Wikipedia

Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarize questions that have yet to be answered.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Wikipedia

Unread postby dishamha » Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:01 am

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?
Last edited by nick c on Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: commercial links removed from signature
dishamha
Guest
 

Re: Wikipedia

Unread postby mharratsc » Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:39 am

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! :x
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: Wikipedia

Unread postby rboston » Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:50 pm

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.
rboston
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:45 am

Wikipedia is a Consensus Publication

Unread postby rjhuntington » Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:42 pm

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.
rjhuntington
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:24 am

Re: Wikipedia

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:45 pm

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
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Wikipedia

Unread postby rjhuntington » Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:33 am

Aardwolf wrote: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.

Aardwolf also wrote: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.
rjhuntington
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:24 am

Re: Wikipedia

Unread postby mharratsc » Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:00 am

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

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: Wikipedia

Unread postby Phorce » Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:01 am

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.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Wikipedia

Unread postby gannypahuja » Sat May 19, 2012 3:08 am

wikipedia is the top site of in the google ranking.
This site provide the very helpful information about the any of the topic .
gannypahuja
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 2:09 am

Re: Wikipedia is a Consensus Publication

Unread postby iantresman » Sat May 19, 2012 6:13 am

rjhuntington wrote: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.
User avatar
iantresman
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: Wikipedia

Unread postby Phorce » Sat May 19, 2012 1:55 pm

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.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Wikipedia

Unread postby Siggy_G » Sun May 20, 2012 12:05 am

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.
User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Wikipedia

Unread postby Phorce » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:08 am

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 ( :roll: ) 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 8-).
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Wikipedia

Unread postby Siggy_G » Wed Sep 19, 2012 12:16 pm

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.
User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Wikipedia

Unread postby Siggy_G » Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:14 am

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.
User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Next

Return to Electric Universe - Net Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest