[WikiEN-l] [roy_q_royce at hotmail.com: --A Request RE a WIKIArticle--]

[Jimmy Wales]

Roy Royce wrote:
> I really wanted the chance to prove to Mr. Wales that there were
> indeed critical scientific facts omitted from "his" WIKI SR
> article. And I firmly believe that I can still do this, so I will
> post my new for-the-layman proof for Mr. Wales.

The specific factual content of the article is, in a sense, none of my
business.  My sole interest here is that the wiki process be followed
and respected.  Talking to me about physics is pointless, because it
misses the point.

> You could be fooled by various sources, one of which could be the
> WIKI SR article which falsely states that SR is supported by E=mc^2.

What do mainstream physics texts say on the matter?  What do the
majority of prominent physicists say on the matter?  Is there
significant debate one way or the other within the mainstream
scientific community on this point?

If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to
substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.

If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then
it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should
certainly address the controversy without taking sides.

If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then
_whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it
doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary
article.  Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

Remember, I'm not much interested in "is it true or not" in this
context.  We could talk about that forever and get nowhere.  I'm only
interested in the much more tractable question "is it encyclopedic and
NPOV or not"?  And this question can be answered in the fashion I
outlined above.

--Jimbo