Rossi vs. Wikipedia [Updated]

Here’s a comment made by Andrea Rossi today in response to a question by F. Fabiani (who if I am not mistaken, is an engineer at Leonardo corporation) He wrote: (original in Italian — Google translated)

Dear Andrea,

as promised I tried to publish a page on wikipedia.it concerning the third-party testing the Hot Cat

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossi_cold_fusion_e-cat

I was immediately censored and deleted page from a self-styled Rojelio with a justification meaningless (blank page or meaningless).

I opened a discussion at the same Rojelio but it does not seem that this has led to something.

In examining other pages concerning your person, I find that the page dedicated to Petroldragon statements that accuse you of “conspiracy” and having loads pending court.

This is pure and simple defamation and I ask you to speak with your attorney in order to remove such claims and to finally publish the “street” (for them) … that is the truth that you’re more “clean” them and that ‘Ecat WORKS!

A hug.

Rossi’s response:

Dear Eng. F.Fabiani:
Yes, on Wikipedia they have written false information upon me and when we try to correct the false information, after few seconds the corrections are taken off and the false information is reinserted. There is a moderator ( who makes himself named Rojelio) that full time defends all the false information published against me and my work.
Recently they have published that I have sues against me in Court, which is totally false, and they have written that I have been convicted for crimes from which I have been acquitted many years ago. And when I try to correct, the correction is cancelled in SECONDS, not minutes and the falsities reinstated. For these reasons our attorneys are preparing a sue against the Administration of Wikipedia, to be refunded for the damages they are causing against us. We have printed all the falsities that they have published, as well as our corrections and dates and daytime in which the corrections have been published and cancelled. Of course, it has been always cancelled the address that we tried to put on Wikipedia to amend the false information, wherein is described what really happened to me in my past: if you are curious, please go to
http://www.ingandrearossi.com
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

To be clear, Wikipedia is different in its different language editions, and here he is referring to the Italian version. I’m sure that there are different moderators for each version. As I understand it, moderators are volunteers and are responsible for making sure that information posted on the site is factual, and that the information posted conforms to Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) policy defined by Wikipedia as follows: “Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.”

I am not sure of all the details of Rossi’s legal proceedings which stemmed from being convicted in the Petroldragon affair, but I understand that he was imprisoned, but later aquitted of charges. I am not sure how successful a suit against Wikipedia would be in this case, but Rossi seems to be planning to defend himself vigorously.

[UPDATE] More comments by Rossi regarding Wikipedia:

Andrea Rossi
May 27th, 2013 at 2:30 PM
Dear orsobubu:
It is a mafia. They publish false information on you, and you cannot defend yourself because they can publish or cancel your corrections, and you have to accept. I never have seen a dirtier play.
You cannot defend yourself, because there is a guy ( in my case “Rojelio”) who stays full time to cancel what you write and reinstate the info against you. This is real mafia that has been activated against me. Again: to know exactly what is my past, please go to
http://www.ingandrearossi.com
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Andrea Rossi
May 27th, 2013 at 2:38 PM
Dear Tony Mc Connell:
Of course our work is more important than the dirt play of mafious persons and organizations, but today I found on wikipedia a page headed with my name in which is falsely reported that I have pending charges in Court and that I have been convicted for crimes for which I HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED, and when I politely sent a correction the correction has been published for 5 minutes, after which the corrections have been cancelled and returned the text with the falsifications, and after that my corrections have not been accepted: I cannot stand this. Obviously I cannot take off the time ( 16 hours per day) that I have to dedicate to my work, so I cannot compete with the wikipedian mafia, but nevertheless it is unavoidable that I get nervous for some hour…now the issue is in the hands of my attorneys. I WANT TO BE REFUNDED AND THE MONEY I WILL GET WILL GO TO HEAL A CHILD FROM CANCER. So all this mafious bullshit will have had a sense. I have no more time to subtract to my work: today I will finish to work at 3 a.m. of tomorrow to recover the time I spent to struggle against this mafia and see my corrections published again, with no results…I will spend no more time on this, but be sure the more they will stay with that bullshit published, the more they will pay. Now the issue is completely in the hands of my attorneys.
Again: to know my past, please go to
http://www.ingandrearossi.com
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

  • Ric Werme

    I saw something the other day about a Wiki editor getting his wings clipped. Dang, I forget who. Nothing new – William Connolley has taken it upon himself to make sure nothing from the climate skeptics makes it on to Wikipedia for long.

