Does he embody the spirit of Wikipedia, really?
“All I am is a contributor. I have no title, I’m just a Joe Blow,” says Ken Mampel, a currently unemployed 56-year-old living in Ormond Beach, Florida. He’s also largely responsible for the Wikipedia article about Hurricane Sandy. If it isn’t already, that article will eventually become the single most-viewed document about the hurricane. On the entire internet.
In an unpaid but frenzied fit of news consumption, editing, correction, aggregation, and citation, Mampel has established himself as by far the most active contributor to the Wikipedia page on Hurricane Sandy, with more than twice the number of edits as the next-most-active contributor at the time this article was written.
And Mampel made sure that the Hurricane Sandy article, for four days after the hurricane made landfall in New Jersey, had no mention of “global warming” or “climate change” whatsoever.[…] Ken Mampel really thinks he is improving that page by eliminating an unclear passage about climate change, so that’s a “good faith” edit. Which, for Wikipedians, means the system is working. But what about for those 500,000 readers who didn’t get the full story? […] for days, the internet’s most authoritative article on a major tropical storm system in 2012 was written by a man with no meteorological training who thinks climate change is unproven and fought to remove any mention of it.
I’m not convinced you must have training in the subject to edit a Wikipedia article but Ken has too much of an agenda and it isn’t “truth”. The TRUTH is that people associated Hurricane Sandy with global warming. While there are no references to validate that, the TRUTH is that the event is having a cultural effect and impacting the discussion. It’s disingenuous to say that it isn’t a part of the story of Hurricane Sandy, whether there is a direct link or not.
Thoughts? Keep in mind I don’t want to hear what you feel about AGW, I’d like to know how you think this issue merits reference on Wikipedia – the focus of the story.