[Vo]:Rossi is suing Wikipedia for libel

May 31st, 2013 at 2:53 PM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=806&cpage=10#comment-708958> TO OUR READERS, REGARDING WIKIPEDIA: I MUST AGAIN GIVE THIS INFORMATION: WIKIPEDIA, AFTER THEY WROTE US ( BY TOM CONOVER) THAT THE PAGE HAD BEEN CORRECTED, TODAY AGAIN I SAW ON WIKIPEDIA

[Vo]:Wikipedia Energy Catalyzer Page

Hi collective, I know most of you have given up on wikipedia. There is a lot of activity happening on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer As I type, there are two references to the new developments. First is the Mark Gibbs update. This will have to stick, unless they remove the

Re: [Vo]:ISCMNS article at Wikipedia up for deletion.

> From: "Jed Rothwell" > Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2013 9:08:35 AM > Someone informed me that the ISCMNS article at Wikipedia is up for > deletion: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Society_for_Condensed_Matter_Nuclear_Science > > I did not k

Re: [Vo]:ISCMNS article at Wikipedia up for deletion.

Wikipedia: The dictionary of indefatigable points of view. On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Someone informed me that the ISCMNS article at Wikipedia is up for > deletion: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Society_for_Condensed_Matter_

Re: [Vo]:ISCMNS article at Wikipedia up for deletion.

Jed san, In Japanese wikipedia, the following entries about LENR were added on March 2013. http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9B%BD%E9%9A%9B%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88%E4%BC%9A%E8%AD%B0 http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9B%BD%E9%9A%9B%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88

[Vo]:ISCMNS article at Wikipedia up for deletion.

Someone informed me that the ISCMNS article at Wikipedia is up for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Society_for_Condensed_Matter_Nuclear_Science I did not know there is an article on this. I consider this good news. Wikipedia is a travesty. The less there is about cold

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion : KEEP

At 11:06 AM 9/13/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_Catalyzer_(2nd_nomination)#Energy_Catalyzer It survived deletion, despite complaints that: Off wiki mailing list by Alanf777, Zedshort and others here: (vortex) which seems to

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

I went with a non-snarky fairly neutral "wait and see" response: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_Catalyzer_(2nd_nomination)#Energy_Catalyzer Keep Although the eCat has not achieved mainstream media attention, there is sufficient Non-WP:RS evidence that thing

Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?

2012/9/12 Jouni Valkonen > Wikipedia is just not the right place to settle controversies. maybe the solution would be simply to make a quick article on wikipedia explaining the controversies, and giving references to different point of view. that was the initial way wikipedia was desig

Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?

he main difficulty with cold fusion is, that it is very difficult to evaluate the reliability of sources. I think that your criticism about wikipedia is disproportional. Controversial subjects are not that important, because usually there are very good reasons why they are controversial. Wikipedi

Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > >> If the subject is controversial, you can [have] two articles, one by >> supporters, and one by opponents. Why not? > > > This is against the rules in Wikipedia. They insist that people reach a > c

Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?

in fact I've heard of wikipedia spitrit in the old time : it was to express reasonable opinion, all reasonable opinions, with reference data, show controversies, ... but on some subject I follow I've see that peer-reviewed but non mainstream point of view get thrown out by ideol

Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?

>> > > Exactly. To simplify: Just have signed articles, like in Encyclopedia > Britannica. You can have multiple authors. If the subject is controversial, > you can two articles, one by supporters, and one by opponents. Why not? > I agree. there is a strong demand of specific lobbi

Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?

I wrote: If the subject is controversial, you can [have] two articles, one by > supporters, and one by opponents. Why not? > This is against the rules in Wikipedia. They insist that people reach a compromise taking into accounts all points of view. They want one and only one article per

Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?

Harry Veeder wrote: > I think contributors to a controversial subject must self-identify as > either pro or con. That way readers can *immediately* see from the > user name on which side of the controversy each contributor stands. > Exactly. To simplify: Just have signed articles, like in Encyc

Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Harry Veeder wrote: > >> Perhaps all the very controversial subjects from the current wikipedia >> should be removed and placed in a distinct wikipedia dedicated to very >> controversial subjects. > > > I d

Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?

