User talk:Edgerck

"The editor's work is never done. However, it may be good enough ...today."*
 * Archive: Archive 1

"Editing is best done collaboratively."*

"Misteakes are a catalyst for the power of collaboration."*

"Correct and objective information exists. Otherwise, banking, cooking and chemistry would not be possible."*

"Correct, objective information and the Heisenberg principle are compatible."*

"Subjective truth is a pleonasm."*

"Logical truth is that which is true because it works."*

"Snow is white is true if and only if Snow is white." (Tarski)

"Trust is that which I know that I know that I know."*

"Observed reality (Wirklichkeit) depends on what we trust."*

"Distrust is trust."*

"It is better to distrust a truth than to trust a falsity."*

"When in doubt, think."* (*) Page contents &copy; Ed Gerck, licensed under the GFDL†

Reliance on Information
How trustworthy is the information in WP?

I believe this question is important for all WP users. I am currently conducting an experiment to help answer this question. I hope the answer will be helpful to improve WP and its use.

Since information in WP is dynamic, this question cannot be answered by simply sampling at specific times. Instead, I decided to measure the lifetime of correct information (defined following WP policy), that I seeded in WP edits of selected articles. As an important side benefit, the editing work should provide a concrete editing benefit to WP.

Read more on the Reliance on Information Experiment >>

Comments
Please submit experiment comments on the experiment talk page

Mass and energy in special relativity
How to know that you are being swindled: if the book, course you are taking, or article you are reading differs from the answers given here &mdash; complain! These areas (barring any new physics discovery!) are not controversial today.

Read the answers: Mass and energy in special relativity

Truth and trust
''Truth is subjective. Wait. No! Subjective truth is a pleonasm.''

Why?

''Because, subjectively, we usually think that we are right. And what someone calls "truth" is what that person considers to be right. So, this is a full pleonasm.''

''What? You do not agree? That is not what you think is true? Well, it does not matter! This is the truth.''

read more >>

Your experiment & COI
It seems to me that your experiment is violating wiki rules:

"A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors."

See WP:COI.

Keep in mind also that your experiment has negative consequences. Looks like you wasted a lot of Count Iblis' time and good intentions, for one. If I were him, I'd be pretty pissed... Propagating incorrect information is also not so good. I won't attempt to be the judge of whether these negatives are out-weighed by some positive goal you have in mind.PhysPhD 18:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There was NO incorrect information inserted in my edits. My experiment rules make this absolutely clear.


 * Regarding WP purpose's, I edited exactly those articles that were NOT neutral. All my edits are documented and explained.


 * All my edits represented an honest attempt to improve neutrality of the articles, which were biased to use outdated information. The current inability of some editors to see that my edits were indeed based on correct information (including WP verifiability and NPOV) is quite understandable and is observable day-to-day in WP.


 * As I explain in my experiment's conditions for impartiality, if, because I am not perfect and the volume of my edits was very large, any of my edits contain material that is found to be incorrect, that can be taken into account. So far, I see no reason to consider any of my edits as incorrect, not verifiable, or not clear.


 * Further, I did not take an anonymous identity exactly so people would understand that this is an honest attempt to 1) improve some WP's "eye-sore" articles; and 2) see how long that improvement would last, be improved more, or just disappear. Thank you. Edgerck 17:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ed, I am sorry to say that as well intentioned as your test seems to be, it seems to have caused a rash of paranoia within the SR and GR editors. Specifically I refer to Count Iblis and his assertion that you were stress testing articles with bad information; followed by the appears of what seems to be a crank by the name of SteakNShake. His spurious edits and comments have certainly stressed quite a few editors, and there was some discussion as to whether or not he was a sock of yours "testing" the resilience of the project. I sincerely hope that there is a way for your experiment and WP to coexist peacefully. I just wanted to let you know the feeling that your experiment seems to have evoked from the community. Editors feel like they are being toyed with, and this is certainly a feeling that your experiment should address if it is to remain viable. Cheers --Cronholm144 18:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not edit anything in GR. All my edits were done using correct information, which I took pains to describe and list. I have reduced the guesswork of what people might want to say, including my real identity with all my edits.


 * CI's assertion that one of my edits may have been wrong on purpose is a bad call for bad faith, a personal attack that is in contradiction with the fact that my edits were done transparently, sourced according to WP rules, are NPOV, are documented, and were presented in my name. It just shows that the editing arguments of some are not holding water, so now comes the personal attack. This was not the first personal attack I suffered here, and this is nothing new online (unfortunately).


