I used to hang out on sci.physics, but was driven away by the crackpots. IIRC al.sci.physics.new-theories was created especially to keep them off sci.physics.relativity. It didn't work, they just crossposted. I think we need a separate policy just for physics crackpots, because they are in a class of their own.
I'm in favour of wiping the talk page of special relativity. ( it's strange that they always go for special relativity not general relativity)
Theresa
-----Original Message----- From: Tim Starling [mailto:ts4294967296@hotmail.com] Sent: 26 September 2003 02:07 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request RE a WIKI Article--]
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I know too little about physics to have anything helpful to say here. Reading between the lines here, I'm guessing that Mr. Royce's views are not mainstream? Is there any helpful accomodation that could be made here?
A quick google search shows that this guy is a sci.physics.relativity crackpot. See:
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?selm=XySVa.41611%24F92.4248%40afrodite.te lenet-ops.be&rnum=2
----- Forwarded message from Roy Royce roy_q_royce@hotmail.com -----
From: "Roy Royce" roy_q_royce@hotmail.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:58:58 -0600 To: jwales@joey.bomis.com Subject: --A Request RE a WIKI Article--
Dear Mr. Wales,
Your primary policy "You can edit this page right now" hopefully applies
to
the addition of facts to an article, especially important facts. However, it seems to be impossible to (permanently) add just three simple - but critical -
facts
to the Wiki special relativity article.
That's right, it's impossible to add facts permanently if they are considered by community consensus to be inaccurate. It's the nature of the process. Sounds like he's experiencing some Usenet withdrawal symptoms.
I cordially invite you to check out the validity of the following
statements
for yourself (these are the three facts of which I spoke above):
[1] No one has yet used two clocks to measure the speed of light (one
way).
[2] Since we have long had the necessary technology, the reason for the
lack
of a one-way light speed measurement must be the physical impossibility of making such a measurement. (In other words, there cannot be a one-way version of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and scientific minds should wonder why not - because the implications are grave for special relativity!)
If anyone cares, this is what he's talking about:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a0ac0bee.0211081401.61c7eee9%40posting. google.com&rnum=1
Suffice to say that he doesn't seem to have any supporters on s.p.r, where he's been plugging his theories for years. The tactic he's using is a typical red herring: he suggests a direct test of some aspect of relativity which is hugely expensive or perhaps even technically impossible. He ignores the huge body of slightly less direct tests of the same theory, and then obliquely suggests some sort of conspiracy theory to explain why no-one is spending millions of dollars on his simple test. Everywhere he goes, he feels persecuted by co-conspiring mainstream physicists, who are out to suppress the "truth" he has discovered. It's a common story.
My request is that someone please add these facts to the Wiki special relativity article because pertinent facts are important to any encyclopedia.
Anyone can add them, and anyone can take them away. Luckily for us, Wikipedian co-conspirators greatly outnumber the enlightened individuals who want to expose the shocking truth.
-- Tim Starling.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, it's against my role as 'the Jimbo' around here to call people crackpots, so I'll avoid that word here. But you'll all know what I mean anyway. ;-)
It has been my long experience, too, that there are many, uh, creative minds, who are drawn to theorizing about the puzzles and mysteries of physics. Their struggles against the tyranny of the mainstream are romantic and lonely; they are voices of reason, crying out in the wilderness.
I think this presents challenges for our NPOV policy, but not _special_ challenges. As with any controversial subject, and many uncontroversial ones, there are mainstream views, minority views, and singular views.
NPOV does not require us to present all these views as if they are equal! This is one of the things that's hardest to remember about NPOV. If a view is the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists, then we say so. If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so. And if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too.
The reason we can do all of that is that, usually, those statements are not controversial to any of the parties in the debate. We could have a problem if someone insists that their peculiar views are shared by all scientists, but that's usually not the case. Usually the creative alternative-physics types will readily agree that virtually no mainstream physicists would agree.
And we can use all of that as a reasonable grounds for dividing up articles. Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether.
