I'm watching Al Gores 'An inconvenient truth'

[Final-Fan]

Kasz216 said:
To go line to line

"Her study did not specify that she had limited her search to "articles" rather than "all document types." This omission led to much subsequent confusion. "

True.

"Oreskes' conclusions were directly [[global warming controversy|challenged]] by [[Benny Peiser]], a social anthropologist who repeated her search, but specifying "all document types." This led to a different result than obtained by Oreskes, and one that discredited her finding. "

You can argue that "One that discredited her findings" could be removed... but that's about it.

"Peiser found that numerous articles -- as many as 34 articles, depending on the standard met -- rejected Oreskes claims. When he later discovered that Oreskes had made her claims based on a subset of articles, Peiser repeated the search and found other problems with Oreskes study. Chiefly, he found that Oreskes has no basis whatever for her findings as the entire ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicity endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' Moreover, he found that the vast majority of abstracts do not mention anthropogenic climate change. "

Once again true. At most you could argue that "No basis" is a bit harsh and should be replaced with something like "He found that less then 2% explicity endorse the consensus view(13 atrciles) and deemed that far to small a subject sample.

Wikipedia does traditionally put up all controversy and discenting opinions and problems found with studies however.  For example look at the way "Expelled" the Ben Stein movie was handled... another poorly done piece of work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled#Claims_that_film_producers_misled_interviewees

He starts off by acting like it's Oreskes' fault that Peiser jumped to a conclusion instead of double checking. 

Then he appropriately deletes a figure that Peiser has apparently removed from his website. 

Then he moves and restates the fact that Peiser's letters on the subject were rejected by Science in the rosiest way conceivable for Peiser. 

Then he replaces a detailed description of the differences between Oreskes' and Peiser's searches with crap like "depending on the standard met" (albeit he'd done a half-assed attempt at those differences earlier, but it was obvious he was deleting more info than he added up there). 

Then he arguably appropriately (if this is true and not misleading) mentions that the vast majority of articles do not "explicitly endorse" "what she has called the 'consensus view'".  (Nicely implying that it's not actually the consensus view, although Peiser disagrees, along with anyone "not stupid" according to you.)  [edit:  Also saying "a subset of articles" when he really means "articles and not other documents (like editorials)".]

Then he deletes all mention of the Media Watch article, which we have not heard Peiser refute.  Solomon only asked him (according to Solomon's own editorial) a vague question about whether Peiser 'admitted Oreskes was right', which is not at all what Media Watch wrote.  This is aside from the fact that Wikipedia gets pretty snotty about OR, which is not a reflection of bias. 

"Dr. Peiser has recently conceded in a letter to the Australian ''[[Media Watch (TV program)|Media Watch]]'' that he no longer maintains parts of his criticisms." BALEET

Is Wikipedia biased?  Sure.  But Solomon is AT LEAST as biased (I would say more), and deleting information that is relevant and true, and deleting information he has shown no disproof of. 

Should Wikipedians have sifted through his edits to figure out what to keep and what to toss?  Maybe.  But that's a lot of work and it doesn't teach the offender anything, ensuring repeat offenses and yet more work. 

Should Wikipedians, then, have babysat him through "how to edit constructively"?  Yes.  But they threw the baby out with the bathwater.  Which is different from a campaign of suppression.