Wackopedia: Pt.2

BRIEF HISTORY & RECORD OF THE AETHEROMETRY ENTRY IN WIKIPEDIA
1. Short introduction to Wikipedia lingo
Let us start with a brief exposition of some of the Wikipedia-specific
concepts to which we will refer below:
- Wiki markup: In editing Wikipedia pages, one can use a set of
shorthand symbols which get automatically translated into HTML when
one saves the results of one's edit. For example, double square
brackets can be used to indicate references to other Wikipedia
articles, and a colon at the beginning of a line indicates an
indentation.
- Talk pages: Every Wikipedia article has an accompanying "Talk" page,
whose purpose is to provide a discussion and coordination forum for
those already working on the entry or interested in contributing to
it.
- History pages: Every editable page in Wikipedia has an accompanying
"History" page, which shows a chronological record of all the
modifications to the page, often with editorial comments summarizing
or justifying the edit. Since History pages show edit actions, they
are displayed in the original wiki markup that was used by the
editors.
- Users: The crucial idea behind Wikipedia is that anybody can edit
any article. When doing so, one can - but doesn't have to - first log
in under a previously-established Username, in which case one's edits
appear "signed" with that name. Otherwise, the edits appear "signed"
with the IP number from which one has been connected while editing.
Wikipedia regulars like to make much of the distinction between edits
performed under a Username and other edits, and they disparagingly
refer to the authors of the latter as "anons" - as if a Wikipedia
Username, such as "Dragon's Flight" or "Helicoid", was somehow less
"anonymous" than an IP number. When one registers a new Username, a
Wikipedia article pertaining to that Username automatically gets
created, and one can (but doesn't have to ) use it to provide
"information" about "oneself". Like all other Wikipedia articles,
"User" articles, too, can be edited by anybody, and each has an
associated "User Talk" page that is typically used to send requests,
comments, questions, etc. to the given User.
- Administrative hierarchy: The Wikimedia software used by Wikipedia
allows at least two specially privileged categories of Users:
Administrators and Bureaucrats. The special powers of an Administrator
include blocking other Users from performing edits, deleting articles
that have been voted for deletion, and blocking specific articles from
being edited by non-Administrators ("locking" articles). The special
powers of a Bureaucrat include appointing Administrators. To be
promoted to an Administrator or Bureaucrat within Wikipedia, a User
has to go through a procedure of formal petitioning and self-
evaluation, be able to boast a sufficient number of edits to various
Wikipedia articles and successes in dealing with various Wikipedia
crises, and undergo a neo-maoist critique and a mock "voting in" by
other Wikipedia regulars.
- Authorship: The notion of "authorship" does not exist within
Wikipedia. Once an article is submitted - i.e. entered in Wikipedia -
modifying it becomes a free-for-all in which everybody is equal in
principle, irrespective of competence or even interest in the subject
matter. Admins and their charges are, of course, more equal than other
Users or 'anons'. And since the article, upon submission, immediately
becomes "communal", there is no way for the original submitter to
withdraw it. The only way it could ever be removed from Wikipedia is
through another mock "Vote for Deletion" (VfD) (see Voting).
- Voting: Voting, especially Voting for Deletion (VfD), seems to be a
favorite Wikipedia 'activity'. In the course of barely a month, the
Aetherometry entry witnessed two rounds of Votes for Deletion: one
pertaining to the entry itself, and the other to the category "Non-
Mainstream Science" which was created to enable a truthful
categorization of - well, entries pertaining to non-mainstream
science. A Vote for Deletion can be initiated by anybody. The process
lasts about a week, and the final outcome is made on the basis of a
"rough consensus". Although formally anybody can participate in the
vote, and in spite of the central place occupied in Wikipedia ideology
by the notions of "community" and "democracy", not all votes do in
fact count. Here is the relevant guideline:
"Administrators necessarily must use their best judgement, attempting
to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine
when rough consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can
disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong
evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith"
opinions include those being made by sock puppets ["A sock puppet is
an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than
one name."] , being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid
whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that
article."
Thus those voters who are not members of the "Wikipedia club" but care
about one topic, or the fate of a specific article, are officially
considered to be in "bad faith". It is, in fact, considered 'bad form'
to care about a topic, about its accuracy and content.
- Categorization of entries: Every Wikipedia entry is classified into
one or more categories. There are a vast number of existing categories
and new ones are trivially easy to create. In spite of this, Wikipedia
does not offer a single category which would provide for a fair,
factual and non-judgemental classification for nonmainstream science,
whether pioneering or dissenting. In the course of the "Aetherometry
war" one of the participants created just such a category - it was
called "Non-mainstream science". The category was promptly submitted
to a Vote for Deletion (see Appendix 14), and deleted. Just to give a
flavor of the Wikipedians' perverse fixation on scientific obscenity:
the subcategories of Category "Science" include Pseudoscience and
Protoscience. Subcategories of "Pseudoscience" include Pseudophysics ,
Quackery, Pseudoarcheology, and Pseudohistory; articles in category
"Pseudoscience" include Pathological Science , Voodoo Science, False
Precision, List of Discredited Substances, Cargo Cult Science, Crank
(person), Pseudomathematics, Pseudophilosophy, and Bunk Science. The
category "Types of Science", which is a another subcategory of
"Science", contains only three articles: Fringe Science, Junk Science,
and Sound Science. By contemplating this maze of silly and redundant
labels being applied by pubescent cyber-zealots and disinformation
agents, one gets the full breadth of Wikipedia madness.
- Neutral Point of View (NPOV): This is the linchpin of Wikipedia
ideology, equivalent to the old maoist 'correct party line'. But what
is meant by it is not an accurate description of anything (idea, fact,
event, opinion, etc), but the bias of the Wikipedia church, a bias
that often resorts to falsifying ideas, facts, events, opinions, in
the name of 'balancing viewpoints'. Most frequently, however, no
balancing whatsoever takes place, as all that remains is the biased
Wikipedia viewpoint masquerading as NPOV. Hence, NPOV in the hands of
Wikipedia cabals is Absolute, not the result of constructive
discussion or consensus. Admins and their roving cabals have all the
cybertools needed to make that Absolute stick. To quote from the
Wikipedia article on that topic:
"Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a
neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support
fairly and without bias. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales,
NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". [...] The neutral point of view
attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both
supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not
possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to
any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of
view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to
essentially rational [sic: reasonable] people who may differ on
particular points."
- Template messages (tags): Over the years, Wikipedians have developed
hundreds, if not thousands, of boilerplate banners that can be
plastered on top of disagreeable articles for the purpose of warning
humanity about the article's possible perniciousness, and of
encouraging the populus at large to "improve" it, perform a "cleanup"
on it, make it more "neutral", etc. To get an idea of the breadth and
depth of this madness, take a look at the cleanup tags, disputed
content tags, and the overview of all tags. In the wiki markup,
templates are indicated by enclosing the specific name of the desired
template in double braces, e.g. "{{cleanup}}" or "{{cleanup-
nonsense}}"; the presence of such a construct in the wiki markup of
the offending article inserts the full boilerplate banner into the
HTML of said article .
- The Three-revert Rule (3RR): Here you have it:
"The Three-revert rule (or 3RR) is an official policy which applies to
all Wikipedians. The policy states that an editor must not perform
more than three reversions on a single Wikipedia article within 24
hours of their first reversion. (This does not apply to self-reverts
or correction of simple vandalism).
Using sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid
this limit, and the policy specifically does not apply to groups. Any
reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else, to
serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in
agreement over which of two competing versions is correct. [Emphasis
ours, we just couldn't resist. Fantastic stuff.]"
2. A mob of administrators and their allies: a study in the abuse of
administrative powers and of the stated Wikipedia policy rules

