Hi Jed,
I took the liberty of correcting/editing about four obvious voice
transcription errors in the piece...
Nick Palmer
Nick Palmer wrote:
I took the liberty of correcting/editing about four obvious voice
transcription errors in the piece...
Thanks!
For some reason, voice input works badly in the Wikipedia interface.
It makes more mistakes than usual. I should do all text preparation
in Microsoft Word
Jed Rothwell wrote:
The cold fusion article at Wikipedia has grown too large, so it must
be split up.
Someone asked me to assist with the sub-article cold fusion
controversy. I should not waste my time on this sort of thing, but I did.
The skeptics will soon trash this and erase it, but I
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Just like to point out that this debate is whether to keep it as a
featured article or demote it -- there's apparently no question
about removing the page from Wiki.
I'm not too clear on exactly how a featured article is featured, however.
I do not know what it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidate
s
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
I'm not too clear on exactly how a featured article is featured,
however.
It appears that the inclusion of cold fusion as a featured article is
entirely meaningless. So, it is featured on one prominent page (one that I
have never visited over the time I've used Wikipedia), along with a lot of
other articles. If people are looking for cold fusion information
This is trivial stuff, but if you feel like riling the skeptics,
click on this page and add a comment saying Keep and now it has
real science. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Cold_fusion
- Jed
OK, I threw in 2 cents with a Keep vote.
And I noticed that Kirk Shanahan is (or was) actively working on the
page too. Arrrgh!
Jed Rothwell wrote:
This is trivial stuff, but if you feel like riling the skeptics, click
on this page and add a comment saying Keep and now it has real
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Stephen A. Lawrence
Sent: 21 December 2005 17:46
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Um ... wouldn't this make identity theft awfully easy?
snip
ETC.
This should rile the bastards. Maybe even make them think. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Reproducibility_of_excess_heat
- Jed
in a
parlamentarian type rule sometimes to disqualify evidence that they don't
like. The rule, if you look it up, as you may know it, goes something like
You can't cite yourself, or your own work, or web site for references on
Wikipedia.
Soif any of those boys try to pull that one on you.let me
at the moment so point the flaws out please. Might be back
Tuesday.
Remi.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of William Beaty
Sent: 17 December 2005 04:11
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Rhong Dhong wrote
I spent considerable time today -- too much time -- revising the
Wikipedia article on cold fusion, and adding sarcastic notes to the
talk section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion
This is a labor of Sisyphus that will probably be reverted
You brave soul!
I'll have a look.
At 05:35 PM 12/21/2005 -0500, you wrote:
I spent considerable time today -- too much time -- revising the Wikipedia
article on cold fusion, and adding sarcastic notes to the talk section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
Jed
Wow breathtaking amount of dialogue and work you did therea noble
effort.
I think the whole essence of it is as you say here:
I think the problem is that the skeptics are stuck in a time warp in May
1989. They are obsessed with trivial details such as what Pons said to
Gosh Bill, Now I feel bad for using a free email and
online handle.
What's in a name?
Is a long-used handle any more or less informative
than the name your parents gave you?
A family name tells where you came from.
A nickname tells what your friends think about you.
A Nom de Cyber tells what you
attacks Wikipedia
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Rhong Dhong wrote:
At the moment then, requiring an email address to be
confirmed may not mean that the subscriber can be
traced.
Where anonymity is banned (or where money is involved,) some places refuse
to honor yahoo.com email addresses or other free
Vo, Jed,
Wikipedia is a model of free speech (not free screech) and democracy but I
guess what we really mean by free speech is *informed* free speech and what
we really mean by democracy is an educated populous (adult, not a-dolt), non
salacious media (not power without responsibility
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wikipedia is a model of free speech (not free screech) and democracy but I
guess what we really mean by free speech is *informed* free speech . . .
Why do you call it a model? In Wikipedia, anything goes. Anyone can
post any comment, anonymously
@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wikipedia is a model of free speech (not free screech) and democracy but I
guess what we really mean by free speech is *informed* free speech . . .
Why do you call it a model? In Wikipedia, anything goes. Anyone can
post any
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vo, Jed,
Wikipedia is a model of free speech (not free screech) and democracy but I
guess what we really mean by free speech is *informed* free speech and what
we really mean by democracy is an educated populous (adult, not a-dolt), non
salacious
Yep, one hoaxster 'fessed up recently:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002677060_wiki11.html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051211-5739.html
-Original Message-
From: William Beaty
But Wikipedia is an experiment in *anonymous* free speech, where abusive
people
William Beaty wrote:
But Wikipedia is an experiment in *anonymous* free speech, where abusive
people with mild mental problems cannot be blocked . . .
Actually, the editors can block people, and they have done so
occasionally. I suppose the offenders can simply register a new name
/nationworld/2002677060_wiki11.html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051211-5739.html
-Original Message-
From: William Beaty
But Wikipedia is an experiment in *anonymous* free speech, where abusive
people with mild mental problems cannot be blocked, and where all users
can duck
Others believe the Logos should be self-sustaining. Or as Mr. Grimer
iterated
*In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum*
(bringing us back off topic ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Steven Krivit
Bill B's got a good point. This is one of the aspects which
--- William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Wikipedia started out using the simple
email-verified registration
which nearly all WWW forums use to exclude
trolls/flamers/spammers, it
would be a very different resource today.
There are two anonymizing utilities, Tor and Privoxy,
which
. We got used to them, and they were
a novelty at first. But whenever a community arises where mask-wearing is
perfectly acceptable, then personal responsibility for our actions is
disrupted, and that community seems to automatically attract all the bad
parts of Marti Gras.
