User:Waldemahr


 * Education
 * Bachelor in Physics, majored in Biophysics (protein structure versus function), minored in Liquid State Physics.
 * Master in Condensed Matter Physics (Atomic Clusters).
 * I have also worked in projects related to magnetic nanoparticles and two-photon fluorescence microscopy.

Open Letter on the Wikipedia Project
Anybody having a scientific mind and reading "The Five Pillars of Wikipedia" will wonder how one could rephrase these 5 subjective guidelines into measurable actions by the Wiki-Community - such that:


 * ..Wiki-Users may TRUST this information source and Wiki-Contributors feel theirs is a steadily improved product, reliable enough to the global community.


 * So I would like to challenge the Wiki-Community to find a measure of what reliable enough information may mean at any given point in time.


 * ..Wiki-Contributors need also to come up with guidelines/rules for a standardized and controllable form and criteria for content quality inside the presented articles. There must be a mechanism of vote on CLEAREST & SHORTEST expositions/explanations of the contained

Five Measurable Pillars

 * I. - Negative Statement: editors should eliminate from articles any personal emotion, promotion, impression, opinion, militant agenda or advertising platform.
 * ...Equivalent Positive Statement: described facts should be verifiable via reliable citations - here, in my opinion, only scientific journals and statements by members of established scientific and academic teams should qualify.


 * II. - The neutral point of view in the appropriate context - all articles should be mandated to consist of: definition statement(s), explanations of supportive concepts (including links to other articles), clarifying differences from similar concepts or entities (also explanations with reference links), enumeration of essential consequences (explanations plus reference links)


 * III. - Free content with merciless editing and redistribution - all the way so, provided the other Pillar-Principles are observed.


 * IV. - Act in good faith and assume good faith, be welcoming and find consensus - for example if one of us comes with a simpler, more fundamental way of explaining a concept, we should accept that based on... how about votes from the people of that specific field?


 * V. - Be bold in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes - this an outstanding basis for a truly dynamic environment although it is not clear to me HOW is it decided which part of the new edit and which part of the of the old version will be kept...