Scrape wikipedia-science: 954 new, 946 updated, 1951 total (kb-cron)

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administratium-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+---
+title: "Administratium"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administratium"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:18:35.533963+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Administratium is a well-known in-joke in scientific circles and is a parody both on the bureaucracy of the scientific community and academic institutions, and on descriptions of newly discovered chemical elements. 
+In 1991, Thomas Kyle (the supposed discoverer of this element) was awarded an Ig Nobel Prize for physics, making him one of only three fictional people to have won the award.
+A spoof article was written by William DeBuvitz in 1988 and first appeared in print in the January 1989 issue of The Physics Teacher. It spread rapidly among university campuses and research centers; many versions surfaced, often customized to the contributor's situation.
+A similar joke concerns Administrontium which was referenced in print in 1993.
+Another variation on the same joke is Bureaucratium. A commonly heard description describes it as "having a negative half-life". In other words, the more time passes, the more massive "Bureaucratium" becomes; it only grows larger and more sluggish. This refers to the bureaucratic system, which is generally perceived as a system in which bureaucratic procedures accumulate, and whatever needs to get done takes increasingly longer to get done as soon as it touches the bureaucracy.
+
+
+== See also ==
+Unobtainium
+Wishalloy
+List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and subatomic particles
+
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_science-0.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_science"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:54:59.589695+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:18:36.746128+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversazione-0.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversazione"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:14:02.882997+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:18:37.974950+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_environmentalism-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+---
+title: "Cultural environmentalism"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_environmentalism"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:18:39.241587+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Cultural environmentalism is the movement that seeks to protect the public domain. The term was coined by James Boyle, professor at Duke University and contributor to the Financial Times.
+The term stems from Boyle's argument that those who seek to protect the public domain are working towards a similar ends as environmentalists. Boyle's contention is that whereas the environmentalist movement illuminated the effects that social decisions can have upon ecology, cultural environmentalists seek to illuminate the effects that intellectual property laws can have upon culture.
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+Cultural Environmentalism at 10.
+James Boyle: Cultural environmentalism?
+A Politics of Intellectual Property: Environmentalism for the Net?
+An IP Environmentalism for Culture and Knowledge?

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_science-0.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/3
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_science"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:55:22.471481+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:18:40.379764+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_science-1.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/3
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_science"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:55:22.471481+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:18:40.379764+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_science-2.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/3
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_science"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:55:22.471481+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:18:40.379764+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_scientist-0.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_scientist"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:05:45.529732+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:18:41.604539+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_For_Figuring-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+title: "Institute For Figuring"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_For_Figuring"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:18:42.935357+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Institute For Figuring (IFF) is an organization based in Los Angeles, California that promotes the public understanding of the poetic and aesthetic dimensions of science, mathematics and the technical arts. Founded by Margaret Wertheim and Christine Wertheim, the institute hosts public lectures and exhibitions, publishes books and maintains a website.
+
+
+== Published works ==
+Robert Kaplan The Figure That Stands Behind Figures: Mosaics of the Mind (2004)
+Margaret Wertheim A Field Guide to Hyperbolic Space (2005)
+Margaret Wertheim A Field Guide to the Business Card Menger Sponge (2006)
+Margaret Wertheim, Christine Wertheim Crochet Coral Reef: A Project (2015)
+
+
+== See also ==
+Mathematics and fiber arts
+European Society for Mathematics and the Arts
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+Official website

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_industry_playbook-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+---
+title: "Tobacco industry playbook"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_industry_playbook"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:18:30.803825+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The tobacco industry playbook, also called the tobacco disinformation playbook or simply the tobacco strategy, describes a public relations strategy used by the tobacco industry in the 1950s to protect revenues in the face of mounting evidence of links between tobacco smoke and serious illnesses, primarily cancer.
+Such tactics were used even earlier, beginning in the 1920s, by the oil industry to support the use of tetraethyllead in gasoline. They continue to be used by other industries, notably the fossil fuel industry, even using the same PR firms and researchers.
+Much of the playbook is known from industry documents made public by whistleblowers or as a result of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. These documents are now curated by the UCSF Truth Tobacco Industry Documents project and are a primary source for much commentary on both the tobacco playbook and its similarities to the tactics used by other industries such as the fossil fuel industry.
