On Wikipedia, politically controversial science topics vulnerable to information sabotage

On Wikipedia, politically controversial science topics vulnerable to information sabotage
Research has moved online, with more than 80 percent of US students using Wikipedia for research papers. Credit: Minneapolis Central Library, Wikipedia Commons, Steve Lyons

Wikipedia reigns. It's the world's most popular online encyclopedia, the sixth most visited website in America, and a research source most U.S. students rely on. But, according to a paper published today in the journal PLOS ONE, Wikipedia entries on politically controversial scientific topics can be unreliable due to information sabotage.

Co-author Dr. Gene E. Likens is President Emeritus of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies and a Distinguished Research Professor at the University of Connecticut, Storrs. Likens co-discovered acid rain in North America, and counts among his accolades a National Medal of Science, a Tyler Prize, and elected membership in the National Academy of Sciences. Since 2003, he has monitored Wikipedia's acid rain entry.

Likens explains, "In the scientific community, acid rain is not a controversial topic. Its mechanics have been well understood for decades. Yet, despite having 'semi-protected' status to prevent anonymous changes, Wikipedia's acid rain entry receives near-daily edits, some of which result in egregious errors and a distortion of consensus science."

In an effort to see how Wikipedia's acid rain entry compared to other scientific topics, Likens partnered with Dr. Adam M. Wilson, a geographer at the University of Buffalo. Together, they analyzed Wikipedia edit histories for three politically controversial scientific topics (acid rain, evolution, and global warming), and four non-controversial scientific topics (the in physics, heliocentrism, general relativity, and continental drift).

Using nearly a decade of data, Likens and Wilson teased out daily edit rates, the mean size of edits (words added, deleted, or edited), and the mean number of page views per day. While the edit rate of the acid rain article was less than the edit rate of the evolution and global warming articles, it was significantly higher than the non-controversial topics. Across the board, politically controversial scientific topics were edited more heavily and viewed more often.

"Wikipedia's entry sees 2-3 edits a day, with more than 100 words altered, while the standard model in physics has around 10 words changed every few weeks, " Wilson notes. "The high rate of change observed in politically controversial scientific topics makes it difficult for experts to monitor their accuracy and contribute time-consuming corrections."

Likens adds, "As society turns to Wikipedia for answers, students, educators, and citizens should understand its limitations when researching scientific topics that are politically charged. On entries subject to edit-wars, like , evolution, and global change, one can obtain - within seconds - diametrically different information on the same topic."

The authors note that as Wikipedia matures, there is evidence that the breadth of its scientific content is increasingly based on source material from established scientific journals. They also note that Wikipedia employs algorithms to help identify and correct blatantly malicious edits, such as profanity. But in their view, it remains to be seen how Wikipedia will manage the dynamic, changing content that typifies politically-charged science topics.

To help readers critically evaluate Wikipedia content, Likens and Wilson suggest identifying entries that are known to have significant controversy or edit wars. They also recommend quantifying the reputation of individual editors. In the meantime, users are urged to cast a critical eye on Wikipedia source material, which is found at the bottom of each entry.


Explore further

Wikipedia blocks 'disruptive' edits from US Congress

More information: Wilson AM, Likens GE (2015) Content Volatility of Scientific Topics in Wikipedia: A Cautionary Tale. PLoS ONE 10(8): e0134454. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134454 . journals.plos.org/plosone/arti … journal.pone.0134454
Journal information: PLoS ONE

Citation: On Wikipedia, politically controversial science topics vulnerable to information sabotage (2015, August 14) retrieved 17 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-08-wikipedia-politically-controversial-science-topics.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1802 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 14, 2015
As the published scientific literature becomes more and more open access hopefully this will assist in fighting mis-information.

Aug 14, 2015
The gripe here is about people who disagree with "consensus science" who seek to make changes to the Pedia. Pardon me here, it is "consensus science" that the Universe is composed of 75-90% of a substance called Dark Matter even though not a single particle of it has ever been isolated.

Hey there Mr/MS Author, do you comprehend the credibility of your premise? Probably you don't, so I guess I'll just mind my own business in my scientific endeavors & fluff off your whiny complaints.

