Posted on 07/29/2008 5:26:03 PM PDT by Kevmo
Wikipedia is the free online encyclopedia, "launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger," according to itself. They introduced a radical concept: an opportunity for knowledge about any and all subjects, developed and maintained in a quasi-organized, quasi-anarchistic structure by named or unnamed authors and editors.
The concept has had its strengths and weaknesses. It takes advantage of the ubiquity and near-universal accessibility of the Internet. The model relies on volunteer participation by editors. It is based on simple principles to align all editors toward a common goal - that is, the creation of verifiable content from reliable sources presented from a neutral point of view through consensus.
The influence of the Wikipedia project has been multiplied many times over, as the content of many Wikipedia pages has been replicated worldwide like a thought virus; the pages are replicated with no apparent regard for the accuracy or validity of the original Wikipedia source, so if a Wikipedia page is wrong, this error gets propagated widely.
The Wikipedia "cold fusion" page has been a wondrous and mysterious glimpse into this Web phenomenon. A rather interesting set of coincidences occurred in December. In an utterly bizarre shift, the more dominant editors of the free-for-all online encyclopedia reverted the reference page for "cold fusion" to a version that was more than three years out of date. An “edit war” resulted. As we go to press, the Wikipedia cold fusion page has been locked for two months, "protected from editing until disputes have been resolved."
Wikipedia pages have become a dominant provider of public information and an influence on public opinion. Wikipedia reference pages are often the first hits that anybody finds when doing Internet searches, so the service and its pages become a significant factor in many arenas of society, industry and government.
In the last two years, the Wikipedia cold fusion page had evolved slowly, increasing in clarity, precision and inclusion of new scientific references. In the reversion to the 2004 version, the work of many individuals who contributed to the development of a more current page disappeared from public view with the click of the mouse on Dec. 6.
The revision followed one Wikipedia editor's apparently random decision on Nov. 26 to delete published bibliographic references for the subject.
The core of the dispute appears to stem from the viewpoint of some editors that cold fusion is merely a footnote in the history of pathological science and nothing more, though they lack evidence to support their view. These editors have had difficulty supporting their position because other more-informed editors have followed news and read the latest published papers on the subject; they present a strong case that the field is a legitimate science. However, logic, thus far, does not appear to have prevailed.
It was not the first time that someone unilaterally reverted the page, effectively removing current news and developments of the field, turning the clock back, if you will. It seems that these editors preferred a version from Aug. 20, 2004, the day on which a consensus of Wikipedia editors decided that the cold fusion page was worthy of being featured on the front page of the Wikipedia Web site. They refer to this as the "Featured Article" version. Wikipedia editors have, on at least two other occasions, reverted the page to the Featured Article version. These additional reversions occurred on Jan. 6, 2006, and on Sept. 30, 2006. Such incidents have driven away many editors who have knowledge and expertise in cold fusion research. Although the Wikipedia page might have been generally accurate (it omitted the transmutation experiments published by Iwamura in 2002, for example) for 2004, its failure to reflect current developments makes the Wikipedia cold fusion page a source of misinformation, if not disinformation.
The Wikipedia "cold fusion" page has been interesting to watch, not so much as an authoritative source for news and information on the subject of LENR but to see the interplays between people holding various strong opinions on the subject, as well as to see a historical progression of the subject. The traffic, or the number of edits per year, has also been interesting to watch, most noticeably a huge jump occurred after the U.S. Department of Energy decided to look into cold fusion for the second time.
Date (Year) ~# of Edits Web Link Remarks
[table deleted, turns into mishmash on Free Republic]
Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of Wikipedia is the fact that it offers a glimpse into the public debate on the subject. Few media outlets are paying attention to the subject, and many of the prominent individuals known to New Energy Times who are observing the field are keeping mum though a few observers such as Ron Marshall and Pierre Carbonnelle have tried their best to participate. At the Wikipedia site, the perspectives and opinions are quite expressive, as seen in the comments on the history pages and the discussion pages. They provide a rich window into the human drama and perception of science.
The other coincidental event that occurred, just days after Wikipedia permitted the cold fusion page to be reverted on Dec. 6, was the Dec. 13 announcement by Udi Manber, vice president of engineering for Google that it is launching a competitive service to Wikipedia.
One of the main differences in the Google version of a free online encyclopedia, called "Knol" (based on the word knowledge), is that articles will be written by named experts, and they will be maintained by named experts. With the Google Knol encyclopedia, uninvited anonymous editors will not be able to edit or, in some people's view, deface the works of other editors.