Harry Veeder wrote: Perhaps all the very controversial subjects from the current wikipedia > should be removed and placed in a distinct wikipedia dedicated to very > controversial subjects. > I do not think that will happen. The Wikipedia management would not agree. I do not see any

Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?

Perhaps all the very controversial subjects from the current wikipedia should be removed and placed in a distinct wikipedia dedicated to very controversial subjects. harry On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > As I said, Wikipedia is good for some things but not othe

Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?

refer-a-pedia wiki-ference On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > I agree Eric; but, I use wikipedia a little differently from most. I > use it as a reference source, rarely quoting wiki together because the > truth is volatile there; but, the reference base at the

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

At 10:04 PM 9/9/2012, Jouni Valkonen wrote: On 10 September 2012 02:52, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: You do not need to satisfy people. You need to report the replicated, peer-reviewed facts of the matter. Science is not a popularity contest. Th

Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?

Eric Walker wrote: > I appreciate the sentiment. But I'll place myself on record for thinking > that Wikipedia is incredible. It is one of the handiest things to come > about in the last ten or so years. > The Model T Ford was also incredible. It was wonderful breakthrou

RE: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?

f-contradiction covered. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton I agree Eric; but, I use wikipedia a little differently from most. I use it as a reference source, rarely quoting wiki together because the truth is volatile there; but, the reference base at the bottom of the articles is a treasure trove. T

Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?

I agree Eric; but, I use wikipedia a little differently from most. I use it as a reference source, rarely quoting wiki together because the truth is volatile there; but, the reference base at the bottom of the articles is a treasure trove. T

Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: No, I hope it withers away. > I appreciate the sentiment. But I'll place myself on record for thinking that Wikipedia is incredible. It is one of the handiest things to come about in the last ten or so years. Obviously readers mus

Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?

The rules/policies are absolutely ok when applied by editors with common sense or for non-controversial articles. For articles on controversial topics a group of editors will feel that they have to protect the article from "evil POV pushers". They have a mission: "Wikipedia m

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

At 06:01 PM 9/9/2012, Jouni Valkonen wrote: What comes to cold fusion, there are no established scientific point of view, therefore it is impossible to write a good Wikipedia article on cold fusion that would satisfy everyone. Actually, there is. The claim Jouni makes is one that

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

published in mainstream journals. This is the definition of an "established scientific point of view." There is no other definition. These facts constitute overwhelming evidence that the effect is real. The people at Wikipedia, at Sci. Am. and elsewhere have replaced this standard w

[Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax , an expert in Wikipedia, wrote descriptions that seem contradictory to me. First he says the policies are great, then he says they are not followed: > If you are interested in helping with Wikipedia, do register, but be aware > that it can be an abusive communit

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

The page is up for formal deletion.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_Catalyzer_(2nd_nomination) I haven't decided yet whether to vote for Delete or Keep.  I'll probably go with a snarky Keep.

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

ormal request for deletion then a new page will be opened up for discussion (though not for formal voting -- I'm not sure who decides what the consensus is). Last time I argued against deletion -- this time I will support it. Deletion is very unlikely, there is too much "Reliable

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

You want to test the Hydrobetatron/Athanor ? as Jed repeated, good LENR experiment are expensive, and the calorimetry is so difficult that many mainstream team failed even to make good enough one. Few researchers have really tested the LENR, and now they are believers, thus nobody trust them. Se

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

On Sep 10, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > we need to have rock-solid statements to answer the hyper-skeptics. Rock-solid answer would be that anyone could go their local university and do the necessary measurement by himself. With Miley's and Celani's cells this kind of situation woul

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

l bias (such as Climate Gate) that will lead into global > scandal. Cold fusion research is far more valuable than puny climate > science. > Is'nt climategate officially a non-event, especially on Wikipedia ? yet it's content is confirmed by the authors, and there was clear manipulatio

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

On 10 September 2012 07:39, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > In essence, you are saying we should ignore the data because people > opposed to cold fusion have successfully cut off funding. We should let > politics dictate what we believe. > I did not say that. I just said how science works and it is work

