The discussion page for the Wikipedia article on the Discovery Institute has a couple of interesting flags up on it:
The subject of this article, Discovery Institute, has edited Wikipedia as
User:216.163.84.151 (talk ⢠contribs).
The subject of this article, Discovery Institute, has edited Wikipedia as
Truthologist (talk ⢠contribs).
What it all means is that somebody at the Discovery Institute, using the pseudonym “Truthologist” (hah! Irony strikes again!) has been busily revising the entry describing the Discovery Institute. Since Casey Luskin has previously put Wikipedia “on notice”, it’s not surprising that they’d sneak around to try and make changes, but it certainly is pathetic.
I like the name, tho’. The notion of the DI formally studying ‘truthology’ paints such an amusing picture for me. I’m picturing Chapman, on the phone:
“‘Truth’, huh?
“Interesting… interesting…
“No, never heard of it. Must be a new field. Let’s put someone on it.”
“Oh, no, just the one. Probably just a theory, anyway.”
Perhaps a “Truthologist” is one who studies and espouses Truthiness.
This is a great line from the Wikipedia thread near the end after they discover that the IP address used by “Truthologist” comes from the Discovery Institute.
(Yes, they are that stupid.)
“Well now we know that Truthologist has been less than truthful. Editing all the Discovery Institute related articles, while moaning how POV* they are, violating every policy, and hiding the fact you are associated with the Discovery Institute is not a good example of Christian truthology.”
*POV Point of View, not Pile of Vomit, although in the case of the DI one could argue…
Imagine that, the DI using underhanded tactics while claiming that their opposition are evil.
Ah, “Truthologist” is obviously just a damnable pun on
“Truth” + “logos” = “I study the True Word of God, sucka!”
Typical.
Attempts to engage in serious discussion of the actions of the Discovery Institute is missing the point; they aren’t serious or honest people.
Still, this idea of Wikipedia’s that people or entities should not contribute to or edit their own entries strikes me as odd. True, some people will do so dishonestly, but (as this example shows) the dishonest will likely continue to do so despite being told not to; and likely some of them, although apparently not the D.I., will do so competently and thus their connection to the subject will escape scrutiny.
Why not edit your own entry? After all, your perspective may be highly skewed, but your fact base is likely to be unexcelled; and if people were encouraged (or permitted) to explicitly edit their own entries, their bias could be more effectively controlled for.
Actually all that is known right now is that the DI unreverted some of Truthologist’s edits, and that Truthologist is pushing the DI POV hard.
We *don’t* know that the anonymous User:216.163.84.151 is the same person as Truthologist, nor that Truthologist is employed by the DI or their PR firm — although given how he’s ducking and weaving on his own user talk page trying to avoid giving an answer to that question, I’d be willing to lay money on Truthologist and User:216.163.84.151 being one and the same.
your wikipedia links are broken (you transposed the i and the d)
I suspect that the reason to not have people edit their own entries has more to do with credibility than with accuracy. Both are important. I think that people should be able to add a link to their own site, though, if they want to be able to present their own side of the story.
Since the DI does have a link to their site on the Wikipedia entry, they can put whatever they want on their “about” page. There is no reason to compromise the credibility of the Wikipedia entry by having DI edit it.
Personally I think that the worst thing the subject of a Wikipedia article could do is be seen editing that article. It could far too easily be taken for vanity, spin, or suppression of opposing views. If the subject is such a fringe figure that absolutely no contributors will stand up for him/her/it, then maybe an unflattering article is deserved (witness that even the DI has supporters on WP). In that situation I would take any comments or grievances to the talk page and arbitration if that failed.
What I don’t understand (and think causes more problems) is Wikipedia’s policy of allowing anonymous edits. Surely registering a fixed nym and a few personal details visible only to site admin does not put a contributor at risk of harassment, or compromise free access?
I do believe that the “expert” witness in a recent Simpsons episode on creationism in public school was introduced to the court as someone with a degree in “truthology”. Could they say that if it weren’t true?
Dude, people actually use the phrase “on notice”? I thought that was just a joke from Colbert! Does it have some special meaning to Americans?
Yes, the phrase “on notice” was around long before Colbert used it. It usually is used by authority figures to notify subordinates that they are this close to being in big trouble.
That letter writer was clearly a bible thumper. And I seriously doubt he was an engineer. Probably a janitorial engineer which is what they use in some places in order to keep the word from becoming a dirty word like ‘gay.’
MYOB’
.
Typical.
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/usatoday.html
http://wikipediareview.com/
The best thing about that Casey Luskin blog entry is that the book he’s pimping features the famous da Vinci anatomical drawing on the cover… with the naughty bits blacked out.
The best thing about that Casey Luskin blog entry is that the book he’s pimping features the famous da Vinci anatomical drawing on the cover… with the naughty bits blacked out.
Oh my glob what a freaking loser. You know Lyin’ Luskin reads this blog, too, between prayer sessions. I can’t wait until the turd gets his due.
This is a very sad thing to see coming from a non religious organization like the Discovery Institute. I’m sure they have the best intentions and all, but somebody should really tell those guys that they are giving all the other secular organizations a bad reputation.
Too pathetic for words.
“Why not edit your own entry? After all, your perspective may be highly skewed, but your fact base is likely to be unexcelled;”
Well, it depends on what you think “facts” are, doesn’t it?
“Well, it depends on what you think “facts” are, doesn’t it?”
Don’t the typical staffmembers of DI think that “facts” are the Devil’s flashcards?
Wikipedia is like a microcosm of the Web as a whole. In theory, any one can contribute, and it’s a good source for quick and dirty facts. You want to know the capital of Uganda, or a basic timeline of the history of Greece? Wikipedia will give it to you. You want a detailed description of the TV series Lost complete with episode summaries and character bios? Wikipedia is your source. Would I ever consider it a reliable source for academic research? How can you cite something that can be changed at any moment?