Aug 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 14, 2015
As the published scientific literature becomes more and more open access hopefully this will assist in fighting mis-information.


.....but you're missing the author's point. The author's point is about "consensus science". Maybe you're just not old enough to remember, like Ira & gkam, but at one time it was "consensus science" that the Earth was flat & the the Sun orbited the Earth & was the center of the Universe. Still stumpnig for "consensus science"?

Aug 15, 2015
Consensus science is not science.

Aug 15, 2015
Consensus science is not science.

You misunderstand what consensus science means. It is not "we vote on what the result should be" but most all scientists INDIVIDUALLY arriving at the same conclusion.

You know: Like two and two is four. That is consensus science.
It's not that it's a result most people like but a result anyone who knows about math will arrive at when they add up the numbers.

Aug 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 15, 2015
Maybe you're just not old enough to remember, like Ira & gkam, but at one time it was "consensus science" that the Earth was flat


Ah yes, Benni and his bullshit - here he is parroting a turn-of-the-19th-century fallacy. The earth was known to be round since antiquity, and it was not a controversial topic at all. The, rather imbecillic, notion that people in the Middle Ages believed the world to be flat is based on two things: a pre-conceived notion that people in the Middle Ages were idiots who wouldn't have noticed the curvature of the earth from ships approaching the coast from open sea, and an almost total inability to read medieval maps.

There are numerous medieval sources explicitly referencing the spherical shape of the earth - in fact, our world was referre to in medieval Latin as "orbs", meaning sphere or ball.

Just goes to show - most science deniers don't have the faintest clue as to what they're talking about.

Aug 15, 2015
Unfortunately the physics (not to say about another sciences) is about experimental evidence, not about mathematical proof.

*sigh* I was making an example that is so simple that even you might understand it (and even agree to the conclusion that two and two is four). But I guess it was not simple enough.

Yes, physics involves experiment. And as you full well know climate scientists did not all come the conclusion based on a single set of data, but from INDEPENDENTLY gathered datasets from all over the world and from several fields.

Most of people don't doubt the formal derivation of theories, but their practical validity.

Laymen. Not scientists. Because the difference between laymen and scientists is that that scientists are trained to be able to show WHY their theories are valid. That's the whole POINT of writing papers. With math. (You know - the thing you know nothing about and hence hate so much?)

Aug 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 15, 2015
Totally risible claptrap. The string theorists' "multi-verse" delusion, for example, is accepted as "consensus science" also, yet it is patently absurd gobbledygook. Much of what passes for "science" these days is an ideologically (Malthusian) and politically funded farce.

Aug 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 15, 2015
I see we have someone who doesn't like the FACT that people in the Middle Ages didn't believe the world to be flat. Hilarious. "I ain't gonna let no stinking facts get in the way of my prejudice!"

Aug 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

KBK
Aug 15, 2015
Anything that strays into mainstream popularization is subject to forms of control by a more, shall we say, hidden hand.

This has been the norm for a few thousand years, of not more. There are those who understand this and those who do not.

Those who make comments on websites as this, generally do not understand that they are not the top of the given system, and do not recognize a more forcefully controlling hidden layer in the system.

It is illustrative, that with deep and clear minded exhaustive research, we find the trail of things that sit below the surface and find that the vast number of 'conspiracy theories' of the historical record, either turn out to be true, or have wide swaths of truth in them.

This did not change overnight, just because the reader was born. Those things still flow through today's world.

Wikipedia is not innocent of being controlled or edited to suit such deeper and darker systems.

Aug 15, 2015
KBK:

"It is illustrative, that with deep and clear minded exhaustive research, we find the trail of things that sit below the surface and find that the vast number of 'conspiracy theories' of the historical record, either turn out to be true, or have wide swaths of truth in them."

Sure. But only according to conspiracy theorists.

Aug 15, 2015
The string theorists' "multi-verse" delusion, for example, is accepted as "consensus science" also

Wherever did you get that idea? Source?
It's a theory. As yet untestable and unproven. It's about as far from 'consensus science' as you can get. (To their credit they are trying to see how it may be tested...so they are within the scientific process)

t one time it was "consensus science" that the Earth was flat

You are aware that there are sources as far back as 5oo or 600 B.C. (!) which depict a spherical Earth? And that the first astronomical proof of such was around 300 B.C. ?

