Sep 01 2008
Wikipedia Bias
I needed a quick reference to see how much sea levels would rise if the West Antarctic ice sheet melted. Wikipedia should do the trick, right?
Below is what someone managed to slip in quite a while ago. They included a reference to icecap.us no less.
In contrast to work done since the last period where cooling was topical, the 1970’s, satellite imagery has not conclusively verified the cryosphere is warming. On the contrary, the slow accumulation of ice around the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station appears indicative, at least for Antarctica, about what is generally occurring. The global satellite record since 1979 shows a constant area of ice until the mid 90’s where a slow decline starts until a sharp drop in 2006 and 2007, but then a sharp correction above the average area in late 2007 and 2008. Further examination shows most of this variation is in the Arctic for global ice area and the Antarctic ice area has been trending up slowly since the satellite record starts.[12] This has been confirmed in recent observations of the Earth’s rotation speeding up which can only be explained by a growing concentration of mass at the poles.[13]
Primarily, what the satellite record shows is Antarctica, given its size and being surrounded by oceans is relatively stable while the Arctic ice area varies wildly. Prior to 1910, anecdotal evidence from ships logs showed the minimum ice pack in the Arctic in 2007 was a more common occurrence. [14]
The user who wrote this has complained on their userpage of bias. Uh huh. Bias indeed. Toward crap. Itsonlysteam claims to have been “wiped and ruffed up by… William M. Connoley[sic] (statistician)[sic]“. After writing that, I should hope so. Although since it still exists, the wiping and ruffing up must have been for something else. Itsonlysteam claims this as a “successful edit“. If I didn’t have a (well-deserved) aversion to Internet volunteer projects, I might fix it myself. Instead, I just point it out here, so someone less jaded will fix it, hopefully.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Related Posts:
6 Responses to “Wikipedia Bias”
To reduce spam, comments are automatically closed 30 days after the last comment. If you would like to comment on any closed thread, please use the contact form at the top of this page.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/09/wikipedia_get_off_your_arse.php
Wikipedia is not a good resource to use, except to tell you where else to look. You need to realize whether its perspective or factoids, that Wikipedia has all kinds of issues. It’s a fun MMPORPG. But more of a social phenomenon, than a useful product. Hit the library.
The first Response is from William C, what more evidence of bias do you need?
I like Wikipedia. It’s pretty good for a lot of things that people might want to learn. (I’ve found references to a variety of animals to be accurate.) But obviously it’s less effective for things with more political weight. And, somehow, it seems like the number of those things is increasing. Am I turning into an old crank or is politics infiltrating more topics all the time?
Am I turning into an old crank or is politics infiltrating more topics all the time?
My favorite definition of ‘politics’ is: who gets, who pays?
Acknowledged widely or not, resource acquisition is becoming increasingly competitive.
That is because we are running out of resources and places to put our waste (please, no neoclassical economic arguments about supply-demand pricing). We see widespread reactions in all quarters, exemplified for me in competition for education and top colleges.
Anyway, it is not surprising to see everyday life being gamed in this way. It is competitive advantage to game the game so information is in your favor. How does information overload separate information to make it actionable?
Best,
D
Thanks Dano, I’m glad you responded to my question. It is something that I’m sincerely interested in. BTW, I looked up the colour puce today on Wikipedia (I wrongly thought it was a kind of green); there was no hint of political hankypanky — hooray wikipedia!