1.1 On June 19, 2005, Dr. M. Askanas (under the User name "Helicoid")
submitted to Wikipedia, in good faith, an entry on the topic of
Aetherometry. The entry strove to cogently explain the key
aetherometric concepts and therefore was quite long. Taking a cue from
Wikipedia guidelines, the author separated out some of the sections
and made them into separate entries which were then referenced from
the main entry. The presentation may well not have conformed to what
Wikipedia calls Neutral Point of View (NPOV). However, it was factual
and accurate and written by a PhD in Mathematics who is indeed
knowledgeable on the subject-matter of Aetherometry. Dr. Askanas was
initially quite ready to engage in any good-will collaboration that
might be needed to adjust the entry to the Wikipedia framework. But
no good-will proposals ever ensued. Instead, the response to the
submission was an instant formation of a witch-hunt mob, composed
largely of people with Administrator privileges - a mob which,
immediately and without foundation, cause, or even any knowledge of
the subject matter, descended upon the entry and its author, and
proceeded to mutilate the entry beyond sense or recognition, as well
as to engage in a public campaign of slander and libel about the
subject matter and its founders. Many of these mutilations and
slanderous statements will be documented below.

This reaction runs directly counter to Wikipedia's own rules, cardinal
amongst them being an assumption of good faith on the part of the
individual submitting the entry:

"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on any wiki,
including Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we
assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it,
not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be
doomed from the beginning.

So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-
intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it
as vandalism. When you disagree with someone, remember that they
probably believe that they are helping the project. Consider using
talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do
the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from
escalating. Especially, remember to be patient with newcomers, who
will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules."

1.2 One of the first actions of this witch-hunt cabal was to summarily
delete the content of all the sub-articles that were referenced from
the main entry. This was done without actually reading any of the
material, on the spurious "diagnosis" that these sub-articles
duplicated the contents of the main entry. After this propitious
start, the systematic mutilation of the entry and the falsification of
its subject matter at the hands of the cabal continued through the
subsequent weeks. An observer aptly described it as the work of " a
handful of people who have taken it upon themselves to "improve" an
article on a subject they know nothing about, are contemptuous about,
and every time they make an "improvement" they falsify the subject,
screw up the grammar so that the sentences don't make sense, introduce
their own bias, etc.".

1.3 This falsification took on a fascistic bent as it progressed to
routine suppression of information, repeated censorship of third party
references, repeated deletion of dissenting participants'
interventions, and even repeated deletions of any citations by
competent scientists who have gone on record as having reviewed work
in Aetherometry. Every attempt was made to discredit not only the
entry's subject matter and the work of the Correas or even their
character, but anyone who might have commented positively on the
subject. The aprioristic logic of the witch-hunt: "He's a witch, and
therefore anybody who says otherwise must be a witch too".

1.4. Persistent attempts on the part of the original author of the
entry and other contributors to counteract this ungoing falsification
of the subject matter were denounced as "vandalism", and the entry
would repeatedly be reverted, by an administrative action, to a
properly mutilated state, and then locked (an administrative action
which prevents edits by non-administrators) under the guise of
'protection from vandalism'. In one grotesque instance an
Administrator even made the mistake of locking the page at the wrong
moment - after a de-falsifying edit; the oversight was soon spotted
and was immediately 'remedied' (by the same Administrator) by
momentarily unlocking the page, reverting it to a properly falsified
version, and then locking it again.

The archival history of the Aetherometry entry in Wikipedia, and of
other entries pertaining to "dissenting sciences", is full of
instances of appalling intolerance and sheer malice. The records make
it quite plain that a specific group of administrators is far more
interested in behaving as malicious detractors of alternative science,
than, as one participant wrote on the Autodynamics Talk page "as
impartial thinkers trying to construct a balanced entry that could
benefit the public." Is the Wikipedia project well served by such a
demonstration of intolerance and mob mentality? Maybe it is -
although, at first glance, there could hardly be a more serious defect
in an aspiring encyclopedic project. We have heard it said that some
unspecified "higher-up" Wikipedia administrators are aware of their
failure, but are unwilling or unable to address the responsibility
that goes with their power. Perhaps this is so; meanwhile, however,
and much to the contrary, the Administrators with whom we have come in
contact seem to readily and freely abuse their power and treat it as a
license to do as they please. The trajectory of the treatment
undergone by the "Aetherometry" entry is, in its entirety, an example
in point. Several days after the entry was placed in Wikipedia, a
representative of the science-purification cabal submitted it to a
"Vote for Deletion". A little swarm of Administrators and allied
Users, none of whom evidenced any knowledge of Aetherometry or of the
actual contents of the article, appeared out of nowhere to express
their disgust with the subject matter and to vote for the deletion of
the article. However, barely a few weeks later, after the entry had
been multiply mutilated, reduced to a caricature and made into a
vehicle of continuous slander, falsehood, and harassment, most of them
reversed their vote and recommended that the entry be kept, for the
sole purpose of using it to harm and denigrate the work of the Correas
and that of their collaborators.

