| Revision as of 08:09, 27 October 2008 editPcarbonn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,444 edits rmv tag.← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:27, 27 October 2008 edit undoජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,473 edits removing personal links... per WP:OVERSIGHTNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| * Dec 2005 : Jed Rothwell, of obtains from Edmund Storms, a cold fusion researcher. | * Dec 2005 : Jed Rothwell, of obtains from Edmund Storms, a cold fusion researcher. | ||
| * Jan 3 2006 : after | * Jan 3 2006 : after | ||
| * 7 April 2006 : that half the DOE did find the evidence of excess heat convincing, a statement that extremely important | * 7 April 2006 : that half the DOE did find the evidence of excess heat convincing, a statement that extremely important | ||
| * April 2006 : Jed Rothwell after the reality of cold fusion, despite to calm him down. | * April 2006 : Jed Rothwell after the reality of cold fusion, despite to calm him down. | ||
| * April - Dec 2006 : a lot of discussions: what did the DOE really say ? Should we quote the main conclusion only, or also the conclusion of the Charge Elements ? do the conclusions of Charge Element 1 and 2 seem so different ? Can we quote their evaluation of the evidence of excess heat ? | * April - Dec 2006 : a lot of discussions: what did the DOE really say ? Should we quote the main conclusion only, or also the conclusion of the Charge Elements ? do the conclusions of Charge Element 1 and 2 seem so different ? Can we quote their evaluation of the evidence of excess heat ? | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| * 14 Dec 2007 : Total despair... Luckily, Itsmejudith to continue : thanks !! | * 14 Dec 2007 : Total despair... Luckily, Itsmejudith to continue : thanks !! | ||
| * Dec 2007 : I introduce a , which rejects it . Ron Marshall . | * Dec 2007 : I introduce a , which rejects it . Ron Marshall . | ||
| * Jan-April 2008 : Skeptics finally accept ]. Seicer accepts to mediate. |
* Jan-April 2008 : Skeptics finally accept ]. Seicer accepts to mediate. | ||
| * May 2008 : I write in New Energy Times | * May 2008 : I write in New Energy Times | ||
| * May 2008 : |
* May 2008 : helps bring it to | ||
| * July 2008 : that cold fusion is not pseudoscience. | * July 2008 : that cold fusion is not pseudoscience. | ||
| * July 2008 : |
* July 2008 : because of my article in New Energy Times. It is rejected. | ||
| * July 2008 : |
* July 2008 : . This time it is rejected by the community. | ||
| * September 2008: |
* September 2008: wants his work to be promoted in our article. , on the basis that scientists should not contribute content about their own work. | ||
| * October 2008 : |
* October 2008 : , this time alleging that I have financial interest in cold fusion. It is rejected. ] adds favorable peer reviews in the lead section. says this is a ] account. plea is rejected. hen ]. It is rejected. | ||
| ==How to defend a fringe science on wikipedia== | ==How to defend a fringe science on wikipedia== | ||
Revision as of 20:27, 27 October 2008
Il ne suffit pas d'avoir raison contre l'erreur, il faut en avoir raison.
Hi, my name is Pierre Carbonnelle and I'm a member since April 2004. With the help of many others,
In particular, I would like to thank User:Itsmejudith and User:Seicer for their help. I also thank Steve Krivit and the many Cold Fusion researchers who have given me valuable information. |
|
Timeline of the cold fusion dispute
Here is a timeline of the cold fusion dispute. To explore the history of an article, I recommend TimeTraveller:
- Dec 13, 2001 : the article is created
- April 26, 2004 : my first contribution to the topic
- Aug 16, 2004 : this version is promoted to Featured Article status, and goes on the front page of wikipedia
- Dec 2005 : Jed Rothwell, of lenr-canr.org obtains a contribution defending the reality of cold fusion from Edmund Storms, a cold fusion researcher.
- Jan 3 2006 : first reversal to 2004 FA version after poll
- 7 April 2006 : finds that half the DOE did find the evidence of excess heat convincing, a statement that I found extremely important
- April 2006 : Jed Rothwell withdraws from wikipedia after defending vehemently the reality of cold fusion, despite my effort to calm him down.
- April - Dec 2006 : a lot of discussions: what did the DOE really say ? Should we quote the main conclusion only, or also the conclusion of the Charge Elements ? Why do the conclusions of Charge Element 1 and 2 seem so different ? Can we quote their evaluation of the evidence of excess heat ?
- Oct 2006 : The skeptics reject the mediation proposed by Ron Marshall. The ArbComm rejects the case introduced by the same
- 2007 : the article is pretty stable, and represents the full 2004 DOE review
- Oct-Nov 2007 : I update the theory section : that's too much, say the skeptics
- 6 Dec 2007 : reversal to FA version by JzG.
- 14 Dec 2007 : Total despair... Luckily, Itsmejudith encourages me to continue : thanks !!
- Dec 2007 : I introduce a second case to the Arbitration Committee, which rejects it . Ron Marshall quits Misplaced Pages.
- Jan-April 2008 : Skeptics finally accept mediation. Seicer accepts to mediate.
- May 2008 : I write my account of the mediation in New Energy Times
- May 2008 : helps bring it to Good Article status
- July 2008 : a RfC concludes that cold fusion is not pseudoscience.
- July 2008 : asks that I be banned from the cold fusion page because of my article in New Energy Times. It is rejected.
- July 2008 : reverts the page again. This time it is rejected by the community.
- September 2008: wants his work to be promoted in our article. I resist, on the basis that scientists should not contribute content about their own work.
- October 2008 : again wants me banned, this time alleging that I have financial interest in cold fusion. It is rejected. IwRnHaA adds favorable peer reviews in the lead section. says this is a sock puppet account. plea is rejected. hen wants to delete this history of the cold fusion page. It is rejected.
How to defend a fringe science on wikipedia
Here are some recommendations based on my experience with cold fusion.
- first check Misplaced Pages:PSCI#Pseudoscience.
- seek to demonstrate that the science is fringe , but not pseudoscience, and then use what the ArbComm unanimously said about significant alternative to scientific orthodoxies : "Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience."
- to demonstrate that, seek reliable scientific sources that are independent from the researcher in the field. Skeptics are often the best source to establish that.
- if someone still pretends that it is pseudoscience, relentlessly ask him for a source for that view, emphasising that wikipedia is based on reliable, written sources. He will keep saying "everybody knows that it is pseudoscience": repeat that this does not meet wikipedia standards. They will come with statements from editorials saying that "most scientists rejects it as pathological science"; respond by saying that "most scientists" does not constitute a verifiable source, because they don't write on the subject in scientific peer-reviewed journal.
- make sure that you prepend each favorable sentence by "proponents say that..." for proper attribution.
- write also for the enemy.
- stick to journal papers, avoid self-published sources.
- be perseverent !
Good luck !
Category: