Wikipedia

[iantresman]

Does anyone know why there is no wikipedia entry on Electric Universe theory?

After it was claimed to be pseudoscience, it was decided that there were insufficient reliable sources describing the subject, and it was not notable (compared to mainstream subjects). A copy of the article appears here.

[allynh]

I just saw the link you posted to http://www.electricuniverse.info/Electr ... %282005%29

Does this mean that you guys are setting up an EU Wiki.

[Siggy_G]

I read over the Wikipedia entries on Plasma and Birkeland Currents. They both contain surprisingly much support of EU/PC. Anthony Perrat is mentioned as well here, so I'm thinking either the wiki-watchdogs haven't got hold of it yet OR they are ok with this info being distributed and find the sources reliable (which they are). Anyway, it's a good sign, and the content is quite good; such as the comparison of the differences of gas and plasma and its mention in galactical scenarios.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28 ... _phenomena

"The remnant of "Tycho's Supernova", a huge ball of expanding plasma. The outer shell shown in blue is X-ray emission by high-speed electrons." (Hey, what about the other x-ray emissions in space - what causes them?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

[TalonThorn]

Have any of you checked wikipedia to see what it says about the EU (under plasma cosmology)?

It generally gives a negative slant on the theories (no surprise), but I thought some of you might be able to post something on the article to update it from the EU perspective.

The article talks mostly about Alfvén and Klein. I'd like to see some reference to the theories EU researchers have published or put forward.

Also, the following two sections seem to need some help:

Further developments
While plasma cosmology has never had the support of most astronomers or physicists, a few researchers have continued to promote and develop the approach...the level of interest in plasma cosmology has since fallen such that little research is now conducted.

and also under...

Comparison to mainstream cosmology
Plasma cosmology has been developed in much less detail than mainstream cosmology and lacks many of the major predictions and features of the current models. ...

It might be worth a try to post some info to the wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

[Siggy_G]

It generally gives a negative slant on the theories (no surprise), but I thought some of you might be able to post something on the article to update it from the EU perspective.

Very true, and we've discussed the issue in this thread:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=6&t=3229

I'm currently working on a (re)entry of the Electric Universe to Wikipedia. Curious to see if it goes through. If someone can have a look at the Plasma Cosmology entry, that would be cool. But we should try to be as informative as possible, less confronting (during the Wiki entry; people may read further into the EU perspective later) and have tracable sources for each statement.

[TalonThorn]

I think that's the right approach to take.

[TalonThorn]

I had forgotten about the problems with Wikipedia. I wonder if things have changed at all. I remember reading the article about how members were reported to be leaving it in droves due to the censorship by members toward their own viewpoint on various subjects.

[rjhuntington]

The problem with Wikipedia is that it is not a scholarly reference, it is a consensus reference. Wikipedia's own written policy is that Wikipedia represents the consensus view, the mainstream view, and while some space may be given over to minority views, non-mainstream theories are deliberately downplayed.

To make matters worse, Wikipedia allows anonymous authorship and anonymous editing, which makes it useless for scholarly purposes. As if that weren't enough to disqualify Wikipedia from academic consideration, as a symptom of anonymous editing, topics come to be dominated by particular (anonymous) individuals who have the power to revert any edits they don't personally approve or accept.

Thus knowledgeable experts often have their truly scholarly work dismissed or abused because it does not please the dominant editor in hiding. If I were a university professor or a high school teacher, I would not accept Wikipedia references or citations.

[Siggy_G]

The problem with Wikipedia is that it is not a scholarly reference, it is a consensus reference. Wikipedia's own written policy is that Wikipedia represents the consensus view, the mainstream view, and while some space may be given over to minority views, non-mainstream theories are deliberately downplayed.

Yes, this has been a challenging issue to Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe entries before. However, if one manages to keep in line with all their (more or less debatable) entry rules, it may be ok. The same rules can be used as counter arguments i.e. if the entry is written with a non-biased view and with references to scientific papers for each citation, this may actually be possible. There is no reason it shouldn't - but it could be an issue of how much "space" that is allowed for an entry (I haven't seen specific rules for this). The new EU entry is being finalized quite soon.

If I were a university professor or a high school teacher, I would not accept Wikipedia references or citations.

It isn't either - for the reasons you mentioned. (However, one can dig up the reference sources within the Wikipedia entry and look further into those.)

[mharratsc]

Unless there has been a huge changeover in the editorial staffing at Wikipedia, then I can assure you that any changes you make to the Wiki article regarding Plasma Cosmology, Electric Universe, or even any of the popular personalities thereof will be eradicated the same day they are posted. Nereid from BAUT considers it his/her/it's mission in life to monitor and shoot down all things EU/PC.

Hell, Eric Lerner has stated that he cannot even correct his birth date in his Wiki bio!

[Siggy_G]

Hell, Eric Lerner has stated that he cannot even correct his birth date in his Wiki bio!

Reading the discussion on Plasma Cosmology made me lift an eye brow, to say the least:

Notice: Elerner is banned from editing this article.
The user specified has been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article indefinitely. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page.

