Don't depend on Wiki for everything.
I sure as heck do find Wikipedia more reliable than any article in a newspaper or an Internet news site. My personal experience with newspaper articles is that every single one of them has errors in them. Sometimes just minor errors; sometimes they're almost completely devoid of the actual facts.
Newspaper and Internet news site articles don't have to be correct, they just have to be done quickly.
Other news sources, such as news magazines and, yes, many or most of those who edit Wikipedia articles, have time to do proper research, check their sources, and make corrections as necessary.
Furthermore, Yazzur, if you know as much about the Climategate e-mails as you claim, then you know that the original source of the info dumps has never been revealed. What we have are a set of files from secondary sources which have passed along what the hacker sent them; or perhaps they only passed along part of it.
In any event, if one of the uploads did contain a "quotes taken out of context" file, it seems to me that we couldn't possibly know if the person who attached that was the original hacker(s), or someone the file dump was passed along to.
Anyway, Yazzur, I hope that's not your only source for your claim that the Climategate and Climategate 2.0 e-mails were "cherry-picked", because the facts, or at least the facts which I have seen, do not appear to support your claim.
Yazzur wrote:I don't want to have to depend on some secret, unknown group with undeclared interests filtering my information.
I don't, either. That's why I think that the raw climate data should be available to all researchers, not to just a few people working at, what is it, only three worldwide climate data centers? And everybody else gets so-called "corrected" data.
I'll disagree with you on the "undeclared", though. I think they have declared their Cause very clearly and repeatedly. To quote Michael Mann, author of the infamous "hockey stick" paper:
<3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.
<3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit.
<0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause
I don't regard people who use loaded terms like "denier" and "the cause" to be the mark of scientists talking about their own field of study. I regard those as indications they are people who have prostituted science for a political or personal agenda.
We are the 99%. A better world is possible.