Wouldn't hurt you to do some fact checking before you make up your own. Would make you look a LOT less silly.

Aug 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 15, 2015
Leave it to the delusional thinking of Repugs and Tea Bags to deny logic and desperately try anything to spread their delusions. All you need do is read the comments on websites like this one, where individuals who delude themselves into believing they actually are interested in science, but who desperately present anti-scientific delusions to any facts that threaten their fragile delusionary mental fabrications.
Wikipedia is a place where a delusionist can bolster their fragile constructions at will - choose the topic, and engage in delusion promotion until your desperation has abated.

Aug 15, 2015
You misunderstand what consensus science means. It is not "we vote on what the result should be" but most all scientists INDIVIDUALLY arriving at the same conclusion.


It's impossible to ensure individuality and impartiality of results. In other words, "consensus science" is practically indistinguishable from "paradigm science".

In paradigm science, many people come up with the same results and interpretations because they dismiss contradicting hypotheses as being "obviously wrong" or don't even bother to look at them, hence creating a "consensus" by bandwagon effect.

That's why it doesn't matter how many scientists have replicated the same experiments or calculations with the same results. The role of peer review is just confirming that a theory/experiment is free of errors and faults - that it's technically correct and repeatable and reliable.

Consensus doesn't tell us whether the information we gain from the theory/experiment is right and true.

Aug 15, 2015
In paradigm science, many people come up with the same results and interpretations because they dismiss contradicting hypotheses as being "obviously wrong"

Erm..how about: no?

Have you ever read a scientific paper? If there's no REASON to dismiss a hypothesis out of hand (you know: experimentally quantifiable) then another reason will not just be chosen nilly-willy. That's the point of a paper (hypothesis, null hypothesis, experiment, test, ... )

The 'bandwagon' has nothing to do with it. It's just that if something is correct more people (working individually) tend to find it than when something is not correct (where individuals would only find this same result by chance)

That's why it doesn't matter how many scientists have replicated the same experiments or calculations with the same results.

If they all have done their experiments and gathered their data individually then it does.

Aug 15, 2015
@docile - "Unfortunately the physics (not to say about another sciences) is about experimental evidence, not about mathematical proof."

Mathematical proofs are absolutely essential in physics. Without it, experimentation and empirical data is meaningless. The reason is simple. The study and development of physics is a process of quantitative experimentation, analysis, and theory. Physics measures nature in terms of physical units which describe nature in terms of numerical values of physical properties. Many of the greatest advancements in physics are entirely in the form of mathematical proofs. The greater body of Newtonian Mechanics, especially the concepts of momentum and energy including the conservation of both, are mathematically derived. The process of hypothesis testing is a mathematical proof. Maxwell's equations are based on a Einstein's "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies", also known as Special Relativity, is entirely a mathematical proof.

Aug 15, 2015
[It's a theory. As yet untestable and unproven.


More a hypothesis, a "hypothetical theory",

Aug 15, 2015
at one time it was "consensus science" that the Earth was flat


It never was. And this isn't hard to know. "Eratosthenes, a Greek astronomer from Hellenistic Libya (276–194 BC), estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BC. " And is was already a hypothesis in the sciences.

The problem you are having is that all of your ideas and statements are simply memorized and regurgitated bs that you read somewhere in one of those "teabagger consensus talking point websites". You have no experience with independent thinking and analysis with which to make a comparison. This is obvious.

And as usual for teabaggers, an intelligent concept of causality is lacking as it is repeatedly applied in the wrong order. A consensus follows naturally from soundly proven scientific ideas

Aug 15, 2015
When the Real Science of the day does not comport with the Consensus Science of the day you get respondent Commentary like this:

"Wouldn't hurt you to do some fact checking before you make up your own. Would make you look a LOT less silly…. Ant Phy

or

"The problem you are having is that all of your ideas and statements are simply memorized and regurgitated bs that you read somewhere in one of those "teabagger consensus talking point websites". You have no experience with independent thinking and analysis with which to make a comparison".. Fitz3.