 * Honest editors should feel happy with my edits, as they were honestly done. I don't mind at all if people edit what I edited. But I am keeping tabs on what is done according to WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV, or not. Thanks. Edgerck 19:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that you are following the rules Ed, but the fact remains that, since you are a new editor, there still exists a fair amount of suspicion about your true intentions here. CI was merely reacting to the experiment i.e. the question, is there another experiment underneath the experiment. Hopefully you will be able to reach some sort agreement on SR and then things will calm down. The only other thing I can see that you can do to allay their fears is to continue to edit in good faith and engage them as such. --Cronholm144 20:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Cronholm. Along the lines of what you suggest, I am making calls for fair discussions, providing additional references if needed, and letting the community digest the edited information. In the case of a reversal, talking in the talk page and editing/reversing again works in some cases. In other cases, it may create more resistance.


 * Now, how many more hoops should a voluntary WP editor have to jump in order to assure that WP reflects a viewpoint that is not controversial? Escalating the edit difference to any form of litigation does not seem to me to be a pleasant or fun activity, or rewarding in time. So, I'll rather let time work in favor of us all. Edgerck 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ed Gerck is indeed following the rules. The is studying wikipedia as it functions normally, so he won't violate the rules as that would invalidate his experiment. The suspicion I have about Ed Gerck is based on the combination of these facts:

a) Ed Gerck is a physics Ph.D

b) Ed Gerck has a problem with a well known trivial result in special relativity (a high school/first year university topic), namely that for an isolated closed system the invariant mass is conserved (because total four-momentum is conserved for such a system).

c) Ed Gerck's initial reaction to the opposition he encountered was to quote wiki rules like, NPOV. Reliable Sources and what have you more, instead of arguing on the basis of the physics itself. Arguments like "Okun says this", "Wheeler says that" were used plus an invalid conclusion that he draws from that.

d) When he finally did engage on the basis of the physics, the reasoning he used was not compatible with someone who doesn't understand that if p1 = p2, then m^2 = p1^2 = p2^2 (where x^2 means inner product of x with itself). E.g. he used this argument: Let's consider the emission of a photon by an atom. Then, ignoring the recoil of the atom, if you work out the invariant mass of the photon atom system you see that it is less than the mass of the orignal excited atom. Of course, this is just due to the fact that the recoil was ignored. But setting up this trick argument requires more thinking than convincing oneself that if p1 = p2, then m^2 = p1^2 = p2^2.

e) When errors in the examples he gave were pointed out, he started to come up with new examples, disengaging from discussing further the old examples. The fact that the old "proofs" he gave were shown to be invalid didn't seem to ring any bells to Ph.D. Ed Gerck. If you genuinly believe that something is true and others dispute that and if you give an example pinpointing why you are right and others are wrong, then you would not expect this behavior.

From the facts a) ... e) I conclude that Ed Gerck wants to test if he can include an obvious erroneous statement like "invariant mass can change for closed isolated systems" in SR wiki articles, but using only the wiki rules. He knows that he can't do that himself because such an edit would be reverted. So he tries to set up an argument on the talk pages that looks convincing. Count Iblis 21:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I consolidated most edited points in physics in a list, all with references, in the experiment's page. The point you mention is listed there. My edits were not a trap for anyone.


 * Your "conclusion" proves itself to be wrong, as above, and you should apologize. This is an honest experiment and you should act and see others in good faith, according to WP policy WP:AGF.


 * According to WP editing rules (that I agree with!), all I should have done is quote many, verifiable, NPOV references that support what I wrote in the edits. I have done that. That I have also tried in vain (for you) to give examples, and more examples, just shows to me (so far) that WP rules are right. Edgerck 22:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

---

''"all I should have done is quote many, verifiable, NPOV references that support what I wrote in the edits." -Ed''

I think there is another criteria that you are missing besides criteria you listed. The information you contribute to Wikipedia must also be correct _per Wikipedia standards_. That correctness is formed by consensus (WP:CON) of informed individuals. For better or for worse, that is how Wikipedia works. If you want a Wiki with only "absolutely correct information" per your definition of the term, you should start your own Wiki with different policies about determining the correctness of information. Also of relavance to this issue: (Update: signed) MC (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT
 * Reliable sources
 * Disruptive_editing
 * Disruptive_editing

---
 * Mike. Next time, please sign your message. That's a WP rule. As to what you say, WP:CON cannot be used to trump WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. This is very clear and needs to be so to avoid solipsist control of WP. Edgerck (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Network Manifold Associates
I have nominated Network Manifold Associates, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Network Manifold Associates. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Jfire (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I replied in the page noted. Edgerck (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of Safevote for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Safevote is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Safevote until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Alpha_Quadrant  (talk)  00:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of First Virtual


The article First Virtual has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)