Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

· Home
· Forum
· Special Sections
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 193 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here


Hot Links

American Antigravity

AESOP Institute

Closeminded Science



Integrity Research Institute

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

The Orion Proj.




Science Hobbyist

Tom Bearden's Page


Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
Alternative Energy News
E-Cat World
NexusNewsfeed ZPE
FringeEnergy News
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
Energy21 YT Channel
Energy Science Forum
Free_Energy FB Group
The KeelyNet Blog
Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
Vortex (old Interact)
Magazine Sites
Electrifying Times (FB)
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine
Find Jobs

Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance
Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 @ 22:59:58 GMT by vlad

Testimonials Sam Rutherford writes: Your readers might be interested in knowing that an all out war seems to be being waged by wikipedia against all nonmainstream science.

Exerpts from: http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/awp_index.html

Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance
Paulo Correa, M.Sc., Ph.D., Alexandra Correa, H.BA., Malgosia Askanas, Ph.D.

"Is Wikiped's fascism and suppression of knowledge a fraudulent intelligence operation?

In the beginning, one could have wondered where the 'spontaneous' animosity towards Aetherometry came from. On closer scrutiny, the animosity was found to be not simply aprioristic and uninformed, and more intent on libeling scientists and their efforts than on creating an encyclopedic article, but also part of a general fanaticism displayed on all Wikipedia entries relating to new science and its controversies.

While this alone shows Wikipedia to be an extraordinarily biased depository of so-called 'information', the archives of modifications and the discussion pages which accompany these entries record a shocking degree of zealotry and fanaticism backed up by an administrative power that is systematically abused through overt or covert deletion of texts expressing opposing views, through alteration of records, caricatural distortion of content, and the determined suppression of knowledgeable contributions."


"This brings us squarely to the question of the uses of Wikipedia, and in particular, those that concern protection of the interests of Big Science. For Wikipedia is at the intersection of this Knowledge Warfare. Its cult of the sanctity of mainstream peer-review, and its determination to brand bona fide non-mainstream scientific efforts as Pseudoscience, lumping them together with doctrines or ideas that would disgust any good scientist, all point in the direction of a gigantic disinformation act. Tyrannized by fanatical lefto-facho bureaucrats and by zealots of Official Science surrounded by an always-ready supply of zombified adolescents, Wikipedia has become a supplement to the imaginary ‘peer-review system’ that supposedly rules the secretion called Official or Big Science. The unconscious entente of Wikipedia proves the collective adherence of its participants to the brave new concept of Official Science: if it does not occur within those institutions which embody the powers of the State (Academia), the Military Mechanism and Capital, it is NOT science, nor worthy of the Media (including mainstream peer-reviewed publications), not worthy of being endorsed for the strategizing of mass-control."



Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about Testimonials
· News by vlad

Most read story about Testimonials:
Dr. Eugene Mallove is dead

Article Rating
Average Score: 4.42
Votes: 7

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Very Good


 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

"Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance" | Login/Create an Account | 14 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance (Score: 1)
by bender772 on Saturday, December 03, 2005 @ 01:56:34 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.suppressedscience.net
I think the Correas are going a little overboard here.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, it is supposed to contain facts about the world that are commonly agreed upon. It is not intended as a medium to disseminate new ideas or to challenge existing ideas. While I personally agree that most of accepted physics, cosmology, archeology, biology, paleoanthropology, etc. is flawed or flat out wrong (see my site, Suppressed Science for details), Wikipedia is NOT the right place to correct those flaws.

Sure, it would be nice if Wikipedia could include controversial science topics. But it could never do so to our satisfaction. It could only cover them from a non-point-of-view (NPOV) perspective, meaning it could say, there is is theory called Aetherometry built by two Canadians who claim this, that and that, but they haven't been able to get the attention of mainstream science, and according to mainstream science, what they're saying is B.S.

Sorry to be this harsh, but you guys are  fighting a losing battle here. Edit wars in Wikipedia are NOT going to lead to communication/public awareness breakthroughs in new energy/new physics.

