Anthony Watts has sent his troops to rewrite the Wikipedia entry for his blog. wattsupwiththat (archived here). He says he's not allowed to do it himself because of bias. But he thinks his biased fans are allowed to do so I guess. His headline was "The sad tales of the Wikipedia gang war regarding WUWT – ‘creepy and a little scary’". Poor Anthony - the creep is creeped out.
Anthony decided to go to what he calls gang warfare, calling up his gang. He wrote: "As we all know, Wikipedia has one major flaw in it’s design: it allows gang warfare." And Anthony tried to exploit that major flaw. Wikipedia has safeguards against gang warfare, which Anthony probably didn't know about.
The WUWT Wikipedia article opens with the line:
Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change denial[a] created in 2006 by Anthony Watts.For a very short time, one of his biased fans managed to change it to: "Wattsupwiththat is a blog dedicated to climate science." (It was reverted back too quickly for me to get a screen shot.)
The Wikipedians are onto Anthony, with a note that "This page linked from WUWT, requesting his viewers sway consensus: new section", not long before the page was semi-protected. The Wiki editors noted that this was because there was a "sudden arrival of all these brand new accounts" - presumably all out to do Anthony's bidding.
Here is what Anthony wrote:
So, since this is a numbers game, and because anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, I ask WUWT readers to help out in this matter. Here’s some instructions on how to do so, including the official Wikipedia instructions. You can make edits after you create an account.
He thinks he can control Wikipedia the same way he "won" his prizes in the dismal Bloggie awards - by sheer weight of numbers. I think this time he'll have a battle on his hands. Wikipedia is not the Bloggies.
I don’t “deny” climate change or global warming, it is clear to me that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable. I also believe that increasing amounts of CO2 in Earths atmosphere are a component of that warming, but that CO2 is not the only driver of climate as some would have us believe. However, what is in dispute (and being addressed by mainstream climate science) is climate sensitivity to CO2 as well as the hiatus in global warming, also known as “the pause”. Since I embrace the idea of warming and that CO2 is a factor, along with other drivers including natural variability, the label “denier” is being applied purely for the denigration value, and does not accurately reflect my position on climate.
That paragraph puts him fairly and squarely in the denial camp. However the article isn't about him. It's about his blog, wattsupwiththat. And WUWT is most definitely a denier blog. Almost every science press release that Anthony posts, the headline is prefaced with the word "claim", meaning it's to be denied. And the articles he posts are almost all from science deniers, and include wacky conspiracy theories, pseudo-science crackpottery and more.
For more evidence that WUWT is a climate science denial blog, you don't need to look any further than the WUWT comments. Or you can go to harder evidence. A while back he took a poll of his readers, that showed that 98.4% of them are fake sceptics, or climate science deniers.
There's more. While Anthony is willing to tell a big fat lie about William Connolley (in the same article), he urges his readers to "please stick to facts, not opinions". Which is a very strange request, coming from a blogger who favours opinions far more highly than facts. (Rather than being "disgraced" as Anthony Watts alleged, William Connolley is a Master Editor II and active on Wikipedia.)
The funny thing is that Anthony wrote:
The citations list on the WUWT Wikipedia page reads like a “who’s-who” of haters.Here are some of the "haters" on the citations list:
- Fred Pearce - whose quote Anthony prominently displays on his blog
- Anthony Watts quoting Anthony Watts
- Christopher Booker
- Alexa - which Anthony loved to cite until his ranking started dropping
- Matt Ridley
- The Bloggies - that Anthony got his followers to vote him in as winner, multiple times
From the WUWT comments
Gamecock tells Anthony to run to the guvmint and sue. He doesn't say what he thinks is false information. (With a name like Gamecock he's got to be a he.)
May 25, 2015 at 6:37 am
Perhaps I’m naïve, but it seems to me Wikipedia is libel for publishing known false information. I should think you could contact them and they would fix it. Just as Youtube removes improper postings. Once notified of a bad posting, Wikipedia owns it.
wickedwenchfan wonders what the fuss is all about
May 25, 2015 at 6:52 am
To be fair, this is a site where “deniers” like myself also come to get a fair hearing and meet like minded thinkers. That you, Anthony, are personally a “Luke warmer” who believes there is something called a ‘greenhouse effect’ when many on here don’t, is by the by.
I personally embrace the term “denier”, regardless of attempted Nazi connotations. It’s a badge of honour. Yes, I deny there is a Greenhouse Effect. Yes, I deny rising CO2 has any measurable effect on temperature of this planet or any other. Now prove me wrong!
TLM thinks it's fair enough but thinks that WUWT's denial is just an opinion:
May 25, 2015 at 7:03 am
The problem with the whole Wikipedia entry is that it is written from the perspective of the MSM, the political left and the alarmist blogs and papers. There are loads of entries from the Guardian and references to “denial”, “denialism” and “denialist” (what is the difference between a “denier” and a “denialist” I wonder?). The only way to make this entry even slightly truthful would be to delete it all and start from scratch.
I think it is quite fair that the entry should include a reference to the fact that much of the MSM sees you as a “denier”, but the way it is presented is that it is a “fact” that you are a denier. Clearly this is opinion and not fact and should be stated as such.
Rather than changing the text I think it should be edited to flag up those parts of the entry which are clearly opinion and politics not fact.