Wikipedia

[antholory]

How do I become a more established wikipedia member? Hi I've just got an account on wikipedia and have added a few sentences on a couple of pages. They were accepted which was good. But I would like to add larger parts to more developed pages. How do I get wikipedia to trust me and what can I do to help them? Thanks.

[Julian Braggins]

If you do manage to post more substantive stuff, just be careful not to mention EU, arguments that challenge Man Made Climate Change, or in fact anything that is not fully mainstream orthodoxy, or your post will disappear very smartly, that is unless the moderators have changed

[Siggy_G]

There is no entry for Electric Universe (cosmology) at Wikipedia. I remember reading a weird deletion history about it a while back - or perhaps I mix up with that of the deleted Anthony Perrat entry. Anyway, can't "Electric Universe cosmology" have an entry, if any half-known band or movie has it? If Wikipedia correctors believe EU cosmology isn't scientific enough (i.e. mainstream enough), can't they allow an entry that atleast explains what "occult" thing it is then? Wikipedia should be informative about any topic, then the readers can take it from there.

Also, can someone please update the entry of Plasma Cosmology (the only equivalent entry to EU cosmology)? The explanations there are quite limited. The wording is also like this:

"Examples of the very speculative nature of Alfvén's conclusions include factually inaccurate explanations for star formation using Birkeland currents" ... and ... "Alfvén's models do not provide any predictions that can account for any cosmological observations including Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background." Well, if so, things have developed a bit since then (!), and I believe Wallace Thornhill can back up most aspects of the Universe with scientific explanations and known dynamics. Does the entry on Big Bang cosmology limit the explanation of the theory to the state it had around, say, the 1930s? We get almost daily confirmation of the plasma/electric/magnetic/filamentary nature of the Universe at the moment, while BB theory is still mostly on the level of simulation and abstract math.

[junglelord]

There are strick controls on your minds content.
Be warned. Thinking for yourself is NOT allowed.

[nick c]

Here is a link to a copy of the EU entry in wikipedia as of 2005. Of course, it has since been deleted.
Please be forewarned: READ AT YOUR OWN RISK!
http://www.electricuniverse.info/Electr ... dia_(2005)


Nick

[Jarvamundo]

Re: Siggy

This is a November,20, 2006 version of the Wikipedia article on Plasma Cosmology, which was subsequently heavily censored.
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/wiki.htm

[Solar]

Well, as most longtime members know there is a long and troubled history with the EU and Wikipedia. Several stalwart individuals took Wiki to task for not living up to supposedly "neutral" standards at the behest of a cabal of statist:

Ian Tresman's Help:Abuse dealings

The Fairy-Tale Cult of Wikipedia

Wikipedia Woes - Pending Crisis as Editors Leave in Droves

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-11 Electric Universe Concept, NPOV clarification

Talk Section of Plasma Cosmology

Joshua Schroeder - The Velikovsky Encyclopedia

Discussions re: Dave Talbott as well as Eric Lerner as posted.

If in a hurry I might use Wiki (rare), but I still avoid it as much as possible. Its a 'filtered source' and "neutrality" is a joke. I don't know if things have changed; and I really don't care to use it.

By the way, for all of those who fought diligently to insure some form of "neutrality" with regard to the EU/PC during those periods a sincere THANK YOU!!

Tresman, Dave Smith of the fabulous Smiffs, MGMirkin, Talbott, et al. I'm certain I missed someone but you know who you are.

ONWARD!!

[solrey]

Out of curiosity I took a few minutes to search for wikipedia entries by antholory but what I found were posts on several forums asking various questions about Wiki.

For example, from the Cross of St. George Forum

antholory
I'm new here
Joined: 19 Apr 2010
Posts: 1
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 08:41 am Post subject: Wikipedia

How long does it take for Wikipedia to catch a vandalism? I'm doing a research paper for school. My topic is Wikipedia my thesis is: Wikipedia is a valid source of information. I'm trying to give Wikipedia the credit it needs.. plus more sources for such research papers. If you have the answer to the question please state a source. Thanks.