With Wikipedia
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Rhong Dhong wrote:
At the moment then, requiring an email address to be
confirmed may not mean that the subscriber can be
traced.
Where anonymity is banned (or where money is involved,) some places refuse
to honor yahoo.com email addresses or other free email services for
See:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/pdf/438900a.pdf
Surprising conclusion: Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to
Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature
investigation finds.
- Jed
Maybe Wikipedia deserves more respect after all! This page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
. . . has a link to an attack by Correa et al.:
http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/
Sometimes you can judge people by their enemies.
I agree with Wikipedia policy
Of course these are early days, and competitors to wikipedia may emerge as
it did with browsers.
Harry
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Maybe Wikipedia deserves more respect after all! This page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
. . . has a link to an attack by Correa et al
Harry Veeder wrote:
Of course these are early days, and competitors to wikipedia may emerge as
it did with browsers.
I expect the people at Wikipedia will welcome this. They would
probably agree that their model does not work for all subjects. We
need a variety of different online
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pathological_science
It will be interesting to see whether these additions survive or whether
the skeptics erase them.
Slate magazine recently panned Wikipedia, or reasons I mainly agree with:
http
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
So far. There is no telling when
a skeptic will come and erase it. There is no control and no recourse.
Say what? Is this the same Wikipedia I'm familiar
with?
There is control and there is recourse. A page which someone
deletes for personal reasons can be retrieved
Steven Krivit wrote:
Hey Jed,
Congratulations on your progress on the Wiki CF page. You have been
surprisingly diplomatic ;) . I also respect the time you put in as
evidenced by the discussion page.
I tried to be diplomatic. But I must say, the Wikipedia CF article there
is an unholy mess, and I
Perhaps it will be the best for the general public, but for scientists
nothing can beat original sources.
True.
Scott Chubb and I had a very pleasant talk with Jack Sandweiss, editor of
Physical Review Letters, and also Prof. at Yale University yesterday at the
APS conference. He seemed truly
Steven Krivit wrote:
Considering the low probability
(in the minds of honest skeptics) of cf, what will motivate scientists to
even look (through the telescope)?
Nothing will motivate them and it is a waste of time trying to motivate
them.
We have the
data.
Now, how do we get their interest?
Jed,
Pessimistic, yes. Logical and realistic, yes. Perhaps we need miracle #4,
whatever that will be.
Steve
it.
There is no control and no recourse.
Say what? Is this the same Wikipedia I'm familiar with?
There is control and there is recourse. A page which someone deletes
for personal reasons can be retrieved. To get a page taken down
permanently, you actually need to go through a somewhat formal process
in which
Hey Jed,
Congratulations on your progress on the Wiki CF page. You have been
surprisingly diplomatic ;) . I also respect the time you put in as
evidenced by the discussion page.
It seems to have paid off. Your contribution is significant for two
reasons: 1. Your corrections to Energy source vs
Subject: Your article on cold fusion has a strong POV, for
obvious reasons
Dear Mr. Wales,
Greetings.
I work as an editor and translator for a group of roughly 200 retired
scientists and university professors who are working on cold fusion
energy. I maintain a web page on the subject:
By the way, I see no point to creating a second article
under the title of LENR, because as I understand it the
skeptics will be free to trash that article too. I am not going to work
on this project for a week only to have some idiot trash it.
- Jed
Why not simply make a short statement that is not arguable. Something
like: A differing minority view is held by over 200 retired scientists and
university professors who are working on cold fusion energy. For related
publications see: http://lenr-canr.org/.
If such a clearly true statement is
At 03:31 PM 3/3/2005 -0900, you wrote:
Why not simply make a short statement that is not arguable. Something
like: A differing minority view is held by over 200 retired scientists and
university professors who are working on cold fusion energy. For related
publications see:
You must be filtering my messages... 8^)
-Original Message-
From: John Steck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 2:28 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Wikipedia
Vorts,
My apologies if this isn't new to everyone, but just stumbled across
Wikipedia. It's an open source
John Steck wrote:
You must be filtering my messages... 8^)
No, I was aware of that. The URL I listed is an article in Wired magazine
about Wikipedia.
I have been aware of their cold fusion article for some time, because it
has a link to LENR-CANR.org, and I see people visiting from it from time
You must be filtering my messages, too! g
FAIR WARNING:
Wikipedia, like Vortex, has its own culture, and exists as a fairly
well-defined community along with their own written and unwritten rules.
The Wiki cold fusion page appears to be run by people who are for the most
part, very different
Title: Re: Article about Wikipedia
You could create your own entry on CF, although it would need a different title.
e.g. L.E.N.R. or C.A.N.R.
or C.M.N.S. (condensed matter nuclear science)
Harry
Jed Rothwell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steven Krivit wrote:
It might APPEAR as though one
From: Harry Veeder
You could create your own entry on CF, although it
would need a different title.
e.g. L.E.N.R. or C.A.N.R.
or C.M.N.S. (condensed matter nuclear science)
I think that's an excellent idea.
Wouldn't one say that C.A.N.R., L.E.N.R., and C.M.N.S. are more
scientifically
, 2005 2:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Article about Wikipedia
You could create your own entry on CF, although it would need a different title.
e.g. L.E.N.R. or C.A.N.R.
or C.M.N.S. (condensed matter nuclear science)
Harry
Jed Rothwell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steven Krivit
Vorts,
My apologies if this isn't new to everyone, but just stumbled across
Wikipedia. It's an open source encyclopedia project. Anyone and everyone
is invited to contribute and edit sections. It's an honor system that
relies on volunteer subject matter champions to maintain sections
301 - 351 of 351 matches
Mail list logo