The question that remains to be answered is, once the former Wikipedia editors who have been intent on minimizing "cold fusion" no longer have access to the pages managed by the current experts in the field, will they make an independent effort to build and maintain their own archaic and skeptical pages?
The tables do not translate well from the original article into this one, so I deleted the table.
For your attention.
Note that one of the good things to come out of this is that the Pure Energy Systems Wiki page has been much more active and attracted some high quality technical talent.
http://peswiki.com/energy/Main_Page
PESWiki.com — Pure Energy Systems Wiki — your publicly editable site about new energy technologies. Power to the people!
Main Page
From PESWiki
PESWiki is guided by the New Energy Congress, a network of 40+ energy professionals who are dedicated to clean energy technology advancement. Both the NEC and Pure Energy Systems (PES) Network (http://pureenergysystems.com) were founded by Sterling D. Allan, CEO. Many others knowledgeable in the industry also help make this site what it is — a movement for identifying and promoting the best clean energy technologies.
Welcome to PESWiki
The community-built resource that focuses on
alternative, clean, practical, renewable energy solutions.
As of Tuesday, July 29, 2008, there are 3083 articles on
free and renewable energy that anyone can edit!
Stopped reading right there, cold fusion is a hoax.
cold fusion is a hoax.
***Then how do you account for the fact that excess heat has been replicated in such electrolysis systems dozens of times in peer reviewed journals? The latest was Dr. Arata in Japan, one of the most respected physicists of his generation in that country.
Whatever happened to Inslaw? Talking about total hoaxes.
I don’t know what Inslaw is or was. Please answer my question.
wikipedia is weird.
Sure, something like a cold fusion might also occur. Doesn't look sustainable though.
Rare fact: Did you know that there is at least one strange radionuclide — I forget which — that changes its decay rate with temperature?
***No, Didn’t know that. Fascinating.
Sure, something like a cold fusion might also occur. Doesn’t look sustainable though.
***What would be the wise approach to sustainability? Since there have been palladium/Deuterium electrolysis excess heat experiments that have lasted more than 50 hours, and the $Billion Tokomak reactor-type fusion experiments attain maybe 50 milliseconds of fusion, that’s about 9 or 10 orders of magnitude more sustainable, and one heck of a lot more cheaper.
IMO, a multi-mile linear plasma in space at an L point. Maybe, maybe heavy water bubble implosions.
The rest -- not doable.
It’s interesting to watch the criticism of cold fusion go from “hoax” to “not sustainable” to “not doable” compared to other more recent fusion advances, some of which were built upon the knowledge developed by Pons & Fleishman.
Well, maybe I’m not quite including cold fusion, because while IT might be not doable, once understood it may be we can build a working bubble implosion reactor, using that understanding.
I was the "hoax" person, my original assessment was correct when I said it and it's still correct. Pons & Fleishman were hucksters; they falsified their research and were ridiculed when no one else could repeat their experiment. I'm not going to try and prove that to you:
1) because I don't care that much
2) there's not a single reputable scientists the world over that would touch the subject (and no, a half-senile Japanese retiree that no one's ever heard of doesn't count). The burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of the cold fusion quacks - to do the one thing they can't do - actually create cold fusion.
3) and I know that no amount of reason or argument is enough to convince some people.
The sad thing is that these people don’t know how stupid they are, and there is no way to make them know.
PESWiki sounds interesting.
John Edwards Protected From Editing on Wikipedia ... discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Edwards
1) because I don’t care that much
***But that doesn’t stop you from seagulling on this thread, does it? I suppose, in a way, it does mean that you do care.
2) there’s not a single reputable scientists the world over that would touch the subject (and no, a half-senile Japanese retiree that no one’s ever heard of doesn’t count).
***OK, how about the former Chairman, India
Atomic Energy Commission: M. R. Srinivasan ‘. . . There is some science here that needs to be understood.
We should set some people to investigate
these experiments. There is much to be
commended for the progress in the work.
The neglect should come to an end’.
As for the ‘senile’ Arata, I’d listen to him much sooner than to you. You don’t have a building named after you, after such a distinguished scientific career, do you? How is it that I know so much about a crackpot like you, when I’ve never even met you?
3) and I know that no amount of reason or argument is enough to convince some people.
***After dozens of replications in peer-reviewed journals, no amount of reason or argument would convince you, which is the level of haughtiness that’s been called “pathological disbelief”. For those who would like to explore further, check out the excellent scientific progress being generated in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.