5 ms·

I always thought so but recently I've come to realize there are problems with Wikipedia: it's become too political. My personal gripe is with the deletion of

by raarts 7y ago

I always thought so but recently I've come to realize there are problems with Wikipedia: it's become too political. My personal gripe is with the deletion of the article that lists climate scientists that are critical of the consensus. That's an affront. There are respected scientists that are skeptical, even former IPCC members, and this tries to deny their existence. There are more problems but I'll leave that to others.

perl4ever 7y ago
Assuming facts are as you state, what does this have to do with bias on the subject of climate change? I mean, if they do or do not have a list of notable Holocaust revisionists, does it/would it indicate a position on the subject? Or might there be technical considerations?
- chrisco255 7y ago
  There are absolutely researchers skeptical of catastrophic CO2-induced climate change, Richard Lindzen, Will Happer, Judith Curry, Nakamura Mototaka, Susan Crockford, and many, many others. Curry does a great weekly summary of papers and research that are both for and against the theory that CO2 will cause catastrophic warming: https://judithcurry.com/2020/02/15/week-in-review-science-edition-118/#more-25758 https://judithcurry.com/2020/02/15/week-in-review-science-ed... The difference between historical revisionism and CO2 induced climate change theory is that one is a recorded event in human history and one is an hypothesis about how the world works. It is one for which there does not exist an empirical experiment and for which there is mixed evidence, like so much of nutrition science and psychology, it is one that warrants critical thinking and discussion.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    I'm not saying that they are similar in the sense of not being legitimate, and both should be excluded. I'm just saying I don't know whether either should be excluded, or if they are, and I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that if one or both is excluded, it's because of the viewpoints of the people being listed.
- 101404 7y ago
  That's a very ugly comparison. I have to assume you did that on purpose.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    I'm not equating them in all respects, it's just an example of something else where people disagree about whether a topic is a matter of legitimate debate, but it seems reasonable for a universal encyclopedia to not pretend proponents don't exist. My point is that I can imagine Wikipedia including both lists, and I can imagine them not including either or both, depending on some consideration other than political bias. And it's not obvious to me what they should do, nor have I bothered to see what they have done.
aaron695 7y ago
Cryptochromes may be used to sense magnetism. Some believe they might, some believe they might not. Where are the lists of theses people who believe it true in Wikipedia? Is this another affront? ==External links== is probably where I'd look for bias. Categories and the ""Part of a series on" sidebar template. But it's minor. Close to zero importance.

by raarts 7y ago

perl4ever 7y ago

Assuming facts are as you state, what does this have to do with bias on the subject of climate change? I mean, if they do or do not have a list of notable Holocaust revisionists, does it/would it indicate a position on the subject? Or might there be technical considerations?

chrisco255 7y ago
There are absolutely researchers skeptical of catastrophic CO2-induced climate change, Richard Lindzen, Will Happer, Judith Curry, Nakamura Mototaka, Susan Crockford, and many, many others. Curry does a great weekly summary of papers and research that are both for and against the theory that CO2 will cause catastrophic warming: https://judithcurry.com/2020/02/15/week-in-review-science-edition-118/#more-25758 https://judithcurry.com/2020/02/15/week-in-review-science-ed... The difference between historical revisionism and CO2 induced climate change theory is that one is a recorded event in human history and one is an hypothesis about how the world works. It is one for which there does not exist an empirical experiment and for which there is mixed evidence, like so much of nutrition science and psychology, it is one that warrants critical thinking and discussion.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  I'm not saying that they are similar in the sense of not being legitimate, and both should be excluded. I'm just saying I don't know whether either should be excluded, or if they are, and I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that if one or both is excluded, it's because of the viewpoints of the people being listed.
101404 7y ago
That's a very ugly comparison. I have to assume you did that on purpose.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  I'm not equating them in all respects, it's just an example of something else where people disagree about whether a topic is a matter of legitimate debate, but it seems reasonable for a universal encyclopedia to not pretend proponents don't exist. My point is that I can imagine Wikipedia including both lists, and I can imagine them not including either or both, depending on some consideration other than political bias. And it's not obvious to me what they should do, nor have I bothered to see what they have done.

aaron695 7y ago

Cryptochromes may be used to sense magnetism. Some believe they might, some believe they might not. Where are the lists of theses people who believe it true in Wikipedia? Is this another affront? ==External links== is probably where I'd look for bias. Categories and the ""Part of a series on" sidebar template. But it's minor. Close to zero importance.