    See:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/node/14132
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/

    Wikipedia is good for mathematical proofs. Awful for anything that has adherents and detractors.

  • Pedro

    Rossi’s outrage about Wikipedia has had effect… his entry has been ammended.
    In his blog on JoNP, Rossi responded as follows:

    There are many imprecisions and errors but at least there are not false accusations. I will try to fix this decisively improved version, if this will be permitted. At least now we are on a plane of reciprocal honesty, even if the Seebeck Effect numbers have been very different, since the problem was they had low efficiency, not low power, modules of 2 W can be put in series and parallels to get any power, a link to the Report of the Third Indipendent Party regarding the E-Cat should be put, a link to http://www.ingandrearossi to understand what really happened in my past should also be put. Let me say that now the page does not make false accusations, but appears to be very much biased, sort of ” Jesus Christ did walk on the water, because at the age of 33 still was not able to swim”…but it is true that now, at least, you are not at the level sort of ” Jesus Christ has been crucified because robbed a caravan of Rabbis”. Thanks to this mode-variation, possibly, from now, we can talk friendly.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Rical

    How to correct your defamation in wikipedia ?

    I am Rical in french wikipedia and I am the main reporter of your industry in the page :
    http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalyseur_d'énergie_de_Rossi_et_Focardi
    You can consult the history to see all modifications and each “diff”.

    in french wikipedia, the defamation against you was inserted then corrected in 2011.
    How to do :
    1 – defamation publication 2011-06-06T19:52:27
    http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catalyseur_d%27énergie_de_Rossi_et_Focardi&diff=prev&oldid=66118402
    2 – reference needed but the defamator cannot find 2011-06-08T01:08:11
    http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catalyseur_d%27énergie_de_Rossi_et_Focardi&diff=prev&oldid=66160472
    3 – explanation in talk page “Démêlés avec la justice” which keep track of the defamation and its correction.
    http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Catalyseur_d%27énergie_de_Rossi_et_Focardi#D.C3.A9m.C3.AAl.C3.A9s_avec_la_justice
    4 – delete this bad assert without valid source. 2011-06-08T10:52:16 (diff)
    http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catalyseur_d%27énergie_de_Rossi_et_Focardi&diff=prev&oldid=66168507

    I do not touch to english pages because my english is not so good to hardly discuss my point of view and my referencies.

    Now I try to publish the last tests : 2013-05-20T18:09:50
    http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catalyseur_d%27énergie_de_Rossi_et_Focardi&diff=prev&oldid=93294095
    But I can’t because Arkiv is not “enough reference”, I must wait for “Nature” or similar.
    This lack of main source explain also the alerts boxes in the top of the page.

    I also write whole this history and research :
    http://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Recherche:Transmutations_biologiques
    and this page about a possible way to equilibrate the heat that humans produce by a hoped cold source.
    http://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Recherche:Transmutations_biologiques/Cold_source
    I am so happy for you that, after a life to try, you find the way to give better access to energy to many people.

    Best regards.
    Rical

  • Renton

    I have seen whole, well documented, long, detailed, balanced articles disappear from day to night from Wikipedia because they were stating an unconventional or uncomfortable truth. They seem to believe that the truth is something you can vote on, something decided by a majority vote. Unfortunately for them the truth and the reality of something does not give a sh*t about majority’s opinion on any matter. I could cite several examples but one, above all, shines… and it is about Galileo Galilei, the same inventor of the scientific method who has been forced to retract his own words when stating the truth that the Earth was not in the center of the universe, nor in the center of the solar system. Back then, as today, many think that the truth is only true and reality is only real if the majority recognizes to it this status.

    • Roger Bird

      Renton, I appreciate your sentiment, but what you say is not true. Neither the Catholic Church elders in Galileo’s time nor censors/editors of Wikipedia were/are in the majority or even close to it. You must be thinking of anthropogenic global warming where a majority of scientist say that it is so and the stupid media thinks that that makes it so.

  • Manuel Cruz

    I find it ironic that the people that criticizes Rossi the most for lack of rigorous peer-reviewing, inaccurate theories, unorthodox methods, and lack of credible reputation get their facts from Wikipedia, which scores abysmally low on each one of these aspects in every study that has ever been published on the matter.

    Wikipedia can be described as an encyclopedia with a profound liberal bias in which “citizens” are required to act as police to silence opinions that disagree with their dogmas. For example, in the “feminazism” article, it doesn’t matter that you show proof that the term is used by left-wing groups by straight quoting them, as the feminist dogma states that it’s a word that only extreme right-wing people use, and censor every attempt to make the article any less politically biased.

    In the Pseudo-science article, which is almost a straight quote of Karl Popper’s article, if you dare to quote (with sources!) the specific part in which Karl Popper claims that marxism IS pseudoscience, the quote gets reverted and you get a warning!

    That can only be described as corruption, because it denies the evidence unless it agrees with a corrup agenda. The only scientific fact in wikipedia is that if you post an unbiased correction to one of these “corrupted articles” (with are far too many to mention), the change will be reverted in less than a day.

  • georgehants

    Andrea Rossi
    May 27th, 2013 at 2:38 PM
    Dear Tony Mc Connell:
    Of course our work is more important than the dirt play of mafious persons and organizations, but today I found on wikipedia a page headed with my name in which is falsely reported that I have pending charges in Court and that I have been convicted for crimes for which I HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED, and when I politely sent a correction the correction has been published for 5 minutes, after which the corrections have been cancelled and returned the text with the falsifications, and after that my corrections have not been accepted: I cannot stand this. Obviously I cannot take off the time ( 16 hours per day) that I have to dedicate to my work, so I cannot compete with the wikipedian mafia, but nevertheless it is unavoidable that I get nervous for some hour…now the issue is in the hands of my attorneys. I WANT TO BE REFUNDED AND THE MONEY I WILL GET WILL GO TO HEAL A CHILD FROM CANCER. So all this mafious bullshit will have had a sense. I have no more time to subtract to my work: today I will finish to work at 3 a.m. of tomorrow to recover the time I spent to struggle against this mafia and see my corrections published again, with no results…I will spend no more time on this, but be sure the more they will stay with that bullshit published, the more they will pay. Now the issue is completely in the hands of my attorneys.
    Again: to know my past, please go to
    http://www.ingandrearossi.com
    Warm Regards,
    Andrea Rossi

  • Roger Bird

    In the realm of health, Wikipedia has EXACTLY the same reputation: narrow, in-the-box, stupid, thoughtless.

  • Roger Bird

    It is the nature of encyclopedias to be extremely conservative. They think that the mainstream has the truth and that the “truth” is always the same. So I guess even an Internet encyclopedia is ultra-conservative. I recall the Encyclopedia Britannica: It had about one column inch on chiropractic. Even if chiropractic was a criminal racket (which I am sure many doctors think), it deserved way more than 1 inch. If Wikipedia lies, sue ’em.

  • freethinker

    I have posted a complaint email to wikipedia pointing out the two pages mentioned below as not truthful relating to AR. Feel free to do the same.

    • GreenWin

      When it comes to anything outside the church, wiki is completely unreliable and filled with hearsay.

      • Roger Bird

        agreed, only I say “outside the box or edgy or new”. If you want the capital of South Korea, Wikipedia is your source. If you want a good discussion about Joe Papp and the latest adventures in that fascinating field, FORGET ABOUT IT.

  • Stefan

    I find most conspiracy theories quite laughable, but I start to believe we are witnessing an information war.

    Why, well from what I believe a serious examiner of this whole field is very likely to say that the probability of a real LENR phenomena have gone from 0.00001% to 0.1%. Moreover the time-span for knowing for sure is maybe 6 months from now. What actions does this cause?

    1. Stock markets as of today is a very bad construction. It’s in principle an unstable construction and it can cause society havoc in view of dramatically changes, which is why I find it so brain damaged. You see, I’m sure a lot of people would like to game this new information to gain wealth. How would I do it, well the thing is to create a shock, first make sure everybody is against it and then suddenly in one moment it becomes the opposite, try to predict when and how the market will change and voila, profit!.

    2. You realize the change of odds, but need to by time or prepare to sell of parts of the company or change direction, e.g. damage control. I would expect some small fraction of the worlds companies are fighting with this.

    3. You think that your company have better judgement then competitors about this matter after following the field for some time. You now have a possibility to fool the competitor and have all incentive in the world to dim/postpone the correct assessment.

    Well considering these items I am not surprised about the low quality of some of the critiques that seems to want to cast doubts more then being constructive.

    WDYT

  • Andrew Ma

    “Wikipedia is in one sense a victim of its own success; it has effectively become a mainstream media source, and as such it shares a well-established bias. A wealthy few use their control of mainstream media to systematically exclude certain opinions. This lack of publication in what Wikipedia refers to as ‘credible sources’ in turn provides justification for their exclusion from Wikipedia, nullifying its potential as an independent voice. Wikipedia+ allows you to avoid this censorship by choosing to supplement your Wikipedia experience with automatic cross-references to sites you judge to be of interest (e.g. Wikispooks).”

    Source: http://wikispooks.com/wiki/WikipediaPlus

    Personally, I have seen items claimed by the authors to be censored from Wikipedia but published on Wikispooks. I have not looked into wikipedia+ yet, but will.

    • Joe Shea

      You could always call their offices in San Francisco and ask to speak to someone who can do something about it.

  • Sanjeev

    Unfortunately, nothing much can be done, Wikipedia is mostly immune to legal cases. Else every other person would have sued them by now.

    If an article affects the status quo, commercial interests or political and national stability, it will be censored. Its all in hands of corrupted powers. If the wiki refuses, it will get a treatment like wikileaks.

    • Roger Bird

      I am going to bet that Rossi knows people who know people who know people who could take care of the problem. I really feel like that, but I am an old man with no money. And Rossi is too decent to do that sort of thing. (:->)

    • Julian Becker

      Maybe if Mainstream Media refuses WIKILEAKS might actually be a solution to communicate this inventory further. Just have to convince Julian Assange that LENR is for real…. 🙂

      • AlainCo

        good idea, it have media relay, even if we have no real secret….

  • georgehants

    If I wanted to check the birth and death dates for say Newton, I would certainly find a more reliable source than the biased and distorted reports on Wiki-rubbish.

    • Mop

      Everything mentioned in a Wikipedia article has to come with a source or it will be deleted. If something you read seems suspicious or it is important to you that it is true, you can check that source. Of course the source might also look suspicious, but everything about the content is transparent to you as the reader. In that regard it is better than the encyclopedia you have on your bookshelf.

      • Methusela

        In theory, that is true.

        In practice it has become corrupted.

      • georgehants

        Mop, I think the point that is being clearly made is that the “sources” used by Wiki-rubbish are clearly selective, biased and distorted.
        A good scientist would never follow such a proven bad source of information.
        I do not expect to have to, as you suggest, check every piece of data with another reliable source, best to use the other reliable source in the first place.

        • Zedshort

          It is not the sources that are biased but the small cadre of self appointed wikipedia-police that hang out at a few article and foist their opinion in the most insistent and obnoxious manner possible. Some of those people have contributed virtually nothing as far as original content goes. They simply know “the rule” backward and forward and throw up the “blue flags” of wikipedia policy right and left. They are trolls of the worst sort and there seems to be some loose association of them guarding the e-cat article. Good luck prying their atrophied fingers off that article. I predict that one year after the NY Times posts a headline article about the E-cat, only then will that group of trolls relent.

          • D R Lunsford

            I wrote the article on the Dirac equation some years ago. It was standard stuff straight out of textbooks. Within days erroneous and irrelevant additions appeared, “corrections” that resulted in correct things being made incorrect, etc. etc. etc. The science articles in Wikipedia vary from mediocre to horrible. There is a cadre of students who will never have any ideas and never get anything published who exist only to edit WP pages after their own fashion. In the case of my page, one of the editors had neither a PhD nor even a physics degree, which would be something like me defacing an article on ancient Chinese history.

            I gave up. Appeals to Wiki’s string-pullers were of no use. For pop culture and simple narrative history Wiki is fine. For science it is beyond awful.

            -drl

            • Zedshort

              I suspect you are correct in the case of the most advanced technical articles. I work on the relatively simple article in an effort to improve the readability. I have had a few protests from self appointed “experts” but in the end they leave my edits alone. Too much of the writing is redundant and turgid.

  • Pachu

    From Jed Rotwell, “Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.”

    http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf

    Fair concerns…

    • Roger Bird

      I found the testing to be mostly independent. Even Elforsk (“el forsk” is Swedish for “Electricity Research”) funded the whole thing. I felt that Rossi had very little control over it. And if they had not found massive excess energy, they would have told us.