+A 1969 R. J. Reynolds internal memorandum noted, "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public." In Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway documented the way that tobacco companies had campaigned over several decades to cast doubt on the scientific evidence of harm caused by their products, and noted the same techniques being used by other industries whose harmful products were targets of regulatory and environmental efforts. This is often linked to climate change denialism promoted by the fossil fuel industry: the same tactics were employed by fossil fuel groups such as the American Petroleum Institute to cast doubt on climate science from the 1990s and some of the same PR firms and individuals engaged to claim that tobacco smoking was safe, were later recruited to attack climate science.
+
+
+== History ==
+In 1953, Reader's Digest published a précis of an article from the Christian Herald titled "Cancer by the Carton", highlighting the emergent findings of epidemiologists including Richard Doll and Austin Bradford Hill. In response, US tobacco executives and John Hill, of public relations company Hill & Knowlton, held a crisis meeting at the New York Plaza Hotel. It led to the 1954 publication of A Frank Statement, an advertisement designed to cast doubt on the science showing serious health effects from smoking. Tactics include:
+
+Fabricating or falsifying scientific research and presenting it as legitimate research, e.g. using flawed methodologies that bias results, selectively publishing only favorable results (a type of research misconduct)
+Attacking and intimidating scientists who publish "inconvenient science" through threats to funding, promotion, tenure, and reputation.
+Manufacture "fear, uncertainty and doubt" by claiming that there is uncertainty about accepted scientific consensus, through actions like funding "junk science" studies designed to undermine scientific consensus, and repeating debunked claims
+Using affiliations with prestigious academic or professional organizations to influence research and advance economic, political, or ideological ends
+Political lobbying to manipulate government, influence policy, or control key decision-making positions, in defiance of scientific consensus, potentially posing a risk to public health and safety
+Resisting public regulation and emphasizing industry self-regulation and personal responsibility.
+Astroturfing: fabricating, or directly or indirectly funding, "front groups" to act on behalf of industrial interests. Entities are often deceptively named, and may falsely claim to represent grassroots opinion.
+Documents such as Bad Science: A Resource Book were used to promulgate talking points intended to cast doubt on scientific independence and political interference.
+
+
+== Influence ==
+
+The playbook has been adopted by the fossil fuel industry, in its efforts to stave off global action on climate change, and by those seeking to undermine the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) more generally. The manufacture and promotion of uncertainty, especially, has been identified as inspired directly by the tobacco industry.
+Recognising that it had little or no credibility with the public, and concerned about mounting pressure to act on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), the tobacco industry actively recruited fellow enemies of the EPA, setting up the "Advancement of Sound Science Coalition" (TASSC), a fake grassroots group. Its first director was Steve Milloy, previously of APCO, the consultancy firm employed by Philip Morris to set up TASSC. Milloy subsequently set up junkscience.com, a website which equates environmentalists with Nazis and now promotes climate change denial. Many of the consultants who worked for the tobacco industry, have also worked for fossil fuel companies against action on climate change. TASSC hired Frederick Seitz and Fred Singer, both now prominent in climate change denial. Greg Zimmerman found a 2015 presentation titled "Survival Is Victory: Lessons From the Tobacco Wars" by Richard Reavey of Cloud Peak Energy (and formerly of Philip Morris) in which Reavey explicitly acknowledged the parallels and urged fellow coal executives to accept the facts of climate change and work with regulators on solutions that would preserve the industry. Both Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz are prominent figures in climate change denial who previously worked for the tobacco industry.
+Environmentalist George Monbiot identifies many groups that were funded by tobacco firms and subsequently by Exxon and other fossil fuel companies, and now actively take part in climate change denial, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation, the Independent Institute, and George Mason University's Law and Economics Centre.
+Opponents of vaping also identify elements of the tobacco playbook in the e-cigarette industry's response to health concerns. Tobacco companies took stakes in soft drinks companies and used the same tactics around colours and flavours that they had used to target young potential smokers. The soft drinks industry's attempts to avoid sugary beverage taxes and other government action to reduce obesity draws upon elements of the tobacco playbook, Coca-Cola has funded health researchers as part of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs; various provisions in these programs gave Coca-Cola the right to review research in advance of publication, with control over the study data, disclosure of results, and whether Coca-Cola funding was to be acknowledged. Some agreements stated explicitly that Coca-Cola could prevent publication. Research contracts issued as part of CSR programmes have thus allowed soft drinks manufacturers to bury inconvenient results.
+A 2019 article in the Emory Law Journal made parallels to attempts by the National Football League to downplay the issue of chronic traumatic encephalopathy in American football, with the New York Times noting a number of tobacco figures involved in the NFL's defence. The World Health Organization has subsequently published a tobacco control playbook. The public relations strategies of Big Tech companies have often been compared with the tobacco industry playbook.
