A wikipedia editor named Kim Dabelstein Peterson has been busted patrolling "wick" pages ensuring that her spin on the global warming issue reigns supreme. Recently a climatologist visited wikipedia and changed some of the info on global warming to better represent factual data. (Dont gripe he is a climatologist, not a wikipedia editor) He noted that within seconds of his changes that the pages were reconstructed back to the same material that existed before his change. Other scientists also came aboard and were met with the same issue. It seems that peterson has been ensuring that all opposing viewpoints be taken off of the site, to support her alarmist cause. Find this article at www.icecap.us, it came out yesterday the 16th of april.

Wiki biased. Ooooh suprise suprise.

Doesn't seem to bother me at all. There are more accurate and reliable sites and books out there. so that issue doesn't really pose a problem to me. but what about the people who rely on wiki for further knowledge. something must be done?

I agree, people cannot think for themselves if they cannot see both sides of the issues. People are too gulable to let things like this happen.

Rather surprisingly wiki is one of the more accurate sites out there because it has direct links to it's sources so you can check them up.

I like that it has direct links, but I can go in and change any information I want to fit my opinion. If someone else does not like my opinion they can do the same. Repetitive opinions do not equal repetitive facts.

Try and vandalise Wiki, it won't last 10 seconds. It is very well run and is a good starting point for reference.

people vandalize wiki all of the time, but for the most part they are the editors. The fact is that some of the information that they put there is not fact. For example the climatologist who tried to change the "opinions" on the climate on wiki and gave facts only to have them changed back in "10 seconds". They do not cover both sides of an issue if the issue is debated and present it as fact. Propaganda is not my favoritest thing.

You say that, however Wiki has still been shown to be the most accurate online encyclopaedia there is. If you want re scientific data then you and search scientific journals.
Btw can you provide a genuinely neutral website to back this up since the article makes no claim of the information or the scientists involved? Remember that Icecap.us is a website with an agenda.

Remember Icecap is a collection of "actual" climatologists and scientists that want a debate on the climate hoax, that is their agenda. When you look at Al Gores list of scientists, you will find that most do not have the credentials to even be on the list. Some on the list want their name taken off. I have no problem with Wiki as a whole, I have a problem with others trying to force me to believe their hype without giving both sides of the story. Would you like to be on trial and have a judge that only listened to the other lawyer? Besides information is changed from time to time on that website ... it just has to be agreed upon by the powers that be.

And the University of Anglia is a well respected scientific institution (more respected than Icecap.us) that has excellent credentials and they disagree with Icecap.us. So why should this article be trusted? It does not show the evidence they claim, it does not give links to the paper? If they also failed to put this information on Wiki (as they did in the article, which was not one written by Icecap.us or a scientist but from a newspaper called the "Financial Post") then they would be right to change it.

Icecap ... University of Anglia??? What the hell are you arguing about. This is off the topic. Besides, I once was on the "green" side of the movement before I pulled my head from my tail and looked at the facts.

Maybe you should read my post again.