The following exchange (from the "Talk" page associated with the
Aetherometry entry) between user "Karada" and a user logged on from IP
165.154.24.194, identifies some of the salient points in the entry's
history:
Please, please, read the NPOV article again, and then read WP:NOT, in
particular the part about verifiability. We have lots of articles on
fringe beliefs, unconventional scientific theories, and alternative
views in practically every sphere of human activity. Wikipedians are
renowned for working with newcomers, and with people with opposing
viewpoints, to create good articles. Instead of fighting the Wikipedia
community, please ask yourself, "why is this not working in this case?
How can I best address their requests to follow Wikipedia policies,
and to work together to make this article better?" -- Karada, 00:43,
26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fighting the Wikipedia community? Who me? Nah; I'm just telling it
like I see it. If Helicoid was a newcomer - which I assume, from the
exchanges, she was - I don't see how she has been, or is being,
"worked with". Read the record. And perhaps it is you - you, the
seasoned Wikipedians who are so renowned for working with newcomers -
that should ask yourselves "why is it not working in this case?" How
in the world should I know why it's not working? All I see is a
handful of people who have taken it upon themselves to "improve" an
article on a subject they know nothing about, are contemptuous about,
and every time they make an "improvement" they falsify the subject,
screw up the grammar so that the sentences don't make sense, introduce
their own bias, etc. So I would say to you: The reason it is not
working is that you have never, for even a second, treated the
original author or her contribution with any kind of respect - respect
for the person's thought, respect for her subject matter, respect for
her language, respect for her motivations. And respect is the
prerequisite of "working together", no? -- 165.154.24.194, 01:03, 26
Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's what working on a Wiki is like, until you are used to it, and
learn Wikiquette and the other social mores needed to interact with
other users. You are certainly right that working together requires
some minimal mutual respect -- can we have some too, please? -- Karada
Sorry, you (as in your "we") are not going to get any from me. It's a
bit late for that. But neither do you need any from me; I have no
desire, and you have no need, for us to "work together". What are we
supposed to work together on? As for Wikiquette, I have seen plenty of
examples in action in you-all's treatment of Helicoid. Let's see...
There's the "Please do not bite the newcomers" rule ("Understand that
newcomers are both needed by and of value to the community. By
empowering newcomers, we improve the diversity of knowledge, opinions
and ideals on Wikipedia, enhance its value and preserve its neutrality
and integrity as a resource.") Has Helicoid been empowered? Did I miss
the big Empowerment Event? Then there is the "Assume Good Faith" rule
("Assume good faith is a fundamental principle on any wiki, including
Wikipedia. ") Would you say that screaming "hoax", "brainwashing",
"crank", "fanatic", "snake oil", is a manifestation of assuming good
faith? If not, then when did this famous assuming take place? Then
there is the "No legal threats" rule, in which one reads: "Similarly,
slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on
Wikipedia." Wouldn't you say that calling a person's life's work "a
hoax", insinuating that the person is lying about the scientific
degrees she has, claiming that the person is a "snake oil vendor" -
all without any basis, without any provocation, and on a very public
forum - wouldn't you say that these are libel, slander and defamation
of character? And you are calling on me to learn Wikiquette? --
165.154.24.194


3. Some of the members (Administrators and other Users) composing the
Wikipedia Science-Purification cabal

Administrators (mostly anonymous):
1. CesarB
2. CSTAR
3. Dragon's flight
4. Guettarda
5. Karada
6. Kbdank71
7. Mel Etitis
8. Pjacobi
9. The Anome
10. Theresa Knott


Information available about these Administrators from their Wikipedia
"User pages":

1. Cesario Eduardo Barros, brasilian, computer-science student at
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, supposedly 15 years old.<
2. No information
3. No information
4. A self-styled ecologist supposedly from Trinidad; was made an Admin
on the day the Aetherometry war began (!). Logs in from University of
Oklahoma.
5. No information
6. Says (s)he's from New Jersey. Has this gem on his/her User page:
"Deletionist? When I sit down at a restaurant and order a steak,
sometimes it comes with fat on it. Personally, I don't like eating the
fat, so I cut it off and leave it on the plate. That's how I look at
my delete votes. I'm keeping the steak and leaving the fat."
7. Says (s)he's Irish, a philosopher by profession, teaching in the
University of Oxford. Has perpetrated over 25,000 edits in Wikipedia.
8. Peter Jacobi from Hamburg, Germany. Bigot computer programmer who
passes himself off as a writer (apparently author of a little-known
grotesque novel called "My life as a book", 2000).
9. No information. Logs on from the UK, via Claranet.
10. Says (s)he's an assistant teacher in a prep school, from London,
with interest in science, cooking, gardening, & rock music. Says (s)he
has a degree in physics from University College London (which
immediately qualifies him/her as an expert in Aetherometry).
Apparently likes to add diagrams to spice up some of the science pages
on Wikipedia.

Note that while "Wikipedia culture" seems to make a big deal out of
the distinction between "Users" (those who post and make edits using
their Wikipedia login IDs) and "Anons" (those who neglect to log in,
and are identifiable only by IP numbers), the truth of the matter is
that most Administrators in this cabal, and a smashing majority of
Wikipedia "Users", are just as anonymous when they log in with their
Wikipedia IDs as are those participants who are identified only
through their IP numbers. And thus it is anonymously, in fact, that
these Admins indulge in their abusive fascistic power plays.

