[Pete Svarrior]

But mere mortals can't edit the Wiki - so someone with appropriate privileges would have to change it.   Whoever those people are, they are extremely unresponsive.

Hi, you've found me. I can't say you've ever contacted me regarding anything to do with the Wiki. I had a quick look through the Suggestions & Concerns board, but found nothing there either. It's hard to be responsive to a lack of initial contact.

I've tried to get the SIMPLEST change (to correct the spelling of Eratosthenes

PM me with the location of the spelling mistake and I'll correct it.

I will not be changing the description of the Ice Wall to something more palatable to round earthers, because this is not a RE wiki. And yes, I know you disagree with us on that one, so spare us the essay.

So why isn’t it discussed in the Wiki ?

It is. I even got in touch with the Times to dig out the 1875 newspaper detailing Hampden's amusing insults and the resulting legal proceedings.

Finally, a quick statement on "mere mortal" edit access to the wiki. The current policy is that anyone can get edit access to the wiki if they are interested in improving the articles. However, that access will be revoked at the first sign of vandalism. For example, if 3DGeek asked for access, he'd get it. But the moment he started editing articles to parrot his RE perspective (or misrepresent FE positions as he frequently does in the forum), that would be revoked. So, as long as you want to join us in writing a resource for newcomers explaining the FE perspective on things, pop me a PM and I'll sort you out with an account.

Alternatively, if you do not need sustained edit access but want to see something changed, I am happy to consider requests. Since you're suggesting "large scale corrections to misstated history about the Bedford levels experiement", I would advise that you post a draft of your corrections in S&C for others to see.

I understand from the comments above that there is currently little clarity about how the Wiki is maintained. I'll do my best to improve that communication and provide more open avenues for making suggestions. I was sincerely under the impression that the current system works fine, but I am now realising this may not be the case.

[3DGeek]

I understand from the comments above that there is currently little clarity about how the Wiki is maintained. I'll do my best to improve that communication and provide more open avenues for making suggestions. I was sincerely under the impression that the current system works fine, but I am now realising this may not be the case.

Thanks Pete - it was not obvious who to contact in order to make changes.  I've complained to various FE'ers about (for example) the spelling of Eratosthenes - and never once did anyone say "You need to talk to Pete Svarrior about that"...or "You need to post to this specific place on the forum to get it investigated".

So might I suggest that the first change to be made to the wiki be to prominently add a page "HOW TO MAKE CHANGES TO THIS WIKI" - that says to contact you to get permission to edit - and these are the acceptable boundaries for content.  (eg: Do you want a section on common RET complaints about FET that you have good answers for - and a section for RET complaints that FET DOESN'T have good answers for?)

I will not be changing the description of the Ice Wall to something more palatable to round earthers, because this is not a RE wiki. And yes, I know you disagree with us on that one, so spare us the essay.

The problem is not with the description of the Ice Wall - the way it's described is (presumably) a good reflection on what FE'ers claim - so that's the right thing for the Wiki to have.

The problem is with the photograph.  Which I've shown, conclusively, is a photograph of a large iceberg...there is zero doubt on that score.

I think it's fine to say "This is a photo of an iceberg - but it shows what the ice wall probably looks like" - but it's wrong to say (or even imply) that this is an actual photograph of the ice wall...because that's a flat out lie.

I understand your wish to present a clear statement of FET on the Wiki - but the BIGGEST cause of confusion here is that there clearly isn't one single FET.  There are lots of disagreements between FE'ers on many of the points there.   So I think it would be good if the Wiki clearly laid out the various viewpoints.

Many of the places where you and I have butted heads is when I've said "FET says this" when in fact, the truth is that "Some FE'ers say this"...and when you're not one of that group - you (understandably) get upset about it.   I'm not making this mistake intentionally - it's just REALLY HARD to keep track of which FE'ers hold which theories.

The biggest SNAFU in the Wiki is about the FE map.   There is hardly a mention of the "bipolar" map - and almost the entire Wiki is written from the perspective of a "unipolar" map.   Tom says that the unipolar map was "replaced" in 1911 (!!) - and either he's wrong (only SOME FE'ers decided to change to the bipolar map) - or the Wiki and at least 60% of what is says is 100 years out of date.

