Ray Saintonge wrote:
The difficulty with this comes when we run into the maxim that the wiki is not paper. If scientific theories depended on being published in the mainstream media that part of Wikipedia would be very skimpy indeed. NOR in science was intended to counteract the influence of crackpot theories.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "mainstream media." Scientists have their own media, namely scientific journals, which do a better job overall of peer review and fact-checking than the popular media. I suppose scientific journals are not "mainstream" in the sense of being read by Joe and Jane Sixpack, but they're very mainstream in the sense of reflecting the range of scientific views considered reasonable outside the crackpot community.
I don't believe Wikipedia has a rule about "mainstream media as acceptable sources" that allows Newsweek and CBS News to be used as sources but forbids the New England Journal of Medicine or the Annalen der Physik (where Einstein published his relativity theory). The problem that Ray imagines is therefore not really a problem.
There *would* be a problem, however, if Wikipedia were to treat every patent application filed and accepted at the U.S. Patent Office as sufficient documentation to warrant mention in Wikipedia. All kinds of crackpot scientific theories get patented. (They probably have a whole wing just for storing blueprints of perpetual motion machines.)
Reasoning back to the lawsuits that we're discussing here, I would say that the existence of a lawsuit and court decision is akin to issuance of a patent by the U.S. Patent Office. It's an undeniable fact that the patent was issued, but until said patent is deemed noteworthy enough to be mentioned in a scientific journal, it's not significant or noteworthy or credible enough for mention in Wikipedia. Likewise, until a court's legal verdict is considered noteworthy enough to be reported in SOME publication (be it a newspaper or a law review), it's probably not appropriate for Wikipedia.
-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118 --------------------------------
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
There *would* be a problem, however, if Wikipedia were to treat every patent application filed and accepted at the U.S. Patent Office as sufficient documentation to warrant mention in Wikipedia. All kinds of crackpot scientific theories get patented. (They probably have a whole wing just for storing blueprints of perpetual motion machines.)
Reasoning back to the lawsuits that we're discussing here, I would say that the existence of a lawsuit and court decision is akin to issuance of a patent by the U.S. Patent Office. It's an undeniable fact that the patent was issued, but until said patent is deemed noteworthy enough to be mentioned in a scientific journal, it's not significant or noteworthy or credible enough for mention in Wikipedia.
The Sept. 25, 1920 issue of "Scientific American" at page 310 included one paragraph articles for recently patented inventions of
* A shawl muffler * A gun camera * An apparatus for measuring ohmic resistance of liquids and solutions * An incandescent lamp protecting device * A seat for agricultural implements * A clod breaking agricultural implement * A stepladder * A hydrant * A sponge rubber article and method of making same * A pressure bar mechanism * A price marking system * A copy holder * A grinding tool * A combination socket wrench * A newspaper vending machine * A bearing puller * A speed operated circuit closer * A cushio9n support for large musical devices * A vaporizer * An internal combustion engine * An automatic gas controller * A railway car door * A toy book * A headlight dimmer * A cushion tire * A design for a calendar mounting * A design for a spool holder * A design for a doll
We have a lot of notable patents to write about
Ec
On 3/24/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
There *would* be a problem, however, if Wikipedia were to treat every patent application filed and accepted at the U.S. Patent Office as sufficient documentation to warrant mention in Wikipedia. All kinds of crackpot scientific theories get patented. (They probably have a whole wing just for storing blueprints of perpetual motion machines.)
Reasoning back to the lawsuits that we're discussing here, I would say that the existence of a lawsuit and court decision is akin to issuance of a patent by the U.S. Patent Office. It's an undeniable fact that the patent was issued, but until said patent is deemed noteworthy enough to be mentioned in a scientific journal, it's not significant or noteworthy or credible enough for mention in Wikipedia.
