Wikipedia

[dishamha]

What will happen if Wikipedia fails to raise enough fund? The appeal for donation from the founder of Wikipedia is appearing on the top banner of Wikipedia. If Wiki fails to raise enough fund, will Wikipedia be closed or will it change to a profitable organization?

[mharratsc]

Let's hope that it dies in flames, and that a phoenix is born from its ashes that is more in line with what the founders dreamed of- a site where all information could be collected and shared, without being controlled by a select few who appointed themselves Thought Police!

[rboston]

I am not sure what's in it for Wikipedia as well and I think that people should make for it so that it will be having an extended shelf life. I mean, people get free information from it, and even though that is all good already, they should also contribute to how it is going to be maintained.

We all know that putting up a website and living for its maintenance is expensive and as responsible netizens, we should all contribute.

[rjhuntington]

Wikipedia, for all its considerable flaws, does not pretend to be a factual authority on any topic, but rather a repository of the consensus view, mainstream thought, and specifically demotes in importance any theory that is not mainstream or that is controversial in any way.

Wikipedia's published editorial policy states as much in plain language. Maybe people neglect to read those policies.

When Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe Theory are mainstream cosmology, consensus astrophysics, then Wikipedia (if it's still around) will promote those topics as mainstream consensus thought. Until then, we get to enjoy knowing we know something most people don't know.

[Aardwolf]

There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia promoting any consensus view but as an encyclopedia it should show and allow all theories without censorship.

If it is only there to be a repository for mainstream viewpoints why does the page below exist?

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

[rjhuntington]

There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia promoting any consensus view but as an encyclopedia it should show and allow all theories without censorship.

Agreed. "Encyclopedia" means "the full circle of arts and sciences". Full circle, not just mainstream consensus. This point illustrates Wikipedia's unsuitability as a scholarly reference. If I were a school teacher or college professor, I would not accept the use of Wikipedia citations in papers.

If it is only there to be a repository for mainstream viewpoints why does the page below exist?

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

Possibly as a consensus joke?

Wikipedia does allow some articles on out-of-the-mainstream topics when in the opinion of the self-appointed overlord of the subject area the article doesn't threaten the consensus view or the overlord's ego. This of course creates a huge credibility problem for Wikipedia.

Personally, I refer to Wikipedia only for the least controversial information, e.g., periodic table of the elements, timeline of English monarchs, depths of oceans, heights of mountains, location of some place on the globe, and other unchallenged bits of factual data.

[mharratsc]

Well-said, RJ. Don't think I've ever heard it put more concisely than that. *Exactly* how I feel about Wikipedia myself.

[Phorce]

Wikipedia, ur doing it wrong ?

For example this page.

Here are my edits.

Carlotto ref. Still in there over 5 years later.

multiple images of this feature reveals a natural looking martian hill whose illusory face-like appearance depends on the viewing angle and angle of [[illumination]]"<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_60.html The Face on Mars], Viking Project, [[NASA]] website, accessed [[26 April]] [[2007]]</ref>. Although this has been refuted by others <ref>[http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/martianenigmas/Papers/AO1888.pdf Digital Imagery Analysis of Unusual Martian Surface Features, Mark J Carlotto], [http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com New Frontiers In Science], accessed [[22 May]] [[2007]]</ref>

Sagan edit. Still in there 2 years later ...

While accepting the "face" as a subject for scientific study, astronomer Carl Sagan criticized much of the speculation concerning it in the chapter "The Man in the Moon and the Face on Mars" in his book The Demon-Haunted World.[28][29]

This with the extremely controversial Face on Mars. How did I do it ? Well first I was impeccably polite. Secondly I did not behave as if I thought I was going to be censored. Thirdly I was aware that preconceptions can determine outcomes even to the point of reinforcing unjustified perceptions if one is not careful.

[gannypahuja]

wikipedia is the top site of in the google ranking.
This site provide the very helpful information about the any of the topic .