I'm an experienced Wiki editor - I maintain three Wiki's (one for a local car club, another for my family and a third for my business) and I'm in the top 2000 editors of all time at Wikipedia.   I'd be happy to do a bit of "WikiGnoming"  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiGnome) - without making major content changes.  It's clearly the case that the Wiki should represent the views of FE'ers - even if they are complete horseshit (which they are!) - so adding RET stuff into it would be inappropriate - unless it's in some specific "Common Unanswered Criticisms" kind of page.

[Tom Bishop]

If you refer back to those threads the spelling of Eratosthenes in the Wiki was shown to appear elsewhere in various Google Books literature, and the ice berg in question was shown to be part of the Antarctic coast at the time the picture was taken. Why do you repeat the same lies over and over again?

The Wiki is clear in that the unipolar and bipolar models are not definitive and that there is room for discussion.

Your constant rants like "the sun would need to warp from one side to the other" is unproductive, and does not encourage constructive debate. The logical followup question is that "can you show any evidence definitively that it would need to warp?" and the answer is almost always no, you are just assuming that the earth is a globe and the sun must match perfectly.

Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.

[RJDO]

If you refer back to those threads the spelling of Eratosthenes in the Wiki was shown to appear elsewhere in various Google Books literature, and the ice berg in question was shown to be part of the Antarctic coast at the time the picture was taken. Why do you repeat the same lies over and over again?

The Wiki is clear in that the unipolar and bipolar models are not definitive and that there is room for discussion.

Your constant rants like "the sun would need to warp from one side to the other" is unproductive, and does not encourage constructive debate. The logical followup question is that "can you show any evidence definitively that it would need to warp?" and the answer is almost always no, you are just assuming that the earth is a globe and the sun must match perfectly.

Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.

Tom,

I do not believe that this answer is quite honest. Time and time again, 3D has provided evidence, gave examples, showed the math, and asked for the same to be done from you. With which the typical answer is from YOU that he needs to prove it. You are simply relying on that same statement over, and over.

Nothing you show gives actual math, proof, or some way for someone like myself to help me change my mind. Simple questions such as how the Sun works, or how do we know the position of anything without knowing what the Earth looks like. Empirical evidence is great, and hard to argue, but when that same evidence is shown, all you can say is prove it. Which, on a Forum like this, every photo is doctored, every math is wrong, and every proof is invalid.

Since my time here in the Forum, I have seen great answers from both sides, but I have also seen answers like giant balloons, 100 year old books, and every proof is invalid.

Now I ask from you, have you ever shot the angle of Polaris from earth and did the math to find latitude of your location. Have you ever looked for pictures of these balloons holding up the Space Station. OR, even better, how does light not travel in straight lines. Please show me the math and proofs. Please show me the balloons holding satellites in the sky, and please, please explain to me for once, how does the Sun actual heat the earth?

[mtnman]

The Wiki is clear in that the unipolar and bipolar models are not definitive and that there is room for discussion.

Your constant rants like "the sun would need to warp from one side to the other" is unproductive, and does not encourage constructive debate. The logical followup question is that "can you show any evidence definitively that it would need to warp?" and the answer is almost always no, you are just assuming that the earth is a globe and the sun must match perfectly.

Where does the wiki show the orbital path of the sun on the bi-polar model? If it does not, then please explain so we can have a constructive debate (in a new thread if needed.)

[TomInAustin]

I understand from the comments above that there is currently little clarity about how the Wiki is maintained. I'll do my best to improve that communication and provide more open avenues for making suggestions. I was sincerely under the impression that the current system works fine, but I am now realising this may not be the case.

Thanks Pete - it was not obvious who to contact in order to make changes.  I've complained to various FE'ers about (for example) the spelling of Eratosthenes - and never once did anyone say "You need to talk to Pete Svarrior about that"...or "You need to post to this specific place on the forum to get it investigated".

So might I suggest that the first change to be made to the wiki be to prominently add a page "HOW TO MAKE CHANGES TO THIS WIKI" - that says to contact you to get permission to edit - and these are the acceptable boundaries for content.  (eg: Do you want a section on common RET complaints about FET that you have good answers for - and a section for RET complaints that FET DOESN'T have good answers for?)

I will not be changing the description of the Ice Wall to something more palatable to round earthers, because this is not a RE wiki. And yes, I know you disagree with us on that one, so spare us the essay.

The problem is not with the description of the Ice Wall - the way it's described is (presumably) a good reflection on what FE'ers claim - so that's the right thing for the Wiki to have.

The problem is with the photograph.  Which I've shown, conclusively, is a photograph of a large iceberg...there is zero doubt on that score.

I think it's fine to say "This is a photo of an iceberg - but it shows what the ice wall probably looks like" - but it's wrong to say (or even imply) that this is an actual photograph of the ice wall...because that's a flat out lie.

I understand your wish to present a clear statement of FET on the Wiki - but the BIGGEST cause of confusion here is that there clearly isn't one single FET.  There are lots of disagreements between FE'ers on many of the points there.   So I think it would be good if the Wiki clearly laid out the various viewpoints.

Many of the places where you and I have butted heads is when I've said "FET says this" when in fact, the truth is that "Some FE'ers say this"...and when you're not one of that group - you (understandably) get upset about it.   I'm not making this mistake intentionally - it's just REALLY HARD to keep track of which FE'ers hold which theories.

The biggest SNAFU in the Wiki is about the FE map.   There is hardly a mention of the "bipolar" map - and almost the entire Wiki is written from the perspective of a "unipolar" map.   Tom says that the unipolar map was "replaced" in 1911 (!!) - and either he's wrong (only SOME FE'ers decided to change to the bipolar map) - or the Wiki and at least 60% of what is says is 100 years out of date.

I'm an experienced Wiki editor - I maintain three Wiki's (one for a local car club, another for my family and a third for my business) and I'm in the top 2000 editors of all time at Wikipedia.   I'd be happy to do a bit of "WikiGnoming"  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiGnome) - without making major content changes.  It's clearly the case that the Wiki should represent the views of FE'ers - even if they are complete horseshit (which they are!) - so adding RET stuff into it would be inappropriate - unless it's in some specific "Common Unanswered Criticisms" kind of page.

The FAQ is the real weak link.  As it's often correctly pointed out people come here and ask the same old questions.  They are told to check the Wiki/FAQ and find no answers.   It would be great if the FAQ was made up of actual FAQ's.

[TomInAustin]

Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.

Now, that's funny Tom.   Irony meter off the charts.  You are the one that constantly attempts to derail threads asking for evidence while providing none.

[Tom Bishop]

Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.

Now, that's funny Tom.   Irony meter off the charts.  You are the one that constantly attempts to derail threads asking for evidence while providing none.

If you read carefully, I actually do provide evidence for my claims. My evidence takes the form of fundamental empirical experiences available to all.

It is the Round Earthers who need to rely on things that are typically beyond experience, and so it is harder for them to prove anything.

[mtnman]

It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.

If both could claim victory, that would seem to put the results in doubt. Either it isn't a valid experiment, or it wasn't performed properly. In either case, should your wiki FAQ page make this statement?

Perhaps the best example of flat earth proof is the Bedford Level Experiment.

[Curious Squirrel]

Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.

Now, that's funny Tom.   Irony meter off the charts.  You are the one that constantly attempts to derail threads asking for evidence while providing none.

If you read carefully, I actually do provide evidence for my claims. My evidence takes the form of fundamental empirical experiences available to all.

It is the Round Earthers who need to rely on things that are typically beyond experience, and so it is harder for them to prove anything.

Much of it relies upon the unproven assumption that the Earth is already flat though, or that the Earth being flat is the only possible explanation (which is almost never the case), or that math doesn't work for unexplained reasons.

But this is all here nor there to the topic at hand. The Bedford Level and similar experiments all share the same problem with refraction over water. There's no way to account for all the variables, and the number of different results at Bedford heavily suggest it should be discarded as evidence for either camp, as it isn't very repeatable.

[StinkyOne]

Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.

Now, that's funny Tom.   Irony meter off the charts.  You are the one that constantly attempts to derail threads asking for evidence while providing none.

If you read carefully, I actually do provide evidence for my claims. My evidence takes the form of fundamental empirical experiences available to all.

It is the Round Earthers who need to rely on things that are typically beyond experience, and so it is harder for them to prove anything.