In their day Galileo & Copernicus did the fact checking, that Earth was not the center of the Universe, Consensus Science of the period disagreed & the Pope & his court of Cardinals placed Galileo under house arrest for 15 years for proving the Earth was not the center of the Universe.

Cont'd.....


Aug 15, 2015
Cont'd......

Proffer a critical analyses for any period of "consensus science" & the responses by the consenting majority of any period is the familiar name calling for down-grading the observable facts by the mis-educated consenting majority of the period.

Presently it's consensus belief that 75-90% of the Universe is missing even though the gravity of our Sun is 100% accounted for by its visible mass, but what are the most prolific responses of the majority Commentary here? You guessed it, repeat the "consensus science" talking points & ignore the observable facts proven by Einstein in his General Relativity.

Aug 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 15, 2015
Consensus science is not science.

You misunderstand what consensus science means. It is not "we vote on what the result should be" but most all scientists INDIVIDUALLY arriving at the same conclusion.


Manitou is correct. Consensus is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Science is never settled.

Let's be clear, science has nothing whatsoever to do with consensus. Science, requires only one researcher who happens to be absolutely right, which means the results are verifiable by reference to the real world. What is relevant is reproducible results. The reason we have great scientists is because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus, period. Regardless of the definition of 'consensus science'.

Regards
Physgirl

Aug 15, 2015
You know: Like two and two is four. That is consensus science.


Absolutely wrong.

1) 'two and two is four', is mathematics not science. (However, this can be argued until the cows come home).
2) 'two and two is four' is absolutely true and can be proved period. Therefore, consensus cannot be applied to this statement of fact.
3) Consensus science is an oxymoronic statement.

Regards
Physgirl

Aug 15, 2015
The AGW Cult puts the "con" in consensus.

Aug 15, 2015


"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus, period. Regardless of the definition of 'consensus science."

Regards
Physgirl

Physgirl, explain this to co-author Gene Likens, he's the one stating there is such a thing as "consensus science". Likens entire complaint is about people distorting his "consensus science", you know, like he's the new Pope.


Aug 15, 2015
Consensus science is not science.


You misunderstand what consensus science means. It is not "we vote on what the result should be" but most all scientists INDIVIDUALLY arriving at the same conclusion
......No he doesn't misunderstand, it is the unscientific mindset that wants to be the final arbiter of what constitutes science & what should be discarded. Likens concept of "consensus science" is the same as yours AP, that of "settled science", you know, like the "settled consensus science" that Earth is the center of the Universe.


Aug 16, 2015
Physgirl, explain this to co-author Gene Likens, he's the one stating there is such a thing as "consensus science".

I would not explain anything to him, only that he should read about.

1) The late Dr. Michael Crichton. (the origin of the quote)
2) Crossing Borders, Crossing Boundaries: The Role of Scientists in the U.S. Acid Rain Debate

In addition I would remind Dr G. E. Likens to, two famous cases of consensus science gone irrevocably wrong, involved the preposterous theory of Continental Drift and the disinfection of the hands significantly reduced the incidence of puerperal fever in obstetric clinics.

Likens entire complaint is about people distorting his "consensus science", you know, like he's the new Pope.

Appeal to Authority, therefore a logical fallacy.

Regards
Physgirl

Aug 16, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 16, 2015
If they all have done their experiments and gathered their data individually then it does.


You don't get it. If I design an experiment and perform it, I get a bunch of data. My theory on what is happening then determines what information I interpret out of that data. If my hypothesis is well made and my experiment rigorous, other people can replicate it and confirm that it does work.

But as long as they share my theory on the experiment, they can not get any different results. The problem here is that the theory can be wrong, therefore the interpretation of the results is wrong, and no matter how many people "individually" confirm my experiment it will not become right.

That is fundamentally why consensus science is junk science.


Aug 16, 2015
If there's no REASON to dismiss a hypothesis out of hand (you know: experimentally quantifiable) then another reason will not just be chosen nilly-willy.


