A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
That is the wisdom of the crowd in action.
Click to expand...
You completely missed what was going on. An editor and an administrator for Wikipedia were controlling what could appear in articles dealing with climate change. The “wisdom of the crowd” was almost immediately edited out. Controlling access to information is typical of the global warming true believers.
Your point?
Click to expand...
This was part of the ClimateGate controversy that you were unwilling to investigate. It was just a sample of what went on.

Ender
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Well, if we are going to assume Wikipedia errors why not assume poptech errors or breitbart errors or heartland errors too?
Click to expand...
Because the people at Breitbart are held accountable if they make mistakes, so its incumbent of them to act in their own best interests (lawsuits/credibility). The same cannot be said for Wikipedia which can be altered at any point, without any real ramifications. You cannot sue or hold the people who edit Wikipedia accountable.

It’s not that I’m saying you can’t use Wikipedia, I’m simply saying their information can be adjusted by anyone including the people/organizations who are involved in said issue/subject, there is therefore a direct or very possible conflict of interest.
 
josie_L said:
Because the people at Breitbart are held accountable if they make mistakes, so its incumbent of them to act in their own best interests (lawsuits/credibility).
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about mistakes. I’m talking about deliberate misinformation. And since that is their bread and butter over there at Breitbart, it is in their best interests to do exactly that. And forget lawsuits. There is not law against promoting misinformation unless that misinformation is slanderous to a specific person. They are in no danger of being sued.
The same cannot be said for Wikipedia which can be altered at any point, without any real ramifications.
Click to expand...
If it is so easy to correct Wikipedia, why hasn’t Poptech done it already? Why waste time here trying to convince everyone that Wikipedia says false things when he could just go and fix it? The point is, real mistakes, or even misinformation, in Wikipedia generally gets corrected. Breitbart - not so much.
 
Ender said:
You completely missed what was going on. An editor and an administrator for Wikipedia were controlling what could appear in articles dealing with climate change. The “wisdom of the crowd” was almost immediately edited out. Controlling access to information is typical of the global warming true believers.
Click to expand...
So they say. Has this inside collusion at Wikipedia been verified independently of the claims these people have made against it?
This was part of the ClimateGate controversy that you were unwilling to investigate. It was just a sample of what went on.
Click to expand...
Ender
Click to expand...
And what is so bad about what was stated in that message from Bradley to Mann?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The page in question has been seen by many people. It is not brand new.

You could go and fix it if you think it is in error.
Click to expand...
Not understanding how Wikipedia works is not an argument.

How can someone know if a Wikipedia page is correct when they look at it?
 
dvdjs said:
Indeed. The former rests soley on the knowledge, intelligence, and integrity of the editor, the Wiki relies on the collective knowledge and intelligence of everyone in the community, and their ability to review and edit each other’s work.
Click to expand...
Not understanding how Wikipedia works is not an argument.

Any Wikipedia page that is not protected can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection at any time. This includes children, functional illiterates, high school drop outs etc…
dvdjs said:
With Wiki, there may be transient acts of “vandalism”, but they get discovered and fixed.
Click to expand...
This is a fantasy and does not happen in the real world.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Publications like populartechnology.net know they have no reputation on their own, so the only way they can make their view appear credible is to tear down every other established source of information.
Click to expand...
PopularTechnology.net is an impartial, highly cited website referenced by over 300 independent sources throughout more than 25 countries in books and scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major and regional news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, political institutions, on radio and by the technology community.

PopularTechnology.net has been referenced 11 times in scholarly peer-reviewed journals.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I’m not talking about mistakes. I’m talking about deliberate misinformation. And since that is their bread and butter over there at Breitbart, it is in their best interests to do exactly that. And forget lawsuits. There is not law against promoting misinformation unless that misinformation is slanderous to a specific person. They are in no danger of being sued.
Click to expand...
Actually, Breitbart is a lot more credible than you think (I go there often), i.e., it is a right wing/conservative news outlet in an industry that is full of left-leaning media, in other words they provide a perspective that is lacking in the MSM. What I’ve found oft times is that Breitbart is willing to discuss things that other media outlets won’t, and give a fairer treatment of conservative figures in politics. That is not misinformation anymore than the NYT or CNN is spreading misinformation (but they’ve got the backing of the rest of the MSM, since all of them more or less express similar leftist views).