Non-Administrators:

1. William_M._Connolley: William Michael Connolley, Senior Scientific
Officer and Climate Modeller at the Physical Sciences Division of the
British Antarctic Survey. He claims that his contributions to
Wikipedia are "in support of his belief that scientists can and should
participate in the public understanding of science".

2. Salsb: Fred Salsbury Jr., PhD University of California at Berkeley;
currently Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics at Wake
Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC. His general fields of research
are in computational biophysical and chemical physics.The specific
areas of current interest are in protein dynamics, electrostatics,
electronic structure, macromolecular response to assembly and ligand
binding, and density functional theory. Co-author of study made for
the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort
Detrick MD.

3. Natalinasmpf: Claims to be a 15-year old living in Singapore, with
"a communist slant". Quote: "Wikipedia is often the epitomisation for
those who desire liberation from government censorship of ideas, or
those who wish to put a price on constructive information [sic!]".

4. Linas: Claims to be currently employed by IBM as a hacker. Quote:
"I'm dabbling in quantum chaos, trying to understand, well, really
basic things about quantum mechanics that should be obvious, but are
not. Things like wave function collapse and all that jazz. At the
moment, I'm trying to figure out what a wave function is. Well, OK, I
was dealt a setback on that point. I'm trying to figure out what a
function is. Actually, turns out I'm deeply confused about what a
number actually is."


4. Select statements on the subject of Aetherometry, made by Wikipedia
Administrators
Pjacobi:
* "This is pseudoscientific theory with only a very limited set of
supporters." 18:52, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
* "This cannot be in Category:Applied sciences as no peer-reviewed
journal on Applied Sciences has or will accept a paper on this stuff."
21:42, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
* "[AS2-01] starts with not understanding the difference between force
and mechanical work and doesn't become better further down." 15:31,
2005 Jun 24 (UTC) [Patent and easily demonstrable falsity]
* "If [the Aetherometry article] will be kept, we have a noble mission
for mankind, to create a sober description and critique here. Note
that the Google search doesn't find anything like that (if I looked
right in agony), the only critical page being a Reichian researcher in
Orgon energy who has some differences with the Correas." 07:01, 2005
Jun 21 (UTC) [The ridiculous pedantic tone of "noble mission for
mankind" and "in agony" is characteristic of the way the Wikipedia
cabal packages its quintessentially ignoble misrepresentations.]
________________________________________

Theresa Knott:
Here is an exchange (from the "Talk" page) in which Theresa Knott
responds to a repeated challenge to provide actual references to
mainstream scientists who supposedly reject the claims of
Aetherometry. The challenger wrote:

"Well, Ms. Knott, I've provided my references and offered to provide
more. Not one of your Wikipedians took me up on it. Now, you're Admin
and per force responsible.Cite then the references you should provide
for the detractors of Aetherometry? Who are they? What have they
written? And in which peer-reviewed journals? The only detractors is
this group of galivanting fat-bodies. now, they are not peers of
anybody in science, are they? Are you? Where are the detractors? One
single name or publication source will do. "

and Knott responded:

"I have a BSc Hons degree in physics from University College London. I
removed the line about detractors. You are right, there aren't any
detractors, the "theory" is completely unknown. No one in the
scientific community has taken any notice of it whatsoever as far as I
can tell." Theresa Knott, 02:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having thusly spoken, the prep-school marm immediately proceeded to
make a revision to the article itself, replacing her previous claim
about Aetherometry's "detractors" with yet another schoolmarmish gem
in which she purports to speak for mainstream scientists; a grim joke:
Revision as of 01:41, 25 June 2005
Theresa knott
you cant know who has read what so this has to go
← Older edit Revision as of 02:39, 25 June 2005
Theresa knott
Do you prefere this?
Newer edit →
Line 11: Line 11:


- Aetherometry has been ignored by the [[scientific community]] and no
papers on it have appeared in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. A
number of papers on it have appeared in peer-reviewed publications
dedicated to "alternative science". Detractors of aetherometry state
that it appears to be at best an attempt at [[pseudoscience]]. +
Aetherometry has been ignored by the [[scientific community]] and no
papers on it have appeared in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. A
number of papers on it have appeared in peer-reviewed publications
dedicated to "alternative science". Such publications are not treated
seriously by mainstream sciemtists.



