Talk:Solar Roadways

criticism censoship

this morning I expanded the "criticism" section. I stated facts and put in references and links. This afternoon it was all gone. Only vanilla criticism remains. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cldig (talk • contribs) 13:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Because the material you're trying to add is referenced only to YouTube videos that are self-published sources. Just as anybody can create a web page, anybody can make a YT video claiming anything they want to. I personally agree with both David Jones' and Phil Mason's criticisms, but I'm not what WP would consider a reliable source either. The remaining material is referenced to publications that are known to exercise knowledgeable editorial oversight over what they publish.

Note that not every YT video is considered a WP:SPS. If National Geographic or Scientific American had a YT channel (they may well have; I haven't checked) we would presume that its content was subject to the same oversight as the respective magazines.

This is not "censorship", this is WP enforcing its own editorial standards. Please see WP:SPS, WP:RS, and WP:V. Such material simply will not stand in this article (no matter how much you or I agree with it). Thank you for your understanding. Jeh (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

p.s.: Regarding "vanilla" criticism - both David Jones (eevblog) and Phil Mason (Thunderfoot) do have very distinctive styles. It's part of the reason they have so many more views and likes than, say, I would if I were presenting the same facts. But for something that is trying to be taken seriously - as an encyclopedia - their distinctive styles reduce their usefulness as sources, as it is difficult to separate the hyperbole and the theatrics from the facts. It isn't the place of an encyclopedia to be boisterous or entertaining - just reliable. Jeh (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

'Total disaster', March 9 17

Have people here seen this coverage? http://principia-scientific.org/americas-first-solar-roadway-total-disaster/ --Nigelj (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Nigelj (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Here on the talk page, look up two sections. And then to the section before that. Jeh (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Concerns not addressed

Could someone create a section that mentions other general COMMON SENSE concerns that have NOT been addressed by a source. For example, I do not believe the solar panel people demonstrated driving on the panels. Can someone point out this fact? I did see the parked backhoe, but not much else. It does not require an engineer to point out that many of the claims put forth by the panel company have not been proven. Where are the road cones and skidding cars? They did not even show how well you can see the LED lights during a sunny day. It seems that rain is posing a problem to these panels in 2017. They made MANY claims but do not show proof. Since there is no proof, then these claim should not be mentioned on WP. (If they are)

BUT, by default, solar roadways, as a CONCEPT, includes lane lines for the drivers and proper automobile handling on the surface, SO NOT MENTIONING their failure of proof, gives the reader an assumption that all is well. Right now, as per this article, solar roadways are almost ready for prime time, for, at the very minimum, the very basics had to have been worked out and passed testing because there is no mention of failure in these regards. As per this article, just a few more minor kinks to work out. So, when the concept of solar roadways is mentioned, BY DEFAULT, road surface and durability is included. Since this has not been proven by the company, this should be mentioned. As for electrical data, it seems like most of it is proposed, not actual field data. Since the concept of solar roadways includes inherent features, due to the fact that they are a roadway, and not just a solar panel, this concept needs to remain theoretical, and handled as such. All is not well in the solar roadway world, and it does not take an engineer to see the lack of real world testing. I want them to work as the next guy, but they are very far off it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.4.132 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to tell if your speaking about solar roadways in general, or the beta technology of the company named Solar Roadways. Conceptually driving on solar panels doesn't make "common sense", but it's difficult to square that with the existing kilometers of solar roadways currently installed and being driven on. -- GreenC 18:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish its own editors' conclusions, no matter how much they seem to be "common sense". We need reliable sources for everything, particularly including criticism. The article already has some criticisms along the lines you suggest. If you can find RSs for more, please cite them. Jeh (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Continual Criticism Censorship and Repeated Falsehoods Without Reliable Sources

It has been the case with this page since it began, and continues to be, that the majority of the page is purely information put out by the Solar Roadways, and almost all reliable source that criticize it are suppressed, resulting in this page being plainly incorrect. A particularly egregious one being the current removal of the fact of how much energy is being generated by these panels, being replaced with the lie that they are not yet generating power. The reason being, that the source is a competing business with Solar Roadways. This is not true. Enphase help fund solar roadways (and even if it was true, why is it reliable to have almost all of the article being based purely on what the owners themselves say, but not what competitors say? This is very clearly the opposite of reliable... But not relevant anyway, as Enphase help fund solar roadways!)

It is plainly a lie to change the fact of the actual figures the Solar Roadway project produces to the untrue claim that they are not generating power.

