Wednesday, October 25, 2006

The Great Wikipedia Scandal!

Uncle Fetzer explains how the coverup goes even deeper than we thought. This just goes to show that anyone can be gotten to!

15 Comments:

At 26 October, 2006 01:10, Blogger Richard said...

Wait? So wikipedia isn't a reliable and accurate source for information? Why do I always find this stuff out after everyone else!

 
At 26 October, 2006 01:48, Blogger Peephole said...

Lol, Fetzer doesn't know how something works so he blames it on the government.

 
At 26 October, 2006 04:42, Blogger remdem said...

Wait, I used to muck about wikipedia! I used to create articles for wikipedia! Dammit, where is my government check?! It took a long time to create DisinfoPedia.

 
At 26 October, 2006 06:33, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

Dude needs a handkerchief. This is Fetzer's attempt at NPOV by the way:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesWikipedia.html

Clearly someone got to the Wikipedians. His rewriting of the criticism section to remove the bit about their having no experts in their list of experts is particuilarly unbiased.

 
At 26 October, 2006 10:55, Blogger remdem said...

From Fetzer's website:

"The objection has also been raised that articles described on the web site by David Ray Griffin, Steven E. Jones, and James H. Fetzer as "peer reviewed" have not appeared in any scientific journals. These papers, however, have been extensively subjected to review by anonymous experts on these issues and are going to appear in forthcoming books."

Still waiting for that peer review, eh? Oh, but you see, they already were, apparantly! You just didn't notice because you're sheep, and sheep don't have the binocular vision required to surf the internet and notice such things!

Oh man, for a minute there I was worried they'd just let any ol' person be an expert on 9/11, as long as they agreed with them. Good thing they proved me wrong.

 
At 26 October, 2006 11:18, Blogger tym said...

Ironic since the ST 9 11 page on wiki is basically a commercial advertisement which glosses over significant criticism of the members and theories involved.


Wikipedia is reliable enough for any innocuous boring matters. If I wanna find out the population of alaska in under 60 seconds or the ethnic breakdown, it work great....

But for anything where there is room for debate, the scales get tilted and the info just doesn't hold up to a true encyclopedia.

The only thing less worse the the cult of wiki (the admins and loyalists who swear by the format and it's accuracy) are the people who dismiss it entirely out of hand as being completely useless.

Like everything on the internet...it has to be taken with a grain of salt.

 
At 26 October, 2006 12:34, Blogger Triterope said...

One of the most dishonest things the "scholars" do is try to twist the meaning of "peer review."

Peer review works a lot of different ways, but one of the key points is that you don't get to pick who's doing the reviewing. Yet that is precisely what the "scholars" do: the conspiracy theories are reviewed solely by other conspiracy theorists, and then declared "peer reviewed."

If their scientific claims about 9/11 could stand up to scrutiny, Fetzer et al would have no difficulty getting their claims published in an existing journal, like the guy from Northwestern did.

A real peer-reviewed article in a real scientific journal would be a tremendous boon to the 9/11 conspiracy movement. But they do not even pursue it, preferring instead to invent their own journals and avoid objective review at all costs. And that is the fatal blow to their credibility.

 
At 26 October, 2006 13:04, Blogger shawn said...

Wikipedia is quite kind to all the nutjobs, I've tried to edit them to be more accurate and have been shut down in my attempts.

 
At 26 October, 2006 13:38, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Priceless:

Peer reviewed by ANONYMOUS experts. Oh, oh, can I be one. I'd like to be a...a...an expert on Quantum Mechanics. Now all you people who want your quantum mechanics papers "officially peer reviewed" send them to me at..

youstupidclowns@scholaridiots911.org

smirk

TAM

 
At 26 October, 2006 13:40, Blogger CHF said...

Fetzer's playing dumb as to what "peer review" is.

Peer review is when you give your work to experts in the related fields to see if it stands up to analysis.

Twoofers know this, yet folks like Stephen Jones refuse to submit their work for real review.

Why?

Because it would be torn to shreds.

 
At 26 October, 2006 13:41, Blogger CHF said...

These papers, however, have been extensively subjected to review by anonymous experts on these issues

And why must they be anonymous, Mr. Fetzer?

 
At 26 October, 2006 16:11, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

And why must they be anonymous, Mr. Fetzer?

This is actually pretty standard for academic journals. The problem being that if you're trying to show that your field has any basis in reason it's rather best to start sending your work to established reputable journals first so as to establish the merit of your work. Also best if the chaps in charge of your spiffing new journal are somewhat trustworthy and not obviously biased.

Plus if there is such a pool of legitimate experts (and their ranks are so resplendent with experts after all) willing to perform peer review for the ST 911 journal it's extremely unusual that they're not weighing in on any of the issues, particularly when the peer review is called into account. I'd also suggest that anonymous peer review would be hampered by the very limited number of people writing for the journal.

And heck that's before we even get to the appalling quality of the articles, which suggest the peer review isn't rigorous and isn't done by experts, if at all.

I guess my point here is that Wikipedia itself is a better source

 
At 26 October, 2006 16:41, Blogger Dog Town said...

Noticed Wiki still lists S.Jones as a Prof of BYU. That is no longer the case. Sound like they're up on the deal!

 
At 26 October, 2006 18:06, Blogger Alex said...

Hopefully wikipedia will become irrelevant soon anyway, once The Citizendium Project starts moving at full steam.

 
At 26 October, 2006 18:36, Blogger James B. said...

It is standard for reviewers to be anonymous, the problem is the journal itself has no reputation for reliability. It is a joke when the editor of a journal (Kevin Ryan) is in charge of setting up a peer review by "anonymous experts" for the other editor of the journal, Steven Jones, who appointed him to the position in the first place, on a paper they both worked on.

We have no way of knowing the reputation of who did the review. It could have been his 8 year old nephew, and judging by the quality of work, it probably was.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home