Monty I love you.

"Even if we went with your rosiest interpretation Wikipedia is guilty of intentionally misrepresentation, cherry picking and editing out valid changes to fix the situation."

My "rosiest" interpretation is that Solomon's changes were hugely biased, changing parts of the article so that they were less clear (but sounded better for his POV) and got reverted.

But what he said was factually true... unlike what was in the wikipedia article itself...

Even if it had a hint of bias in the writing... the correct stance would be to edit out the bias.

Not remove factual information to put back disinformation.

Why?  She still hasn't released her criteria.  Pesier is doing it on good will so far since her setudy can't be replicated.  The number of articles she said she reviewed is higher then the results you can get by replicating can be reproduced.  We still don't know what her actual critera was. There is still no way to replicate her study because she isn't releasing her methods... or she falsefied her data by 3 articles which would be stupid.

Because she didn't use all peer reviewed things.  Gotta go so i'll expand on this later.

As for her was cherrypicking.  It was both.  You have Mediawatch who ignored the fact that he withdrew his objections was simply because her research method had even more flaws then one could of reasonably expected... and Wikipedia when they blocked out a valid change that eaisly could of been fact checked simply because they didn't want "His crap" to be in there.

It's not a case that they "Took it from mediawatch" and kept it that way.

It's a case of "They took it from mediawatch, people proved he still had problems, yet they claimed it was right."

Found this: 
"1.  Oreskes excluded the "Social Sciences Citation Index" and the "Arts & Humanities Citation Index", Peiser does not.
"2.  Oreskes set the search limits to include only "Article"s, whereas Peiser set the search limits to include "All document types".
"Using Oreskes search you get 929 documents (her article says 928, close enough?), where as with Peiser's search you get 1247 documents.
"Among Peiser's 34 articles, 2 are clearly opposed to the consensus position:
"1.  Linden HR, "The evolution of an energy contrarian", Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 21: 31-67 1996
"2.  Gerhard LC, Hanson BM, "Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report", AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471 Apr 2000
"With Peisers search, the first article (categorized as "Editorial Material"), is included, but not included in Oreskes search.
"The second article appears in both searches. Is this the missing article from the 929/928 documents?"

Looks like Peiser might actually have a beef with that one article (AAPG), as long as you're willing to count non-peer-reviewed stuff. 

Peiser's "good will" didn't extend as far as asking her what search criteria she used before releasing this criticism that ASSUMED she was an idiot instead of that Peiser didn't do it right. 

Where did Solomon "prove" anything?  He said that Peiser's findings "discredited" Oreskes'.  He substantiated this by putting in crap like "depending on the standard met" for what should count, and "Oreskes had made her claims based on a subset of articles" meaning 'peer reviewed ones' and 'actual articles as opposed to editorials etc.'.  If you can show that Oreskes ignored peer reviewed articles that should reasonably be counted, that will mean YOU could have a beef if Wikipedia reverted your edits, but Solomon was just not doing a good edit.  Wikipedia threw out the baby with the bath water, and Petersen (the editor) was being a jerk about it, but that's how it goes. 

Solomon did not get Peiser to refute what Media Watch said.  This is key. 

Well rather then get into the long world of journal databases and explain...

Do you honestly believe that it is ok to present a point.... Then one point of criticism (of which there are many) then to claim that point was refuted and therfore the person's study was validated? (Whether the point was refuted or not)

While ignoring all other problems and controversy?

I mean one might make Intellegent Design look like a credible theory with that method.

Also... what in Solomon's edits do you disagree with?

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. 

That documentary is an inconvenient lie. All that documentary serves as a propaganda video spreading his tree hugging left wing nonsense onto the world. Al Gore is a sad loser who lost the US Presidency back in 2000. People claiming the 2000 election was rigged in Bush's favour are liars.

People do not believe this man's lies. He is a total hypocrite and he actually produces more carbon emissions than most people on the planet. He flies around the world on a jet, trying to brainwash people into his left wing green "Save our Planet" Bullshit propaganda.

^

/thread