With how long this continual censorship and lying has occurred, I can only imagine that the people doing so are vested in Solar Roadways.

81.109.3.70 (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

In addition, to the claim that Phil Mason is not a reliable source, this could be debated to be true... But I do not see how it is relevant with the claim that is made. Other than the two claims " Panels runs at ~50C in late evening! LED are all but invisible from ~30m/ 30 yrds", all of the claims made by Phil Mason can be seen clearly just with the webcam that Solar Roadways provide. If Phil Mason's name was removed and these claims were made purely with the reference to Solar Roadways own webcam would this be acceptable? I can see the "Wikipedia does not publish its own editors' conclusions" coming already, but this is clearly ridiculous. To the extent these censors are proclaiming this, anything other than exact copying of word for word verbatim is "its own editors' conclusions"! It is clear to see without anything other than looking at it, no actual thinking or working out, from Solar Roadways own webcam that 10% of panels have failed. If this counts as "its own editors' conclusions" then I cannot see how anything other than verbatim copying does not.

81.109.3.70 (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yet another IP address with no edits other than this article, trying to argue the same thing as the banned editor Okip, and adding in the Phil Mason nonsense yet again. Check the archives, all registered users who aren't banned seem to agree it shouldn't be in there. Dream Focus 19:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Phil Mason is doing quite well, financially, with his long running series criticizing SR. Every new video gets a qazillion YouTube clicks. It's self-published with no editorial oversight. The other problem is WP:WEIGHT the article quickly becomes one long criticism of a demonstration beta project. -- GreenC 19:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not add the Phil Mason part (though, as I have asked above, would the exact same claims just referring to the webcam be allowed? All the claims other than the temperature and LED visiblity at 30 yards are immediately obvious just from looking at the webcam. If this is not allowed... Why? It's not editors' own conclusions. It is immediately obvious visually. If this is editors' own contribution and can't be added then you should go to the Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima page and get rid of it claiming to be the US flag. This is the editors' own contribution from looking at the photo, not actually mentioned in the text it cites.), I added the part citing Enphase and then reverted your incorrect edit removing it, explaining why you were incorrect in doing so. Rather than just reverting back with no valid explanation ( "to last by Dream Focus - these sources are not reliable enough for wp" the reason you gave that they are not reliable enough for wp is incorrect as I explained. Enphase help fund Solar Roadways.) you should give a valid reason that this is not reliable.

Rather than repeatedly reverting valid criticism, and ignore people showing that your claims of reliability are incorrect, please address them.

81.109.3.70 (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear - I typed the words ""Wikipedia does not publish its own editors' conclusions" in the preceding section, which IP .70 derides. I wish to stress that I am far from a proponent or defender of SolarRoadways. I think the technical/financial analyses done by Phil Mason, and by Dave Jones (eevblog), are spot on. I'd actually done my own analysis using my own research (and a few guesses) before I saw those and interestingly my numbers came out within 30% or so of theirs. My conclusion? I find the entire concept to be both technically and economically ludicrous.

However I am a defender of Wikipedia's principles, and the principle of "no original research" / "no original synthesis" is one of the most important.

No, I don't believe we can look at a video or live webcam feed and write about what we see. I think it counts as original research. If you disagree, this is not the place to argue about it - you can ask for an opinion at the no original research noticeboard. For questions about reliable sources in general, try the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Jeh (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

If you're getting to the point that you cannot mention something that is immediately visually clear, with no thinking or reasoning at all, without counting it as original research, then everything other than exact copying is original research.

Would an image from the webcam that clearly shows 10% of them being failed be acceptable? (so long as it isn't mentioned in any way in the body of text, wouldn't want any original research of describing a picture exactly as it is...) 81.109.3.70 (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• The information I removed read: Of the tiles that have not yet failed in Sandpoint each generate 0.15 cents worth of electricity per day in summer, or 30 cents over the average lifetime of these panels, the panels themselves costing approximately $17000 each to install and referenced https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/pv/public_systems/V3vh1173801/overview which just list the "kilowatt-hours produced" throughout the day, but doesn't confirm the other information listed. Dream Focus 22:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

So, you replaced a reliable source that mentions exactly how much power they produce with the claim "The 30 tiles in Sandpoint aren’t yet generating power." and then after being shown that you were mistaken in doing so, you did so again? I can understand editing it into different words. However you have just blatantly replaced a true claim with a reliable source with a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.3.70 (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

How is that a reliable source? Where are they getting their information from? I see on their website [1] they encouraged people to donate to Solar Roadways, and mentioned their first ones were using their Enphase M215 Microinverters. I don't see any source on their website or elsewhere for the information that I reverted. Dream Focus 23:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

How is a huge world market leader in small scale energy monitoring a reliable source for small scale energy monitoring?

