The argument about Wikipedia versus Britannica continues to rage in libraryland. The questions are about authority and the likelihood of outright deception, of course, and a recent round brought up the limitations of peer review as exemplified in the 1989 cold fusion controversy, where two scientists claimed to have achieved a nuclear fusion reaction at room temperature. Randy Souther, from the University of San Francisco, asked us to look more carefully:
FYI, cold fusion in 1989 was a media fiasco, but not a fraud. The research is still controversial, but continues today with publications in more than 50 peer-reviewed journals. But you would never realize this by reading Britannica’s one-paragraph article, which is stuck in 1989; Wikipedia’s gives a reasonable overview, and is up-to-date.
So I looked. Here’s the 175 words the Encyclopeadia Britannica Online used to cover the matter:
The fusion of two atomic nuclei at cool temperatures is referred to as cold fusion. Nuclear fusion has been an important area of study in nuclear physics since the 1940s, and from that time, researchers have pursued the possibility of harnessing fusion, which can produce huge amounts of energy from mere hydrogen with minimal radioactive waste, for the generation of electricity. The main obstacle to practical applications of nuclear fusion is that atoms must be heated to tens of millions of degrees Celsius in order to combine at sufficiently high rates. In 1989, however, chemists B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann claimed to have fused atoms of deuterium, which is also called heavy hydrogen because its mass is twice that of ordinary hydrogen, in a simple electric cell at room temperature. The experiment generated great excitement in the scientific community, but other scientists were unable to duplicate Pons and Fleischmann’s results, and their findings were ultimately discredited. Despite skepticism among most nuclear fusion experts, some researchers continue to study the possibility of cold fusion.
And here’s just the introduction to the Wikipedia article:
Cold fusion is the name for a nuclear fusion reaction that occurs well below the temperature required for thermonuclear reactions (millions of degrees Celsius). Such reactions may occur near room temperature and atmospheric pressure, and even in a relatively small (table top) experiment. In a narrower sense, ācold fusionā also refers to a particular type of fusion supposedly occurring in electrolytic cells.
The term ācold fusionā was coined by Dr Paul Palmer of Brigham Young University in 1986 in an investigation of āgeo-fusionā, or the possible existence of fusion in a planetary core. It was brought into popular consciousness by the controversy surrounding the Fleischmann-Pons experiment in March of 1989. A number of other scientists have reported replication of their experimental observation of anomalous heat generation in electrolytic cells, but in a non-predictable way, and most scientists believe that there is no proof of cold fusion in these experiments. A majority of scientists consider this research to be pseudoscience, while proponents argue that they are conducting valid experiments in a protoscience that challenges mainstream thinking.
The subject has been of scientific interest since nuclear fusion was first understood. Hot nuclear fusion using deuterium yields large amounts of energy, uses an abundant fuel source, and produces only small amounts of manageable waste; thus a cheap and simple process of nuclear fusion would have great economic impact. Unfortunately, no ācoldā fusion experiments that gave an otherwise unexplainable net release of energy have so far been reproducible.
Wordcounts don’t measure quality, but Wikipedia’s 247 word introduction seems much more useful than Britannica’s entire article. More importantly, I like this article as an example of how Wikipedia handles controversy. We’ve seen controversy in articles about charged political or social issues, but I think it’s much easier for most readers to look at this one without feeling for the issue at hand.
Separately… They’re both online, but which one is easier to read? Which one best takes advantage of the medium?
And for those who are interested in cold fusion, Randy (who’s Joyce Carol Oats website rocks) suggested two books on the matter for further reading:
controversy, authority, wikipedia, encyclopedia britannica, encyclopeadia britannica, britannica, encyclopedia, encyclopedias, cold fusion
Posted January 5, 2006 by Casey Bisson
Categories: Libraries & Networked Information, Technology. Tags: authority, Britannica, cold fusion, controversy, encyclopeadia britannica, encyclopedia, encyclopedia britannica, encyclopedias, wikipedia.
1 Comment(s)
No comments yet.
