Thunderian
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 7,515
If we’re honest, we all use Wikipedia. It’s a good place to start, and is generally about as accurate as I’ve always found encyclopedias to be, even the big smelly leather bound ones that sat on the bottom shelf and I devoured as a kid.
It’s a good indicator of the kind of gatekeeping that a part of the general consensus on climate change engages in. It’s apparently no big deal for the most prominent online collection of knowledge to delete information about an entire point of scientific view, due to a supposed lack of interest.
It’s a good warning about the nature of Wikipedia. There’s quite a lot that doesn’t make it past their alleged editors.
I am always for freedom of opinion, even if it doesn’t match my own. Shutting someone up who disagrees with you, or deleting information from an encyclopedia because it calls attention to the arguments against you, is just dishonest.
It’s a good indicator of the kind of gatekeeping that a part of the general consensus on climate change engages in. It’s apparently no big deal for the most prominent online collection of knowledge to delete information about an entire point of scientific view, due to a supposed lack of interest.
It’s a good warning about the nature of Wikipedia. There’s quite a lot that doesn’t make it past their alleged editors.
I am always for freedom of opinion, even if it doesn’t match my own. Shutting someone up who disagrees with you, or deleting information from an encyclopedia because it calls attention to the arguments against you, is just dishonest.
Wikipedia Deletes “List of Scientists who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming” - Net Zero Watch
In another disgusting indication of where climate science/debate is at today, a handful of Wikipedia editors have “voted” to delete the immensely useful and top
www.thegwpf.com