Wikipedia: Free Speech, Except for Global Warming
April 17, 2008 by Laura | Trackback URI
I’ve lauded Wikipedia several times for its support of free speech where Islam is concerned. Wiki continues to stick by its policy of showing Mohammed art, and has a very good writeup on Fitna. With global warming, however, one editor is abusing the system and seemingly cannot be stopped:
I undid Tabletop’s undoing of my edits, thinking I had an unassailable response: “Tabletop’s changes claim to represent Peiser’s views. I have checked with Peiser and he disputes Tabletop’s version.”
Tabletop undid my undid, claiming I could not speak for Peiser.
Why can Tabletop speak for Peiser but not I, who have his permission?, I thought. I redid Tabletop’s undid and protested: “Tabletop is distorting Peiser. She does not speak for him. Peiser has approved my description of events concerning him.”
Tabletop parried: “We have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant.”
I don’t care who you are, that’s funny. Tabletop’s “reliable source” is more reliable than Peiser himself? He is obviously keen to be represented correctly and willing to be contacted about it, if Tabletop were interested in the truth instead of dishonestly promoting a particular message.
Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I — no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone’s views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out.
By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensuring that her spin reigns supreme over all climate change pages, she has made of Wikipedia a propaganda vehicle for global warming alarmists.
Wikipedia’s zealots
This is exactly why Wikipedia will never be a really reliable source of information - until and unless there is some mechanism in place to stop this blatant abuse by agenda-driven editors.
h/t Instapundit
I faced the same thing with the second hand smoke page. You have to stick to your guns and demand mediation and arbitration.
Its just like facing a bully in the schoolyard, you just gotta stand your ground and sock him in the face.
So, wait, you’re saying that you actually resolved the problem? Wow, that’s great.
Here’s some info on Petersen/tabletop.