At 08:08 PM 5/20/2011, you wrote:
The Pathological Skeptics / Reliable Source Police have been
attacking it line by line for several days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
This morning they deleted the 18-hour test:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&oldid=430059158>16:09,
20 May 2011
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moishe_Rosenbaum&action=edit&redlink=1>Moishe
Rosenbaum (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moishe_Rosenbaum>
talk |
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moishe_Rosenbaum>contribs)
(21,339 bytes)
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer#18_hour_test> 18
hour test: Removed unverified scientific claims because it still
reads like a science article -- see talk.)
Now they're planning to remove anything describing it as "science",
and MAY allow it to continue as a description of a commercial venture.
I've removed it from my useful links section in
http://lenr.qumbu.com / http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v401.php
Well, you should look more closely (and Wikipedia doesn't care at all
whether you link to the article).
The Energy Catalyzer can't be treated as "science" yet. Where are the
peer-reviewed publications? Where are the secondary source reviews?
Where are the independent replications?
The 18-hour test is back, and will almost certainly stay. To
understand Wikipedia, you can't just look at what happens on a
one-day basis! Consensus is built, more or less, gradually, unless it
is warped by selectively blocking a point of view, which can and does
happen, but which hasn't happened here yet.
Watch the editor EnergyNeutral. He or she is a Single Purpose Account
(SPA), obviously an experienced Wikipedian, or has studied Wikipedia
well or is being coached. Attempts may be made to block him, based on
claims of sock puppetry, using the famous duck test, which is often
based on point of view (though his point of view doesn't seem to
match that of the blocked editors I know, not exactly.) He could
actually be a sock of a blocked or banned editor, it's a possible
explanation for his behavior.
When people let this selective enforcement happen and just stand by,
wringing their hands, that's how the pseudo-skeptics get away with
warping Wikipedia coverage. If you want to help, register an account
if you don't already have one, watchlist articles of concern, and
also communicate with editors, especially those you might like to
help, watchlising their talk pages. You will then see if there are
attempts to warn or block them, or blocks actually made.
A handful of editors who cooperate -- properly, within what is
allowed -- can stand up against the entire pseudoskeptical faction,
even though it includes some administrators.
