Saturday, September 21, 2013

Wiki as lightening.

The Wikipedia sure is fast as it's name implies.  I was surprised to find this article on the front page of www.washingtonpost.com "U.S. narrowly escaped nuclear blast in 1961 H-bomb accident, document says"

I thought that was a well known fact.  In particular, I thought it was well know that the blast was prevented by one safety switch which didn't flip to active as five others did.  My impression is that Flora Lewis (long time NYTimes columnist) wrote a book basically about European reactions to the incident.

To find proof that this was well known, I went to the relevant wiki.  Indeed, the wiki reported that it is agreed that the blast was very narrowly averted (it reported that 3 of 4 arming mechanisms activated not 5 of 6 as I had believed since around 1982)

 it was found that both bombs were fully functional and that the pilot's safe/arm switch was indeed all that prevented detonation.[9][10]
OK so what is this footnote 10
10 
  1. Jump up to:a b Pilkington, Ed (20 September 2013). "US nearly detonated atomic bomb over North Carolina – secret document"The Guardian. Retrieved 20 September 2013.
Jesus H-bomb Christ.  it is 21 September 2013 and the wiki has been updated to include a reference to an article published on 20 September 2013.   Also consulting the Wikipedia is a good way to find out what is generally agreed (and a bunch of claims flagged as contested) but it is a terrible way to find out how long things have been generally believed.

Update: I am totally wrong.  To find out how long things have generally believed you just have to click on [view history]. See below as Michael Froomkin explains to me how it is done.

This is very interesting as you can get the same news from the September 21 2013 front page of www.washingtonpost.com with content provided by the Associated Press or with from the August 29 2013 wiki edited by ohconfucius.  

The web surpasses the MSM more than you imagine possible even taking into consideration the fact that the web surpasses the MSM more thn you imagine possible.
end update

This also reminds me of the liberalbubble.  There are a bunch of claims that many liberals consider to be solidly demonstrated and well known, but which are not considered to be known facts by, say the AP or The Washington Post.  This is vaguely similar to the bunch of claims that conservatives consider well known which are not accepted as facts by the MSM (convincing conservatives that the MSM has a liberal bias).

In fact the claim was not generally agreed to be true and was contested.  It was made by Daniel Ellsberg  but contested by the Defence Department.

I have a very strong impression that there is a difference between the conservabubble and the liberalbubble: the claims that liberals and only liberals think we know tend to be true.  The emergence from the bubble is, in this case, the MSM saying we were right all along.  The emergence of beliefs from the conservabubble includes the MSM involuntarily laughing at a conservative for saying something absurd (or more often a liberal blogger discovering and reporting the latest amazing conservafantasy).




The Wikipedia is wiki.  Reality has a clear liberal bias. 2+2=4.



update: pulled back from comments. Michael Froomking explains to me how it is done.  Bottom line is that by August 29 2013 the Wikipedia had the shocking claim and it was supported by a link to an official document dated 1961.  I will try to find how long ago the Wikipedia first reported today's www.washingtonpost.com front page news.

hmm OK there with documentation on Valentines day 2013 (footnote 9 with the proof was footnote 8 back then) it is in full
OOAMA Airmunitions Letter. No. 136.11 56G, HQ. April 18, 1961.

It was footnote 6 on 14 March 2012

OK on  29/7/10 the Wikipedia reported the issue as he said they said Ellsberg v the DOD with no link to the document proving Ellsberg was right on

on 4/12/2011 the Wikipedia still didn't have the goods.
same on 2/11/11
getting there 1/24/2012
"Later, however, it was found that both bombs were fully functional. Of the Air Force statement that a) there were two bombs, b) they were unarmed, c) they were both recovered, and d) there was no danger: only the part about being two bombs was true."

OK footnote 6 there 2/23/2012

It appeared in the Wikipedia February 8 2012
It's not here at 1:37
It was added by keep19 at 1:55 February 8 2012 
(and on September 20th 2013 the Guardian caught up with the wikipedia).

The guardian may have new information related to the 3 of 4 (or 5 of 6) switches, but there was published proof that the DOD was lying when it denied Ellsberg's claims cited by keep19 on the Wikipedia  1:55 2/8/12 and ingored by the MSM until yesterday.


I pull Michael Froomkin schooling me back from comments.



Anonymous Michael Froomkin said...
But if you want last week's conventional wisdom, go to last week's version, which is always available. So wikipedia might be a good way to demonstrate (in the sense of sufficient but not necessary) when something is generally believed, it just requires you to roll back versions until the fact appears....
8:39 PM
 Delete

Blogger Robert said...
You are a major webonaut so You can just go to last week's version. I don't know how to.

You are telling me that I can find last week's Wiki somehow to check if footnote 10 was just adding further confirmation (the claim is supported by notes 9 and 10 and 9 is a 1961 document -- I *guess* the one which was just declassified, but maybe the old wiki had footnote 9 so the alleged news isn't news.

How ?
9:11 PM
 Delete

Blogger Robert said...
Hmmm let's see. How about I click the "view history" buton 'cause history tends to be about the past.

Wow lot's of links to click. Many of them about edits on 20 September and 21 September 2013. Let's go back to the wiki as edited by Ohconfucious on August 29 2013. Omigod footnote 9 is there.

I stand corrected. The Wikipedia is a good way to find out what is agreed (and contested claims) *and* when the agreement occured (and contested claims were made).



3 comments:

Michael Froomkin said...

But if you want last week's conventional wisdom, go to last week's version, which is always available. So wikipedia might be a good way to demonstrate (in the sense of sufficient but not necessary) when something is generally believed, it just requires you to roll back versions until the fact appears....

Robert said...

You are a major webonaut so You can just go to last week's version. I don't know how to.

You are telling me that I can find last week's Wiki somehow to check if footnote 10 was just adding further confirmation (the claim is supported by notes 9 and 10 and 9 is a 1961 document -- I *guess* the one which was just declassified, but maybe the old wiki had footnote 9 so the alleged news isn't news.

How ?

Robert said...

Hmmm let's see. How about I click the "view history" buton 'cause history tends to be about the past.

Wow lot's of links to click. Many of them about edits on 20 September and 21 September 2013. Let's go back to the wiki as edited by Ohconfucious on August 29 2013. Omigod footnote 9 is there.

I stand corrected. The Wikipedia is a good way to find out what is agreed (and contested claims) *and* when the agreement occured (and contested claims were made).