Talk:Wi-Fi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wi-Fi article.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2
WP:TEL This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project as a "full time member" and/or contribute to the discussion.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 15 June 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Contents

[edit] Powerwatch and Spooky actions (of wi-fi on health) at a distance

Firstly, sorry about the pun :) Secondly, powerwatch is a lobby organisation that sells unproven gizmos to people who believe they have an illness which scientific studies suggest doesn't exist. See the electrosensitivity page. They cherry-pick data that supports their hypothesis, engage in fallacious reasoning, and are generally involved in poor science and have a closed mind to new ideas. For these, and other reasons (also discussed on the ES page) they do not meet the standards for wikipedia links. The other edits spookee has added, repeatedly, change the slant of the article to an anti-scientific viewpoint, hence are removed, and involve trivialities that adds nothing to the "debate" (eg. the Canadian university story). If you want to put your edits back, please discuss them here first to reach a consensus. Thanks! 88.172.132.94 —Preceding comment was added at 18:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Powerwatch is not a lobby organisation, nor does it sell unproven gizmos, and you have no justification for your smears on fallacious reasoning, cherry picking of studies or poor science. As this is entirely your POV you cannot use it as justification for link removal. Topazg (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Topazg. User 88.172.132.94 cannot impose his POV and remove the link with his "fallacious reasoning, cherry picking of studies or poor science." See / PowerWatch's response to Ben Goldacre's comments re. Panorama, WiFi, etc. (Spookee (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC))
Topazg works for powerwatch, and if you look at their site they sell unproven and ridiculous gizmo's, and the BBCs Panarama has been told off for taking their advice --88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
User 88.172.132.94 probably works for the telecommunications industry. Arguments should be based upon reason and not on the force of language or unfounded claims. 88.76.59.133 (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't work for the telecommunications industry, and topazg is Graham Phillips of Powerwatch, son of its "head" Alisdair Phillips who has tried to whip up hysteria over electromagnetic radiation for the past 20 odd years, and who conveniently happens to have an interest in the company which seels "emf shielding devices"... They'll often point you to research that has used flawed methologies (eg. Henry Lai), research done by George Carlo (sacked by the phone companies) and other researchers who want to try and find something controversial so they can get more research grants.

Groups like Powerwatch, Mast Sanity and other "pressure" groups go on any local forum in an area where a mast has just been built to refer them to "alarming new research" which proves that phon masts and mobile phone radiation is a lethal killer, causing all sorts of problems, and that the only ways to stop it are: a)to move out of their house (which they know most people won't be able/inclined to do) to get away from the "radiation" or b)to buy some of the emf-shielding lead paint which Mr Phillips happens to sell. They rely on the age-old increasingly notable phenomena of the nocebo effect- by convincing some people that the mast will do them harm, then it can make people start to feel that way. They often claim that because people get better when they move away from a phone/tetra mast that it's because they are escaping the "harmful radiation"; when in actual fact it is more likely to be down to more pychological reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.251 (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your depth of research leaves a lot to be desired. I do do work for Powerwatch, but I am not employed (they don't have the money to pay me) by them, as I am a freelance IT contractor and consultant, spending more of my time on database design, adminstration, and web application development and project management. Not that I see what that really has to do with anything, as I very clearly do _not_ make any attempt to advertise or market anything of any kind. Do you have any hard justification to your claim that as an organisation Powerwatch direct people towards unreliable research, or in fact any justification the papers such as those linked to authored by Henry Lai have such flawed methodologies (bearing in mind here I note the lack of paper responses in the literature against his papers finding these flaws - perhaps you know something you wish to share that other scientists haven't noticed?). Also I would be greatly appreciative if you could perhaps justify the apparent linking to much research by George Carlo, I can't seem to find it, not even on Powerwatch's ~500 paper study listing page. Your last sentence in the first paragraph is just strange nonsense, Controversial findings in the field of any big money industry (phones, tobacco, oil, pharmaceuticals etc..) does not start research grants flooding in - how would that work exactly, what kind hearted philanthropists are queueing up to fund such things? Why would they bother?
Powerwatch are nothing like Mast Sanity: They do not campaign, they do not go on "local forums" anywhere (frankly, it's just likely to be a waste of time anyway), and they do no lobbying against phone masts - never have, never will. Do you have any justification to support this comment? Or perhaps any evidence that we suggested people move house to avoid a phone mast (again, from a pragmatic perspective, this is also pointless, and expensive)?
WiFi chat hardly appears to be a useful forum to engage in the nocebo / real effect from mobile phone base stations or not, so I will leave that for elsewhere. Scientifically the evidence in the literature has more on the positive effect than the null or negative effect side (again, view the "Mobile Phone Masts" section on the page above, it's not quite complete but only missing 3 or 4 papers I think), but frankly the level of available literature is appalling on the whole topic. Any mechanism of effect is entirely unknown, but then science is about recognising and exploring observations until the balance of evidence has been pushed one way or the other. Concerning observations have been made for base stations, and the continued scientific explorations into such observations have not been followed up, thus Powerwatch make calls for such research. This is hardly hysterical scaremongering.
Oh, it's only a minor point, but if you are going to resort to name calling and ad-hominem attacks, please take the courtesy of spelling names correctly. Topazg (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Edit War in Health Risks section