Comments RSS
TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
User contributed tags for this post:
grizzly man controversy (10) - google earth controversy (9) - britannica on wikipedia (8) - Controversy surrounding Wikipedia (6) - cold fusion energy Wikipedia (6) - gogle eyes (6) - controversies surrounding peer pressure (6) - wikipedia earthmap (6) - encyclopeadia britannica (6) - fusion (5) - britannica and i (5) - cold fusion controversy (5) - wikipedia controversy britannica (4) - britannica controversy (4) - hacking cold fusion reactor (4) - Google encyclopeadia (4) - Nuclear Fusion Controversy (4) - WWW.REAL SEXS.COM (4) - gogle wikipedia (4) - cold fusion wikipedia (4) - cold fusion (4) - all (4) - Nuclear Fusion (4) - Google earth Controversy surrounding the The google ear (4) - arguments for nuclear fusion (4) - wikipedia britannica controversy (3) - wikipedia nuclear fusion (3) - grizzly man wikipedia (3) - reading britannica (3) - www.sexe sexs.com (3) - aebn wikipedia (3) - google eart fusion (3) - Gogle Earthmap (3) - wikipedia controversial (3) - britannica movie (3) - Cold fusion film (2) - britannica fraud (2) - coldfusion research (2) - www.real sex.com (2) - wikipedia 89 com (2) - wikipedia controversy sex (2) - COLDFUSION ECONOMICAL (2) - wikipedia barstow (2) - wikipedia ERTH (2) - gogle earth combines (2) - coldfusion experiment (2) - cold fusion nuclear 2007 (2) - controversies and peer pressure (2) - coldfusion movie (2) - about (2) - hot film (2) - peer pressure controversies (2) - controversies of peer pressure (2) - looking for encyclopedia britannica (2) - cold fusion economic impact (2) - controversies on peer pressure (2) - britannica encyclopeadia (2) - coldfusion controversy (2) - wikipedia replication san (2) - wiki thermonuclear temperature (2) - cold fusion movie songs (2) - wikipedia cold (2) - at sexs (2) - wikipedia cold fusion (2) - grizzly man controversial (2) - controversy of nuclear fusion (2) - looking for controversy in science (2) - google earth and the controversy surrounding it (2) - nuclear fusion controversial (2) - political controversy wikipedia (2) - satellite look on erth (2) - Britannica Fusion (2) - cold reaction (2) - controversy and encyclopedias (2) - Britannica and Wikipedia (2) - cold fusion 2006 (2) - cold fusion reactions (2) - encyclopedia britannica (2) - hot video com (2) - cold fusion experiment replication (2) - britannica movie trailer (2) - cold fusion blog deuterium (2) - wikipedia vs britannica statics (2) - cold fusion controversial (2) - cold nuclear fusion Wikipedia (2) - tens gogle (2) - gogle temperature (2) - What are some of the different controversies surrounding peer pressure? (2) - the controversy that wikipedia went thru (1) - nuclear fusion impact economy (1) - coldfusion encyclopedia (1) - coldfusion movie music (1) - sexs experiment (1) - coldfusion economical impact (1) - vonage controversy wiki (1) - banglasex.song (1) - controversy with coldfusion (1) - nuclear fusion, wikipedia (1) - dr casey and coldfusion (1) - trinoble wikipedia (1) - controversy surrounding coldfusion (1) - encyclopeadia brittannica (1) - sexs pons (1) - http://www.google.com/webhp?start=0&ie=utf (1) - hot sexs.com (1) - big mac controversy 1989 (1) - ECONOMIC IMPACT OF COLD FUSION (1) - wikipedia britanica controversy (1) - coldfusion britannica (1) - britannica versus wikipedia statistics (1) - cold nuclear fusion obstacles (1) - pons fleischmann wikipedia (1) - waste generation search in wikipedia (1) - nuclear fusion wiki (1) - nuclear Cold Fusion (1) - wikipedia political controversy (1) - peer pressure controversy (1) - coldfusion, trinoble (1) - wikipedia research controversy (1) - AT SEXS.COM (1) - I want to see Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons photo (1) - Fleischmann & Pons photo (1) - wikipedia versus britannica online technology (1) - cold fusion controversies (1) - ftv.com sexe (1) - coldfusion peer review controversy (1) - www.real-sex.com (1) - wwwcom,89 libraries (1) - grizzly man diaries die (1) - wwwIndia results.com. (1) - controversies about peer pressure (1) - controvesies surrounging peer pressure (1) - Photo of Fleishmann y Pons cold fusion (1) - Fleishmann y Pons cold fusion photo (1) - nuclear fusion wikipedia (1) - B. Stanley Pons photo (1) - w w w real looking for sexe video.com (1) - COLD fusion-MOVIE (1) - britanica and wikipedia (1) - cold fusion wiki (1) - wikipedia impact on britannica (1) - wikipedia controversies (1) - controversies in nuclear physics (1) - controversial scientific experiments (1) - controversy in peer pressure (1) - controversial wiki (1) - at.sexs (1) - fraud and controversy in science, wikipedia (1) - coldfusion Fleischmann (1) - Controversy Peer Pressure (1) -