Same story at half a dozen other forums at least. New user antholory trolling forums with one post asking a question or two about wikipedia.

First:
Hey kid...do your own homework.

Second:
Wikipedia is not a valid source of information by any stretch of the imagination. At best it's nothing more than status quo infotainment for the dumbed down masses.

cheers

[Siggy_G]

Solrey, you're right: antholory must be a human spam bot for Wikipedia (and various software). Google: antholory.

Opens with some "I'm a student" question about Wikipedia, and ends up with a by-the-way explaination or crediting of how great it is. So, it's viral marketing.

Also, some posts are viral marketing ways of getting people to discover a new feature and answer the question related to Wikipedia or some software.

The other indication is that all posts are posted recently, in several completelly different forums. Funny thing that antholory came over a forum that is super-critical to the deeper extent of Wikipedia. (I think W works for introductionary and conventional descriptions, but that's it. And now I'm little more critical/puzzled. Why do they market Wikipedia?).

Here's a good answer that illustrates the whole thing:

http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&p=134044

In what way is this question relevant to VirtualBox? I don't see any links - is this incompetent spam?

[Siggy_G]

Also, reading through the deletion history and Wikipedia discussions on Electric Universe theory and certain aspects of Plasma Cosmology is truly puzzling. Interesting to read the original entries (from around 2006), that later were deleted or heavily rewritten.

[iantresman]

How do I become a more established wikipedia member? Hi I've just got an account on wikipedia and have added a few sentences on a couple of pages. They were accepted which was good. But I would like to add larger parts to more developed pages. How do I get wikipedia to trust me and what can I do to help them? Thanks.

Wikipedia does not quite work by implicitly trusting its editors, but by trusting their sources. And then making sure that you add relevant information to a page.

[Julian Braggins]

What indeed is going on in Wikipedia, Linus Pauling for instance had many peer reviewed studies showing the efficacy of mega doses of Vit C, however mainstream efforts to replicate them were sabotaged from the start by not even using mega doses! (Sloan Kettering, Vit c and Cancer)

This article may be reprinted free of charge provided 1) that there is clear attribution to the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, and 2) that both the OMNS free subscription link http://orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html and also the OMNS archive link http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml are included.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, April 26, 2010

What's Going on at WIKIPEDIA?
Do You Detect Any Bias Against Nutritional Medicine?

(OMNS, Apr 26, 2010) Wikipedia is a popular internet site for those seeking information on a very wide variety of subjects. What is unique about it is that anyone, it is said, can contribute to or edit its content. The Orthomolecular Medicine News Service has received complaints from readers who have tried, and failed, to correct what they think are a number of strongly biased declarations at the Wikipedia page on Orthomolecular Medicine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_medicine .

Here are some of those statements. (Emphasis added.) How many do you agree with?

"(T)he broad claims made by advocates of megavitamin therapy are considered unsubstantiated by available medical evidence. Critics have described some aspects of orthomolecular medicine as food faddism or quackery. Research suggests that some nutritional supplements might be harmful; several specific vitamin therapies are associated with an increased risk of cancer, heart disease, or death."

"In the early 20th century, some doctors hypothesized that vitamins could cure disease, and supplements were prescribed in megadoses by the 1930s. Their effects on health were disappointing, though, and in the 1950s and 60s, nutrition was de-emphasized in standard medical curricula."

"Amongst the individuals claimed posthumously as orthomolecularists are Max Gerson, who developed a diet that he claimed could treat diseases, but which is now thought to be ineffective and dangerous."

"Niacin has no known efficacy in psychiatric disease."

"(Dr. Abram) Hoffer believed that particular nutrients could cure mental illness. In the 1950s, he attempted to treat schizophrenia with niacin."

"Orthomolecular therapies have been criticized as lacking a sufficient evidence base for clinical use: their scientific foundations are too weak, the studies that have been performed are too few and too open to interpretation, and reported positive findings in observational studies are contradicted by the results of more rigorous clinical trials. Accordingly, 'there is no evidence that orthomolecular medicine is effective.'"