“In opposition to the spirit of Wikipedia, I believe there is such a thing as expertise.” -Tycho, Penny-arcade.com
That said, I think the Wiki technology is one of the greatest developments of the internet, and have seen it work quite excellently on a small scale, with a restricted group of editors committed to the same, limited goal.
I figure if you have something you want to contribute to your own article, post it on the discussion page. If nobody else reads the discussion page, you aren’t important enough to have an article.
Stanton wrote:
I think PZ should add that to his list of random quotes! :-D
Sysadmin-type geek de-lurking
Re: query as to whether 216.163.84.151 was somebody from the DI.
216.163.84.151 is firewall.discovery.org
Regards all….
L753
Lurking device reactivated…
And we can be certain that PZ and his atheist cohorts have never edited any of these articles.
Right, PZ?
Right?
Following that link to Luskin’s post, I had to laugh at the notion put forth by Paul Stone that the concept of “survival of the fittest” should also apply to ideas.
The problem being, of course, that the qualities which make ideas appealing to the uneducated masses (and that render them more likely to “survive”) have absolutely no connection to whether or not they are true.
I mean, come on – in the absence of scientific knowledge, how many people would really choose “life as we know it is the result of of unguided natural processes, with no deeper meaning or point” over “an all-powerful father figure created us all and loves us all, and promises eternal bliss as long as we follow his rules here on earth?”
Oh well, what should I expect? Stone is just another engineer who thinks that makes him an expert.
Right, PZ?
Right?
Are you hoping to increase your odds of getting an answer by asking a question twice?
Twice?
“And we can be certain that PZ and his atheist cohorts have never edited any of these articles.
Right, PZ?
ight?”
Not about themselves. I’m sure atheists have written about other atheists, but that’s not really the point, is it. Does Jesus think that two wrongs would make a right? Depends on your view of ‘an eye for an eye’, I suppose.
I prefer my undiluted bullshit to at least be funny.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Now off to edit wikipedia entries! I hear the sasquatch entry has be edited malicously edited to make bigfoot hunters look like kooks.
Thats nothing new – Walter ReMine has been editing and manipulating material at the Wiki’s ‘Haldane’s Dilemma’ page for some time. The guy apparently just sits by his computer waiting for people to add some relaity checks to his rant, as he rushes in to undo any editing within hours in most cases.
It is pretty pathetic, but it is good to see that the objectivity of the page has been officially questioned.
And we can be certain that PZ and his atheist cohorts have never edited any of these articles.
Well, I can be sure that I never have. But add “under idiotically transparent cloak-and-dagger pseudonymns like Truthologist” and you have the rest of us covered, Janice. Right?
Right?
BTW, over here is a decent talk about Wikipedia and reliability.
Maybe what they need is both a server that lets you look back at “prior” versions of the page, so you can see what changed, and more to the point, clear info on “who” changed it. That way, if you want to see what DI changed, you can, and contrast that with the real facts. Same with other things. And of course, if wikipedia ever decided to be more strict, they could have “official” versions of the page that have had their facts authenticated, along side of all the BS garbage the nuts tried to change it too. ;)
Of course, then you have to have third party authentication and clear data on who did it, and what affiliations they might have, which could bias their authentication… Sigh.. What a mess.
that feature more or less exists
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute&action=history
“Following that link to Luskin’s post, I had to laugh at the notion put forth by Paul Stone that the concept of “survival of the fittest” should also apply to ideas.”
The concept of the market of ideas isn’t new. The model is that good ideas, or at least good scientists :-), are followed by more work while uninteresting ideas isn’t. It is not, as noted here, that ideas is put to a vote by nonscientists.
Well if you go to Truthologist’s user page (linked above), they have this to say:
“I hold a PhD in Truthology from the Christian Truthological Seminary (a non-accredited degree mill) in Truthville, USA. (*wink, wink*)”
I’m so confused! Is this irony or parody?
Bahahaha, I love it when they get caught doing crap like this: it’s so much more obvious than all of their more subtle forms of dishonesty.
It reminds me of the time Dembski himself got caught trying to anonymously post a negative review of some biology or information theory book on Amazon.ca, while plugging a link to his own book.
So sad that these supposed Christians would resort to such underhanded and deceptive tactics to push their agendas. Oh well, at least they suck at it.
There isn’t anything wrong here. Wikipedia functions precisely by inviting everyone to make edits and to discuss on the Talk pages. The perceived authority of the editors is not important, the quality of the edits is.
I wasn’t aware that Wiki doesn’t allow people to edit pages about themselves. This strikes me as odd because it invites bias against them. For example, I’m no fan of William Dembski but was a tad shocked to see just how slanted against him the Wiki page about him is.
If you go for a neutral POV as in an encyclopedia, selfedits are naturally out.
The problem with Dembski’s page is that it is far too detailed for the general reader. It seems more slanted to those poor souls that needs to tangle with his misconceptions on and in science. For example, why else would the blog and DaveScot material be there?
OTOH I lack something about Dembski’s style that is immediate apparent when reading him – his inability to define something unambigiously and stick to it during an argument or paper. (Trying out new definitions when the old didn’t work is of course permissible. But one need to explore the definition first!) This isn’t the only reason that he can’t produce anything sensible of course, but it is the most obvious reason why he isn’t interested in science for real. Alas, he feels free from “the pathetic level of detail” science need to handle.
The perceived authority of the editors is not important, the quality of the edits is.
LOL.
and how does one judge the quality of the edits, eh?
it’s more like perceived quality with no reference to authority.