Unfortunately all the experts relevent to plasma cosmology are banned from this wiki. Its a tragic situation at the moment.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.3.106 (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, Eric Lerner is the only person banned from editing this article. It is indeed unfortunate that he was not willing to contribute constructively to the article. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is it that Eric Lerner has said/commented in this regard? Why is he banned? If he have said something "offensive" to the gate keepers of this article, could there perhaps be for a good reason? (rhetorical question)

One excellent comment (unsigned), that could seem to come from someone like Wall Thornhill:

Looks to me like there is a lot of POV writing in this article, and in particular, from the point of view that "real scientists don't look at plasma cosmology." It concentrates primarily on the work of one man, and uses POV weasle-words to belittle him. Very poorly written, and uses a lot of double-speak in order to "amaze the natives" so to speak. Very condescending, and to the writer, I will offer this advice: people are tired of double-speak and condescending tone from so-called experts on cosmology. Either come up with something that makes sense or go get a real job

So true. And the bottom topic tags of Plasma Cosmology:

Categories: Articles tagged by WildBot (section) | B-Class physics articles | B-Class physics articles of Mid-importance | Mid-importance physics articles | Wikipedia controversial topics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plasma_cosmology

[kiwi]

Otherwise we will just have to wait for an editor who is both an expert on plasma cosmology (not just on plasma or cosmology alone) and is also considered by the community to be civil and constructive. That would be great, but I won't hold my breath. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

they can double bill that event above with the second coming .... what a shameful situation , in Arts eyes the field of Plasma Cosmology does not exist, so his request for an expert in a non-existant field leaves him safe in the weasel den.... for now

[davesmith_au]

For a comprehesive look at why trying to use any level of reason and playing by the rules won't work on Wikipedia, you need look no further than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daves ... gwrestling.

It would take anyone a good hour or two to read through and follow just how the obviously flawed biography on David Talbott is still in the sorry state that it is, but it's worth having a look. As the bio stands, you could be forgiven for thinking that Talbott had done nothing of note since publishing "The Saturn Myth" way back in the '80s. The theory is far more developed than it was then, he has authored other papers and books since, established a website (this one...) which enjoys many thousands of visitors every month, yet these basic facts of his life are not allowed to be included in any shape or form, period.

Screams of "self-published" and "vanity websites" ad nauseum are then followed by accusations of a "Conflict of Interest" (COI), even though I was open and honest in declaring my involvement with DT and thunderbolts BEFORE making any attempt to edit his bio. The irony is that these accusations were levelled by two people who have had direct conflicts with DT, thunderbolts and myself, but who hide behind the anonymity of pseudonyms and deny any COI.

Those of us who have been here for a considerable time could never forget the purile antics of ScienceApologist (aka Josh Schroeder, formerly of Princeton...) on the original forum before the big crash, yet he smugly denies any COI with Talbott and indeed myself.

Then there's C. Leroy Ellenberger editing under the pseudonym of Phaedrus7 who has contributed more fluff to his own biography than any other editor, yet conveniently hides behind his tag protected by "no outing" rules. He is known personally to Talbott, a one-time supporter turned detractor, yet denies any COI knowing full well that the rules will protect his anonymity, and hence his deception.

Interesting to note that Ellenberger has contributed more to Talbott's bio than any other editor, and he was very quickly joined by Schroeder in reverting any changes I made or proposed.

Anyone wishing to take on these two and their many cohorts will need to make it a full-time effort. Frankly, I have a life I'd rather enjoy...

Cheers, Dave Smith.

[CTJG 1986]

'Wow' - that's all I can really say in regards to that discussion Dave. You would probably be better off banging your head against a wall than trying to use reason and intelligence to deal with SA and others like him.

Honesty and integrity are two things you may find ON Wikipedia, but you will be hard pressed to find them IN Wikipedia. And even harder pressed to find them in many of the editors there.

I do find it funny that SA constantly attacks other people and reverts their edits based on the fact they don't have a degree on that subject and thus aren't 'experts' and yet 90% of his bias that he has spread around Wikipedia is on subjects he holds no degree or 'expert' status on either.

His ego trumps his expertise on most matters. His retardation is extremely amusing though sometimes - I can't even count how many times I have seen him site rules against others that he himself - in some cases admittedly - ignores.

How the hell is he still an editor?

That's a rhetorical question, the answer to which is: because Wiki is a (very bad) joke.

[Siggy_G]

An anonymous editor just requested an expert to look at this article. I certainly do not not object to further work by an expert, but I doubt that you will be able to find anyone on Wikipedia more expert on this specialized sideline of science than ScienceApologist and myself, who have already contributed heavily. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How can he possible think that, when there are several obvoius flaws in the article, as the next commenter mentions (point-by-point)? And, yes, clearly they have contributed heavily.

I hope the editor requesting an expert did not have Eric Lerner in mind, since he has been banned from editing this article. Eric Lerner could contribute his expertise on this talk page, but I doubt he has anything to say that has not already been considered. BTW, you surely are not suggesting that Eric Lerner or anybody else owns this article, are you?--Art Carlson (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the article is owned by ArtCarlsen and ScienceApologist, almost accordingly to themselves ("contributed heavily").