There's nothing that says individual rank-and-file researchers have to be reasonable or rational in all matters.

Any number of scientists can have any number of reasons why they wouldn't even read a paper that doesn't agree with what they already consider to be true. If they read it, they'll find any excuse to say it doesn't work that way, and ultimately they can just go "hmph" and forget all about it.

Seemingly selfless motivations also distort the consesus, such as doing climate research because you want to save the world, which automatically implies certain assumptions about what's going to happen and makes you partial on the result.

The problem is that you can't know how many of your "consensus scientists" are just tag-alongs who sing in the choir, repeating what the preacher says.


Aug 16, 2015
Take for example the difference between Tycho Brahe and Copernicus. Brahe made rigorous observations of the sky and made the first estimates about the distances between celestial objects, so he had better data than Copernicus.

Both figured that all the planets revolve around the sun, which explains the weird epicycles. However, Brahe still put the Earth as the center of the universe and the sun revolving around with the other planets in tow, whereas Copernicus said that Sun is center and Earth moves.

Why the different result?

Newton wasn't born yet and neither had the theory or mathematics on the laws of motion and gravity, and neither knew what the stars or the planets were, so Brahe saw the idea that the Earth moves as ridiculous - how can something so heavy whizz around doing loop-de-loops through the ether at such tremendous speed?

In Brahe's time, the consensus was that the earth was center, because it was simply more plausible.

Aug 16, 2015
The irony is that Galileo Galilei, who was a staunch supporter of the heliocentric model and lived at the time of Tycho Brahe, was in his time a "denier" of the scientific consensus.

It wasn't just the church that opposed the heliocentric model on the point of dogma - all that anyone could scientifically prove at that time argued in favor of the geocentric model because they simply did not have the necessary knowledge to prove otherwise.

The sad thing about consensus "scientists" is that they are going to say, "Alright, the consensus was wrong then, but they knew so little and they weren't rigorous enough. Now it's different. Now we know better!"

Which is exactly what they said back then.

Aug 16, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 16, 2015
Today consensus science is, the cold fusion is impossible, which is junk.


You have to remember that Galileo wasn't right either - he could not prove his point, and in hindsight we know that the heliocentric model was incorrect as well. Just because the consensus is wrong doesn't make you right - that's a logical error called the appeal to fallacy.

Cold fusion as we know it is junk because despite claims that it exists, despite numerous reactors that people claim they have up and running, nobody has come forth and actually shown it does even though doing so would be completely trivial.

Show that it works, and then give the blueprints to a reputable scientist who can build a copy and show that it too works. Instead, all the cranks stop at the public demonstration phase and refuse to divulge any further information. Nobody can look under the hood of the actual device.


Aug 16, 2015
The solution of to the problem that someone might steal your invention, and therefore you can't let anyone know what's inside the box, is as simple as the problem itself: make it all as public as possible, and nobody can claim you didn't invent it.

If you actually have a working cold fusion reactor, all you have to do is "Look ma' no hands!" and then show -everybody- how exactly the trick is done. Then, since you provided the original art, nobody else can patent it except you.

Information about the device that is kept hidden from the public does not constitute prior art, and so as long as you hide your invention it can be stolen and patented by someone else, so, the rational course of action for any cold fusion inventor would be to release all information as quickly as possible lest the men in black get there first.


Aug 16, 2015
I used to edit Wikipedia, until I found out about the appalling behaviour of editors.

I watched with amazement as arguments went on for ever over factual statements such as the existence of hockey stick controversy. And if ever the sceptics managed to win the argument, the editors on the other side would then start talking about a "paper that will be coming out".

From this and various other incidents I worked out that those editing the article were the very same people writing the very biased & incredible papers.

The problem on Climate was compounded by the politicization of the issue of climate within academia and the failure to abide by the normal practices of what I term "real science" like physics, by e.g. submitting theories to testing. So e.g. when they say "the world will warm" - this is considered a statement of fact - but when sceptics say "the satellites show no warming for 18 years" this is considered to be "anti-science" which is nonsense.

