Last month I was discussing the upcoming awards season, which includes the Discovery Institute's (DI) "Censor of the Year" award. It's awarded annually on Darwin's birthday. One of the things previous 'winners' have had in common is that they don't actual censor anything, they simply say or do things the DI disagrees with. I gave three predictions.
The first was that the DI would give the award to themselves. I based that on the simple fact that while there is no evidence of actual censorship of Intelligent Design, the DI does self-censor themselves and then claim they do so because of all the censorship they use as an excuse to avoid doing any real scientific work. Of course, since there is no real censorship, I wasn't sure they would give the award to themselves because they might have to admit that their whole censorship argument was nothing more than a lie, so they would pick on someone else.
My second suggestion is an example of real censorship, and my nominee would have been the current Administration. Who was is that It banned the top US public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from using seven words: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.” A certain hamster-haired serial lying misogynist control freak, that's who! His Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, reprimanded the Joshua Tree National Park’s superintendent for tweeting about climate change. Trump is also trying to censor a free press. These are prime examples of censorship. But since the DI was not Trump's target, I didn't think they would pick him.
My final prediction was Wikipedia, and I said:
"But we know the DI will stick to their guns and pick on someone, or something, that didn't actually censor them, just did something that annoyed them. My guess would be Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia has been a nominee before (2015 almost certainly for "Wikipedia deserves an Award! They Annoyed the DI! Yea!"), and this past year they [Wikipedia] annoyed the DI by dropping a Wikipedia bio for one of their senior fellows ("Does Losing a Wikipedia Page Ruin a Career?"), which they keep whining about pretty constantly. Which is why I believe Wikipedia will win this year."And. guess what? They made their announcement and Wikipedia has 'won': "Happy Darwin Day! Our 2018 Censor of the Year Is Wikipedia". Yes, another instance of a censorship award for not having done any censorship. Here is their 'rationale':
- They don't like how Intelligent Design is represented in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia keeps busting them in their efforts to self-edit the page.
- They disagree that one of their own fellows isn't notable enough to rate a Wikipedia page -- even though most of their fellows do not have a page.
- When all else fails, call it 'fake news'. Gee, how come whenever a conservative group -- and you don't get that much more conservative than the DI ministry -- calls something 'fake news' is always turns out to be true?
While removing one less-than-notable pseudo-scientist's Wikipedia entry might seem like censorship, it's more accurate to say that it was in line with the encyclopedia's policies. If it was actual censirship then none of the ID proponents would have Wikipedia pages! Bechly [the guy whose page was deep-sixed] isn't notable enough to have a page on Britannica Online either:
And, then finally, hop on the 'fake news' bandwagon and complain about something that is true by claiming it's 'fake news'. Tell me, has anyone found anything that certain hamster-haired serial liar misogynist control freak claimed to be 'fake news' to actually be fake? Yea, neither have I.
So there you have it, another censorship award to a group that doesn't actual do any censoring. I congratulate Wikipedia on being a thorn in the side of the DI! I hope one day I will have done something to annoy the DI enough that I may be a nominee for such an 'honor'!
Posts
The removal of Günter Bechly's Wikipedia entry is evidence enough of Wikipedia's censorship against intelligent design scientists.
ReplyDelete"Günter Bechly is a distinguished paleontologist, specializing in fossil dragonflies, exquisitely preserved in amber for tens of millions of years. After revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design, he was pushed out as a curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany. He subsequently joined Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture as a Senior Fellow. Now we learn that our colleague has suffered another act of censorship: he has been erased from Wikipedia, ostensibly for not being “notable” enough.
Prior to disappearing, his Wikipedia entry dispassionately recounted his education, employment, and accomplishments, including an impressive scientific publications list and a variety of species and taxa named for him. It devoted a short paragraph to his “Support for Intelligent Design.” The case for erasing him seems to have been carried by three individuals.”
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wikipedia-erases-paleontologist-gunter-bechly/
If a scientist of Bechly's impressive credentials, including having several species named after him, can be removed from the site for not being "notable" enough, the clear reason for this biased behaviour towards him should be entirely obvious to anyone.
You say " . . . a scientist of Bechly's impressive credentials . . .", Are his credentials really that impressive? What has distinguished him from other researchers? According to Wikipedia, their Notability standards include:
ReplyDelete1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE).[2]
4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
Does Bechly meet those any of those criteria? Certainly doesn't look like it. The only thing that Bechly seems to have done to merit any notability is discovering religion and converting to an Intelligent Design proponent. Maybe he should have a Wikipedia entry because of that, but his science background doesn't look all that "impressive".
To the first comment, I disagree that repeating what the Discovery Institute says about GB is a good way of convincing anyone he should be 'notable' enough for Wikipedia and Britannica. Rather than present all the reasons how GB meets the notability criteria, they simple repeat over and over again that he is a distinguished paleontologist. What, does that mean his hair is graying at the temples? His work should stand on its own and it doesn't seem to do that. Does he have accomplishments? Yes, does he have notable accomplishments according to Wikipedia's standards? No. Read the second comment for a taste of those standards.
ReplyDeleteI will repeat something from a couple of other posts: If this was an effort in censorship, then no one at the Discovery Institute would have a Wikipedia page -- and yet most of the Fellows and senior fellows do. Some people, like Casey Luskin (former PR flack for the DI) doesn't have one and he's published as much as Bechly. David Klinghoffer, a frequent mouthpiece for the DI, has one, and he's published nothing scientific (5 religious books). So, as a scientist Bechly doesn't yet meet to standards. Perhaps if someone edited a page presenting him as an IN aficionado, maybe that would work.