User:Pcarbonn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi, my name is Pierre Carbonnelle and I'm a member since April 2004.
Contents |
[edit] Suppressed statements in cold fusion
Here are some well-sourced statements from the official reports of the Department of Energy that have been suppressed from our cold fusion article since I have been banned, in violation of Wikipedia's core policy of neutral point of view. Yet, these statements were included in the version resulting from the mediation.[1]
- "it is not possible to state categorically that cold fusion has been convincingly either proved or disproved" (DOE 1989)
"Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment. The reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic." (DOE 2004)"When members of the panel were asked about the evidence of low energy nuclear reactions, twelve of the eighteen did not feel that there was any conclusive evidence, five found the evidence "somewhat convincing", and one was entirely convinced." (DOE 2004)- "Even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. As a result, it is difficult convincingly to resolve all cold fusion claims since, for example, any good experiment that fails to find cold fusion can be discounted as merely not working for unknown reasons." (DOE 1989)
"Nuclear fusion at room temperature, of the type discussed in this report, [...] would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process." (DOE 1989)- "the failure of a theory to account for cold fusion can be discounted on the grounds that the correct explanation and theory has not been provided" (DOE 1989)
"The reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field" (DOE 2004)
Feel free to visit the article on Alternapedia for more information.
[edit] My opinion on the ArbComm's decision to ban me
|
I have now been banned from contributing to the cold fusion pages by the WP:Arbitration Committee [2]. I find this decision unjust and unfounded, and a harbinger of great danger for Wikipedia, its editors, and its readers. The stated offenses [3] are inexistent or petty [4]. I'm condemned not for my behavior, but for my stated intent to include the arguments of those favorable to cold fusion, as published in reliable sources. Yet, I've done this in accordance with WP:NPOV, a core policy, and of a past Arbitration Committee decision, which states : "Wikipedia: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." (more details on my opinion here and here) The decision to ban me is a shame to Wikipedia, and is full of self-contradiction. Central to the Arbitration Committee ruling is their decision that Wikipedia is a "mainstream" encyclopedia, whatever that means, not a WP:NPOV encyclopedia [5]. They said: "Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought." Besides contradicting NPOV, this policy is new, and I could not have known it : how can I be condemned by a rule that did not exist ? Furthermore, in the same ruling, the Arbitration committee said that WP:weasel words should be avoided [6], but condone the use of "mainstream" and other weasel words such as "most scientists". Finally, the Arbitration Committee applied double standard to judge the behavior of editors, depending on their stated intent [7]. Has the Arbitration Committee become a thought police that uses doublethink ? Wikipedia, a powerful telescreen, deserves better. |
- The opinion stated above has been suppressed from the talk page of the cold fusion case,[8] while favorable opinions have been maintained, by a a decision of ArbComm based on an ad hoc rule. See Talk.
[edit] More opinions
- Wikipedia is not a tabloid led by an ochlocracy, in response to a proposal to ban me
- The value of knowledge is to enable progress, not to defend the status quo. Also, opinion that "all editors have COI"
- Who ever said that Wikipedia needs to represent the mainstream ?
- What NPOV means, 3 proposed principles.
- Wikipedia should not fall in the traps of pseudoskepticism
- Should I also become outrageous ?
- Wikipedia needs a mechanism to enforce NPOV
[edit] 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 the nuclear effect from Edmund Storms, a researcher.
- Jan 3 2006 : first reversal to 2004 FA version by Connolley, after poll
- 7 April 2006 : SCZenz finds that half the DOE did find the evidence of excess heat convincing, an extremely important point
- April 2006 : Jed Rothwell withdraws from wikipedia after defending vehemently the reality of the nuclear effect, despite my effort to calm him down.
- April - Dec 2006 : a lot of discussions on how to present what the DOE said in 2004.[9]
- Oct 2006 : User:M rejects 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.
- 6 Dec 2007 : reversal to the 2004 FA version by [User:JzG|JzG].
- 14 Dec 2007 : Itsmejudith encourages me to continue contributing.
- Dec 2007 : I introduce a second case to the Arbitration Committee, which rejects it .
- Dec 2007 : Ron Marshall quits Wikipedia.
- Jan-April 2008 : All parties finally accept mediation. Seicer accepts to mediate.[10] ScienceApologist blocked multiple times for incivility, and drops mediation. Here is the version resulting from the mediation.
- May 2008 : I write my account of the mediation in New Energy Times
- May 2008 : Dank55 helps bring it to Good Article status
- July 2008 : a RfC concludes that "cold fusion" is not pseudoscience.
- July 2008 : ScienceApologist asks that I be banned from the cold fusion page because of my article in New Energy Times. It is rejected.
- July 2008 : JzG reverts the page to the 2004 FA version again. This time it is rejected by the community. He also asks administrators to indefinitely topic ban me; it is rejected.
- Sept 2008: Dr. Shanahan wants his work to be promoted in our article. I object, on the basis that scientists should not contribute content about their own work.
- Oct 2008 : ScienceApologist again wants me banned, this time falsely alleging that I have financial interest in cold fusion research. It is rejected.
- Oct 2008 : IwRnHaA adds supportive peer reviews in the lead section. ScienceApologist adds the "totally disputed" tag.[11] ScienceApologist says that IwRnHaA is a sock puppet account, and it was.[12]
- Oct 2008 : ScienceApologist then wants to delete this timeline of the cold fusion controversy. It is rejected.
- Nov 2008 : SheffiedSteel proposes to topic ban me for 6 months.[13]
- Dec 2008 : Jehochman asks the Arbitration Committee to review the editing behaviors on the cold fusion page, and ArbComm accepts it.[14]
- Dec 2008 : ArbCom reaches the conclusion that I should be banned from the cold fusion article for one year.[15]
- Dec 2008 : there was an election to confirm / replace arbitrators.[16] Comments from voters have convinced Jimbo Wales that the community was unhappy with the past Arbitration Committee.[17]
- Dec 2008 : I introduce an appeal of my ban to Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, asking him to cancel one of the key arguments to ban me.[18] He declines.
- Dec 2008 : Seicer asks the Arbitration Committee to review the behavior of ScienceApologist.[19]. He gets banned for 6 months.
- Abd and others continue to request a balanced presentation of the cold fusion controversy. In April, Abd brings JzG's administrative behavior to the arbitration committee.[20]