"The lack of scientifically rigorous testing of orthomolecular medicine has led to its practices being classed with other forms of alternative medicine and regarded as unscientific. It has been described as food faddism and quackery, with critics arguing that it is based upon an 'exaggerated belief in the effects of nutrition upon health and disease.'"

"The claims made by orthomolecular medicine proponents have been rejected by the medical community as unsubstantiated or false; as of 2009, current evidence does not support the efficacy of orthomolecular medicine in treating any disease."

"Barrie Cassileth, an adviser on alternative medicine to the National Institutes of Health, stated that "scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease," and medical textbooks also report that there is "no evidence that megavitamin or orthomolecular therapy is effective in treating any disease."

"The American Academy of Pediatrics labeled orthomolecular medicine a "cult" in 1976, in response to claims that orthomolecular medicine could cure childhood psychoses and learning disorders."

"(O)rthomolecular medicine can cause harm and is often very expensive."

"Further clinical studies show no benefit of vitamin E supplements for cardiovascular disease."

"Several orthomolecular related AIDS approaches such as multivitamins, selenium and amino acids are used with reported improvements in patients, which are attributed to the placebo effect."

As you read the full article, you may find more statements that you think are biased, or that you may agree with. Either way, your input to Wikipedia is invited. And, perhaps, very much needed.

The problem, according to our sources, is that when interested people have tried to correct biased or even derogatory Wikipedia statements, their contributions and edits have been immediately eliminated and overwritten.

If you would like to verify whether this is true or not, please go directly to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_medicine and make whatever corrections you think are needed in order for the Orthomolecular Medicine page to be more accurate.

Then check Wikipedia again in a few days.

We would welcome your sharing your Wikipedia experiences with us: omns@orthomolecular.org A sampling of readers' comments will appear in a future OMNS release.

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org

The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.

Editorial Review Board:

Ralph K. Campbell, M.D. (USA)
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. (Canada)
Damien Downing, M.D. (United Kingdom)
Michael Gonzalez, D.Sc., Ph.D. (Puerto Rico)
Steve Hickey, Ph.D. (United Kingdom)
James A. Jackson, PhD (USA)
Bo H. Jonsson, MD, Ph.D (Sweden)
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D. (USA)
Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. (Puerto Rico)
Erik Paterson, M.D. (Canada)
Gert E. Shuitemaker, Ph.D. (Netherlands)

Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D. (USA), Editor and contact person. Email: omns@orthomolecular.org

From my personal experience, The Max Gerson Diet brought a partner who was suffering from stage four cancer to all clear results in a matter of weeks, and at the same time brought my BPH from a state requiring an operation to symptomless, where it has remained 18 years later. Go figure

[plasmadragon]

Does anyone know why there is no wikipedia entry on Electric Universe theory? How about a facebook page?




Thread merged- Moderator

[junglelord]

Does anyone know why there is no wikipedia entry on Electric Universe theory?

Brainwashing and mind control. You will do what your told and believe what is taught. You will not question the lords of mind control.

The information of the EU is a pandoras box of unlimited possible energy, both technically and spiritually.
You my friend, are property of the state...merely cattle we are under the state.

Cows out of the barnyard, is not good business for the farmers.

[Siggy_G]

Does anyone know why there is no wikipedia entry on Electric Universe theory?

Here's a fairly recent discussion on the topic:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=6&t=3229

There was an entry for it once, but they deleted it... Plasma Cosmology is somewhat similar, but has been rewritten into "very speculative" and leaves out the last decades of observations and developments of Alfven's (and other's) hypothesis. Plus some random descriptions and missing points. Even here, Electric Universe isn't mentioned as a further development of the theory. Maybe someone can give another try on writing a proper entry though? (they will probably just refer to the deletion history)

How about a facebook page?

There are three relevant groups that I know of, which I'm a member of. Search for:
The Electric Universe
Plasma Cosmology
Thunderbolts Project