The Sept. 25, 1920 issue of "Scientific American" at page 310 included one paragraph articles for recently patented inventions of
- A shawl muffler
- A gun camera
- An apparatus for measuring ohmic resistance of liquids and solutions
- An incandescent lamp protecting device
- A seat for agricultural implements
- A clod breaking agricultural implement
- A stepladder
- A hydrant
- A sponge rubber article and method of making same
- A pressure bar mechanism
- A price marking system
- A copy holder
- A grinding tool
- A combination socket wrench
- A newspaper vending machine
- A bearing puller
- A speed operated circuit closer
- A cushio9n support for large musical devices
- A vaporizer
- An internal combustion engine
- An automatic gas controller
- A railway car door
- A toy book
- A headlight dimmer
- A cushion tire
- A design for a calendar mounting
- A design for a spool holder
- A design for a doll
We have a lot of notable patents to write about
They weren't notable when the patents were issued though, but later. There are many such patents, too, that fall in such general listings. Was the agricultural clod breaking tool the ripper which mechanized and revolutionized farming in some areas of the Central Valley, or was it some non-functional, go nowhere version of a plough for limited applications? I don't know, and having reviewed patents (for toupee devices for historical reasons) at least once, there seemed to be to be no way that anyone could from the context of the patent application alone could tell how successful any such device became or would become (the latter being speculative original research, what I call SPOR).
Interesting how important the ripper is to agriculture today, made it possible to farm some of the premium land of the Central Valley, yet it's not in Wikipedia. Is it notable? Yup. No tandem offset plow, harrows yes, but no ripper. Oh, I see it's called a chisel plow, on the plough page, which redirects itself to the plough page, and no redirect for ripper, and it is not listed on its disambiguation page. Clod breaking tillage equipment is of major importance to agriculture, but that doesn't mean I can tell the history of the ripper or chiseler from its patent application or anything about it that should be in Wikipedia that isn't in secondary sources.
KP
K P wrote:
On 3/24/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
There *would* be a problem, however, if Wikipedia were to treat every patent application filed and accepted at the U.S. Patent Office as sufficient documentation to warrant mention in Wikipedia. All kinds of crackpot scientific theories get patented. (They probably have a whole wing just for storing blueprints of perpetual motion machines.)
Reasoning back to the lawsuits that we're discussing here, I would say that the existence of a lawsuit and court decision is akin to issuance of a patent by the U.S. Patent Office. It's an undeniable fact that the patent was issued, but until said patent is deemed noteworthy enough to be mentioned in a scientific journal, it's not significant or noteworthy or credible enough for mention in Wikipedia.
The Sept. 25, 1920 issue of "Scientific American" at page 310 included one paragraph articles for recently patented inventions of
- A shawl muffler
- A gun camera
- An apparatus for measuring ohmic resistance of liquids and solutions
- An incandescent lamp protecting device
- A seat for agricultural implements
- A clod breaking agricultural implement
- A stepladder
- A hydrant
- A sponge rubber article and method of making same
- A pressure bar mechanism
- A price marking system
- A copy holder
- A grinding tool
- A combination socket wrench
- A newspaper vending machine
- A bearing puller
- A speed operated circuit closer
- A cushio9n support for large musical devices
- A vaporizer
- An internal combustion engine
- An automatic gas controller
- A railway car door
- A toy book
- A headlight dimmer
- A cushion tire
- A design for a calendar mounting
- A design for a spool holder
- A design for a doll
We have a lot of notable patents to write about
They weren't notable when the patents were issued though, but later.
My comments were, of course, in response to the notion that notability depends on being included in a secondary source
There are many such patents, too, that fall in such general listings. Was the agricultural clod breaking tool the ripper which mechanized and revolutionized farming in some areas of the Central Valley, or was it some non-functional, go nowhere version of a plough for limited applications?
The invention in question was by J. W. Scott of Falcon, CO. The description: "The invention relates more particularly to clod breakers for use in connection with potato diggers and plows. An object is to provide a clod-breaking machine having a positive crushing, rolling and breaking mechanism, resiliently carried on the implement and being power-driven to effectually crush and pulverize earth being plowed up by the implement. A further object is to provide adjustable means for carrying the resilient tension." It would take further research to find out what happened with the patent later.
I don't know, and having reviewed patents (for toupee devices for historical reasons) at least once, there seemed to be to be no way that anyone could from the context of the patent application alone could tell how successful any such device became or would become (the latter being speculative original research, what I call SPOR).
In many cases these patents never went beyond the stage of being a great idea. Bringing the idea to manufacture could be an insurmountable task for many of these individuals, no matter how good the idea.
