I have been meaning to ask about this! I will start a separate thread. Jeff
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: > yes we should keep archive, for a future Nuremberg Trial on Wikipedia... > > same for peer-review, magazines, and other insults > > > 2012/9/9 James Bowery <[email protected]> > >> Part of the value of keeping an article from deletion is the history of >> edits doesn't disappear. >> >> A big part of my motivation in suggesting the use of Wikipedia as the >> basis for the Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge was >> the virulence of the editors of Wikipedia needs to be objectively >> analyzed. When an article is distorted the editorial history tells a very >> important meta-tale. When an article is deleted, their tracks are covered. >> >> I don't think it is any coincidence that the E-Cat article is up for >> deletion at this point in time. I suspect its an attempt to delete the >> edit history -- or at least make it harder to go back and figure out what >> is really going on in a society that produces something like Wikipedia's >> virulent content. >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Kelley Trezise >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> ** >>> Some time back I fought the battle of the E-Cat article on Wikipedia but >>> found it too frustrating and in the end even enfuriating as there are some >>> very tennatious editiors that really, really don't like cold fusion >>> articles in any way shape or form. Their obnoxious behavior have driven off >>> the more moderate people and as a result have had their way and have >>> written a very twisted article. >>> >>> Here is a paragraph from the article that portrays the involvement of >>> Hanno Essen, and Sven Kullander in the E-Cat as if they are passive >>> observers and not experimentalists that were actually involved in a test in >>> an active way: >>> >>> >>> "Swedish physicists, Hanno >>> Essén<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno_Ess%C3%A9n> >>> and Sven Kullander<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sven_Kullander_(physicist)> >>> stated that if the claims that they had read were true, then it has to >>> be a nuclear reaction. However the claims that they had read kept secret >>> the catalysts in Rossi's device. Kullander said it was important "to >>> consider the experimental facts and not indulge too much in speculation >>> about what could happen in theory". Saying measurements must be made >>> accurately and independently, which is not possible in this case, as "You >>> have to rely on Rossi that he is true to what he conveys and through >>> discussions with him we may try to conclude how reliable the measurements >>> are."[27] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer#cite_note-26> [ >>> 28] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer#cite_note-27>" >>> >>> >>> >>> How pathetic is that? I really can't understand why the administrators >>> at Wikipedia allow the abusive behavior of that gang but I have the >>> impression that those thugs have friends in the form of a few >>> administrators. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please consider going to the article, read it and vote on its >>> truswothiness, objectivity, etc. at the bottom of the page. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please be honest >>> >>> Zedshort >>> >>> >> >
