Obvious but disturbing none the less....
 

Now most long time TFPers know I'm a global warming skeptic and as some know I actually hold a degree in Ecology, so I'm not just some internet guy who likes to talk about things he has no training on but has strong opinions.

This is not really a post about that, but its why it caught my attention when I saw this story on another web site.

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_p...?id=440268&p=1

My emotions on this are sort of mixed. Obviously any thing that is open to edits is open to this sort of thing, its something of an internet joke about trusting wikkipedia for any information. On the other hand, despite understanding that such behavior is possible I am still angered with this sort of thing going on. I have to admit I've used wikkipedia as a basic source before while posting on TFP. Mostly because its easy to use, easy to quote, normally 'seems' plausible, and I have a life beyond posting on the internet. I don't want to spend the hours its takes to find original source material for posts that will be most likely ignored anyways, and even if hotly debated, is still just something for my own personal entertainment. So I use it and it seems ok for most topics. I have to wonder if this is why not too long ago I had a very hard time finding anything on wikkipedia useful on solar cycles and the earths temperature.

But I think this article helps show where we are heading with the information age. Policy will be decided by those who can shape the information, put it as first hits on the search engines, and whos causes have people with nothing better to do than edit sites like wikkipedia, or post basically propaganda on various message boards under the guise of 'concerned citizen'. Something I have been accused of here myself which is amusing since we have a 'democrat operative' who only posts in political themed threads already on tfp.

In the end I have to wonder if the liberation of information which is what so many people feel the information age is about is really just a transformation from the prepackaged news of the past into a more insidious concealed propaganda for the hearts and minds of the voter at the level of source information.

I'd like to think the public was smart enough to figure it out, and obviously most TFPers are, but then I have people working for me which in their 20's do not know that Europe is not a single country (I asked them for the hell of it recently) who constantly 'research' stuff on the internet. Votes like those are as 'good' as yours and mine.

Its rather depressing.

My trust in Wikipedia disappeared after Ryan 'Essjay' Jordan was outed by the New Yorker. This was a man who claimed to be a tenured professor with two Masters' degrees, but in reality was a college dropout.

Wikipedia relies on anonymous individuals and anonymous editors with unverified credentials. The fact that they have free reign to push any agenda as they please makes them completely unreliable, even as a starting point for research. Jimmy Wales disinterest in correcting this situation only means that they will continue to have no legitimacy in my book.

I'm not sure how to reply to this. I agree and disagree.

On the issue as a whole, I sympathize. I too think it's distressing that there are people out there willing to spend a dramatic amount of time editing things to fit their world view, and it's especially concerning when it's things I'm interested on. My only consolation is knowing that it's just an effect of allowing psuedo-anonymous editing by anyone. I know that things will be slanted to the right and slanted to the left, and I can at least see who slanted it. Before the "information revolution" of the Internet, it was a lot harder to see the history of distortion by an individual - Wikipedia history allows this.

I'm also comforted by the fact that this man's address in the newspaper will probably generate a lot of interest about that article. It might even get locked or given the same "correction" attention from someone on your side of the fence. All "Kim Dabelstein Petersen" needs to match her is someone who will modify as often as she will. Soon, someone will "win."

On your final point, though, I have to disagree:

While the example above is one example of "concealed propaganda," I really don't feel like it's an identifier of a systemic problem in the Internet. There is a LOT of information out there on the vast Internet that isn't available through the "prepackaged news of the past," and that amount will only continue to increase. At least now I can get all the different slants and arrive at my own conclusion, somewhere in the middle. Before, I was left guessing what the opinion of the wacky contingent on the other side was thinking.

Also, Forums like this one help me have faith that there really is a liberation of information on the Internet. While nothing we say might be entirely factual, entirely without bias or even very convincing, we can at least discuss current events beyond the 2 or 3 people gathered around a TV or newspaper. I can hear perspectives from Iceland, California, Africa, and even Yemen when I'm on TFP. Never before could someone do that, even on something so simple as day-to-day politics.

It's kind of tragic, because I WANT a communally-edited document to be more reliable than a monolithic source of information. In theory it ought to be. But Wikipedia is very easily gamed by those with sufficient motivation.

The new world, where if enough people say 2 + 2 = 5, then it is so. Whoever controls the information controls the "truth" and you just have to decide where you get your "truth" from.

Google is a lot like Wikipedia, except people trust it more. There are tons of people out there whose job is to manipulate web content so that it appeals to Google better. What this means is that Google does not serve the most reliable information, it only serves the information that matches its requirements of format and authority. If I were so inclined, I could write a false story, format it for a specific keyword, create trusted authority by linking to it, and watch as Google eats it up and serves it back to everyone searching for information on that keyword.

The point is to believe none of what you read and only half of what you see.

We're in a time where information is a big deal. We have to protect ourselves.

I'd be less concerned if it was only limited to an open editing site like wikkipedia, but I will assume that many special interest groups/political agendas already have people out to spread the faith so to speak in less obvious places.

i just read through the entire saga, including all the comments on the fj site and the relevant media watch australia pages (andrew bolt is well known as being far right and media watch as part of the abc has been constantly criticized for being far left and both are constantly at each other´s throat) and my only thought on the matter is it´s another case of ´who´ll police the police?´

The only difference between now and then is that there is more information available. There will always be people who speak loudly and inaccurately and there will always be people who believe them. The more things change the more they stay the same.

You're a dentist with a degree in ecology? That seems like an odd combination.