LOL, no Tom, just no. Your "empirical evidence" for UA was the "fact" that the floor rushes up to meet you when you step off a chair. That is not conclusive evidence of UA as it behaves exactly as gravity. Given that there are other, independent, repeatable experiments that prove gravitational attraction, combined with the fact that you have no working theory of UA beyond something is pushing us, points the preponderance of the evidence in the direction of gravity. You literally have nothing to stand on.

[TomInAustin]

Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.

Now, that's funny Tom.   Irony meter off the charts.  You are the one that constantly attempts to derail threads asking for evidence while providing none.

If you read carefully, I actually do provide evidence for my claims. My evidence takes the form of fundamental empirical experiences available to all.

It is the Round Earthers who need to rely on things that are typically beyond experience, and so it is harder for them to prove anything.

No, I speak of thing I experience as well,  I have flown to Paris and I know how long it took.  I use GPS every week and it always gets me where I am going.

[Tom Bishop]

Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.

Now, that's funny Tom.   Irony meter off the charts.  You are the one that constantly attempts to derail threads asking for evidence while providing none.

If you read carefully, I actually do provide evidence for my claims. My evidence takes the form of fundamental empirical experiences available to all.

It is the Round Earthers who need to rely on things that are typically beyond experience, and so it is harder for them to prove anything.

LOL, no Tom, just no. Your "empirical evidence" for UA was the "fact" that the floor rushes up to meet you when you step off a chair.

When you get up onto a chair and walk off of the edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully we can actually see that the earth accelerates upwards up us.

That is far more empirical than the competing theory of gravity which involves puller particles and bending space.

That is not conclusive evidence of UA as it behaves exactly as gravity.

No one ever said anything about conclusive evidence.

An empirical experience only allow us to make an empirical conclusion about the world around us. When we weigh the evidence of something we can directly see against an invisible puller particle, the evidence is just heavily weighed in favor of the thing we can see and experience.

Given that there are other, independent, repeatable experiments that prove gravitational attraction,

The cavendish experiment is inconclusive.

combined with the fact that you have no working theory of UA beyond something is pushing us, points the preponderance of the evidence in the direction of gravity.

There is nothing wrong with a mechanism for something to be unknown.

There would be nothing wrong with you saying that the mechanism for gravity is "unknown," either, but that is not what you guys are telling us. You are telling us that bendy space/invisible puller particles  that no one has ever discovered are accelerating me to the earth.

Furthermore, even if you left it as "unknown," gravity requires an entirely new branch of physics to work, while the acceleration of objects can occur through known physics, putting UA into favor once again.

[TomInAustin]

Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.

Now, that's funny Tom.   Irony meter off the charts.  You are the one that constantly attempts to derail threads asking for evidence while providing none.

If you read carefully, I actually do provide evidence for my claims. My evidence takes the form of fundamental empirical experiences available to all.

It is the Round Earthers who need to rely on things that are typically beyond experience, and so it is harder for them to prove anything.

LOL, no Tom, just no. Your "empirical evidence" for UA was the "fact" that the floor rushes up to meet you when you step off a chair.

When you get up onto a chair and walk off of the edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully we can actually see that the earth accelerates upwards up us.

That is far more empirical than the competing theory of gravity which involves puller particles and bending space.

That is not conclusive evidence of UA as it behaves exactly as gravity.

No one ever said anything about conclusive evidence.

An empirical experience only allow us to make an empirical conclusion about the world around us. When we weigh the evidence of something we can directly see against an invisible puller particle, the evidence is just heavily weighed in favor of the thing we can see and experience.

Given that there are other, independent, repeatable experiments that prove gravitational attraction,

The cavendish experiment is inconclusive.

combined with the fact that you have no working theory of UA beyond something is pushing us, points the preponderance of the evidence in the direction of gravity.

There is nothing wrong with a mechanism for something to be unknown.

There would be nothing wrong with you saying that the mechanism for gravity is "unknown," but that is not what you guys are telling us. You are telling us that bendy space/invisible puller particles  that no one has ever discovered are accelerating me to the earth.

Furthermore, even if you left it as "unknown," gravity requires an entirely new branch of physics to work, while the acceleration of objects can occur through known physics, putting UA into favor once again.

So some limitless power source accelerating a huge mass for no reason isn't some new branch of physics?  Please.

[Tom Bishop]

So some limitless power source accelerating a huge mass for no reason isn't some new branch of physics?  Please.