Wikipedia is no exception to the rule, it can be biased and misinformative too, deliberately so, by the people who edit their pages and the people who work at Wikipedia.

Just don’t rely solely on Wikipedia as a source, which I believe you did regarding Climate Gate.
 
josie_L said:
Actually, Breitbart is a lot more credible than you think (I go there often), i.e., it is a right wing/conservative news outlet in an industry that is full of left-leaning media, in other words they provide a perspective that is lacking in the MSM. What I’ve found oft times is that Breitbart is willing to discuss things that other media outlets won’t, and give a fairer treatment of conservative figures in politics.
Click to expand...
It isn’t a matter of what Breitbart is “willing” to discuss. They discuss what they prefer to discuss. And they dress it up by saying that other outlets are** unwilling** to discuss it. But have you ever found an article on Breitbart that came down on the side of the liberals? Those are the stories that Breitbart is truly unwilling to discuss.
Wikipedia is no exception to the rule, it can be biased and misinformative too, deliberately so, by the people who edit their pages and the people who work at Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
It is edited by users. The people who work at Wikipedia do not have the time to construct all those pages.
Just don’t rely solely on Wikipedia as a source, which I believe you did regarding Climate Gate.
Click to expand...
For this story I do not rely solely on Wikipedia. I also rely on the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the Met Office of the UK, the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, the EPA, the National Science Foundation, and Pennsylvania State University, and others. Wikipedia lists references that one can check out for themselves.
 
Poptech said:
Not understanding how Wikipedia works is not an argument.
Any Wikipedia page that is not protected can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection at any time. This includes children, functional illiterates, high school drop outs etc…
This is a fantasy and does not happen in the real world.
Click to expand...
I edit Wiki pages. I knoe how it works. Unfortunately I cannot pages such are yours with scientific illiterates etc.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It isn’t a matter of what Breitbart is “willing” to discuss. They discuss what they prefer to discuss. And they dress it up by saying that other outlets are** unwilling** to discuss it. But have you ever found an article on Breitbart that came down on the side of the liberals? Those are the stories that Breitbart is truly unwilling to discuss.
Click to expand...
And that’s what’s done by the leftist media or are you going to deny this so obvious a fact? In fact, here is a sampling of that wonderful leftist right bashing bias from the Grey Lady herself, the NYT:
Understanding Republican Cruelty
Click to expand...
nytimes.com/2017/06/30/opinion/understanding-republican-cruelty.html?action=click&contentCollection=Europe&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article
Click to expand...
Zombies, Vampires and Republicans
Click to expand...
nytimes.com/2017/06/19/opinion/republican-health-care-bill-tax-cuts.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2FPaul%20Krugman&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Collection&region=Marginalia&src=me&version=column&pgtype=article
Click to expand...
What’s the Matter With Republicans?
Click to expand...
nytimes.com/2017/05/19/opinion/whats-the-matter-with-republicans.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fpaul-krugman&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=9&pgtype=collection
Click to expand...
Republicans Party Like It’s 1984 Making policy about lying about everything
Click to expand...
nytimes.com/column/paul-krugman?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Collection&region=Marginalia&src=me&version=column&pgtype=article
Click to expand...
Just so you know this took all of 5 minutes to find, without even really making an effort. So imagine what more I could find, on all manner of leftist progressive issues.
It is edited by users. The people who work at Wikipedia do not have the time to construct all those pages.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say they construct the pages, but I do believe they participate in what stays and/or goes.
For this story I do not rely solely on Wikipedia. I also rely on the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the Met Office of the UK, the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, the EPA, the National Science Foundation, and Pennsylvania State University, and others. Wikipedia lists references that one can check out for themselves.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s one of the good features of Wikipedia, that you can check out the references.
 
I found this video on youtube.

Apparently data about climate change was adjusted for aproximation, by nasa, but going toward the negative error margin for old data like of 1930, and toward the positive error margin for recent data…That was enough to make everything look different.:)🙂
 
dvdjs said:
I edit Wiki pages. I knoe how it works.
Click to expand...
Clearly you do not, Wikipedia is “truth” based on who edits last. Everything on any Wikipedia page has to be independently verified every time you look at it since it is impossible to know if the information is correct or not when you view the page.
dvdjs said:
Unfortunately I cannot pages such are yours with scientific illiterates etc.
Click to expand...
This is gibberish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top