It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientific Censorship of Wikipedia: Magnetic Reconnection

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   


Recently I was banned from editing the magnetic reconnection page on Wikipedia after adding a criticism section to the article main page.

As you will see below, the entire section is fully sourced by numerous peer reviewed publications and meets the minimum Wikipedia guidelines for content. After adding this section, a handful of people decided they didn’t like what I had to say so they set about deleting this section of the article without any justification.

In preventing this vandalism to the page, I was issued a “Block” which prevents me from making edits to Wikipedia. Of course, they claimed I was engaging in an edit war. This is ridiculous since engaging in an edit war is not the same as preventing vandalism.

Now I admit that the section may not read in an encyclopedic manner, but that is not grounds for deletion since the content can be edited for style without deleting the entire section. The bottom line is that the criminals in charge of the “magnetic reconnection” page are engaging in scientific censorship to prevent science that refutes their lies from being placed on Wikipedia.

Anyone reading this that agrees with my position should add the criticism section back into the article and tell the liars to stuff their junk science where the sun doesn’t shine.


The censored Wikipedia criticism section of: magnetic reconnection
edit on 21-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Er...could you explain it to the layman.. Why did you have to add a criticism section?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Salutations to those that go out and seek the truth, and those that defend the right to have access to information.

But mostly to those that spread the truth, even when it's not shared with others. In this case a gross failure of the Wikipedia staff it's obviously a good enough criticism piece to be on that page.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
If that's you in the video its nice to put a face to such an intelligent poster.

In which case you should provide your article in the link.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


There is probably an issue because the only thing that is sourced in this article are opinions. And it is an extremely opinion based article.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Yes, that's me.

The link in the original post directs to my old version of the page that has the censored criticism in it.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


There is probably an issue because the only thing that is sourced in this article are opinions. And it is an extremely opinion based article.


Anyone who reads the article will instantly see your claims are ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


There is probably an issue because the only thing that is sourced in this article are opinions. And it is an extremely opinion based article.


Anyone who reads the article will instantly see your claims are ridiculous.



So break it down then...

Having criticism is more than relaying talking points. Explain where the criticism came from and what people are doing to try to resolve it. I read you section of the article, and it just looks like you are relaying quotes and opinions.

I don't think you presented the criticism in an unbiased way. That's all.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Well, lets see.

I've quoted no less than seven scientific papers that were published in major physics journals.

From those, nearly the entire article is composed of direct quotations which:

1. refute the concept of magnetic reconnection based on the known laws of physics

and

2. offer a competing theory to account for the observed sudden releases of energy in astrophysical double layers.

Therefore what I am stating is not opinion, but scientific fact that has been vetted and published in major physics journals.


edit on 21-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Yes, but this is coming from the person who emphatically states "all science is a lie" and "Einstein was an idiot". Somehow the idea of you presenting your argument in a balanced and objective manner doesn't strike me as plausible.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Before I begin please understand that I believe that your criticism was well thought and conveyed. However, I don't think wikipedia is doing anything wrong here.

Your section describing a minority view provides almost as much information as the entirety of the rest of the article. Wikipedia clearly states that minority views should not be given as much page space as the popular views. This is why they removed your section.

This is a quote from the wikipedia neutral point of view document



Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth belief.


WikiPedia.org

Hope this helps!
edit on 21-3-2011 by BlackJackal because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackJackal
 


Minority viewpoints are the entire point of criticism sections.

Additionally, the fact that I have several peer reviewed papers in support of my position automatically places my criticism section outside the scope of wiki's minority viewpoint rule.

I am not quoting some web blog from joe blow, I am quoting the founding father of magneto-hydrodynamic theory, of which his view points were published at a NASA symposium on astrophysics.

HOWEVER - EVEN IF THE MINORITY VIEWPOINT RULE IS INVOKED LEGITIMATELY- IT IS STILL SCIENTIFIC SUPPRESSION!!!!!

The outright barring of dissenting science from Wikipedia that has been vetted by the major physics publications should not be allowed - no matter how few scientists disagree on a subject.

I am not attempting to alter or change any of the existing article on magnetic reconnection. I am simply adding more information to the topic.

Adding MORE legitimate information to a topic should never be censored.

Preventing people from learning about published peer reviewed science is ridiculous.



edit on 21-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
Yes, but this is coming from the person who emphatically states "all science is a lie" and "Einstein was an idiot". Somehow the idea of you presenting your argument in a balanced and objective manner doesn't strike me as plausible.


ad hom attacks against me do nothing to refute the science published by Nobel Prize winning physicists.

Hannes Alfven won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on MHD theory.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I agree with you that by barring your criticism they are limiting the amount of information they are making available to their readers. However, they can do that, they even have rules setup that allow them to do it legitimately. If you feel strongly about it I would suggest a petition that wikipedia changes it's rules for posting material. But, as it stands now they have clearly stated why they will not publish your section.

This is just one of the reasons why the vast majority of academic institutions do not accept wikipedia as a valid source. True science can be found in peer reviewed journals not on wikipedia.

Cheers!



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by john_bmth
Yes, but this is coming from the person who emphatically states "all science is a lie" and "Einstein was an idiot". Somehow the idea of you presenting your argument in a balanced and objective manner doesn't strike me as plausible.


ad hom attacks against me do nothing to refute the science published by Nobel Prize winning physicists.

Hannes Alfven won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on MHD theory.



That's strange, Wikipedia didn't "suppress" the MHD theory you are talking about.


Maybe you should add your 2 cents onto that page as opposed to defacing other pages. This isn't about suppression, it's about you pressing your anti-accepted science agenda.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


LOL

Alfven had this to say about frozen-in magnetic fields and magnetic merging, which are what MHD theory is predicated on:

: “Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer. The most important criticism of the merging mechanism is that by Heikkila [21], who, with increasing strength, has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed, at the same time, an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. I was naïve enough to believe that [magnetic recombination] would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred: ‘merging’ . . . seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that part of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority in the latter group.”


Trust me, you will never see that quote, or any of his published papers that back up that quote, appear anywhere on Wikipedia.



edit on 21-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Dude, I got banned from editing the spaghetti page, I just wanted it to be known that whilst the recipe stated using carrots that most sane people would not put a carrot anywhere near their spaghetti.

Nothing but a bunch of power crazy hitlers over at wiki.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pazcat
Dude, I got banned from editing the spaghetti page, I just wanted it to be known that whilst the recipe stated using carrots that most sane people would not put a carrot anywhere near their spaghetti.

Nothing but a bunch of power crazy hitlers over at wiki.


That explains why my friend cooked spaghetti with carrots in it a few months ago. Damn you Wikipeda! Now this is a real example of Wiki misuse.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I'm going to raise such a stink on the web about this that they will never live it down.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Very intresting.
but why go to all that trouble?
why are they hiding the info. from who?
is some one trying to get money to use this?
and is your info gets out
it will stop them?
what did they tel you?
why they stopt you.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join