http://www.isgp.eu/miscellaneous/ISGP_deleted_from_Wikipedia_history_by_one_admin.htm
ISGP's problem with Wikipedia
One Single Admin Able to Wipe ISGP From Dozens of Wiki Pages
July 1, 2009
Extract:
"I noticed that the link to ISGP had been deleted. More amazing, it turned out that every reference to ISGP anywhere on Wikipedia had been deleted around the same time. At first I thought this was the result of the careless mistake in Davignon's biography. However, it turns out that this was not the cause.
"The cause turns out to be a Wikipedia admin nicknamed Will Beback. On June 29, at 20:41 (GMT), Beback apparently came across ISGP while editing Wikipedia's WWF page. This person, whose apparent internet information can be found below, decided to take a look at ISGP for less than five minutes. In response he decided it was his right to delete all references on Wikipedia to ISGP without spending one more second of fact checking."
IP 69.104.219.235
Host name adsl-69-104-219-235.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net
Location Los Angeles, California
29th June 2009 23:41:43 No referring link
www.isgp.eu/index.html
29th June 2009 23:42:52 www.isgp.eu/index.html
www.isgp.eu/about.htm
29th June 2009 23:45:30 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1001_Club
www.isgp.eu/index.html
29th June 2009 23:49:43 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1001_Club
www.isgp.eu/organisations/1001_Club_members_list.htm
Total visit time 8 minutes and 0 seconds
Beback's incompetence
For a veteran Wikipedia admin, Beback doesn't seem to be a particularly bright light. Amazingly, he left the incorrect paragraph in Davignon's bio untouched. As of this writing, it's still there. Beback only deleted the source, which, ironically, would have shown that there's a serious mistake on Wikipedia.
Another interesting point is Wikipedia's 1001 Club article, in which the apparently nefarious influence of ISGP was first neutralized. This is the paragraph Beback deleted (except for the first sentence):
"The membership of the 1001 Club largely consists of managers of banks and multinationals from around the world. Examples from past and present include Sir Eric Drake of British Petroleum, Sir Val Duncan of Rio Tinto, Harry Frederick Oppenheimer and Sidney Spiro of Anglo-American Corporation, the British and French Rothschilds, Michel David-Weill of Lazard, Laurance and David Rockefeller, Henry Ford II, Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, Edmond Safra, Peter von Siemens, and Berthold Beitz of Krupp. Among the more remarkable members have been Salem bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's older half-brother; Mobutu Sese Seko, the dictator of Zaire; BCCI founder and president Agha Hasan Abedi; Juan Carlos I King of Spain; early Zionist operatives as Louis Bloomfield and Tibor Rosenbaum; and the controversial businessman Nelson Bunker Hunt."
Beback deleted all the names, providing us with the following explanation: "trim unsourced list that includes living people". Excuse me, unsourced!? Oh, wait, of course this list is unsourced, as several minutes earlier Beback himself had deleted the links to photocopies of the membership list in which all these names could be found! The ISGP log shows Beback has been on the page where these photocopies could be found. Unless he's a hyperactive 12-year-old, it's incomprehensible to me how he could have missed this.
Related:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jo%C3%ABl_van_der_Reijden
http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/links.html
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=44209863651
http://current.com/1hhjm4c
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/wikipedia-and-the-art-of-censorship-462070.html
I had a similar experience when I tried adding a paragraph to the Wiki definition of Paleoclimatologist, noting that Paleoclimatology was a study of historical planetary climate based on proxy measurements not considered reliable by many members of the general scientific community (which is a documented true statement), along with a link to Wiki's own definition of proxy data.
AntwortenLöschenThey resolved the problem editorially by deleting the entire page and referring it back to the definition of Paleoclimatology, then blocking me from further additions to that page, even those with verifiable references. For any reading this who believe the entry I'm describing might be facetious, see:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/116324724/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Or simply do a Google search using the keywords:
proxy data paleoclimatology criticism dispute scientific
There are literally thousands of respectable scientific references to that debate, however it was not Politically Correct to refer to them in Wiki. I think that's a pretty clear example of editorial bias.
I just laughed. Resistance is futile saith the Borg.
Acronyms are wonderful creatures
AntwortenLöschenForeshortening's among their features
But the very first time,
It's best to define,
Or so I was told by my teachers.
All poetry aside, (APA), Would this be a part of a general attempt to weed out agenda-based conspiracy theories in Wikipedia in order to improve its reputation for reliability? If so, I'm sure it would be a major undertaking, perhaps not allowing for careful perusal of each entry. I suppose there is a limit on how many staff members Wikipedia can afford and stay free. Since it is sure to be a ever-growing collection of knowledge, that may be a matter of concern.
On the proxy data issue, I can see how one might jump to the conclusion that emphasizing the "considered unreliable" part might be an attempt to undermine concern for global climate change.
Determining the motive might have taken more time than was available.
Remember that the purpose of the Wiki model is to use existing knowledge freely distributed. In this case, any question of motive at all is suspect.
AntwortenLöschenIn this example, the motive was only to provide a reference to an ongoing, real, well documented and scientifically based criticism of the methods used in the discipline; that there was no libel, slander or sub-genius graffiti involved in the exchange, and that valid references were provided, I suspect you are being much too generous in your analysis, perhaps the question of motive would be more fruitfully applied to the editorial staff, who were not held to any standard of scientific reporting in their decision.
Emphasizing "considered unreliable"? No emphasis was added. Proxy data *are* considered unreliable by the majority of scientists, hence the use. It is quite important for the layperson who may not be intimate with the subject to be aware of the fact (not conjecture, fact) that proxy data are considered unreliable.