From David Klinghoffer at Evolution News & Views:
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.
Funny, no one had ever heard much about Gunter Bechly before then.
At Evolution News, we have documented a range of instances of censorship and intimidation. Rarely, though, do the censors reveal themselves as clearly as in the case of Wikipedia versus Bechly.
They don’t do so by name. Wikipedia editors typically employ pseudonyms. But a discussion page records the deliberations of editors and others on the decision to delete Dr. Bechly’s Wiki entry. It makes for a fascinating and revealing read.
So a pseudonymous editor recommended getting rid of Dr. Bechly’s page, and another, after making a show of weighing the case and soliciting opinions from others, agreed to it. In an eerie replay of his experience with the museum, which deleted his webpages, Bechly is now erased.
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. If I’m interpreting the discussion’s welter of nerdy abbreviations and other lingo correctly, a person called “Trekker” nominated Bechly for deletion. This editor claims no bias against “creationism.” More.
Klinghoffer also provides a sample of people who are supposed to be notable compared to Bechly, according to Wikipedia. Judge for yourself.
It’s enlightening to see how misinformed one would be if one relied on Wikipedia. It’s not all that bad but how do you know when it is or isn’t? And this sort of thing is only a hint of the future if the big social media companies succeed in controlling the internet – for the most virtuous of reasons, of course.
Some of us really don’t understand, given the history, why anyone pays attention to Wikipedia at all unless they want to know how contemporary edit trolls think. I (O’Leary for News) only use it for free photos.
See also: When you disappear from Wikipedia is when you matter, apparently. Klinghoffer also provides a sample of people who, according to Wikipedia, are supposed to be notable compared to paleontologist Bechly (show showed sympathy for ID). Judge for yourself.
Whackapedia whacks a civil liberties group
Is social media killing Wikipedia?
Wikipedia founder wades into fake war on fake news
Larry Sanger, Co-founder of Wikipedia, Agrees That it Does not Follow its Own Neutrality Policy
How Wikipedia can turn fiction into fact (Sourced enough times, the fiction becomes “troo”)
Wikipedia: The world of heavily edited unfacts
Wikipedia as astroturf
Wikipedia’s declining stats
Wikipedia hacked by elite sources now (The main problem is that the people who use Wikipedia do not care whether it is false or true. “Wikipedia is my library” is the new diagnostic for irresponsible laziness.)
Mathematician complains Wikipedia is promoting “pseudo-science” of multiverse (Then there were the minor revelations that core articles “don’t earn even Wikipedia’s own middle-ranking quality scores” and that some “editors” are paid by outside sources.)