There's a popular view of bias in journalism, held more in practice out of laziness I think than held as an actual theory of bias, that the way to be unbiased is to present both sides of an argument without prejudicing the discussion for or against either one. "Some say that the earth is round, others say that it is flat."
Our approach is more sophisticated, I think.
--Jimbo
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Well, it's against my role as 'the Jimbo' around here to call people crackpots, so I'll avoid that word here. But you'll all know what I mean anyway. ;-)
Isn't it the policy of Wikipedia NOT to include original research? In other words, if someone has made a discovery concerning relativity, schizophrenia, the existence of jesus Christ, et cetera, et cetera, Wikipedia is not the proper place for these findings, but rather the relevant Usenet group or peer-reviewed journal?
It has been my long experience, too, that there are many, uh, creative minds, who are drawn to theorizing about the puzzles and mysteries of physics. Their struggles against the tyranny of the mainstream are romantic and lonely; they are voices of reason, crying out in the wilderness.
I think this presents challenges for our NPOV policy, but not _special_ challenges. As with any controversial subject, and many uncontroversial ones, there are mainstream views, minority views, and singular views.
I'm wondering if the proper crieria for inclusion/exclusion is the fact that any theory, beit mainstream, minority or other, is whether or not it is available in print. And I'm willing to be generous in defining what exactly is meant by "print" as being any book or periodical since 1960 with an ISBN number -- but not needing said ISBN number before 1960.
(Why do I insist on an ISBN number? Anyone who seriously attempts to sell a book -- be it through a for-profit publisher or self-published -- will obtain one for her/his publication. Unfortunately, they aren't all that common before -- I'm guessing -- around 1960.)
I'm sorry, but a post to Usenet or a statement on a webpage just isn't convincing enough for little old me. But that's my POV. ;-)
Geoff
Geoff Burling wrote:
Well, it's against my role as 'the Jimbo' around here to call people crackpots, so I'll avoid that word here. But you'll all know what I mean anyway. ;-)
Isn't it the policy of Wikipedia NOT to include original research?
Yes, that's exactly right. I forgot to mention that, but that's another perfectly good reason for excluding at least some of that.
However, in defense of the fellow who wrote in to complain, he did make reference to some book or other published in the past, and so at least as far as *that* complaint goes, 'this is original research' wouldn't really be a good comeback.
I'm wondering if the proper crieria for inclusion/exclusion is the fact that any theory, beit mainstream, minority or other, is whether or not it is available in print.
I think that's a very valid way to look at it, yes, absolutely. And this helps to tie the policy here in with parallel policies in other areas, i.e. 'verifiability' has long been accepted as a decision rule. Writing about a 'religion' that has exactly one prophet and exactly one follower, who happens to be the same guy, presents NPOV problems because it's just too small to verify.
I'm sorry, but a post to Usenet or a statement on a webpage just isn't convincing enough for little old me.
That's right, although I can imagine some hypertechnical sticklers abusing this notion. Some facts can be found more or less only online, particular facts about contemporary Internet culture. Who is the current maintainer of BIND? Probably that isn't in a book, but it's an uncontroversial fact that could be looked up online.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
I'm wondering if the proper crieria for inclusion/exclusion is the fact that any theory, beit mainstream, minority or other, is whether or not it is available in print.
I think that's a very valid way to look at it, yes, absolutely.
It's still only one of several possible criteria to consider.
I'm sorry, but a post to Usenet or a statement on a webpage just isn't convincing enough for little old me.
That's right, although I can imagine some hypertechnical sticklers abusing this notion. Some facts can be found more or less only online, particular facts about contemporary Internet culture. Who is the current maintainer of BIND? Probably that isn't in a book, but it's an uncontroversial fact that could be looked up online.
It too is another fact to be considered.
There will always be borderline cases. In cases of doubt and uncertainty, I would give the benefit of the doubt to inclusion. If the science is really that bad, it will still have value as comic relief.
Ec