More from Theresa:

*They [the enemy] are the people who are trying to POV the article to
make out that this [ie Aetherometry] is a credible theory rather than
crackpottery. Wanna prove me wrong? Publish in a proper journal."
08:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
*"Well it looks like it [the Aetherometry entry] may well get deleted
so that would solve the problems we are having with it. This is the
very reason that I voted for deletion myself. The theory is too new,
too little known. You can't provide the cites we need because they
don't exist, but wiythout references you cant backy any of youclaims
up so they have to be removed [sic, sic] (we have a policy of no
original research). I'm sorry, It's horrible to have your work
deleted, but I honestly think that Wikipedia isn't the best place for
it at the moment." 02:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* The aaetherometry article is only temporarily protected. And only
becasue the anon chose to go nuts at that point and start vandalising.
Yes my personal opinion of aetherometry is that it's crackpot. And
yes, I've said that in the talk page. But I do try to write neutrally
in the article itself. I'm not perfect, but then neither is anyone. At
least I don't go vandalising like our anon freind. 22 Jul 2005
* [In Votes for Deletion] Delete I'm all for having notable crackpot
theories in but this isn't notable. 01:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
________________________________________

Karada
Some comments in the entry's Edit History:
23:26, 24
Jun 2005 Karada (pseudoscience)
23:28,
24 Jun 2005 Karada (let's not "Dr." people)
23:28, 24
Jun 2005 Karada (let's not "Dr." people)
20:48,
26 Jun 2005 Karada (rm "Dr": we don't do it for other people, either)
And from the Talk page:
* On Wikipedia, you must follow the NPOV principles, which do not
amount to treating all views as equally valid [Candid admission!] . At
the moment, all we can really say about Aetherometry is "a tiny number
of people say X, their views contradict those of mainstream science,
mainstream science has treated them with total disinterest 23:44, 24
Jun 2005 (UTC)
* From what I can see, almost all of the cited publications are
either:
* published by Akronos Publications, which appears to be their own
vanity press
* published in the magazine Infinite Energy, which seems dedicated to
extremely alternative theories
* published in peer-reviewed Journals, but completely unrelated to
Aetherometry
* patents (you can patent more or less anything; the patent inspection
process does not in any way check if your invention is real, or even
meaningful)
* press coverage (hey, even I've had press coverage; it's not
difficult to get)
Could you possibly give me the cites which do not come under any of
the categories above?" 12:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The last quote instantiates a favorite technique of administrative
harassment observed repeatedly in the course of the epic saga of the
Wikipedia Aetherometry article. Aetherometry was from the beginning
openly and straighforwardly described, by all knowledgeable
contributors, as a non-mainstream science. The harassment always
proceeded like this:
(1) one member of the cabal asks for references to, say, experimental
data, or to reviews of aetherometric research, etc;
(2) the asked-for references are provided by one of the "proponents"
of Aetherometry;
(3) the same member of the cabal, or some other member, then
triumphantly "discovers" that none of these references are to
mainstream literature, presents this "discovery" as if he/she has just
squashed a clever attempt at a hoax, and demands "genuine" references;
(4) it is pointed out by the "proponents", yet again, that
Aetherometry is indeed, and has always been, by its pioneering nature,
a non-mainstream science, and has to be evaluated by criteria proper
to pioneering science;
(5) a day or two later, we go back to (1).

________________________________________

Dragons flight

In Votes for Deletion:

*This is psuedoscience, quackery, and great number of other
unflattering things, but unfortunately, I believe it is notable
quackery. The Correas and followers have, through determined effort,
managed to insinuated their ideas into thousands of websites [refs to
Google searches for "aetherometry" and "massfree"], and written
multiple books, "research papers", and essays. They really do have
PhDs supporting their work (though a list of the fields of study of
those PhDs might be entertaining). Perhaps most importantly, this is
not the first time I have encountered aetherometry. If it is something
I have heard of before by chance, then odds are it is sufficiently
widespread to be notable (lord help us all). That said, the version of
the article that is ultimately kept needs serious NPOVing, in addition
to stating the opinions of these believers, it needs to state the
mainstream objections, and comments from critics such as [ref to
DeMeo's so-called "critique"] . Honestly, I rather hope this is
deleted, but I can't really support that. Okay, now that I feel icky,
I'm going away. 00:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

