I was recently somewhat confused by the World Innovation Foundation's website, but I offered the right to reply. Dr. David Hill from the WIF has more than stepped up to the plate and has written the following response, thanks a lot David!
Dear Zeth,
To know what we mean you will have to understand and know what has made the modern world what it is today. When I say this I mean, what makes us different today than say a thousand years ago or even one hundred years ago. I believe that common sense would say the advancements in technology (one is what you are viewing this feedback on). It certainly is not the thinking of our politicians that’s for sure. What really changes things over the centuries is the thinking of applied innovators that creates something that benefits or not humankind. Hopefully most people try to develop technologies that make things better.
In your article you mention that Jerome Karle partly created the 'bomb'. Yes you are quite right here but that’s all. Glenn Seaborg who was our first president if you care to research him was an ardent opponent to the use of nuclear technology for killing. This although he was highly instrumental in building the 'bomb' in the first place.
For the reasons why the 'bomb' was constructed you will again have to do some research. But briefly, Einstein and his fellow countrymen scientists, who had moved from Germany for obvious reasons, knew that what they comprehended about nuclear technology so their German counterparts that they had left behind would do also - eventually. But, Einstein at the time was sure that no one would ever release the mysteries of the technology and therefore was not too concerned about the situation. Thereafter though, one of his bright spark students came around one day after determining that a nuclear reaction could be achieved – a chain reaction. Einstein did not believe this at first but quickly saw that what his student/colleague was telling him was fact.
Therefore the reason for the famous letter that Einstein wrote to the Roosevelt, for if Nazi Germany got there first, Hitler would have had no hesitation in using such a weapon on both military and civilian populations, killing millions in the process. Remember they had the V2 rockets and some say they were even experimenting at the end of WW2 with the possibility of fitting a new kind of ‘bomb’. These facts are not fiction but perfectly true if you research the subject.
But, if you do it right, you will also find that Glenn Theodore Seaborg was one of the main people who signed the Franck Report that implored Truman to only use the ‘bomb’ on unoccupied Japanese territory as a deterrent. Glenn Seaborg was also the person behind the Nuclear Test ban Treaty if you look further.
Now back to your question.
If we therefore look at the source of all 'pure and applied enlightenment' that has made the modern world what it is today, we should see that this has been brought about by inventiveness and innovation. Therefore you can have your bankers, accountants, lawyers and all others outside the confines of science, engineering and technology, but where these professions have only benefited from the thinking of the people who have created the modern marvels of technology. This in the main (probably 99%) have been lone inventors, scientists, engineers and technologists. Therefore we assert that these people are the only ones where we shall advance the world’s progress by their pure and applied enlightenment.
If you do not believe this then you do not believe what the history of the world and the history of science and technology has told us. Being a computer warrior I am sure that you will understand this, but if not, I cannot persuade a fixed mindset to change his view. I therefore leave it to you to do some background research and then come back to me on your website. Please also ask Aaron to put something together as well,l as we need the full facts so that we can differentiate between fact and fiction. I believe that you agree with this stance.
David
Dr. David Hill
CEO, World Innovation Foundation Charity
Bern, Switzerland
<p>Thanks Zeth for the follow up !</p>
<p>If ever you and your Warriors have something special that you wish to get
known around the world, please let me have it, as we can put something on our
website and link ours to yours.</p>
<p>All the best,</p>
<p>David</p>
<p>Dr. David Hill
World Innovation Foundation Charity</p>
<p>Ps. I am in the process of communicating with Aaron and therefore please keep
in touch with him. My initial opinion of Aaron was wrong also, so we are all
human. Best !</p>
<p>Dear Zeth,</p>
<p>Further my previous mail I would like to add the following. It is in
reference to the Wikipedia debacle that Aaron spotted a few months ago. I
hope that it is alright to do so. Keep up the good work and the warriors !</p>
<p>Up to 6 months ago we financially contributed funds to Wikipedia but no more,
for we thought that it was a good idea and where its thinking was in unison
with our own - using knowledge for the good of humankind. When we as novices
tried to place our Swiss charity within Wikipedia we were absolutely savaged
by the editors. They in fact blocked our right of reply, which is even
documented by themselves.
We even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive
director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our
international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all.
A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, 'Jimbo's
second in command. The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is
that they are highly selective in who should place information and where
therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is
unbiased and totally factual. It is totally at the whims of the few
enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately
we now see that it is not.</p>
<p>For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account
including all emails will be part of our next web newsletter 'Scientific
Discovery'. It will be on-line by the end of July 2007. Overall, It is time
we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded
that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This
analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors,
who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on
evidence but only hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who
first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell
out with 'Jimbo' and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently
she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to 'Jimbo's'
opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball away and has never been seen
since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time -
the web link is <a class="reference external" href="http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclop">http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclop</a>
ediadramatica.com/Zoe+zoe+wikipedia+professor+change+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&
cd=3&gl=uk.</p>
<p>Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity
Bern, Switzerland</p>
<p>I notice that Dr. Hill has spammed over 20 blogs with this comment, but I
figured that I should respond anyway. <img src="/static/forum/img/smilies/smile.png"></p>
<p>For some reason, it appears that Dr. Hill believes that if he provides the
Wikimedia Foundation with money, then his charity will be automatically
guaranteed a spot on Wikipedia. I am happy to say that this is not the case.
