tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post7802961832795156985..comments2024-03-27T23:59:49.801+00:00Comments on Stoat: Wikipedia: the dim and distant history of NPOVWilliam M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-56309079218299305092020-07-15T09:22:02.853+00:002020-07-15T09:22:02.853+00:00The he-said-she-said stuff was always against poli...The he-said-she-said stuff was always against policy, and so would inevitably be displaced as wiki got more "professional". By that I don't mean that more professional climatologists edited it, I mean that people with a more exact leaning to the rules came along; and as existing people became more aware of the rules; and learnt to write that way.<br /><br />BTW, don't let me give the impression that it was all HSSS in the early days; it was but a tendency.<br /><br />The change to "pro GW" was inevitable, given the gradual firming up of the science in that direction, as best exemplified by the increasing confidence of successive IPCC reports. The early "skeptic" stuff was largely FUD; as the light shone in, it mostly just evaporated.<br /><br />As to what I'd have said in 2005, I don't think that is an answerable question.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-20051560937815045402020-07-14T21:57:48.482+00:002020-07-14T21:57:48.482+00:00Was it inevitable that the he-said, she-said appro...Was it inevitable that the he-said, she-said approach on the topic of climate change would over time be displaced by an approach whereby "pro-GW" content dominated climate change-related articles? <br /><br />If I had asked you in 2005 or 2010, how confident would you have been that Wikipedia articles would ultimately clearly depict the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change and devote very little space to climate change denial rhetoric? Was there a serious risk that Wikipedia could have firmly adopted a "proponents of GW say X, skeptics of GW say Y" approach (which was common in the media at the time)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com