There you have it: this self-appointed scientific expert cannot be
bothered to inform himself on the topic, but has not the slightest
doubt (after having "heard of it by chance") that it is quackery. He
cannot be bothered to learn anything about the people who work in the
field, but has no hesitation to belittle and demean them, without any
basis. He freely ushers in non-existent "mainstream objections",
invokes DeMeo as a worthy "critic" (couldn't get much more crackpot
than that), and finally delivers a 'death-blow' to Aetherometry by
confessing to "feeling icky" for even having spoken about it. Which
illustrates another administrative conundrum: since Aetherometry (or
any other pioneering and "dissenting" science) is quackery, there is
no need to inform oneself on the subject, and in fact no 'respectable
person' would even think of doing so; a respectable person will judge
it as quackery without any information. Is it not fascinating how this
Dragon feels at ease displaying his ignorance in the Wikipedia
environment? He takes for granted that all his fellow Wikipedians will
feel the same ignorant pride, with the same lack of study and null
grasp of the subject matter. A collective sanction to a mental
apriorism.


5. ... and by other members of the Science-Purification cabal

Freddie Salsbury Jr., aka Salsb
* I removed protoscience from the category [he means he removed
Aetherometry from the category Protoscience], since protoscience is "
to be distinguished from pseudoscience by its adherence to the
scientific method and standard practices of good science, most notably
a willingness to be disproven by new evidence (if and when it
appears), or supplanted by a more-predictive theory." (to quote the
wikipedia definition. The scientific method require that experiments
be reproducable [sic] and the standard practices of good science
require at least publication in peer-reviewed journals. Aetherometry
is a prime example of what is pseudoscience, and not protoscience. Oh
and in case anyway wonders, Web of Science, which covers ~6000
scientific magazine and journals since 1974, does not report a single
publication of aetherometery. Salsb, 5 July 2005 23:07 (UTC)
So here we have a presumed scientist, a PhD, an assistant professor at
Wake Forest University, who (under a pseudonym, of course) has no
qualms about making public pronouncements about Aetherometry's
supposed lack of 'adherence to the scientific method' - when he has
not made the slightest effort to learn anything about Aetherometry and
its employment of the scientific method (to which mainstream peer-
review has been abusively appended), and has not a shred of evidence
to justify his "conclusion". This unfounded, unprovoked and libelous
"judgement", delivered in obvious disregard of the very scientific
method Salsbury spouts about - not to mention of even a minimum of
scientific ethics - has no other justification than a clear and
specific intent to inflict damage, to discredit not only the Correas
and those directly involved with their research, but also the numerous
courageous individuals who have publically commented on this body of
work. And when called upon to support his freely-dispensed
"judgement":
What evidence do you have that Aetherometry does not adhere to the
scientific method, is not willing to be disproven by new evidence or
supplanted by a more-predictive theory? [...] 216.254.160.187, 5 July
2005 23:21 (UTC)
Salsbury adds another falsification of the record:
The lack of even a single peer-reviewed report of any experiment.
Salsb, 5 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)
And here we go again, in the previously-described merry circle. A list
of peers who did review and reproduce experiments performed by the
Correas was provided in the Talk pages, as well as repeatedly added to
the Aetherometry article, and repeatedly suppressed by the cabal on
the grounds that these reviews and reproductions were not published in
mainstream journals, and that the very fact that these peers favorably
regarded the findings of Aetherometry showed that they were
disreputable. When these grounds were challenged, the response from
the cabal was always the same: the challenged individual would drop
back into the shadows, allowing another cabalist to continue the tag-
team assault on another front - and then to vanish, in his or her
turn, when pressed to support the new set of malicious allegations.
________________________________________

William M. Connolley

In the Talk page, after removing the content of the three subsections
and replacing them with redirects to the main section, thus making
nonsense of the structure of the article:
* I think this stuff is just rubbish/commercial spam. I've redirected
the 3 subpages to here. I would support VFD'ing this stuff too. 22:11,
20 Jun 2005 (UTC).

* While we're here... is anyone up for a wikiproject "keep wacko
psuedo-science out of wikipedia"?" 22:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Comments in the entry's History:
16:39, 24 Jun 2005:
* (I don't think it true to say that mainstream science opposes this
gumpf - it just ignores it. Kirlian photo, etc, aren't subfields of
science - they are non science.)