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

Jouni Valkonen wrote: > Here is one example of the good peer-reviewed paper, but where is the > replication of the data? > There have been only a few replications in Italy, at SRI and elsewhere because the experiment is expensive and time consuming, and there is no money to do cold fusion. That

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

On 10 September 2012 02:52, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > You do not need to satisfy people. You need to report the replicated, > peer-reviewed facts of the matter. Science is not a popularity contest. > That is true, but here cold fusion science has failed. *Correlation of excess power and helium pr

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

Luigi Versaggi September 8th, 2012 at 9:05 PM Congratulations for the Zurich E-CAT Conference. I suppose this time the main stream media cannot ignore the facts. We must thank you, the world must thank you. Andrea Rossi September 9th, 2012 at 6:13 PM Dear Luigi Versaggi: The main stream media n

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

; Yes, there is. It is the set of facts in the peer-reviewed literature published in mainstream journals. This is the definition of an "established scientific point of view." There is no other definition. These facts constitute overwhelming evidence that the effect is real. The people

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

The problem is that it is difficult to write about Rossi, because he has not shown any reasons why anyone should take him seriously. On the other hand, there are very serious reasons to believe that he is committing massive fraud. There is very good article about Blacklight Power in Wikipedia

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

I have been meaning to ask about this! I will start a separate thread. Jeff On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > yes we should keep archive, for a future Nuremberg Trial on Wikipedia... > > same for peer-review, magazines, and other insults > > > 201

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

yes we should keep archive, for a future Nuremberg Trial on Wikipedia... same for peer-review, magazines, and other insults 2012/9/9 James Bowery > Part of the value of keeping an article from deletion is the history of > edits doesn't disappear. > > A big part of my motivat

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

Part of the value of keeping an article from deletion is the history of edits doesn't disappear. A big part of my motivation in suggesting the use of Wikipedia as the basis for the Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge was the virulence of the editors of Wikipedia needs

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

I think it is best to delete the article. I wish they would delete the article on cold fusion. Wikipedia is dysfunctional and cannot be fixed. The problem is in the structure and guiding philosophy. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

aby destroyed. Zedshort - Original Message - From: "MJ" To: Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion On 09-Sep-12 15:36, Alan Fletcher wrote: From: "Kelley Trezise" Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 9:31:22 AM So

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

nt: Sunday, September 09, 2012 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion From: "Kelley Trezise" Please consider going to the article, read it and vote on its truswothiness, objectivity, etc. at the bottom of the page. The "talk" page isn't the

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

On 09-Sep-12 15:36, Alan Fletcher wrote: From: "Kelley Trezise" Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 9:31:22 AM Some time back I fought the battle of the E-Cat article on Wikipedia but found it too frustrating and in the end even enfuriating as there are some very tennatious editiors t

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

> From: "Kelley Trezise" > Please consider going to the article, read it and vote on its > truswothiness, objectivity, etc. at the bottom of the page. The "talk" page isn't the place to vote. If it comes up for a formal request for deletion then a new page will be opened up for discussion (thou

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

> From: "Kelley Trezise" > Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 9:31:22 AM > Some time back I fought the battle of the E-Cat article on Wikipedia > but found it too frustrating and in the end even enfuriating as there > are some very tennatious editiors that really, really

[Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

Some time back I fought the battle of the E-Cat article on Wikipedia but found it too frustrating and in the end even enfuriating as there are some very tennatious editiors that really, really don't like cold fusion articles in any way shape or form. Their obnoxious behavior have driven of

[Vo]:Wikipedia Entry for Defkalion Green Technologies

If anyone is sitting on their hands, and is looking for a challenge, it may be time to begin construction on a Wikipedia entry for Defkalion Green Technologies. Such an entry needs to be entirely confined to reliable sources (e.g., Republic of Greece, Government Gazette, 4 April 2011; Greek

[Vo]:Italian Wikipedia article

This is pretty good: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusione_nucleare_fredda I ran it through Google translate. I would appreciate it if someone who speaks Italian would please add a link to LENR-CANR.org at the bottom. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia: Rossi granted patent

This might not be the patent for the catalysts. From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, May 7, 2011 8:23:19 AM Subject: [Vo]:Wikipedia: Rossi granted patent Brian Josephson reports: "According to infallible Wikipedia: The Italian Offic

