RE: Article about Wikipedia
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 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 they are most interested in. There is a nice article about it in the current issue of Wired magazine (March 2005). Since we have our fair share of 'experts' on this list, this might be something many here might want to actively participate in. Interestingly enough, there seems to be no restrictions on what you can contribute. You can publish a whole category if you want. This is what they have for Cold Fusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion -john -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:34 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Article about Wikipedia This is important. This encyclopedia now has 500,000 articles, compared to Britannica's 80,000. See: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki.html?tw=wn_tophead_4 I should make some corrections additions to their article about cold fusion. Ed Storms should probably review it, too. It is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion - Jed -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.5 - Release Date: 05/03/01
RE: Article about Wikipedia
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 to time. The cold fusion article is not good. It needs extensive revisions. For example, it says: Energy source vs power store While the output power is higher than the input power during the power burst, the power balance over the whole experiment does not show significant imbalances. Since the mechanism under the power burst is not known, one cannot say whether energy is really produced, or simply stored during the early stages of the experiment (loading of deuterium in the Palladium cathode) for later release during the power burst. As the readers here surely realize, this is nonsense. - Jed
RE: Article about Wikipedia
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 from the people here on V. The Wikians pride themselves on representing mainstream science, and not representing fringe POV (points of views), even though fringe POVs just might happen to be far more knowledgeable and accurate. It might APPEAR as though one can just jump in and make a correction on the honor system (for example, correcting the note about no excess heat) but prepared - many of the Wiki veterans won't think twice about immediately erasing your contribution and asking questions later. I think it would be great if more Vortexians contributed to the CF Wiki, but you should just know what you are up against. If you make any updates, be sure to add a title comment that summarizes your change. Make use of the Discussion page - it's quite helpful. And don't be too shocked at the level of ignorance reflected on the page. I had a run-in a while back with one of the Wiki-ops - he thought he was so smart about cold fusion because he was a plasma fusion grad student at Columbia. Steve At 09:56 AM 3/2/2005 -0500, you wrote: 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 to time. The cold fusion article is not good. It needs extensive revisions. For example, it says: Energy source vs power store While the output power is higher than the input power during the power burst, the power balance over the whole experiment does not show significant imbalances. Since the mechanism under the power burst is not known, one cannot say whether energy is really produced, or simply stored during the early stages of the experiment (loading of deuterium in the Palladium cathode) for later release during the power burst. As the readers here surely realize, this is nonsense. - Jed
Re: Article about Wikipedia
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 can just jump in and make a correction on the honor system (for example, correcting the note about no excess heat) but prepared - many of the Wiki veterans won't think twice about immediately erasing your contribution and asking questions later. Well, that sounds unpromising. I would not waste my time making corrections, in that case. It sounds like an organized online version of sci.physics.fusion. I have not studied the Wikipedia documentation. Is there a way to contact the authors of these articles? I would like to send them a short note pointing out a few of the problems and asking whether they would or would not erase my contributions. - Jed
Re: Re: Article about Wikipedia
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 accurate terms than cold fusion anyway? Obviously, cold fusion is the more popular held term for the phenomenon, and most who are curious are likely to look there first. OTOH, one might argue that those seriously researching the phenomenon will eventually look up the more accurate terms C.A.N.R., L.E.N.R., and C.M.N.S. - and based on the literature they find here will hopefully acquire a more accurate understanding of the phenomenon. Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
RE: Article about Wikipedia
I second the motion. Your post modern solution is just the ticket in the thicket, Harry. Also: Don't pick fights with the editors, Jed. Just post the new LENR topic and lets see what happens. K. -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 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 wrote: It might APPEAR as though one can just jump in and make a correction on the honor system (for example, correcting the note about no excess heat) but prepared - many of the Wiki veterans won't think twice about immediately erasing your contribution and asking questions later. Well, that sounds unpromising. I would not waste my time making corrections, in that case. It sounds like an organized online version of sci.physics.fusion. I have not studied the Wikipedia documentation. Is there a way to contact the authors of these articles? I would like to send them a short note pointing out a few of the problems and asking whether they would or would not erase my contributions. - Jed