While I have nothing personally against World Innovation Foundation Charity,
Wikipedia's neutrality and impartiality is very important.</p>
<p>I have reviewed the original article. There are absolutely no references in
the final revision before it was deleted. The main reason that it was deleted
was because we didn't believe that the organisation was notable enough to be
listed on Wikipedia. This was done through <a class="reference external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip</a>
edia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Innovation_Foundation - I will let the
reader judge whether this was a fair process. I should also note that if
someone believes and can demonstrate that they are notable, then there is a
deletion review process.</p>
<p>Dr. Hill should also be aware of our suggested guidelines that deal with
potential conflicts of interest -
<a class="reference external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest</a> Though it isn't
prohibited on Wikipedia, it is clearly a conflict of interest to write about
your own organisation. It is thus frowned upon. I think that given the goals
of Wikipedia, this is pretty reasonable.</p>
<p>Personally, I don't believe that Wikipedia editors or the Wikimedia
Foundation has anything against this charity. In my dealings with Wikipedia
and the WMF, I have always found that they welcome contructive dialogue with
organisations and individuals.</p>
<p>Chris Sherlock
User:Ta bu shi da yu
English Wikipedia Administrator (writing in personal capacity)</p>
<p>Dear Zeth,</p>
<p>I have tried to post a reply to Chris Sherlock on his own website/blog but he
has not allowed me to do so up to press as he wrote a very similar blog as
what he has posted on your site several weeks ago on his own site. I may be
wrong but he apparently may block replies that do not match his assessment of
things. Not really a democratic way and where the right of reply should
always be there. Thank God for websites like your own which is open and
allows both sides the opportunity to put their points.</p>
<p>I would therefore reiterate what I have respectfully said previously in that
all visitors to your site should visit the World Innovation Foundation's
website at the end of this month for a full and open account of what went on
with the Wikipedia editors and Wikipedia's executive director. The other side
of the coin will then be seen by all and where then they can make their minds
up. That is if they have truly 'open' minds and not closets of distortion
that only ever believes one side of a story.</p>
<p>In this respect the main point was that again, Wikipedia blocked us
completely to reply whilst their ramblings were going on. Again not a
democratic process by any means and where I believe Wikipedia editors do this
on purpose.</p>
<p>All the best to you and the Warriors s usual !</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>David</p>
<p>Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
The WIF
<a href="http://www.thewif.org.uk" rel="nofollow">www.thewif.org.uk</a></p>
<p>Dear Zeth,</p>
<p>I forgot to mention that Chris Sherlock is a Wikipedia Administrator in my
last communique and as he has stated within his reply, which may be the
reason why he will not let me reply to him on his own website. It appears
that it is highly sensitizing individual for Wikipedia reasons most probably.</p>
<p>David</p>
<p>Dear Zeth,</p>
<p>Just to respectfully let you know that the WIF/Wikipedia debacle is now on-
line for you and your warriors to view. It is within our new newsletter
'Scientific Discovery' section at the bottom of the 1st page. If one reads
with an open and unbiased mind one can see that how the editors of Wikipedia
operate is not a bit democratic and is in many ways 'mob' rule.</p>
<p>My best to you and the warriors, I remain,</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>David</p>
<p>Dr. David Hill
World Innovation Foundation Charity
Bern, Switzerland</p>
<p>Interesting article (<a class="reference external" href="http://www.thewif.org.uk/version2/nlett/class/main0.html">direct link</a>).</p>
<p>I have my own criticisms of Wikipedia, but it is a little like the BBC or the
health service, we do need one.</p>
<p>At the top of the Wikipedia home page, it says "Welcome to Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."</p>
<p>However that last statement is not necessarily true, can anyone really edit
it? And have their changes fairly considered on their merits. Firstly, like
any institution, there are power relationships, and the Wikipedia favours
long time contributors over one off edits. I.e. anonymous edits are
particularly harshly treated. Often these are just reversed within seconds by
people using scripts and other automated ways of editing. There is nothing
worse than spending half an hour on an article and having a robot reverse all
the fact, spelling and grammar corrections.</p>
<p>So often it comes down to who is saying it, rather than the merits and facts
of the text. I.e. sometimes people who spend all their lives on Wikipedia
crowd out people that actually know things from other sources of learning
apart from a superficial reading of the first 10 google results.</p>
<p>This can be a problem, I have in the past written articles about the areas
that I have academically studied (historical and arts subjects), on the most
basic and central concepts of the disciplines.</p>
<p>Sometimes these have been summarily deleted as non-notable and there is no
way to recover them. This I think limits the ability for Wikipedia's coverage
to grow outside of the areas that Wikipedia does well, i.e. Technology and
some current affairs.</p>
<p>Another problem is that the English edition is far to US centric and
represents the viewpoint of a certain demographic.</p>
<p>At the moment it does not deal very well with areas of study that may go
against the perceived wisdom of the demographics that use Wikipedia the most.
What I mean by this is that often you will have ideological disputes within
an ideological viewpoint, these internal debates are normally lost on the
editors. For example, debates within a certain religious group or debates
within a certain political party.</p>
<p>Dear Zeth,</p>
<p>An excellent assessment and you have hit it on the head. Lets hope that
Wikipedia alters its ways in the years ahead and where it needs more
constructive comments from people like yourself.</p>
<p>All my very best to you and the warriors !</p>
<p>David</p>