Aug 16, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 16, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 16, 2015
cold fusion... junk... nobodys built a working reactor
Yah they have.
If you actually have a working cold fusion reactor, all you have to do is "Look ma' no hands!" and then show -everybody- how exactly the trick is done
But they dont know how its done. And the wright bros had no idea how their plane flew as there was no such thing as aeronautical engg at the time.

Airbus scientists are coming out with a LENR theory paper in a month or 2.
Then, since you provided the original art, nobody else can patent it except you
Well no wonder you think that stealing intellectual property is not a crime but stealing a watch is. Patents are the only way to keep someone from copying your work.

Doesn't matter whether you show off your invention or not - without patent your invention can be copied by anybody.

I have a feeling I'm going to be laughing a lot within the next 12 months or so.

Aug 16, 2015
"On German wikipedia discussion site of the "cold fusion" article this patent is already played down."

"They argument that a patent application does not mean that Airbus is taking LENR serious. What a logic."

> You, Otto, might have seen the above quote previously. Still waving the flag for Wikipedia?


Aug 17, 2015
Not so much a question of "information sabotage" as manufactured disinformation. I track a lot of wikipedia articles on nuclear power and radiation and both are highly contested. I notice that many articles were biased from the day they were written. They often start off biased and continue that way.

Naturally, I'm describing another effect here which overwhelmingly uses cherry-picked data and studies for evidence. Actual information sabotage is easy to spot. Cherry-picking much harder to deal with.

Aug 17, 2015
"On German wikipedia discussion site of the "cold fusion" article this patent is already played down."

"They argument that a patent application does not mean that Airbus is taking LENR serious. What a logic."

> You, Otto, might have seen the above quote previously. Still waving the flag for Wikipedia?
Im not sure. 1) speak english and 2) provide a link. Maybe then Ill take your post seriously.

Aug 17, 2015
Order of Venus phases, shadows of Lunar craters, phases of Jupiter moons - this is not an evidence of Galileo's/heliocentric model?


They weren't, because the heliocentric Copernican model which Galileo supported, and the geocentric Tyconian model made identical predictions and were in every sense identical except for which celestial object was considered to be the center, and there was no further evidence or theory available to settle the debate.

And the heliocentric model is still wrong: there is no center to the universe, so the anti-consensus wasn't right either.

This is not how the evidence in science is supposed to work.


Yes it is.
With the same imbecile attitude I could tell you as well: "You see - the Higgs boson doesn't exist - until you show me some working device based on it".


The cold fusion advocates are claiming that the working devices do exist - as proof that cold fusion itself exists. You don't see any issue with this?

Aug 17, 2015
Also, there is a working device based on the higgs' boson - the LHC.

The fact that the boson exists causes certain breakdown products, which makes the LHC return a certain signal as evidence for the existence of said particle. The device works the way it works because something resembling the higgs' boson exists.

Since cold fusion is not a particle or a thing, but an event, eventually you have to build some kind of reactor to demonstrate that this event really takes place, or isolate it in nature through empirical observation. Otherwise you're denying falsifiability and your claims reduce to junk science.


Aug 17, 2015
And the wright bros had no idea how their plane flew as there was no such thing as aeronautical engg at the time.


Yes there were.

The Wright Brothers - as many other experimenters - were well versed in building and flying gliders and parafoils (kites), and the beginnings of aerodynamics were well underway as a science, by people such as Newton and Bernoulli in the 18th century. They had a pretty good idea what they were doing and why.

The main contribution of the Wrights was the development of a sufficiently light and powerful engine and an airframe to take off on its own power - not flying itself.

Aug 17, 2015
Doesn't matter whether you show off your invention or not - without patent your invention can be copied by anybody.

Patents are the only way to keep someone from copying your work.


Patents don't keep anyone from copying your work - they keep them from selling it.

The whole point of patents is that the relevant information of an invention is made public so that everyone can replicate the invention in private and study it, so that the consumers would know what they're buying to make informed decisions on the market, and so that scientific discovery would not be hindered by inventors witholding crucial information for profit.

Technically speaking, if you can build your own Ferrari, you're allowed. The patent law does not prohibit anyone from producing patented devices for themselves by their own means. The only thing you can't do is call it a Ferrari or paint it a certain shade of red - that's a trademark violation.