Re: Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance (Score: 1)
by patrick on Saturday, December 03, 2005 @ 06:30:46 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message)
I am not sure I can agree with bender772 that an encyclopedia "is supposed to contain facts about the world that are commonly agreed upon".  What would that even mean?  Agreed upon by whom, where?  What is "commonly"?  How would one ascertain the commonness of the agreement? 

The purpose of an encyclopedia, I think, is to cover some field of knowledge.  "Knowledge" is not necessarily what is "commonly agreed upon", and in fact true knowledge often diverges radically from what is commonly "known" or believed.  For any encyclopedia, it is the responsibility of those who undertake the task of being its editors to decide what they will regard as "knowledge".  In Wikipedia, nobody has accepted this responsibility - or in fact, ANY responsibility for ANYTHING.  And how could they, when there are no mechanisms that would allow such responsibility to "stick"?  Any responsible act can at any moment be undone by an irresponsible whim of any of the thousands of Wikipedia's daily passers-by. 

I see no reason why a free online encyclopedia could not provide impartial, accurate information about controversial science.  There is nothing occult, shameful or disreputable about doing scientific work that goes contrary to views currently accepted by the scientific establishment.   I believe that it is important to take a firm stand against all attempts by public institutions to paint such work as shameful, occult and disreputable.  Wikipedia is a public institution.  And yet, by not having any mechanisms to encourage and support responsibility, it gives bigots, witchhunters and fanatical ignoramuses the de-facto power to decide, and tell the public, what is "scientific knowledge".    I have to agree with the Correas that this irresponsibility of Wikipedia towards the way it provides "information" about dissenting scientifc work needs to be denounced.  Precisely because it cannot be overcome through edit wars.

Re: Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance (Score: 1)
by ElectroDynaCat on Saturday, December 03, 2005 @ 08:42:03 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message)
First deeds, not words.

The person that is able to create something workable that defies known laws of physics will be able to have his conceptual framework accepted as mainstream, not the other way around.

So if you really think you have something, do something with it, build a car that doesn't use external sources of energy to run. Better yet, build a spaceship and orbit the earth a few times and then land in front of the United Nations building to get everyones attention.

If you have Higher Knowledge, you should also have Higher Abilities. Otherwise sit down and shut up.

Re: Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance (Score: 1)
by patrick on Saturday, December 03, 2005 @ 21:26:39 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Hey, ElectroDynaCat, let's see if I've gotten this right.  You're saying that if one is a serious non-mainstream theoretical and experimental alternative energy researcher - like the Correas, like Aspden, like Carezani, like Tesla, like Mills, etc, etc - then, simply because one's results are non-mainstream, one should simply sit down and shut up while one's character and one's reputation is defamed and one's life work is libeled under the guise of 'open source', new-age 'encyclopedic' information.  One should behave thusly, according to your worthy precepts, unless one has what you call "Higher Abilities" - a mystically named condition which, from your description, quite nonmystically boils down to being able to command a NASA megabudget to send star trek-style spaceships buzzing around the UN building (no less)  to impress you.  Only then does one ascend in your eyes to the right not to be libeled.  Did I get this right?  What a worthy thought.  I notice that you, on the other hand, seem quite eager to open your mouth - for example, to promote  the navy's nuclear power reactor savoir faire, and coal as a clean fuel source.  All this, of course, under the banner of 'global warming'.  That wouldn't have anything to do with your snide 'put up or shut up' contribution, would it?  The point being made in the Correa article was, I think, that Wikipedia has a stated policy of not accepting original research - yet it does. And, in the case of non-mainstream science topics, it does so for the sole - and explicitly boasted of - purpose of misrepresenting such science, in order to ridicule it by caricature.  Hardly a neutral point of view ('NPOV'). Of course, any fool can make libelous, snide remarks and mischaracterize another person's work - and those with agendas, especially competing agendas, usually do (which is precisely what the Correa article describes).  But what these libelers  never ever do, is address the actual content of the science intelligently.  So perhaps it's those with lower abilities, those who are unable to conduct an intelligent discussion about substance, who should shut up.

