I'm done with the major edit. I believe I was fair and made the article much more readable and understandable. However I'm not an expert in this area, so I encourage others to check that I did not misinterpret anything.
There were two small pieces that I removed because they seemed to be unfounded conjecture of the previous author and nonetheless seemed rather out of place and strongly biased. I'm including them here so others can decide whether they really should be reintroduced (hopefully with some references to support them and a more neutral tone):
- "This parallels how the US biotechnology industry prevailed on George W. Bush to abandon treaties on biotechnology supervision, and on "dual-use technology", to prevent the use of either in weapons."
- Link to "Weapons of mass destruction"
Dmeranda 07:23, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This page is a confusing mix of factual information with a somewhat biased (at least in tone) discussion of ecological politics. From the history it appears to have suffered from lively debates between authors of differing opinions. But this has resulting in a page which is not structured to make it easy for new readers to understand. As a detached observer I'm going to try to reorganize this page to make it better. I will attempt to leave all content, but calm it down to provide a more neutral point of view. — Dmeranda 05:26, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, the controversy section is realy quite tangential to the molecular assembler concept. I think this would be best moved off this page entireley. Some of these points are covered in the Nanotechnology page already under dangers, this section would probably do well to be moved there under a political controversy section. --Swamp Ig 04:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
So K. Eric Drexler attempts to distinguish the field of nanotechnology from molecular nanotechnology, and gives us assembler (nanotechnology), and then someone chips in with "molecular assembler"? Personally, if they didn't add anything unique or notable in any way, then I'd say this article gets "eaten" by the molecular nanotechnology article or the assembler (nanotechnology) article. After all, MNTing means something (Broderick, The Spike). Also, who cares about assembler the programming language anymore? It's a museum meme. --Couttsie 09:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to address the point of view problem. I think this was due to confusion from the wider discussion of the concerns of nanotechnology and the more distant and fantastic danger of molecular assemblers. The definition is still very bad. I think that there maybe multiple definitions out there. It would be better if it were referenced to an outside source. --M_stone 22:55, 16 June 2006