| Revision as of 07:42, 3 November 2008 editPcarbonn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,444 edits update history← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:51, 3 November 2008 edit undoජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,473 edits removing persona.l attacks. See WP:NPA.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| === Il ne suffit pas d'avoir raison contre l'erreur, il faut en avoir raison. === | === 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, | |Hi, my name is Pierre Carbonnelle and I pass I'm a member since April 2004. With the help of many others, | ||
| *I have and developed the ] mechanism | *I have and developed the ] mechanism | ||
| * I the view that cold fusion is an ongoing scientific controversy, not pseudoscience, in ] over ]. | * I the view that cold fusion is an ongoing scientific controversy, not pseudoscience, in ] over ]. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| ==Timeline of the cold fusion dispute== | |||
| Here is a timeline of the cold fusion dispute. To explore the history of an article, I recommend ]: | |||
| * Dec 13, 2001 : the article | |||
| * April 26, 2004 : to the topic | |||
| * Aug 16, 2004 : ] to Featured Article status, and goes on the front page of wikipedia | |||
| * Dec 2005 : Jed Rothwell, of obtains from Edmund Storms, a cold fusion researcher. | |||
| * Jan 3 2006 : after | |||
| * 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 - 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 ? | |||
| * Oct 2006 : The skeptics reject . The ArbComm introduced by the same | |||
| * 2007 : the article is , and represents the full 2004 DOE review | |||
| * Oct-Nov 2007 : I update the : that's too much, say the skeptics | |||
| * 6 Dec 2007 : by JzG. | |||
| * 14 Dec 2007 : Total despair... Luckily, Itsmejudith to continue : thanks !! | |||
| * Dec 2007 : I introduce a , which rejects it . Ron Marshall . | |||
| * Jan-April 2008 : Skeptics finally accept ]. Seicer accepts to mediate. THe leading skeptics is blocked several times for incivility. | |||
| * May 2008 : I write in New Energy Times | |||
| * May 2008 : Dank55 helps bring it to | |||
| * July 2008 : that cold fusion is not pseudoscience. | |||
| * July 2008 : ScienceApologist because of my article in New Energy Times. It is rejected. | |||
| * July 2008 : JzG . This time it is rejected by the community. | |||
| * September 2008: Dr. Shanahan wants his work to be promoted in our article. , on the basis that scientists should not contribute content about their own work. | |||
| * October 2008 : ScienceApologist , this time alleging that I have financial interest in cold fusion. It is rejected. ] adds favorable peer reviews in the lead section. That's for the skeptics. ScienceApologist says this is a ] account. His plea is rejected. ScienceApologist then ]. It is rejected. | |||
| ==How to defend a fringe science on wikipedia== | ==How to defend a fringe science on wikipedia== | ||
Revision as of 14:51, 3 November 2008
Il ne suffit pas d'avoir raison contre l'erreur, il faut en avoir raison.
Hi, my name is Pierre Carbonnelle and I pass 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. |
|
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: