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 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...)