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, “cold fusion” also refers to a particular type of fusion supposedly occurring in electrolytic cells.
The term “cold fusion” was coined by Dr Paul Palmer of Brigham Young University in 1986 in an investigation of “geo-fusion”, 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 “cold” 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
Related:
Posted January 5, 2006 by Casey
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) - cold fusion energy Wikipedia (6) - wikipedia earthmap (6) - Controversy surrounding Wikipedia (6) - encyclopeadia britannica (6) - gogle eyes (6) - controversies surrounding peer pressure (5) - cold fusion controversy (5) - britannica and i (5) - fusion (5) - cold fusion wikipedia (4) - Google earth Controversy surrounding the The google ear (4) - arguments for nuclear fusion (4) - wikipedia controversy britannica (4) - Nuclear Fusion Controversy (4) - britannica controversy (4) - Google encyclopeadia (4) - hacking cold fusion reactor (4) - gogle wikipedia (4) - cold fusion (4) - all (4) - Nuclear Fusion (4) - wikipedia britannica controversy (3) - Gogle Earthmap (3) - wikipedia nuclear fusion (3) - grizzly man wikipedia (3) - www.sexe sexs.com (3) - reading britannica (3) - google eart fusion (3) - wikipedia controversial (3) - britannica movie (3) - cold fusion movie songs (2) - wikipedia cold (2) - cold fusion blog deuterium (2) - coldfusion movie (2) - wiki thermonuclear temperature (2) - looking for encyclopedia britannica (2) - wikipedia replication san (2) - wikipedia ERTH (2) - wikipedia controversy sex (2) - cold fusion economic impact (2) - cold fusion nuclear 2007 (2) - wikipedia vs britannica statics (2) - COLDFUSION ECONOMICAL (2) - wikipedia barstow (2) - controversies and peer pressure (2) - gogle earth combines (2) - coldfusion experiment (2) - coldfusion controversy (2) - britannica fraud (2) - coldfusion research (2) - Cold fusion film (2) - hot film (2) - encyclopedia britannica (2) - looking for controversy in science (2) - cold fusion experiment replication (2) - nuclear fusion controversial (2) - political controversy wikipedia (2) - satellite look on erth (2) - Britannica Fusion (2) - cold reaction (2) - Britannica and Wikipedia (2) - cold fusion 2006 (2) - cold fusion reactions (2) - cold fusion controversial (2) - hot video com (2) - controversy of nuclear fusion (2) - britannica movie trailer (2) - controversy and encyclopedias (2) - wikipedia 89 com (2) - gogle temperature (2) - cold nuclear fusion Wikipedia (2) - britannica encyclopeadia (2) - tens gogle (2) - wikipedia cold fusion (2) - google earth and the controversy surrounding it (2) - grizzly man controversial (2) - Coldfusion study 1989 (1) - dr casey and coldfusion (1) - britannica versus wikipedia statistics (1) - wikipedia controversy (1) - coldfusion britannica (1) - trinoble wikipedia (1) - Fleischmann Pons photo (1) - hydrogen fusion wikipedia (1) - controversy with coldfusion (1) - controversy surrounding coldfusion (1) - wikipedia britanica controversy (1) - Controversial arguments for nuclear fusion (1) - What is waste generation Wikepidia (1) - http://www google com/webhp?start=0&ie=utf-8&oe (1) - cold fusion wikipedia controversy (1) - obstacle to the generation of electrical energy from fu (1) - what coldfusion controversial (1) - controversies of nuclear fusion (1) - Fleischmann-Pons experiment (1) - vonage controversy wiki (1) - waste generation search in wikipedia (1) - Pons and Martin Fleischmann wiki (1) - coldfusion encyclopedia (1) - encyclopeadia brittannica (1) - coldfusion economical impact (1) - pons fleischmann wikipedia (1) - britanica and wikipedia (1) - COLD fusion-MOVIE (1) - w w w real looking for sexe video.com (1) - B. Stanley Pons photo (1) - controversial scientific experiments (1) - nuclear fusion wikipedia (1) - controversies in nuclear physics (1) - controversial wikipedia articles (1) - feature of pons in wikipedia (1) - Controversy Peer Pressure (1) - aebn wikipedia (1) - controversies on peer pressure (1) - fraud and controversy in science, wikipedia (1) - controversial wiki (1) - peer pressure controversies (1) - cold fusion wiki (1) - WWW.REAL SEXS.COM (1) - wikipedia impact on britannica (1) - big mac controversy 1989 (1) - sexs pons (1) - cold nuclear fusion obstacles (1) - http://www.google.com/webhp?start=0&ie=utf (1) - hot sexs.com (1) - ECONOMIC IMPACT OF COLD FUSION (1) - coldfusion Fleischmann (1) - the controversy that wikipedia went thru (1) - nuclear fusion impact economy (1) - www.real sex.com (1) - coldfusion movie music (1) - sexs experiment (1) - nuclear fusion, wikipedia (1) - nuclear fusion wiki (1) - wikipedia controversies (1) - controversies of peer pressure (1) - hot sexs com (1) - controversy in the grizzly man (1) - britannica scam (1) - unexplainable net (1) - fusion food in wikipedia (1) - social issue nuclear fusion (1) - google fusion nuclear (1) - Google Earth controversies (1) - where does joyce carol oats leave (1) - coldfusion nuclear (1) - Coldfusion energy (1) -