+
+
+== See also ==
+Corporate propaganda
+COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy
+Disinformation
+ExxonMobil climate change denial
+Fossil fuels lobby
+Health effects of tobacco
+Tobacco industry
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== Further reading ==
+The Disinformation Playbook – How Business Interests Deceive, Misinform, and Buy Influence at the Expense of Public Health and Safety (www.ucsusa.org)
+Cancer by the carton (1952)

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermassfeld_fossil_site-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+---
+title: "Untermassfeld fossil site"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermassfeld_fossil_site"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:18:32.228358+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Untermaßfeld fossil site is a palaeontological site in Untermaßfeld, Germany. Excavated continuously since its discovery in 1978, it has produced many fossils dating to the late Early Pleistocene or Epivillafranchian geologic period, approximately 1.2 – 0.9 million years before present (BP). Claims that hominins were also present at the site have sparked a major controversy.
+
+
+== Hominin controversy ==
+In a series of papers published between 2013 and 2017, Günter Landeck and Joan Garcia Garriga claimed to have found evidence of a hominin presence at the site in the form of stone tools and butchery marks on bones. If verified, this would be the earliest known occupation of northern Europe by humans, as previous evidence had indicated that Europe was only sporadically occupied, at southerly latitudes, before 500,000 BP. However, these findings have sparked a major controversy. Questions were immediately asked about the provenance of the material, since neither Landeck nor Garcia Garriga had any connection to the Untermassfeld project and had never worked on the excavations at the site.
+Further doubts were raised in October 2017, in the preprint of a paper later published in the Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, authored by several palaeontologists and Palaeolithic archaeologists, including Wil Roebroeks and Ralf-Dietrich Kahlke, the director of the Untermassfeld excavations. The authors reported that they were unable to locate the collections Landeck and Garcia Garriga claim to have based their analysis on, even after contacting them. They alleged that the description of some of the bones discussed in Landeck and Garcia Garriga's papers matched those in a package anonymously delivered to a local natural history museum; and that two bones matched specific pieces that were reported stolen from the site in 2009 and 2012. Based on a reanalysis of the material in the anonymous package and the details provided in their papers, they also argued that Landeck and Garcia Garriga had misidentified both the stone tools and the butchery marks. They concluded that there was no evidence of a hominin presence at Untermassfeld.
+Garcia Garriga has "strenuously denied" the allegations, stating that he had no connection to the material and had only helped write up Landeck's analysis. Landeck claimed that the material was shown to him by two unnamed private collectors who had found it during "rescue activities" near—but not in—the Untermassfeld site. Both told Nature that they had "nothing to do with a stolen bone" and were writing a detailed response to the allegations.
+
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO-convened_Global_Study_of_Origins_of_SARS-CoV-2-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+---
+title: "WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2"
+chunk: 1/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO-convened_Global_Study_of_Origins_of_SARS-CoV-2"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:18:33.719044+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2 or the Joint WHO-China Study was a collaborative study between the World Health Organization and the Government of China on the origins of COVID-19. The study was commissioned by the Director-General of the World Health Organization following a request by the 2020 World Health Assembly in which 122 WHO members proposed a motion, which included a call for a "comprehensive, independent and impartial" study into the COVID-19 pandemic" The WHO disbanded the team and proposed a new panel called Scientific Advisory Group for Origins of Novel Pathogens.
+
+== Background ==
+The World Health Organization has declared that finding where SARS-CoV-2 came from is a priority and that it is "essential for understanding how the pandemic started". In May 2020, the World Health Assembly, which governs the World Health Organization (WHO), passed a motion calling for a "comprehensive, independent and impartial" study into the COVID-19 pandemic. A record 137 countries, including China, co-sponsored the motion, giving overwhelming international endorsement to the study. In mid 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) began negotiations with the government of China on conducting an official study into the origins of COVID-19.
+In November 2020, the WHO published a two-phase study plan. The purpose of the first phase was to better understand how the virus "might have started circulating in Wuhan", and a second phase involves longer-term studies based on the findings of the first phase. WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom said "We need to know the origin of this virus because it can help us to prevent future outbreaks," adding, "There is nothing to hide. We want to know the origin, and that's it." He also urged countries not to politicise the origin tracing process, saying that would only create barriers to learning the truth.
+
+== Phase 1 ==
+For the first phase, the WHO formed a team of ten researchers with expertise in virology, public health and animals to conduct a thorough study. One of the team's tasks was to retrospectively ascertain what wildlife was being sold in local wet markets in Wuhan. The WHO's phase one team arrived and quarantined in Wuhan, Hubei, China in January 2021.
