Jed, Yes you are correct, always a fine balance between justice and progress and the forces of anarchy. Yes that was the paper I read. I believe it is stuff of that quality that is going to attract young research fellows to the subject.
I'm sorry if my responses get a little patchy from now on as it is the end of the year and technically the university is meant to be closing. I just want to put my feet up for a bit anyway. Regards, Remi. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jed Rothwell Sent: 16 December 2005 15:24 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Wikipedia is a model of free speech (not free screech) and democracy but I >guess what we really mean by free speech is *informed* free speech . . . Why do you call it a model? In Wikipedia, anything goes. Anyone can post any comment, anonymously. This is an invitation to trolling and character assassination. The article on cold fusion is full of skeptical nonsense and unfounded opinion. At Amazon.com they used to allow anonymous reviews of books. They abolished the practice after they found out the large number of glowing reviews were written by the authors or their friends, and many attacks were written by literary rivals. They should have realized that would happen. See: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1271358,00.html I think that a serious online encyclopedia will have to be based on some compromise between unfettered unregulated open access and Encyclopaedia Britannica style "the experts know best" authoritarianism. >Incidentally you posted Schwinger's paper a few months ago with an early >insight into CF . . . Do you mean the ICCF1 paper? I uploaded it to: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJnuclearene.pdf - Jed