[iantresman]

Wikipedia, for all its considerable flaws, does not pretend to be a factual authority on any topic, but rather a repository of the consensus view, mainstream thought,

Wikipedia is supposed to promote the "Neutral point of view", not the scientific point of view. The Wikipedia NPOV FAQ notes:

"A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that NPOV permits scientists' view of pseudoscience to be clearly, fully, and fairly explained."

In other words, if there is a scientific point of view on a minority subject, then an article should state it. Conversely, we can described minority views fairly, without pretending they are anything more than that, or pretending that they are correct or proven.

[Phorce]

Very often much depends on numbers of editors ... a personal "neutral" POV or "Objectivity" is impossible (Feyerabend) which is why WP is such an interesting attempt at creating near to neutral articles by using many editors. However this is not a perfect process ... especially in contentious areas where editors get scared off. Hence the need for safety in numbers. Hence the Wiki Project. Hence Wiki Project Plasma Cosmology (which is currently being revised in light of Farewell to Reason by Feyerabend). There simply aren't enough editors in there hence articles in this area are not neutral. A Wiki Project may be a way of remedying this.

[Siggy_G]

Opening line on Wikipedia's entry: "Plasma Cosmology is a term describing a loose set of non-standard ideas about cosmology (...)" How vague and careful can one get?

Of course, for Wikipedia editing (as with scientific papers and articles) one needs to back up every statement and section with references. For the same reason, several corrections and improvements can be made to that entry. Actually, the entry on Birkeland Currents is rather good. Those on Hannes Alfvén and Carl-Gunne Fälthammer could be improved as well.

[Phorce]

So, lets improve them ! Does anyone have any comments for or against about my editing group (linked in my previous post). I have had ZERO ( ) feedback about it and I would really like to know why.

1. Is my approach so embarrassingly wrong that no one dare say anything ?

2. Or, is my approach so right that it has made people so over excited that they can't say anything ?

2. Or have some people become so cynical about Wikipedia that they think changes cannot be made to it ?

3. Or, lastly, was my Wikiproject page moved behind the great firewall of China so that no one can actually see it ?

It maybe possible that none of this makes sense to anyone. In that case I can answer questions .

[Siggy_G]

Little time for commitments these days, but I did actually correct a line or two about Alfven in the Plasma Cosmology section a while back (won't mention what, in fear of it being reverted by someone...). I also came to realize that other Wikipedia articles had to be adjusted or enriched in order to cross link properly to the Plasma Cosmology article, so there is more work to do.

Just have in mind that proper references are really important - to every single sentence. Don't add generic or tabloid stuff, but merely aspects that can be backed up by papers, published articles or other Wikipedia entries.

Will have a closer look at your Wikipedia group when time allows.

[Siggy_G]

Well, did some carefull editing to the opening section of Plasma Cosmology. Guess what, it got reverted within 24 h.

From my edited version:

Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology proposed as an alternative to the Big Bang model of standard physical cosmology.[3] Its central idea is that the dynamics of plasmas can be extrapolated from laboratory experiments to cosmic scale and that electric currents within cosmic plasma give rise to the large-scale structure of the universe. [2][4] Some of the main proponents has suggested that pinched electric currents are the mechanism responsible for initiating the gravitational collapse of matter in the plasma state.[5]

(references to each sentence + links to Wikipedia terms; non-standard cosmology, plasma, z-pinch)

... and back to:

Plasma cosmology is a term describing a loose set of non-standard ideas about cosmology.[2] Its central idea is that the dynamics of ionized gases (or plasmas) plays a decisive role in the physics of the universe at scales larger than the Solar system.[3] Today, almost all cosmologists and astronomers ignore the idea.[4]

(there's not even a direct link between what is written and what is referenced, and the term non-standard ideas links to Wikipedia entry for non-standard cosmology)

I've explained my reasons for editing and asked about the reason for reverting.