  • Gerrit

    Rossi shouldn’t give a flying f**k about wikipedia and simply get on with his work instead of wasting time.

    Wikipedia is firmly owned by low lifes with too much time and who know all the policies up and down. Why bother ?

    • kwhilborn

      Many people researching stop at Wikipedia first. I think they need to update some facts about LENR/Cold Fusion as they still claim it is hypotheitical and ignore all research proving it is real. We have the Ecat and Dr. George Mileys device (wikipedia him and tell me he has nothing). We have many published and peer reviewed papers showing replications, etc.

      Time for a wiki update across the board.

      • Methusela

        You try it.

        See how long you’ll last.

        • Capitano

          Yeah, no bias here:

          Energy Catalyzer‎ yet again… [edit]

          Due to a paper recently submitted to arXiv [2], our Energy Catalyzer‎ article seems to be sparking back to life once more, and will no doubt soon be producing copious amounts of heat, clouds of steam, and other evidence of the catalytic power of wishful thinking, before returning to quiescence. As always, a few extra eyes on it would be most welcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Energy_Catalyzer.E2.80.8E_yet_again

          • Zedshort

            That guy is the biggest little troll of them all. WP needs to automate the process of booting people off the system. He is one of those I can only characterize as having no responsibilities and loves negative feedback as that is they only type he is accustomed to or deserving of.

  • AB

    When it comes to the e-cat, Wikipedia tortures the articles until they paint an overwhelmingly negative picture.

    Negative views are included without fact-checking or concern for their accuracy. Any positive views are flanked by at least three negative ones.

    Very positive views, such as from ELFORSK, are deleted. One would think that the corporation who founded the study is more important than the opinion of a skeptical blogger who makes strawman arguments such as “Rossi refused to unplug the apparatus during the test”.

    The most concinving test prior to the ones referred to in the paper, namely the Oct 6 2011 test, is only described as “Another demonstration on 6 October 2011 reportedly lasted for about eight hours.”

    • psi

      This kind of error seems endemic at Wikipedia whenever the dialogue involves anything of intrinsic evidentiary value. The wikipedia edit process favors what is already known, no matter how dubious the facts on the ground may actually seem, over the “coming-into-being” state of actual discovery of new knowledge. Trying to understand the great intellectual debates of our day by reading Wikipedia is like whistling in the wind on the information SuperHighway.

  • Woo

    Andrea Rossi
    May 27th, 2013 at 1:18 PM

    Dear gio:
    I am more interested to the scientific and technlogical development, I will not have control upon the business.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    gio
    May 27th, 2013 at 12:54 PM

    Dear Ing. Rossi

    i have another question , always if you can.

    As Chief Scientist, you don’t control anymore the business or you ‘ve got any kind of influence on it ?

    thanks first of all, for the patience and then for all the rest.

    Cordialità

    gio

  • Methusela

    The English wikipedia is a closed shop; certain ediitors gain power and friends and then back each other in decisions.

    The English Wikipedia article on Energy Catalyzer is a prime example of this.

    Look at the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_Catalyzer

    They are massively biased and favour certain types of sources over others.

    Why do you think Brian Josephon does not link to the article from his videos?

  • AlainCo

    Wikipravda corruption of truth put at last to the plain view… If LENR and Rossi were the only problem, but as I have been interested in few controversial subject I know that they don’t even follow the mainstream vision, but a coherent vision of one given interest group that one can identify easily, from the facts, or even the controversies that are suppressed, despite the spirit of the wikipedia that I have discovered long ago.

    IT IS A SHAME.

    • psi

      + 1. What is to be done?

      • Zedshort

        entropy

    • Renton

      I have seen whole, well documented, long, detailed, balanced articles disappear from day to night from Wikipedia because they were stating an unconventional or uncomfortable truth. They seem to believe that the truth is something you can vote on, something decided by a majority vote. Unfortunately for them the truth and the reality of something does not give a sh*t about majority’s opinion on any matter. I could cite several examples but one, above all, shines… and it is about Galileo Galilei, the same inventor of the scientific method who has been forced to retract his own words when stating the truth that the Earth was not in the center of the universe, nor in the center of the solar system. Back then, as today, many think that the truth is only true and reality is only real if the majority recognizes to it this status.