Talk:Foresight Institute
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 29 November 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
editThis article is mostly taken from the Foresight Institute's "About Us" web page. Wikipedia articles shouldn't really be mouthpieces for companies. Does this organization actually do anything other than organize conferences? Tempshill 21:45, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Currently, the link to the FI's website does not work.
- Jeff July 9, 2005 15:47 (UTC)
I think this page should be kept, although in a slightly more sophisticated way.
Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 11:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Advertisment
editI have attempted to rewrite the page and have trimmed out things like the mission statement-like list and the doublespeak comment about the internet. By no means is this page perfect, but I think it no longer reads like an advertisment. Falcon 22:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
followup
editThis may be part of a walled garden of pages, including Chris Phoenix & Mike Treder. The COI and NPOV of all three is suspect, and their are 3rd party sources for their being a concealed POV-pushing advocacy group.
- I intend to document a little more thoroughly, and rewrite the article for the center as NPOV.
possibly including [Foresight Institute]],Center on Nanotechnology and Society, & Future Technologies Advisory GroupDGG 04:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with that assessment and endorse a full review of the article contents. -Will Beback · † · 07:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Should be kept
editquite notable. --Remi0o 23:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Name
editThe article says "In 2005 the Foresight Institute changed its name to 'Foresight Institute' and narrowed its mission to nanotechnology". The website does indeed focus on nanotech now, but still refers to the organization as "Foresight Institute". What is the source for the claim about the name change (and if it is correct, then why is this article still called "Foresight Institute")? —Adam Atlas (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I also looked at the website and I don't see "Foresight Nanotech Institute" anywhere, though you're right that there are many mentions of nanotechnology. However I do see the term elsewhere.[1][2] My guess is that they changed their name and then changed it back. We could change the text something more vague, but equally accurate, such as "...also known as 'Foresight Nanotech Institute'..." Will Beback talk 05:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Foresight Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://foresight.org/
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.foresight.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
"Multiple Issues" Box Still Necessary?
editI don't think the "Multiple Issues" box at the top is still needed. A bunch of sources were added since then, ~all of them sourced. Niplav (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)