Who said it was limitless? In such discussions we have asserted that at some point the energy will disperse and all life on earth will come to an end.

[Curious Squirrel]

Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.

Now, that's funny Tom.   Irony meter off the charts.  You are the one that constantly attempts to derail threads asking for evidence while providing none.

If you read carefully, I actually do provide evidence for my claims. My evidence takes the form of fundamental empirical experiences available to all.

It is the Round Earthers who need to rely on things that are typically beyond experience, and so it is harder for them to prove anything.

LOL, no Tom, just no. Your "empirical evidence" for UA was the "fact" that the floor rushes up to meet you when you step off a chair.

When you get up onto a chair and walk off of the edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully we can actually see that the earth accelerates upwards up us.

That is far more empirical than the competing theory of gravity which involves puller particles and bending space.

Yet anyone else watching would clearly see you falling to the floor. Or a ball you drop falls to the floor. I see lots more empirical evidence suggesting things fall to Earth rather than the Earth rises up to meet things. No need to get into the how at present, just what happens and that is that everything falls to Earth from any perspective but the single one you have cherry picked. Looks to me like empirical evidence suggests something is pulling (or pushing) things to the surface of the Earth, not that the Earth is moving towards those things.

[TomInAustin]

So some limitless power source accelerating a huge mass for no reason isn't some new branch of physics?  Please.

Who said it was limitless? In such discussions we have asserted that at some point the energy will disperse and all life on earth will come to an end.

Since this has never been shown in a laboratory experiment it should be dismissed, right?  Your rules as I recall.

[inquisitive]

So some limitless power source accelerating a huge mass for no reason isn't some new branch of physics?  Please.

Who said it was limitless? In such discussions we have asserted that at some point the energy will disperse and all life on earth will come to an end.

No 'we' just you.

[TomInAustin]

So some limitless power source accelerating a huge mass for no reason isn't some new branch of physics?  Please.

Who said it was limitless? In such discussions we have asserted that at some point the energy will disperse and all life on earth will come to an end.

No 'we' just you.

One has to wonder, will it slow down like a AA battery in flashight or just die all at once like an iPhone.  Would be more fun if it was the former.   

[Pete Svarrior]

So might I suggest that the first change to be made to the wiki be to prominently add a page "HOW TO MAKE CHANGES TO THIS WIKI" - that says to contact you to get permission to edit - and these are the acceptable boundaries for content.  (eg: Do you want a section on common RET complaints about FET that you have good answers for - and a section for RET complaints that FET DOESN'T have good answers for?)

I agree and I'll work on that ASAP. Today I have made a suggestion that we should revive our old sticky thread detailing who's in charge of what. I'm also thinking of other ways to make it easier to provide feedback, and a "how to suggest corrections" link is high up on the list of thoughts I've had so far.

I will disregard your comments about the Ice Wall photo. We disagree. We can discuss that elsewhere, but FE'ers largely agree that the Ross Ice Shelf is part of the Ice Wall.

The biggest SNAFU in the Wiki is about the FE map.   There is hardly a mention of the "bipolar" map - and almost the entire Wiki is written from the perspective of a "unipolar" map.   Tom says that the unipolar map was "replaced" in 1911 (!!) - and either he's wrong (only SOME FE'ers decided to change to the bipolar map) - or the Wiki and at least 60% of what is says is 100 years out of date.

I am convinced that Tom is in the minority. This is not to say that he's wrong (I don't want to make as bold a statement). However, while the unipolar map is not unequivocally supported, I am convinced that it is representative of the majority belief. If this situation changes, I hope people will be vocal about it so we can adjust accordingly.

Notably, Tom has edit access to the Wiki. Given the importance of his contributions to the movement, you can imagine I would think twice before pushing back against any changes he suggests (which is not to say I wouldn't question them at all - just that I'd be much more careful). I can only assume he agrees that our current depiction of the consensus is at least not extremely unfair.

It's clearly the case that the Wiki should represent the views of FE'ers - even if they are complete horseshit (which they are!) - so adding RET stuff into it would be inappropriate - unless it's in some specific "Common Unanswered Criticisms" kind of page.

I would be reluctant to create such a page - we get enough negative descriptions outside of the wiki. I don't think there's much need for more of that.