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia: Rossi granted patent

See: http://www.uibm.gov.it/uibm/dati/Avanzata.aspx?load=info_list_uno&id=1610895&table=Invention&#ancoraSearch

[Vo]:Wikipedia: Rossi granted patent

Brian Josephson reports: "According to infallible Wikipedia: The Italian Office for Patents and Trademarks issued the patent for > the invention on 6 April 2011 > Eccellente! Bravissimo! (how come we didn't hear about it earlier?)" - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hysterical comment in Wikipedia discussion

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:42 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > You may suddenly discover the fact > that you have performed your librarian duties so well that you've > actually put yourself out of a job! > Nothing would please me more. It would be like winnin

Re: [Vo]:Hysterical comment in Wikipedia discussion

Jed sez: > Someone named TenOfAllTrades deleted my remarks, with a comment "rv, banned > User:JedRothwell" > > That's probably good for me. It will prevent me from wasting any more time > posting message there. Someone unknowingly has just paid you a very high complement. You know better than to

Re: [Vo]:Hysterical comment in Wikipedia discussion

Someone named TenOfAllTrades deleted my remarks, with a comment "rv, banned User:JedRothwell" That's probably good for me. It will prevent me from wasting any more time posting message there. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hysterical comment in Wikipedia discussion

> I shouldn't, but I do sometimes read the discussions in the Wikipedia > article on the Rossi device: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer>This article is holding up > remarkably well. The skeptics

[Vo]:Hysterical comment in Wikipedia discussion

I shouldn't, but I do sometimes read the discussions in the Wikipedia article on the Rossi device: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer>This article is holding up remarkably well. The skeptics will gut it or delete it sooner or

Re: [Vo]:Energy Catalyzer on Wikipedia

Italian version: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalizzatore_di_energia_di_Rossi_e_Focardi (Both the English and Italian articles generated links to LENR-CANR.org.) - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Energy Catalyzer on Wikipedia

>From Esa: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer Succinct, and to the point. I wonder how long it will take before the anti-CF police take notice and proceed to correct it. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:Energy Catalyzer on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

Re: [Vo]:Yes, cold fusion is a fringe subject by the standards of Wikipedia

Abd sez: ... > It means nothing about the science itself. As Jed has pointed out, there is > a definition of "mainstream" that's different. Judging "mainstream" has to > do with publication by independent publishers who are dedicated to general > science or to some particular science (or engineer

Re: [Vo]:Yes, cold fusion is a fringe subject by the standards of Wikipedia

At 03:23 PM 2/27/2011, Charles Hope wrote: There is no mathematical definition of fringe. A topic is fringe if the majority of scientists subjectively feel it is. Wikipedia is an excellent tool for judging such mass subjectivity. In a way, this is correct. Wikipedia did classify Cold fusion

Re: [Vo]:Yes, cold fusion is a fringe subject by the standards of Wikipedia

Charles Hope wrote: There is no mathematical definition of fringe. There is, however, a conventional definition of what constitutes mainstream science. It calls for professional scientists, replication, peer-review, a high s/n ratio and various other things. According to this definition, cold f

Re: [Vo]:Yes, cold fusion is a fringe subject by the standards of Wikipedia

There is no mathematical definition of fringe. A topic is fringe if the majority of scientists subjectively feel it is. Wikipedia is an excellent tool for judging such mass subjectivity. Sent from my iPhone. On Feb 27, 2011, at 11:29, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Let me add that we are talk

Re: [Vo]:Yes, cold fusion is a fringe subject by the standards of Wikipedia

s or politics, "fringe" is defined by whatever the majority thinks. Wikipedia or the New York Times are the arbiters. When we talk about calorimetry or tritium, opinions don't count. The majority view itself may be "fringe," even though that seems contradictory. Th

[Vo]:Yes, cold fusion is a fringe subject by the standards of Wikipedia

matter (for > this argument) if they are wrong about cold fusion or not; their perception > of it defines it as fringe. It is one of 3 examples of contemporary fringe > science on the Wikipedia entry on the subject. And whatever one thinks of > Wikipedia, it can’t be denied that this