Aug 17, 2015
But they dont know how its done.


If they don't know how it's done, then how did they build the reactor?

If they know how to build the reactor, then they can show how the trick is done. Obviously it doesn't take millions of money or any significant skill if some dude in a school metal shop can produce a working cold fusion reactor.

Aug 18, 2015
I think you know what I mean. They don't have a working theory of the underlying physics which is why for the moment they can't get a US patent.

And without a patent they can't prevent anyone from copying their process should they divulge it.

Rossi and IH plan to flood markets with reactors once current trials are complete and before anyone can reverse engr them.

And they are continuing to improve the process which should make this first gen obsolete by the time the market is saturated.

And they hope to have a patentable theory soon.

Aug 18, 2015
And as far as replication and peer review go, these have already been done.

You are uninformed.

If the units work as described then people will buy them. Most people who fly in planes have no idea how they work.

Aug 18, 2015
"Most people who fly in planes have no idea how they work."
---------------------------

Really? Did you folk go to school? Want a lecture?

Aug 19, 2015
"Most people who fly in planes have no idea how they work."
---------------------------

Really? Did you folk go to school? Want a lecture?
So now youre an aeronautical engineer??

You fucking loony.

Aug 20, 2015
No looney, otto. I worked on almost every type of aircraft we had in the Air Force. We had at least one of everything at Eddie's Airplane Patch, from a C-47 to rocket-powered aircraft, all the experimental aircraft and prototypes, rocket site, NASA, with VTOL and STOL birds, triple-sonic intercontinental bombers only a Blackbird could keep up with. It was a great time to be there.

Aug 20, 2015
AGAIN george the psychopath finds another excuse to talk about himself.

You 'worked on' as a 20yo AF vo-tech grad - 32 week course.

What makes you think you have anything enlightening to say?

NOBODY gives a shit.

I understand that this must be hard for you to accept, what with being a psychopath and all, but has anyone here ASKED you to elucidate?

Have they george?

No.

Nobody gives a shit about what you did as a lowly tech.

Nobody.

Aug 20, 2015
You do, otto. and since you care so much, I am going to send other stuff to other folk, just so they know who is the coward hiding behind a pseudonym. I see you went back to "tooti", thinking we would not know it is you, even after you bragged about using "variations" on the name "otto" for your phony identities.

We were all adolescents once, otto, but you never outgrew it.

Aug 20, 2015
going to send other stuff to other folk
What - the stuff mike masson asked for? He will post it on the internet for all to see. Make sure you include evidence that it is at all relevant to your claims of expertise.

Sorry psycho, tooti is not me and the people here know that I do not lie.

You do, and they know that too.

Send ira your MS diploma as you promised.

Adolescents?
You can be played like a cheap kazoo
Come on baby. Send ira the info you promised him.

Aug 20, 2015
"Nobody gives a shit about what you did as a lowly tech."

Except for you, otto.

Can you spell "fixation"?

Aug 21, 2015
I admit I hate lying, cheating psychopaths such as yourself. And every time I see you trying to convince people that your lies and fabrications are true just because you post your real name, you will be attacked and exposed. And not just by me but by all those who are tired of your insane bullshit.

Fair enough?

When are you going to send Mike masson the info you promised him so we can get to see it?

When are you going to send ira your MS info to convince us that you are not just a lying college dropout as evidence would suggest?

And why would you expect that anyone here would let you slide when you lie about these things and so much more?

Aug 21, 2015
I love the emotionally-challenged. They can be troublesome at times, but are just folk like us, but ones who are victims of prolonged childhoods. Most people put it down to being spoiled as kids, but I have empathy for those who cannot control themselves.

Aug 21, 2015
"I love the emotionally-challenged. They can be troublesome at times, but are just folk like us, but ones who are victims of prolonged childhoods. Most people put it down to being spoiled as kids, but I have empathy for those who cannot control themselves."

-george also says

"You can be played like a cheap kazoo."

-You really think this is a game?

Send ira and Mike the stuff you promised them.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more