Interesting how important the ripper is to agriculture today, made it possible to farm some of the premium land of the Central Valley, yet it's not in Wikipedia. Is it notable? Yup. No tandem offset plow, harrows yes, but no ripper. Oh, I see it's called a chisel plow, on the plough page, which redirects itself to the plough page, and no redirect for ripper, and it is not listed on its disambiguation page. Clod breaking tillage equipment is of major importance to agriculture, but that doesn't mean I can tell the history of the ripper or chiseler from its patent application or anything about it that should be in Wikipedia that isn't in secondary sources.
There are many, many such inventions that drove the industrial age. Many of them are now taken for granted, and many more got absolutely nowhere. Descriptions, such as those in Scientific American, should satisfy those concerned with notability, but a fair description of these devices will still require reference to the originall documents.
Ec
There are many, many such inventions that drove the industrial age. Many of them are now taken for granted, and many more got absolutely nowhere. Descriptions, such as those in Scientific American, should satisfy those concerned with notability, but a fair description of these devices will still require reference to the originall documents.
Ec
I don't think so at all. For one thing the device as eventually used may differ substantially from the patent application, particularly for a large machine. Patent descriptions are not informative in a way that makes them usable by the layman, by which I mean any human not seeking directly to profit off producing the patented item. In addition, it is, for the purposes of producing a Wikipedia article, rather like describing a scientist's work on elucidating a genetic novelty by going to her raw data tables. It's not only not necessary, it will work against you. The implementation of the patent is what succeeds or fails, and the interpretation of the data is what is published or not.
KP
K P wrote:
There are many, many such inventions that drove the industrial age. Many of them are now taken for granted, and many more got absolutely nowhere. Descriptions, such as those in Scientific American, should satisfy those concerned with notability, but a fair description of these devices will still require reference to the originall documents.
I don't think so at all. For one thing the device as eventually used may differ substantially from the patent application, particularly for a large machine. Patent descriptions are not informative in a way that makes them usable by the layman, by which I mean any human not seeking directly to profit off producing the patented item. In addition, it is, for the purposes of producing a Wikipedia article, rather like describing a scientist's work on elucidating a genetic novelty by going to her raw data tables. It's not only not necessary, it will work against you. The implementation of the patent is what succeeds or fails, and the interpretation of the data is what is published or not.
It all depends on the underlying purpose for writing about these things. Realistically, very few of these inventions are likely to ever be mentioned in the forseeable future. Most of them have gone beyond the point where there would be used for anything useful. We no longer have steam railway engines, so any invention designed to improve their operation would now be useless.
Perhaps the best use for these documents is historical. How do otherwise obscure patents enlighten us about the ideas prevailing when a more successful invention was produced? What other things did a more famous inventor design? This will still mean that only a small sampling of the patents will ever be referenced.
The US Patent Office records are fully available on line back to the 1830s. Earlier files are incomplete because of a fire at the patent office. There is no question of referring to private raw data. Scientific disputes over these documents is unlikely.
Ec
Hi Sheldon, All,
Regarding the issue of patents:
Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
There *would* be a problem, however, if Wikipedia were to treat every patent application filed and accepted at the U.S. Patent Office as sufficient documentation to warrant mention in Wikipedia. All kinds of crackpot scientific theories get patented. (They probably have a whole wing just for storing blueprints of perpetual motion machines.)
You have seen:
*[[Template:US patent]] *[[Template:US patent reference]] *[[Template:Cite patent]] (incomplete list)
And the inevitable *[[List of Tesla patents]]
Patents are used a lot as references in our dark corner where death rays, anti-gravity devices, free energy machines, and the like are nurtured by their fans.
Regards, Peter
On 3/24/07, Peter Jacobi peter_jacobi@gmx.net wrote:
Patents are used a lot as references in our dark corner where death rays, anti-gravity devices, free energy machines, and the like are nurtured by their fans.
Indeed - however, patents are useful sources for more detail or to shore up a claim of invention date. They can't be used to establish the importance of a topic or the accuracy of the claims because a patent is essentially a self-published document with only a degree of review; plenty of bogus things have passed inattentive patent examiners.
It's also worth noting that the patented version of an invention is often rather dissimilar to the eventual mass-produced item.
-Matt