World Innovation and Technology: David Hill Replies
30 April 2007
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
1 Dr David Hill says...
Thanks Zeth for the follow up !
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.
All the best,
David
Dr. David Hill World Innovation Foundation Charity
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 !
Posted at 10:32 a.m. on May 1, 2007
2 Dr David Hill says...
Dear Zeth,
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 !
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.
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 http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclop ediadramatica.com/Zoe+zoe+wikipedia+professor+change+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk& cd=3&gl=uk.
Dr. David Hill Chief Executive World Innovation Foundation Charity Bern, Switzerland
Posted at 2:43 p.m. on June 8, 2007
3 Chris Sherlock says...
I notice that Dr. Hill has spammed over 20 blogs with this comment, but I figured that I should respond anyway. :)
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.
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip 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.
Dr. Hill should also be aware of our suggested guidelines that deal with potential conflicts of interest - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest 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.
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.
Chris Sherlock User:Ta bu shi da yu English Wikipedia Administrator (writing in personal capacity)
Posted at 3:52 a.m. on July 11, 2007
4 David Hill says...
Dear Zeth,
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.
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.
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.
All the best to you and the Warriors s usual !
Sincerely,
David
Dr. David Hill Chief Executive The WIF www.thewif.org.uk
Posted at 6:11 p.m. on July 22, 2007
5 David Hill says...
Dear Zeth,
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.
David
Posted at 6:24 p.m. on July 22, 2007
6 David Hill says...
Dear Zeth,
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.
My best to you and the warriors, I remain,
Sincerely,
David
Dr. David Hill World Innovation Foundation Charity Bern, Switzerland
Posted at 8:29 a.m. on July 29, 2007
7 Zeth says...
Interesting article (direct link).
I have my own criticisms of Wikipedia, but it is a little like the BBC or the health service, we do need one.
At the top of the Wikipedia home page, it says "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Another problem is that the English edition is far to US centric and represents the viewpoint of a certain demographic.
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.
Posted at 10:20 a.m. on July 29, 2007
8 David Hill says...
Dear Zeth,
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.
All my very best to you and the warriors !
David
Posted at 9:04 p.m. on July 30, 2007