19:37, 24 Jun 2005:
* (Rescue Teslas good name - he doesn't deserve to be associated with
this stuff)

Among the most egregious techniques of the cabal, and Connolley in
particular, is the outright removal or mangling of other people's
interventions in the Talk pages or the Votes for Deletion discussion.
Here is someone's vote (User name FrankZappo), after it was mangled
into senselessness by Connolley:

* Oh brother. Now - look at that! -Aetherometry has become a "belief
system". There is just no end to the entertainment, is there. When I
voted to "keep", I didn't vote to keep whetever idiocy you-all choose
to spout into the article, I voted to keep an article that provided
accurate and cogent information on what Aetherometry actually is, not
on what any Tom *** and Harry may think it is. So here is my vote,
spelled out:
Keep and work on it; otherwise , Delete. FrankZappo, 21:50, 25 Jun
2005 (UTC)
And here are someone's comment on this mangling, quoting the unmangled
original:
* I see that the indefatiguable and multi-talented Connelley took it
upon herself to actually edit, and emasculate, another person's
comments. I thought editing another person's comments was a wikipedia
"community" no-no. But since it is not, I will start happily
practicing it. Meanwhile, here is the actual vote of the above user,
before Connelley "edited" it to suit his fancy:
* Keep the original article (http://www.driftline.org/wikipediafascism/
Aetherometry.html) and work on it; otherwise , Delete. FrankZappo,
21:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. Got that??? Words mean specific things, you
know. Now, off I go to edit other people's comments. 165.154.24.194,
00:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Simply unbelievable how mr. connolley also is irresponsible. An
administrator who censors a user's text and freely alters it because
of an emotional reaction to the term wikipediafascism in the title?
Wow, that's naked power! Where is the rule of law of this democracy
that protects that user, the sameness in treatment, the no abuse of
power?? Let's hear it! loud and clear, mr. connolley. Fascism, people,
is how this kind of behavior was called in my young days. It is not
Wikipedia that will change its meaning. Nor laws which will correct
it. Only courage will. I propose that connolley do the right thing:
muzzle himself and step down. Assume responsibility. i guess that he
will not do that until someone will report him to the higher
authorities. could one ask the anarchist to do this too, report
connolley to the higher authorities? No factotum sharing? Just
repugnant abuses of power! 209.29.93.65 04:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here is another text that inspired Connolley's passion for censorship:

PC's credentials, training, educational history, and scientific career
have been described in these discussion several times already. His
career in Hematology and Oncology is neither "previous" nor
irrelevant. It is ongoing, and it clearly shows that the man is a bona
fide scientist who knows how to conduct scientific research. And why
is it, by the way, that in this here forum it is considered a high
insult to call somebody a poor little zoological specimen - and such
"insults" get removed and the targets of the "insult" are given group
therapy - but it is considered perfectly acceptable to call people
hoaxters, repeatedly question their credentials, edit their articles
without understanding the subject matter, and form a contemptuous mob
against them simply because they submitted an article whose notions
challenge yours? How does this work? FrankZappo, 06:42, 18 July 2005
(UTC)

and the same text after Connoley's "cleanup":

Revision as of 12:32, 18 July 2005
William M. Connolley
PC's credentials, training, educational history, and scientific career
have been described in these discussion several times already. His
career in Hematology and Oncology is neither "previous" nor
irrelevant. It is ongoing, and it clearly shows that the man is a bona
fide scientist who knows how to conduct scientific research. And why
is it, by the way, that in this here forum it is considered a high
insult to call somebody a [insult removed - WMC] - and such "insults"
get removed and the targets of the "insult" are given group therapy -
but it is considered perfectly acceptable to call people hoaxters,
repeatedly question their credentials, edit their articles without
understanding the subject matter, and form a contemptuous mob against
them simply because they submitted an article whose notions challenge
yours? How does this work? FrankZappo, 06:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

And another:

Revision as of 15:16, 18 July 2005
William M. Connolley
::::::How do you know why, or even if, the theory "gets dismissed"?
Have you asked the Correas for the history of the theory? Have you
ever done any unconventional science? What makes you people so full of
yourselves - is it hereditary or acquired? Or is there a special
Wikipedia training course in vengeful nerdiness? [[User:FrankZappo|
FrankZappo]] 14:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC) + ::::::How do you know why, or
even if, the theory "gets dismissed"? Have you asked the Correas for
the history of the theory? Have you ever done any unconventional
science? [deleted - WMC] [[User:FrankZappo|FrankZappo]] 14:51, 18 July
2005 (UTC)


This pretentious computer modeller, William Michael Connolley, aspires
to nothing so much as to ascend through the cyberbureaucracy of
Wikipedia. Such a crusading cybercop cannot but eventually be
successful. For a grimly hilarious record of the page on votes to
admit Connolley to the powers of an Administrator, see Appendix 15,
which includes another example of systematic deletions by another
Administrator, 'Dragon's flight' (yeah, the same Dragon talked about
above).

.

Loading