And not that it matters at all (but for some reason you think it does) they are publicly supportive of solar roadways, and do not make solar panels themselves.

188.29.165.197 (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

As I just stated, they do in fact make solar panels themselves. Dream Focus 23:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You did not state that, no. And they do not, no. A M215 microinverter is not a solar panel. It is used WITH solar panels. Enphase do not make solar panels, they use solar panels other companies make, connected with their own devices. They are publicly supportive of solar roadways, for a very obvious reason. Solar roadways being big would be a huge boon for them as there would be many solar panels that would have use for their product.

But again, this clearly does not matter. A world leader in small scale energy monitoring is clearly a reliable source for small scale energy monitoring. Even if they were competitors with solar roadways, but that isn't even the case! They are publicly supportive of them, and have a huge amount to gain if solar roadways succeeds.

I could see your point if Enphase's monitoring showed Solar Roadways were great that they wouldn't be a reliable source as they have a vested interest in this(I would still strongly disagree, it is incredibly clear that a reputable world leader in small scale energy monitoring is a good source for small scale energy monitoring). But they don't! Enphase's results show exactly the opposite of what Enphase wants.

It is incredibly clear that a reputable world leader in small scale energy monitoring is a reliable source for small scale energy monitoring . To claim otherwise is clearly disingenuous. (especially when their results are the opposite of what they both publicly claim to want, and what is obviously beneficial to their business)

81.109.3.70 (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It's misleading and appears somewhat in bad faith to take an R&D demo project and highlight cost issues. Unless the company made claims about costs for this project that are not being met. Criticizing for something they never aimed to achieve in the first place is plainly biased. -- GreenC 23:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Which again, I would understand the statement being edited. However completely removing a true claim on the amount of power being generated with a reliable reputable source and replacing it with the claim they don't yet generate power is just replacing a fact with a lie.

Removing facts and replacing them with lies because the facts show it in a bad light is plainly biased. Change the wording, sure. But replace a well source fact with a lie? No.

188.29.165.197 (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

What is their source for the information? Also all that was listed on what was linked to was how much power was being made at that time. Your personal calculations and assumptions are not facts. Shouldn't one of the government agencies funding it have published the information somewhere? Dream Focus 00:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think that is relevant? Again, and this could not be more clear, a reputable world leader in small scale energy monitoring is a reliable source for small scale energy monitoring. Your judgment of their source for the information is irrelevant, (and also clearly editors' own research).

They are a world leader in the topic, this makes them a reliable source for it. Your personal judgments of their methods (of which you seem to have none anyway, you are just arguing purely because you want this biased wreck to stay as it is, regardless of reliable sources) does not.

A recognized world leader in a field is a reliable source for that field. This is clear. There is nothing more to say on the matter. If you wish to dispute them, then do it on Enphase's wikipedia page.

81.109.3.70 (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

They are one of many companies that produce a component used in solar cells. That doesn't make them a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. WP:RS is quite clear. They are not an independent source if they are supplying parts to them anyway, and they did state their encouragement for people to invest in them. Microsoft is a successful software company, but that doesn't mean you can use them as a reliable source when it comes to reviewing other software, be a good or bad review. The same is true for any industry. Find a reliable source or its not going in there. Dream Focus 00:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Continual moving the goalposts. First they aren't reliable because they're competitors, when shown that isn't true you back down to it only states the energy consumption, when pointed out you're still contradicting them on that you move to they produce solar panels, when shown that that isn't true you change to we need them to provide their methods, and now they aren't a reliable source because they encourage people to invest in them??? The exact opposite of the initial reason you claimed they weren't a reliable source!

This ridiculous bias of yours could not be more clear. Your reason that they aren't a reliable source you're giving now is literally the opposite of what you initially claimed as the reason they aren't reliable.

But fine.. Let's say they aren't reliable because they have a vested interest in Solar Roadways power generation being great (...Despite the fact the claim they've made is that Solar Roadway's power generation isn't great). Do you agree that Solar Roadways has a vested interest in Solar Roadways? Because the source that you're replacing this from, for being too invested in Solar Roadways, is just a different source quoting the founder of Solar Roadways!

How is the source of an independent company being replaced by just quotes from the founder of Solar Roadways because the independent company is too invested in Solar Roadways?

81.109.3.70 (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)