There are some interesting new remarks here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Response_by_Mats_Lewan
This is a look at the mindset of a reporter describing the Rossi story and
cold fusion in general. Here is a witty quote:
You know, I’m a journalist. I’m looking for news. Let’s say a blinking
space-craft from a remote galaxy reportedly dropped down in Central Park one
day. Then I wouldn’t actually look for quotes from people saying: “well, I
and my family have been living here for many years, and my ancestors
generations before me, and no one has ever seen any space-craft land in
Central Park. It’s really unlikely”. That’s not the news. That’s the
consensus that has always been there, for ages. What I’m interested in is a
Fairly Well Documented Testimony by Highly Qualified People. Then of course
the consensus part also has to be reported. I did that. But a quote... well,
again I don’t see the point.
One of the Wikipedia editors is objecting strenuously. This is one of the
people who kick me out of Wikipedia and ban my ISP from time to time, after
I sneak in and write snide comments such as these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion#This_Article
I determined that there is not a single accurate technical statement in this
article. The rule at Wikipedia is that anyone who points out such defects
must be banned immediately.
The other rule is you are not allowed to edit an article if you know
anything about the subject. I told Mats Lewan they will soon throw him out
for that reason. See:
Lore Sjöberg, The Wikipedia FAQK – Wired, April 2006
http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/commentary/alttext/2006/04/70670
The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: 'Experts are scum.'
- Jed
