Should I Care About Cognitive Misers Fighting Over My Wikipedia Biography?
February 18th, 2007Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Some time ago a few of my students emailed me (from a bar somewhere I believe) to alert me to the fact that I had a Wikipedia biography page. I had known this already because one of the site administrators had emailed me for a photo. I never though much of it, but my students seemed to think it was cool (or maybe they were laughing at me, it is sometimes hard to tell;-).
It has recently come to my attention that over the past few months some folks are engaged in a minor skirmish over my biography, something I assume is fairly common on biographies, and elsewhere in Wikipedia (Politicization of knowledge? Go figure). It appears that some anonymous people are using the biography to try to paint me as a . . . Republican (cue breaking glass!;-). (Perhaps they are some of the less thoughtful Grist readers, as opposed to most who comment there, where character assassination in mainline posts appears to be accepted behavior.)
First, let’s state for the record that such insinuations are simply wrong. I suppose they are advanced by the disingenuous for the benefit of a small set of cognitive misers for whom such labels are useful shortcuts that help to avoid actually engaging in the substance of my academic policy work. Apparently some feel threatened enough by my work enough to try to influence how I am publicly perceived. To get a sense of the sort of juvenile editorial changes taking place over there, one recent edit removed references to liberal-leaning groups who had favorably cited my work.
I typically don’t pay much attention to such things because the folks who care only about assigning political labels in litmus-test fashion are probably not the ones who are going to be too interested in policy analyses anyway. After all, why spend the time understanding nuances of a complex topic when a pejorative political label is available as a convenient mental shortcut? We saw some of this from the rabid right in the (mostly deleted) comments here on my recent post about Al Gore.
I have also recently learned that Wikipedia frowns upon an individual editing their own biography, which seems fair, so rather than seek to create a more accurate page myself, I have decided to ask Prometheus readers if this is an issue I should even be concerned about, and if so, what to do about it.
I don’t have much quibble about the details of the specific facts presented in the current entry. But the facts selected for highlighting do cherry pick one of literally hundreds of media appearances (i.e., Fox News) and one of hundreds of articles (i.e, Regulation), I suppose the selectivity is to make the point that I have at times interacted with people on the political right. (Shock! Horror!) For the record, I was happy to accept an interview with Fox News (as I do with most all requests from the media) as their viewers (in my opinion) would benefit from hearing about the stuff we do, just like CNN viewers (for whom I have also appeared). And I also happily accepted an invitation to rework one of my peer-reviewed articles for Regulation (published by the libertarian Cato Institute) as their readers (in my opinion) would also benefit from hearing about the stuff we do, just like The New Republic readers (for whom I’ve also published).
To be absolutely clear, as a policy scholar I am happy to have people from any political persuasion show in interest in our work, and I’ll continue to write for and speak with people who are interested that come from a range of perspectives — Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Republican, Socialist, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative, etc. etc.. I won’t give in to efforts to intimidate by casting perjorative political labels. Ideally, members of all of these political parties will see the inescapable wisdom is our work, though I won’t hold my breath;-) And for the most part I’ll also continue to ignore the more inane criticisms.
So my question, Prometheus readers, is: should I care about the Wikipedia biography?
February 17th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Look at the “biography” of the Swift Boat Veterans. Orwell pegged these creatures of the left who would rewrite history on the fly to suit their delusions. He envisioned massive state control as a requirement; He couldn’t have predicted the empowerment of these minor trolls by the internet.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
I’m not sure if it has been edited since you wrote your post but the link now mention that you are cited by both “conservatives” and “liberals”.
It is also mentioning your CNN appearance and that you don’t deny GW.
What should you do depends on how much disturb you are by the tag people gave you.
February 18th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Hi Roger,
I’ll be sending more detailed comments privately.
This is not exactly related, but one thing that struck me very forcefully in a 60 Minutes episode awhile ago (interesting show…I never miss it).
It was an interview with the parents of the Duke lacrosse players. One of the parents said something to the effect of, “What happens any time for our sons’ lives, when someone Googles their names?”
My understanding is that Dave Evans has already had a job offer from a Wall Street firm withdrawn after the accusation was first made.