Can I implore all those users who are seemingly engaged in an Edit war of reverts and counter-reverts in the Health Risks section at the moment to stand down and discuss their content issues in this Discussion page? This will increase our chances of finding common ground. I will admit to having done one blind complete revert myself, but have been seeking to move past this to focus on improving the content of the section. Is anyone else interested in joining me in this approach? papageno (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the only solution is to get rid of the section entirely. I am willing to compromise with a See Also to "Wireless electronic devices and health" *If* there is a problem, it would not be related to the Wi-Fi per-se, but to the broadcasting in the 2.4Ghz spectrum. Hence it shouldn't be in this article. And you can't have an edit wars with Anonymous IP addresses that consistently change. -- KelleyCook (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
papageno is now being suspected of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Qui1che for evidence. All the anonymous IPs which have reverted the original version to the version "Unproven Health Risks" are suspected to have been the same person. I do have a username but do not take the hassle to log on most of the time. I only log on when I need to file a report. My ISP changes my IP address each time I log on. But a check on my IP addresses will instantly reveal they all refer to the same host. I have never attempted to deny the different IPs point to the same user and I have never used the different IPs to corroborate each other's edits in an attempt to deceive the rest. This is in contrast to the case of papageno who has explicitly denied any association with the different IPs which have unanimously advocated the same "Unproven Health Risks" version. Also, I note that you have deleted the entire version "Question on Health Risks" without consent of other editors. Are you an administrator? If not, I will take this as wilful vandalism. CleanUpX (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
So your best defense is a bad example of offense, eh User:Spookee? All I really care about is that you both take your duplicated NPOV stuff out of *this* article. Especially, as there is a specific article just for that. Its gone again. -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes you are right, my previous username was User:Spookee but I have since changed that when I switched to a new ISP. I have never used these two usernames concurrently to corroborate each other. In any case, I have ceased to use User:Spookee for any edits since I changed to this current one. I am not sure if this is a case of sockpuppetry. All that I wanted was that a neutral point of view be portrayed in the section on "Wi-Fi Health Risks". IT is an established fact now that most of the users who advocated "unproven health risks" were sockpuppets who have ganged up to perpetuate their POV. For example, RDOlivaw and Unprovoked are now banned indefinitely. I have also personally reported 88.172.132.94 and now papageno with good reasons. I am OK with removing this section, if that isn't done in an attempt to suppress info. Finally, I wish to remind you that WiKi is free encyclopedia where anyone can edit. You do not tell other editors to "Get Out of this Article" as you have done in the talk history page, no matter how senior or established you are. No one should be intimidated and it's WP's policy that all WP editors be bold. CleanUpX (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Checking Spookee and CleanUpX's story is easy. Looking at Spookees contributions you can see that he edited WiFi on the 24 April to back his own POV as multiple anons/CleanUpX, and then logged in on the 28th to accuse two users of being sock, who are both already blocked (not very clever!) This is a clear case, by admission, of abusive sockpuppetry, and along with his history, uncivil behavior, editing style, attacks against editors in good standing, and general (lack of) decorum, should result in a full block. "-°91.65.62.200 (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)°-"

[edit] Here's my ref

This ref wouldn't fit nicely into the article. I'm placing it here in order to summarize and justify an "undo". PC's refer to personal computers with operating systems other than Windows.

PC makers ready to throw out the Windows

E_dog95 Hi 19:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin and meaning of the term "Wi-Fi"

This section contradicts itself. Just because its owners want to discourage the term "Wireless Fidelity" does not mean wikipedia has to kiss up to that marketing angle. The info in that section demonstrates that it does, in fact, come from "Wireless Fidelity". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The peculiar wording of the quote from Belanger begs the question of what it stands for. Saying they hired someone to come up with a name is not an explanation of what it stands for! And the fact that the alliance initially used it to mean "Wireless Fidelity" undercuts the claim that it doesn't! The real question that needs an answer is why don't they like that term? What's their issue with it? Maybe somebody could find out the story on that, and round out that paragraph's "something's missing here" feel. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no-one more authorative than the organisation who came up with the term except perhaps the organisation that owns the brand. It's time to accept that Wi-Fi does not stand for "Wireless Fidelity". Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Except that the facts as stated in the paragraph contradict that assertion. Also, that fails to explain what it does stand for, nor does it explain why they have such a problem with the term "wireless fidelity". Those questions need to be answered in order to provide the full story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The links actually explain the matter. Would that the author of the section would have done likewise. I'll see if I can futher clear the vagueness of the original writeup. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I came to the article to learn what "Wi-Fi" meant, and now I know, thanks to having had to rewrite it so that the next guy who comes along will also know, without having to wade through linked articles and to put up with the curious defensiveness about the use of the term. There's nothing mysterious about it, and no need to hide it behind layers of obscurity. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Health effects

there should be a section on proposed health effects, i saw in the news today, people in glastonbury are campaigning against the recent city-wide availability. I personally don't believe there are any risks but lots of people do and in lots of places they have chosen to refrain from installing it over the possibility of it. Also i am aware there has been a lot of research into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.175.184 (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed very recently, and it was decided that a See Also link was enough, with people who want to be able to go there and editors working on that article. The people that are campaigning in Glastonbury have been mislead. See the articles Electrical sensitivity and wireless electronic devices and health. There has also been a lot of lobbying to remove NPOV by the socks CleanUpX and Spookee and his other banned socks on this page, who has made unfounded allegations against established and good editors, which was making the atmosphere on this page a bit poisonous. Hence, the information has been moved (as you can see from the talk above and from the link in the article). It also failed WP:UNDO, and came under WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. -12.207.207.227 (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Seconded, health effects should be a redirect elsewhere. WiFi article should be more on the technology and implementations IMHO Topazg (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] health effects

there should be a short paragraph then a link to the other page with the health effects. that's what would happen on most articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.55.157 (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)