Re: [Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneously defined

gt; > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Harry Veeder >> <mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com>> wrote: > >> > >> Is this the right link? > >> Harry > >> > >> > >> *From

Re: [Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneously defined

t; even if the universe were nearly empty.) > > >> >> David >> >> David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370 >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Harry Veeder > <mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com>> wrote: >> >>

Re: [Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneously defined

e right link? > Harry > > > *From:* David Jonsson <mailto:davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com>> > *To:* vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>> > *Sent:* Tue, January 11, 2011 3:47:23 PM > *Subject:* [Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneousl

Re: [Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneously defined

gt; *Sent:* Tue, January 11, 2011 3:47:23 PM > *Subject:* [Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneously defined > > Hi > > Ain't I right? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Standard_gravity#effect_of_centripetal_acceleration > > Sidereal period should be used and not solar.

Re: [Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneously defined

Is this the right link? Harry > >From: David Jonsson >To: vortex-l >Sent: Tue, January 11, 2011 3:47:23 PM >Subject: [Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneously defined > >Hi > > >Ain't I right? >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Standard_gravity#effect_of_centripet

[Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneously defined

Hi Ain't I right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Standard_gravity#effect_of_centripetal_acceleration Sidereal period should be used and not solar. Do you support a change? David David Jonsson, Sweden, ph

Re: [Vo]:Abd making waves at Wikipedia again

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > "Abd, who never learns"? Come on, Jed, that's exactly what they are saying > about me on Wikipedia. Ah, but I was kidding. Maybe. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Abd making waves at Wikipedia again

At 05:55 PM 9/29/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd, who never learns, is making waves at Wikipedia again. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion I predict they will throw him out again within 2 weeks. It will be permanent this time. "Abd, who never learns"? Come on, J

Re: [Vo]:Abd making waves at Wikipedia again

At 05:55 PM 9/29/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd, who never learns, is making waves at Wikipedia again. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion I predict they will throw him out again within 2 weeks. It will be permanent this time. "Abd, who never learns"? Come on, J

Re: [Vo]:Abd making waves at Wikipedia again

>From dailygrail.com: Quote of the Day: To the scientist there is the joy in pursuing truth which nearly counteracts the depressing revelations of truth. H. P. Lovecraft T

[Vo]:Abd making waves at Wikipedia again

Abd, who never learns, is making waves at Wikipedia again. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion I predict they will throw him out again within 2 weeks. It will be permanent this time. I took a quick look at the Wikipedia article. It is even worse than I recall. There is a new

Re: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Why Wikipedia Should Be Trusted As A Breaking News Source

At 10:27 AM 3/16/2010, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Title: "Why Wikipedia Should Be Trusted As A Breaking News Source" Begins with: "Most any journalism professor, upon mention of Wikipedia, will immediately launch into a ran

Re: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Why Wikipedia Should Be Trusted As A Breaking News Source

Some Wikipedia articles are better than others. The format is good for some subject areas, but not so good for others. I think controversial subjects that call for expert knowledge probably fare worst. Especially subjects that attract self-appointed experts. That also happens in the science

[Vo]:OT (sort of): Why Wikipedia Should Be Trusted As A Breaking News Source

Title: "Why Wikipedia Should Be Trusted As A Breaking News Source" Begins with: "Most any journalism professor, upon mention of Wikipedia, will immediately launch into a rant about how the massively collaborative online encyclopedia can'

RE: [Vo]: Yet another Wikipedia use of CF in a bad light...

o: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Yet another Wikipedia use of CF in a bad light... At 08:41 AM 1/5/2010, you wrote: Wikipedia's use of CF as an example for 'science by concensus' and 'burden of proof'... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof About 4/5

Re: [Vo]: Yet another Wikipedia use of CF in a bad light...

>From Stephen: > The "theory of cold fusion" would be a theory explaining > how such nuclei join, not simply the assertion that they do > join. The assertion that fusion happens at room temperature > is a simple binary statement, and is either true or false; > it's quite different from what is me

Re: [Vo]: Yet another Wikipedia use of CF in a bad light...