I, on the other hand, am a guy who just likes to talk about stuff he has no training in. Training is over-rated.

You'd think a degree in physics or chemistry would be of more use than a degree in ecology as far as global warming is concerned.

I was even at Earth Day 1992 :thumbsup:

I was only there for the speeches because two hippie chicks we met that night before came and woke a buddy and myself up to go.

The ugly one wanted me :sad: and I had to listen to Jesse Jackson speak :grumpy:

So imagine being hung over, tired, eating dry fruit loops out of a empty beer stein listening to Jesse Jackson speak on subject matter he has no idea about while an unattractive hippie chick hits on you. By this point I already tried to point out to a male earth day hippie that no, nuclear power does NOT cause CO2 build up in the atmosphere (yes they even had a booth to claim that nuclear power caused global warming) That was my day. It was so surreal it was worth it as a memory :thumbsup:

Ah college.

I went on to do some post graduate work, but finally decided they were all nuts and went on to dental school instead. Since I had to have all the basic biology requirements for my ecology degree and even worked in a genetics lab for a couple of years its not a stretch to get into dental school from there.

Actually I think Geology would have a better grasp than either of them if you had to pick a 'best to analyze' as a solo degree, but its too big a question for just one discipline to look at all potentials, but thanks for your concern :thumbsup:

No matter what the source, doubt it. Do not take any source as the One And Only.

Wikipedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Nature, The Lancet, etc, etc, etc... There is no reality from one source. Reality comes from many sources and the 'qualifications' a person may hold really entitle them only to members of a certain school of group-think (generally).

Wikipedia is convenient for many things, but it's pretty easy to spot its flaws and strengths with some other searches - either through google, directory sites (looking for opposing views) or.... or... or... yeah.

Anyway.

Wikipedia is, for the vast majority of its content IMO, very much on the money.

Nothing and no-one is without flaw.

Doubt everything.

Trust no one.

what tisonlyi said.
i was going to post it earlier, but i got derailed by the "o this is only a gateway into this larger problem" thing in the op.
it's kinda funny--if you accept that wikipedia, like any other information source at all anywhere--can be problematic, you also tacitly accept the set-up.
whatever.

X.

Trust everyone, until they prove themselves completely untrustworthy.

HIPPYISM!

Also, one very good thing about wikipedia, if you in any way think the article is misleading, is the "discussion" tab - which will usually inform you of any and all dissenting opinions on the subject.

Unless it's a completely obscure piece of arcane trivia...

Unstable losing strategy, and I'm talking mathematically. Over all the best is trust everyone until they are proven untrustworthy once.

As an informed person, this is fine, but the undereducated masses are what concern me. Even people with a 'good' education on paper are often lacking outside of their particular field and fall prey to what sounds good and they are told is correct. If one does not understand the controversy they wouldn't look for it.

Edit: Hehe looking at the page, apparently the higher ups are not happy this made the national press. On the other hand if I knew nothing of the controversy I wouldn't be sure what all the hubbub was about reading that page.

A bit of a threadjack, but while we're on the subject ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai.../eatree117.xml

We can argue all day about why it is happening or if it is happening or what is causing it... But what I want to know is does anybody have a plan if things do go bad (regardless of who did it). What happens if 1 billion people need to move away from the coast (I wonder if the tundra in Canada and Russia thaws out, could it soak up a lot of the water...) What happens if there is a year when we have a really bad harvest? How long would it take to correct problems in the future if they happen?

If we have a plan and we are prepared for the worst, then we will be ok.

Do we have a plan for the Supervolcano in Yellowstone erupting?
Do we have a plan for Las Palmas causing a massive tidal wave on the east coast?
Do we have a plan for an asteroid hit?

There comes a point where you stop planning and deal with it as it comes. If we KNEW that say an asteroid was going to hit the pacific ocean in 10 years we could plan and the expense would be worth it, but if there is only a chance that at SOME point in the next 20 million years there will be an asteroid strike, good luck trying to convince people to build that underground city with special solient green goodness.

This does bother me.

Maybe they should limit the number of chances, per person, per day or week.

Because anybody who has the time or inclination to do huge numbers of edits is likely to be somewhat of a nut (in my view). At the very least, they're not participating in a profession - something I'd expect from an educated/informed source.

Sadly, I have to say that the wikipedia model has serious limitations.

why? i don't think they should limit the quantity

The only limitation is that for some reason many take it as truth.
Just like anything else you made read or trust in, you ave to understand the source.
It should, in theory, be more turthful or less biased then any other single source of information.

My point is that every source has issues.
What should be trusted? I don't know.

I'm a gas man. That is I work in the natural gas distribution industry, nominally in IT, but directing strategic development for operations. My degree, though, is in Physical Geography, Area of concentration being Climatology.

I've been a long time sceptic of global warming as it relates to the current orthodoxy (or should I say scientific McCarthyism) simply because we were educated, trained, or indoctrinated to understand that global climactic systems are always changing. The cycles are sometimes measured in hundreds of years, or in aeons. The current debate rages around if the perceived climactic oscillations are the result of man's influence, or part of the natural order.

I suspect that there's a little of both involved and while there is nothing wrong with attempting make ecological concessions to further the green agenda, human SCM systems are much more variable than climactic systems and can have real impacts. Witness the sudden food shortage and the direct links to ethanol production.

Or is this another conspiracy? I would hope that debate can occur in any forum, even Wikipedia, but the witch hunt can be dispensed with. Do we not learn from past experiences???