Mark
February 18th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Liberals who cite my work are gone again. UCS, The New Republic. and Worldwatch are not “liberal” leaning, apparently, nor is my work published or cited by these groups worthy of mention in my bio, but a few by conservative groups are …
According to Wikipedia (what a source;-) TNR is “left-of-center”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic
So too is UCS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists
Worldwatch? Hello.
I am now apparently cited exclusively by conservatives
That’ll save some time for a few cognitive misers.
What fun!
February 18th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I added this to my page under my own name:
“Pielke has observed on his blog with good humor that this biography seems to be a place where some anonymous Wikipedia editors are trying mindlessly to cast him as a conservative in order to impeach his views”
Let’s see how long that lasts;-)
Prometheus readers are welcome to add, subtract, from the bio as they see fit!
February 18th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
FYI, I did receive this from a Wikipedia moderator, which is why I felt that it was OK to add factually correct info to the bio under my own name:
“As regards editing your own biog: there is nothing wrong with adding facts, etc; or even modifying opinions; unless its being fought over. In which case you are obliged to step back. You are always free to add things to the talk page that you think should be in the page and leave it up to people to edit or not.
In your case, you have a fairly ready means of influencing your page, should you wish to: to write your opinions clearly on your blog, where they can be picked up.”
February 18th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
The fact that you can write stuff at your own blog doesn’t mean that information will be reflected at Wikipedia!!
Still, the fact is, you have little powr to make them modify the entry, so it’s probably best to just ignore the entry.
February 18th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Margo- Thanks … I did add that sentence to the Wikipedia entry
But I agree with you. Now that the weekend is over, back to the salt mine 
February 18th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Hi Roger,
Last thing, and back to the salt mine for me, too.
Can’t you add some sort of reference to the “External Links” that directly addresses your Wikipedia entry?
That is, couldn’t you have a link to your own webpage in the Wikipedia “external links” that explains how you aren’t really a good fishing buddy of Dubya, where y’all plot the destruction of world? (With the methane fireballs shooting into the sky that Mark Lynas has written about.)
Just a thought,
Mark
P.S. And of course I’m assuming here that you aren’t plotting with Dubya on fishing trips. (Or bagging your limit of humans, on hunting trips with Dick Cheney.)
February 19th, 2007 at 3:46 am
Wiki’s slogan should be “The future is certain it is the past we are not sure about”
Uh oh it is changing while I type…..
February 19th, 2007 at 4:48 am
Roger, the phenomenon that irks you is simply part of our tribal human nature. It is very tough to keep a truly open debate in the face of our predilections to choose sides and reflexively defend dogmatic positions.
Fence-sitters in particular are instinctively regarded with suspicion. Seems that people keep wanting to push you off!
February 19th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Over at Grist, our good buddy Dave Roberts publishes his umpteenth post critical of me (what is with that guy?) . . . and in the comments, occasional Prometheus commenter Steve Bloom suggests that I am angling for a job in the Gore Administration
But seriously, Secretary of State would be fine!
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/18/14357/6853
February 19th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Roger:
Give them what they want.
For the picture request, arrange a photo shoot where you pose with some marine mammals, a large club, and lots of red dye.
February 19th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
I think your greatest concern should be the fact that your students are apparently sitting in bars with laptop computers reading their professor’s Wikipedia entry. “OMG,” as the kids today say.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Believe me, Roger, I would have treated this latest cry for attention with the disregard it warrants if you hadn’t seen fit to slime Grist midway through it.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:13 am
David- Thanks for commenting.
Please do note that one person’s “slime” is another person’s mild annoyance at incessant character assassination. You complaining about my comment is incredibly ironic given your recent actions.
If you’ve got something of substance to disagree with about the information that we present here, why not just explain what it is?
You give the impression that you are more interested in calling names than discussing actual issues of policy or politics. Surely that doesn’t present you or Grist in the best light, does it? I’d be happy to engage on substance, and as far as the other stuff, how about you just give it a rest already.
Thanks!
February 20th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Now it’s “incessant,” and still not a single link or example?