Respectfully, of course


This is why we created PESWiki (Score: 1)
by sterlingda on Saturday, December 03, 2005 @ 21:47:17 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://PESWiki.com
I ran into the same frustration when I first encountered Wikipedia two years ago.  They would not even begin to consider hosting entries about concepts that were non-mainstream.

That is what lead to my founding http://peswiki.com [peswiki.com] where we are free to be more speculative in the hopes of pushing the envelop into new, promising areas of energy technology research.  I dare say we've done a great job so far.

Re: This is why we created PESWiki (Score: 1)
by askanas on Sunday, December 04, 2005 @ 15:57:34 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Mr. Sterling Allan, your "Posted by the Correas on June 24, 2005" is a complete fabrication.

Neither the Wikipedia entry on Aetherometry nor the PESWiki copy of it were posted by the Correas.

The Wikipedia entry (as you most likely know) was posted by myself, and the PESWiki copy (as you undoubtedly know) was posted by someone with IP number, which resolves to the University of Missouri in Kansas City.

Dr. M. Askanas

More on Wikipedia (Score: 1)
by vlad on Friday, December 09, 2005 @ 23:15:31 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Aetherometry [en.wikipedia.org] had been protected so no one on either side could edit it, but now the protection is gone and it currently doesn't have the Category:Pseudoscience link that was part of the controversy. The anti-Wikipedia [www.aetherometry.com] page doesn't seem to understand the mechanisms of Wikipedia. I went to the section regarding the Three-revision rule, an easy to misunderstand rule and there seems to be a misunderstanding that the software enforces this rule, which it does not. Both sides also seem to misunderstand the other's position and are terrible at explaiining their own. The reason to have the explanation for Eugene Mallove is to show that he was interested in it because it fit into his general interests and not that he was committed to this one specific interest. The other side didn't understand the importance of this clarification and so reverted it.


by vlad on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 @ 20:55:33 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
, December 12

 The author of a fake biography posted on the online encyclopedia Wikipedia has come forward and acknowledged he did it as a practical joke that went "horribly wrong," a newspaper report said. (read previous article 'Wikipedia becomes Internet force, faces crisis')

Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news8973.html [www.physorg.com]

Anti-Wikipedia 2: The Rise of the Latrines (Score: 1)
by vlad on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 @ 21:23:26 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Dear Vlad,

Since you seem to be following the antiwikipedia debate, I thought I'd
send along the latest salvo from the aetherometry website -


Sam Rutherford

"Wikipedia is now in the throes of its yearly fund-raising drive. We are called upon to reach into our wallets in the name of helping "empower the world with free knowledge", Jimmy Wales has performed a heart-warming public self-criticism so as to calm the waters after the media storm raised by the libelous entry on John Seigenthaler, and Wikipedia's standby buddies from the journal Nature have been enlisted to perform a wholesale certification of Wikipedia as a source of 'accurate scientific information'. But what are the ingredients of the rather foul-smelling sausage that we are being sold by these 'saviours of the world'? This is the question which is being addressed in Akronos' newest publication,

Anti-Wikipedia 2: The Rise of the Latrines http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia2/awp2_index.html [www.aetherometry.com]

The question deserves careful consideration, since one should indeed beware of those who are aiming to "take back the world" - to become decision-makers on how and what children all over the world shall be taught, what information we shall all get on anything and everything, how scientists shall have to view science (if they intend to get funding), and what kind of activity deserves the label 'science'. Under Wikipedia's cyber-maoistic ideal of enforcing 'consensus', anonymous and committed cliques - sponsored by government, corporate, religious or official-scientific interests - are able to engage in systematic adulteration and ransacking of knowledge and information, while claiming a 'grassroots community' support for their antics. The 'grand global project of knowledge' peddled by Wikipedia and its partners under the banner of 'the wisdom of crowds', translates into a frenzied opportunistic rewriting of the entirety of knowledge and history - by way of the meticulous substitution of platitudes, salespitch and contrived falsities for facts, thought and truth."


All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.