoy the "encyclopedia", while understanding that it is extremely imperfect. Call me a fan, with reservations, but one who would like to see it succeed, as long as it can remain fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Erm, the moderator is right to change that back, as there is no link to what Peiser said to the reporter. According to Wikipedia's own help pages, "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." Just because he contacted the author doesn't mean that he's allowed to make that change. The Wikipedia entry in question was linked to a published science blog (which linked to a University of Colorado page where the mistake was admitted). If Peiser and the other guy want to be able to make their change without having it revered, they should actually publish the damned comments to be inside Wikipedia's standards. This is lame at best and you know it, or at least I hope so. I'd like to see wiki succeed as well, but if you are serious about that, then you should be pissed about this, rather than defending it. It's the worst sort of Wikki rule manipulation for biased purposes(or couldn't you tell in her comments like this one in parenthesis?) and represents the very reason Wikki will fail if it (and consequentially, she) is not removed. I find it hysterical that she says that Peiser is not a "reliable source" for determining what Peiser said then and now. Fine, from now on, I am not going to believe what Bluefire said, or that Bluefire said it, unless there is a link in the Buffalo News, or on a blog(of all things, hahahahahaha!) at the University of Colorado. Hysterical. I haven't encountered this level of buffoonery in a long time. Thanks for the laugh. Please tell me you see what's happening here. But, I suppose it would make me laugh even harder if you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 This is lame at best and you know it, or at least I hope so. I'd like to see wiki succeed as well, but if you are serious about that, then you should be pissed about this, rather than defending it. It's the worst sort of Wikki rule manipulation for biased purposes(or couldn't you tell in her comments like this one in parenthesis?) and represents the very reason Wikki will fail if it (and consequentially, she) is not removed. I find it hysterical that she says that Peiser is not a "reliable source" for determining what Peiser said then and now. Fine, from now on, I am not going to believe what Bluefire said, or that Bluefire said it, unless there is a link in the Buffalo News, or on a blog(of all things, hahahahahaha!) at the University of Colorado. Hysterical. I haven't encountered this level of buffoonery in a long time. Thanks for the laugh. Please tell me you see what's happening here. But, I suppose it would make me laugh even harder if you don't. No, he's saying that a random user saying "I talked to Peiser, and he agreed with me" doesn't meet the standard (which it shouldn't). Its not like Peiser directly contacted Wikipedia, or put this on an online forum or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 No, he's saying that a random user saying "I talked to Peiser, and he agreed with me" doesn't meet the standard (which it shouldn't). But the other guy who said he talked to Peiser is ok. This makes sense to me. The other guy said it first. And it would be total BS if Peiser tried to refute it himself too. He should not be able to take back what the first guy said he said especially if what the guy said he said makes the crisis look worse. I for one am sick of all this arguing and think we should start killing mammals so that humans may live. I think Wikipedia sitting around all day and squashing any arguments against this theory is a really good idea as long as it helps us solve the problem. If people want to argue against it they should start their own site called: Idontbelieveinglobalwarmingsoletthemammalsliveipedia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 .org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 No, he's saying that a random user saying "I talked to Peiser, and he agreed with me" doesn't meet the standard (which it shouldn't). Its not like Peiser directly contacted Wikipedia, or put this on an online forum or something. I get that part, I guess what I am saying is: how does an ABC journalist saying Pieser said one thing, rate higher than this journalist saying he said another? And, what in the world allows this lady to decide which journalist is more "credible", especially when her own bias is blatantly on display? The rules are supposed to be used to require that both sides of the story are told, not simply deleting one side and replacing it with the other. Right? I even think that this is what crayonz is trying to say, and worse, I even agree with it. Disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 I get that part, I guess what I am saying is: how does an ABC journalist saying Pieser said one thing, rate higher than this journalist saying he said another? And, what in the world allows this lady to decide which journalist is more "credible", especially when her own bias is blatantly on display? The rules are supposed to be used to require that both sides of the story are told, not simply deleting one side and replacing it with the other. Right? I even think that this is what crayonz is trying to say, and worse, I even agree with it. Disturbing. The link on the actual Wikipedia page points to a story that points to a place where Pieser posted himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts