Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> Most others just parrot what they read in Wikipedia.
Cold fusion aside, this is actually not a completely stupid thing to do.
As much as I dislike Wikipedia, I must agree. Wikipedia is a good
source of information about conventional subjects. It is not such a
good source of information on complex scientific disputes such as
cold fusion. All institutions have strengths and weaknesses.
A friend of mine is still battling the skeptics at Wikipedia.
Yesterday I wrote to him about a well-known skeptic there
"ScienceApologist" who was temporarily banned from editing the cold
fusion article:
". . . [W]hy not let the fellow had his fun? His hobby is campaigning
against cold fusion in Wikipedia. He does little harm. My hobby is
campaigning in favor of cold fusion at LENR-CANR.org. The Internet is
large enough to accommodate both of us. If the people at Wikipedia
countenance his behavior why should you object? Let them run the
place however they please.
As you said, Wikipedia is dysfunctional [by our standards]. . . . But
ScienceApologist like it the way it is. As you said it would be easy
to change the rules at Wikipedia. You could just adapt the
Citizendium model, which prevents most abuses. So:
1. It would be easy to adjust the rules.
2. The managers at Wikipedia have chosen not to adjust the rules.
I conclude that the managers there approve of things the way they
are. . . . So who am I to argue with them?"
- Jed
