Skip to comments.Wikipedia on Global Warming: The first place most people look is the last place anyone should.
Posted on 03/11/2014 7:47:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It may seem a little misplaced to concentrate on two Wikipedia articles when it comes to something as substantive as the anthropogenic global warming theory (henceforth: AGWT or AGW). For a start, some people don't place much faith in any Wikipedia pieces. Nonetheless, it's quite possible that more people have gained knowledge about the AGWT from these articles than from any other sources. (One of the articles was viewed 1052332 times in only 30 days.)
After all, it's often the case that Wiki is the first port of call for many of us. In addition, these two articles are seemingly very scientific in nature and chockablock with references and statistics. One of the articles is also of considerable length: 7552 words to be exact; along with -- believe it or not -- 71130 words (that's over seventy-one thousand) of references, etc.
(There's a Conservapedia article called 'Anthropogenic global warming theory' which is very short -- a mere 455 words -- and quite insubstantial. There's also Uncyclopedia's 'Global warming', which is superior to the Conservapedia entry.)
These two articles are the only Wikipedia entries (excluding the Simple English Wikipedia piece) on global warming. They're entitled 'Global warming' (2002 to 2014) and 'Global warming controversy' (2003 to 2014). The thing is: they're both written by the same person. The positions advanced in them are almost indistinguishable and even the wording is often quite literally identical. However, it is indeed the case that Wiki articles receive many edits. Nonetheless, that doesn't change the fact that they are written by a single person (or a specific group of people). The editors can only edit what's already there.
The main point is that these articles are two of the most biased and one-sided I've ever read on the subject of the AGWT.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Wikipedia has its place but its worthless for anything remotely political.
If you want quick info on the orbital period of the planet mercury, wiki is great.
If you want info on the 2000 election, you may as well turn to Mother Goose.
If you sign up as a wiki author, you can then edit any article if you have solid references to back up your edit.
The issue on the topic of global warming is this -— what constitutes ‘solid reference’?
You can always cite CNN or MSNBC as your reference.
Global warming is not my field of study but I feel sure there texts or other books to cite with solid scientific basis.
One does not say “that is in error” one says “the literature says blah blah blah, or perhaps “In his paper Blah blah blah, Dr Peterson of NC State and renown climate authority unequivocally states...... “ and cites solid material refuting what ever is desired. That allows the reader to reach a conclusion based on solid and perhaps preponderance of good solid reference material.
For extra credit, if there is a Wiki reference making the same point, the citation will amplify your point. And of course, a chart will be beneficial also. But, beware of copyright when posting graphics on Wiki.
I have not heard of Conservapedia, I’ll take a look.
Just imagine all the editing Wikipedia has done to erase all the Hillary scandals.
Here is what the author of this article observes about the Wikipedia page on Global Warming:
* The very fact that there isn’t even a single subsection on the critical scientific and philosophical reactions to the AGWT shows that there is something very wrong here.
* Even in the article entitled ‘Global warming controversy’, more incredibly, the positions and arguments of AGW sceptics/critics aren’t even displayed, let alone tackled.
* There looks like an attempt to try and make out that being sceptical about — or critical of — the AGWT is equivalent to denying the Holocaust.
* The article is keen to mention the fact that certain sceptics/critics of the AGWT are funded by big business.
This conspiratorial talk about, for example, ExxonMobil’s funding of a handful of skeptical scientists fails to mention the fact that such funding is but a drop in the ocean compared to the global pro-AGW business.
These are some of the author’s observations... he has more on the article regarding Stats & Science.
Global warming = Government funding
Now you too can live on easy street.
Surely no one believes that garbage!
Don't they teach actual science in schools anymore?
If you are knowledgeable and have solid references that disagree with those in the article, you, that is you an ordinary cotton picker, or anybody else, can add to the article. Anybody can edit a wiki piece with what ever they want. But good solid info with good reference citations is what wiki is for. That is to provide good information. A reader with the information you think should have would have both sides of the subject.
If you look closely at the end of each sub title block there is a  sign. If you click on that it will open an edit page that allows you to add what you want. To do so you must develop a log on ID and pass word. Note also there is a
History tab that indicates all the various edits since te first writing. You might want to look at that to get a feel for how people have worked on this specific piece.
Particularly good and getting brownie points is citing another wiki article that agrees with your view or reference citations. That reference calls up the url of a different article on something of interest in the article being edited.
Any way, it’s a challenge to mess with
Learning Wiki is hard for a new piece, but not so hard for editing an existing article.
True. I’d give that comment to the author.
However, this is not to say that the author’s observations about the Wiki Page on Global Warming AS IT STANDS NOW are without merit.
——— the authors observations——
There is likely more than one author. Perhaps someone has already brought a second or third point of view to the article.
Look at the “history” tab to see how many have actually been involved in the writing evolution