UPDATE: The final version of Cla68′s request is here. As predicted his request was declined.
I periodically check what is happening over at Wikipedia w.r.t. Climate Change and the politics that appear there. There have been a number of people who were topic banned in the most recent Arbitration Case on Climate Change. Slowly people have been requesting lifting of those bans on a case by case basis. The results are both predictable and ideologically biased. No surprise there.
The current case involves User:Cla68 who got caught up in the climate arbitration after he had attempted to improve the Climate Change articles in much the same way he approaches his editing elsewhere on the project: by following the rules, seeking consensus, and most importantly seeking to keep the articles neutral.
Well as anyone who has followed the Wikipedia wars over climate change knows, seeking neutrality puts one directly in the sights of the ideologically driven climate cabal. This is how Cla68 found himself in his current predicament.
I believe that Cla68 is not even a denier of AGW, nor were most of the people who received topic bans, but I believe that he is the first who would have been called a skeptic to seek the lifting of his ban.
As I have noted in previous posts the ideologically driven alarmists have remained true to form as various people have sought the lifting of their bans. Using User:William M. Connolley as an exemplar for all such individuals we can see the insidious manner in which the prevailing bias is maintained. As I have noted earlier WMC has been uniformly supportive of the lifting of the topic bans for like minded individuals, whereas he continues to reject any efforts to allow even neutral editors such as Cla68 to return to editing the topic area. Even those who supported his own return.
So once again the bias is laid bare for all to see. You cannot trust the Climate Change articles on Wikipedia to provide an unbiased view of the topic because only the ideologically pure AGW supporting editors are able to contribute to the encyclopedia that “anyone can edit.”
GR, this is a good post. I would suggest contacting Anthony Watts and seeing if you can do a guest post there for wider exposure. In my opinion, this is one of the worst cases of the cynical hypocrisy of the Wikipedia community that I’ve seen. I noted this issue on Jimmy Wales’ talk page too.
By: Alex Harvey on March 21, 2012
at 5:34 am
Wikipedia is controlled and censored by radical leftists, who ban anyone who repeatedly adds true, reliably sourced info that disagrees with the ideas of the radical left. I have written several posts about wikipedia’s bias and censorship.
By: danfromsquirrelhill on June 29, 2012
at 11:41 am
You want to see a laugh, go to the talk page for r/K Selection Theory. Way back, some guy postulated r/K could be used to describe racial differences. Nobody even knows about his work, and those who do think it is either fringe work or wrong.
But the Lib editing the r/K article hates it so much he wrote the entire r/K article saying r/K had been soundly debunked. I guess if r/K has been debunked, then the racial guy’s theory is really wrong. The only problem is r/K hasn’t been debunked, and is still being taught in every major university’s biology course, since it is a useful means to view reproductive behaviors.
Which will all make for interesting debates in classrooms, where I am sure professors are going to be told they are teaching a debunked subject.
Of course, after saying r/K is debunked, the guy makes a point of saying all humans are so highly K there is no way to say they are r on the talk page. Which is funny because even the guy saying r/K doesn’t exist still classifies species as r or K, indicating he still believes in it.
Gotta love the politically correct scientist.
By: Anonymous on June 29, 2012
at 2:18 pm