User talk:Knowm

Particle flow collectors: original research
As the originator of the particle flow collector concept, your self-interest may conflict with the interests of this project. I believe the section on that topic in Solar thermal collector that you authored, I removed, and then you immediately replaced, is in violation of WP:OR and WP:COI. I apologize for not making the policies behind my action clearer but I hope with a new understanding of project policies you will see your way to removing that section now. Joja lozzo  18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. What is so weird here is that this idea is actually a new type of solar thermal collector that addresses the limitations and problems of the other types. It would appear that the only way particle flow collectors could find their way onto the artcile is for me to start a company and sell them. How wonderfully ironic!

BTW, the volumetric section has an external link that leads to an attack site.

Knowm (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation of WP:OR policy is that a technology needs to be developed and become accepted in the industry or in the DIY community before it is suited for reference here. It's the originality, novelty and fringe nature of your work that is problematic. My sense is that you see Wikipedia as a forum for promoting your ideas but that's definitely not its intended purpose. Joja lozzo  19:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an unfortunate flaw in this logic that does the public a disservice. Every one of the solar collectors mentioned in that article have strong commercial interests behind them that represent the status-quo. In fact, my idea is the only one without a commercial interest (yet). To "..become accepted in the industry" is problematic because the design competes with these commercial interests. Hence, I would have to actually sell the panels for this information to "..become accepted in the industry". I really do understand your points about conflicts of interest. However, ironically, it also prevents new and exciting concepts from being mentioned, which simultaneously hinders those ideas from becoming commercial because the ideas are suppressed. I suspect this is happening all over Wikipedia. Rather then simply deleting these entries, it would be preferable to more clearly label what they are and let the public find them. For example, make a "recent innovations and developments" section in the articles.

Would it perhaps be agreeable to add a section for "recent innovations in development"? I have little doubt that other promising technologies in many fields are being suppressed because of WP:OR. The end result is a tremendous disservice to the public, as they are prevented from seeing anything but the status quo, which just happens to be controlled by strong commercial interests.

As far as acceptance in the DIY community, I have posted an article on instructables that details how to build these panels and have received positive feedback. I have also posted the idea to forums specifically related to solar thermal and have also received positive feedback. My whole effort is being documented on my blog, and these comments will become part of this.

My hope is to encourage others to innovate. As it turns out, Wikipedia suffers from a flaw that suppresses innovation. This is really quit interesting and would indicate a slight modification to Wikipedia's policy or format should be undertaken to allow the public to see the innovation process in action. It would do the world a great service.

Knowm (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue for or against WP policy and I am not the right audience for your arguments. WP:OR makes it clear that Wikipedia is not a place to inform people about original research and as I understand it you are not arguing that your collector technology is not original research. On that basis, the section you have added back needs to be removed. I will do it if you prefer. Let me know. Joja lozzo  02:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you can delete it and I will not add it back until a third party has written about the concept (or a third party adds it).

Knowm (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I appreciate your cooperation. I'm copying this discussion to the talk page of the article to share it with other editors. Joja lozzo  05:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)