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.

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

Patrick

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 204.56.7.1, which resolves to the University of Missouri in Kansas City.

Dr. M. Askanas