International Climate Science Coalition Gets Lost In Translation

The German Freie Welt has a short piece by Fabian Heintel called Lost in Translation. It takes a look at how the sceptical International Climate Science Coalition gets treated by Wikipedia.

The English Wikipedia describes the organisation as:

 …an international association of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts

That sounds respectable and authoritative enough, but too much so for the German language Wikipedia.

In climate dissent-intolerant Germany, sceptics are to be viewed as flake amateurs who have little scientific authority. Here’s how the German Wikipedia describes the International Climate Science Coalition .

Zusammenschluss von Ökonomen, Politikern und anderen Personen

Translated in English that’s:

association of economists, politicians and other persons.

Sounds kind of ragtag, doesn’t it?

Here’s a list of the members of the international organisation. You make the call if the German Wikipedia description fits.

4 responses to “International Climate Science Coalition Gets Lost In Translation”

  1. DirkH

    Who still gives a rats ass for the Wikipedia anyway.

    Reply: I understand your point of course. But many people cite ít as an authority on a variety of subjects. I find it to be a convenient source of information on a number of other topics. But not all topics. – PG

    1. DirkH

      In the beginning i was impressed with the fast growth of the Wikipedia and the wealth of information that accumulated rapidly. But as more and more fields came under control of self-appointed experts like William M. Connolley, more and more edit wars, article deletions and distortions accumulated. One day i wanted to show somebody the history of CO2 concentration over Earth’s history and i knew where to look but it was GONE from that page.

      There is no editorial process in the wikipedia that maintains quality or assures that information that has been collected stays.

      The wikipedia has run its course. It goes downhill from here. It is now under the control of propagandists. It is no more to be trusted.

      If they don’t want you to see the edit war history of a controversial article, they’ll delete it under some false pretence. Connolley is out at the moment, but he was part of a gang. Nothing changes.

      1. DirkH

        Sorry for even more rambling, but i’ve got another thought to add:

        The Wikipedia goes through phases like every revolutionary movement.
        First comes the uprising, then the victory – in the Wikipedia’s case, this was the moment it killed all printed encyclopedias – and then, after reaching hegemony, comes a stratifying and the development of an orthodoxy. Today we have Wikipedia high priests that keep the common contributor in check, and carefully cut unwanted information back. Contradictions must be resolved; truth streamlined; debate squashed. Above all, the illusion of the Wikipedia as mankind’s biggest and truest achievement must be maintained.

        There will be counterrevolutions of course and a schism; probably even many. The Wikipedia today is like the Sovjet Union after eliminating the Menschewiki.

        1. DirkH

          (The “-wiki” in Menschewiki has nothing to do with the “Wiki-” in “Wikipedia; completely different linguistic root; but a funny coincidence.)