February 20th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
David-
Well, I searched Grist for “pielke” and I find that you’ve posted 9 name-calling entries about me in 2007 thus far . . . in my book that is incessant, bordering on weirdly obsessive.
Once again, do you want to discuss substance? Or would you prefer to discuss whether your juvenile criticism is “incessant” or merely “frequent”?
Whatever is bothering you, how about you say what it actually is and we move on? I’ve never met you and have nothing against you, so how about you go bug someone else for a while?
February 20th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Still no examples or links?
February 20th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Dave- Sorry, not playing your silly games.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Substantiating your accusations is a silly game?
February 20th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Be fair Roger.
David was four for four on name calling in articles in which he wrote about you and posted from 1/1/2007 until 1/30/2007.
Then David complained that you mentioned he shared a characteristic with Rush Limbaugh: that is the tendency to apply names to group people rather than presenting counter arguments or discussing ideas.
David hasn’t called you any names since then! However, on Feb 12, David switched to “arguing” by “scarequote”. It’s a clever switch!
February 20th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
David -
I’ll be happy to share the two in which I’ve had occasion to participate:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/30/24012/3177
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/6/25344/49509
In both cases, you engaged in ad hominem criticisms of Roger, tainting him by linking him to Republicans and/or conservatives rather than discussing the substance of his views.
“The credentials behind his self-appointed role as arbiter and schoolmarm on this issue have never been made clear.” You either know that’s untrue and are being intellectually dishonest when you say it, or else you’re not doing your job as a journalist if you’re unaware of Roger’s extensive record of publication on the issue at hand. I’m not sure which is worse. As I said there and am happy to repeat here, that’s tribal blogotalk, not journalism, which is why I pretty much gave up on Grist, Andrew Dessler’s fine work notwithstanding.
February 20th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
It looks like William Connolley, whose qualifications to weigh in on these issues should be above reproach, has given Roger’s Wikipedia entry a useful spiffening up.
February 20th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I’d love to respond, John, but I think Roger is blocking my comments on this thread.
February 20th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
John- Bar hopping student just emailed, apparently it was a PDA not a laptop … We are soooo 1990s
February 20th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
David- Respond away … you’ve got as much rope as you’d like …
February 21st, 2007 at 9:35 am
Roger– Can you just release David’s comments from the spam filter bin? That way he doesn’t have to retype them.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:38 am
David -
I’m a bit puzzled about the ontological status of the comment you posted saying you can’t post comments.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:19 am
JJWfromME- Thanks, all of Dave’s submissions to our site have appeared . We are not blocking any of his comments, and welcome his participation. Thanks!
February 21st, 2007 at 4:58 pm
David, it’s absurd to be saying “Apparently” and putting Roger’s name in strikeout, then suggesting he’s running sock puppets, let alone that he’s suggesting your coworkers are doing the same.
Bogus because testable. Check it out, don’t repeat what you have no way of knowing, eh?
Wikipedia has a procedure for this sort of thing. Throwing pixels at one another on blogs just prolongs it. Grist should have higher standards for fact-checking.
Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/United_States_Congress
February 21st, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Some backstory on the 31 January House Science hearing:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/022107b.html
“Mr. Rohrabacher repeatedly said that hundreds of scientists disagreed with the conclusion that humans were causing global warming. However, when Democrats pointed out that he and his Republican colleagues did not produce any of them as witnesses at the hearing, Mr. Rohrabacher was at a loss for a comeback.
“It was remiss on our part not to have someone here” from that group, he said.
In fact, staff members for the committee’s Republican minority did invite Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Mr. Pielke has criticized some actions by the IPCC in the past, but he agrees with the panel’s conclusion that humans have caused much of the recent global warming. The Republicans disinvited Mr. Pielke.
On his blog, Prometheus, Mr. Pielke posted a message he had received from one of the committee’s minority staff members: “Rather than have you testify, they want me to find a witness from industry for the hearing.” “
February 21st, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Hank- Thanks much ..
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
“It looks like William Connolley, whose qualifications to weigh in on these issues should be above reproach”
You mean the William Connolley who pretty much coined the term “septic”??? I agree he should be… To bad he isn’t.