I made it into a recent article in The New Yorker. Predictably enough its not about science, but about wikipedia. Whats interesting about it is how hard internal wiki “politics” are for outsiders to understand. Despite talking to the author several times, and a fact-checker, the overall tone of the piece is wrong, as it concerns my bit. I doubt I can explain…
So… I wasn’t a victim of an edit war, it was various articles that were the victims. Curiously enough, it was the greenhouse effect article that ended up as the chief battleground, and quite bizarrely not over any kind of anthropogenic stuff, but over whether greenhouses warm by the greenhouse effect (they don’t).
Connolley believes that Wikipedia “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about,” is true but misleading… its pretty well policy, and mostly it works. The reason its still true is mostly that it mostly works, also that people are suspicious of having to bow to experts, and also because there is no obvious procedure for certifying “experts” or any consensus on what is an expert. I wrote Experts_and_wiki which is rather out of date now, and was always a mess.
Mind you, if you want an example of something thats wrong with wikipedia, then Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/Anthropogenic global warming would do nicely.