On 01/05/2010 04:57 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: > At 08:41 AM 1/5/2010, you wrote: >> Wikipedia's use of CF as an example for 'science by concensus' and >> 'burden of proof'... >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof >> About 4/5s the way down the page. >> >> "Examples in science >> >> As

Re: [Vo]: Yet another Wikipedia use of CF in a bad light...

At 08:41 AM 1/5/2010, you wrote: Wikipedia's use of CF as an example for 'science by concensus' and 'burden of proof'... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof About 4/5s the way down the page. "Examples in science As a general rule, the less coherent and less embedded within convention

Re: [Vo]: Yet another Wikipedia use of CF in a bad light...

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Mark Iverson wrote: > Wikipedia's use of CF as an example for 'science by concensus' and 'burden of > proof'... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof > About 4/5s the way down the page. > > "Examples in science > > As a general rule, the less coherent a

[Vo]: Yet another Wikipedia use of CF in a bad light...

Wikipedia's use of CF as an example for 'science by concensus' and 'burden of proof'... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof About 4/5s the way down the page. "Examples in science As a general rule, the less coherent and less embedded within conventional knowledge a claim appears, the

[Vo]:Wikipedia loses thousands of editors

Wikipedia loses thousands of editors http://news.techworld.com/networking/3207443/wikipedia-loses-thousands-of-ed itors/? http://tinyurl.com/yh6s8dj Excerpt: > The staggering loss of editors from the user-generated site > was reported by Felipe Ortega from the Universidad Rey Juan >

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

The hilarity continues. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coppertwig&diff=next&oldid=326828319 ::P.S. Think about it. If cold fusion had any remote possibility of working, would the DIA be releasing this publicly, so that foreign governments could read it and start putting se

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

At 07:26 AM 11/21/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: Actually, I did not assume. I called Bev up and spoke with her about publishing the document before I had done so. Ha! That's proper form. Uncharacteristic, I realize. But it was not necessary. She had already written to people enco

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

Steven Krivit wrote: Actually, I did not assume. I called Bev up and spoke with her about > publishing the document before I had done so. Ha! That's proper form. > She did not have a problem with me publishing it . . . Yes. She didn't object after I told her about my copy either. Apparently

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

Actually, I did not assume. I called Bev up and spoke with her about publishing the document before I had done so. She did not have a problem with me publishing it and she even gave me some suggestions as to how I could find a copy. Very nice lady. At 11:09 AM 11/19/2009, you wrote: Steven K

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

At 12:51 PM 11/19/2009, Steven Krivit wrote: I spoke with Barnhart extensively on Monday. I also spoke with Pat McDaniels. There is a story to how this document was created and the initiative behind it. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to write. But I will. Promise. Other news is b

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

At 11:28 AM 11/19/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mauro Lacy wrote: And also raising the question of how to deal with government documents which are unclassified, but not published on the internet. A good point to be made in Wikipedia, I think, for this and future cases. As far as I know, the ERAB

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

sion is likely" conclusion. In 1989, support for CF was > very weak, no more than about two panelists, including the co-chair who > demanded the relatively lukewarm statement. Nobody had to make that demand, > to threaten to resign, in 2004. > > > Along the same lines, at

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

At 10:56 AM 11/19/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Valid, schmalid. It is just silly. If they don't want to believe this is a genuine document, that's their problem. They will never allow a link to a document like this anyway. They can't link to my copy (Wikipedia automatically reject

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

these reports from Wikipedia. It makes life "easier" for them. Actually, the situation is a little more complex than that. Lenr-canr.org was originally blacklisted on Wikipedia. The "original sources" weren't banned. Lenr-canr.org isn't (generally) an original source.

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

ke that demand, to threaten to resign, in 2004. Along the same lines, at Wikipedia Hipocryte wrote: "[The DIA document is] a primary source. Primary sources are not notable unless they are adressed by secondary sources." He did not dismiss the 2004 DoE report for that reason. Tha

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

At 09:24 AM 11/19/2009, Mauro Lacy wrote: In my opninion, if this reference is not presented, an skeptic can still argument, with a reasonable level of doubt, that the document is a fake/it's not official. It's certainly desirable to have a direct reference, but, in fact, anyone who trusts th

<    1   2   3   4   >