+Members of the team included Thea Fisher, John Watson, Marion Koopmans, Dominic Dwyer, Vladimir Dedkov, Hung Nguyen-Viet, Fabian Leendertz, Peter Daszak, Farag El Moubasher, and Ken Maeda. The team also included five WHO experts led by Peter Ben Embarek, two Food and Agriculture Organization representatives, and two representatives from the World Organisation for Animal Health.
+The inclusion of Peter Daszak in the team stirred controversy. Daszak is the head of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit that studies spillover events, and has been a longtime collaborator of over 15 years with Shi Zhengli, Wuhan Institute of Virology's director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases. While Daszak is highly knowledgeable about Chinese laboratories and the emergence of diseases in the area, his close connection with the WIV was seen by some as a conflict of interest in the WHO's study. When a BBC News journalist asked about his relationship with the WIV, Daszak said, "We file our papers, it's all there for everyone to see."
+
+== Findings ==
+In February 2021, after conducting part of their study, the WHO stated that the likely origin of COVID-19 was a zoonotic event from a virus circulating in bats, likely through another animal carrier, and that the time of transmission to humans was likely towards the end of 2019.
+The Chinese and the international experts who jointly carried out the WHO-convened study consider it "extremely unlikely" that COVID-19 leaked from a lab. No evidence of a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology was found by the WHO team, with team leader Peter Ben Embarek stating that it was "very unlikely" due to the safety protocols in place. During a 60 Minutes interview with Lesley Stahl, Peter Daszak, a member of the WHO team, described the investigation process to be a series of questions and answers between the WHO team and the Wuhan lab staff. Stahl made the comment that the team was "just taking their word for it", to which Daszak replied, "Well, what else can we do? There's a limit to what you can do and we went right up to that limit. We asked them tough questions. They weren't vetted in advance. And the answers they gave, we found to be believable—correct and convincing."
+The investigation also stated that transfer from animals to humans was unlikely to have occurred at the Huanan Seafood Market, since infections without a known epidemiological link were confirmed before the outbreak around the market. In an announcement that surprised some foreign experts, the joint investigation concluded that early transmission via the cold chain of frozen products was "possible".
+In March 2021, the WHO published a written report with the results of the study. The joint team stated that there are four scenarios for introduction:
+
+direct zoonotic transmission to humans (spillover), assessed as "possible to likely"
+introduction through an intermediate host followed by a spillover, assessed as "likely to very likely"
+introduction through the (cold) food chain, assessed as "possible"
+introduction through a laboratory incident, assessed as "extremely unlikely"
+The report mentions that direct zoonotic transmission to humans has a precedent, as most current human coronaviruses originated in animals. Zoonotic transmission is also supported by the fact that RaTG13 binds to hACE2, although the fit is not optimal.
+The investigative team noted the requirement for further studies, noting that these would "potentially increase knowledge and understanding globally."

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO-convened_Global_Study_of_Origins_of_SARS-CoV-2-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+title: "WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2"
+chunk: 2/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO-convened_Global_Study_of_Origins_of_SARS-CoV-2"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:18:33.719044+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== Reception ==
+WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom, who was not directly involved with the investigation, said he was ready to dispatch additional missions involving specialist experts and that further research was required. He said in a statement, "Some explanations may be more probable than others, but for now all possibilities remain on the table". He also said, "We have not yet found the source of the virus, and we must continue to follow the science and leave no stone unturned as we do." Tedros also called on China to provide "more timely and comprehensive data sharing" as part of future investigations.
+News outlets noted that though it was unrealistic to expect quick and huge results from the report, it "offered few clear-cut conclusions regarding the start of the pandemic", "failed to audit the Chinese official position at some parts of the report", and was "biased according to critics". Other scientists praised how the report details the pathways that can shed light on the origin, if explored later.
+After the publication of the report, politicians, talk show hosts, journalists, and some scientists advanced unsupported claims that SARS-CoV-2 may have come from the WIV. In the United States, calls to investigate a laboratory leak reached a "fever pitch", fueling aggressive rhetoric resulting in antipathy towards people of Asian ancestry, and the bullying of scientists. The United States, European Union, and 13 other countries criticised the WHO-convened study, calling for transparency from China and access to the raw data and original samples. Chinese officials described these criticisms as an attempt to politicise the study. Scientists involved in the WHO report, including Liang Wannian, John Watson, and Peter Daszak, objected to the criticism, and said that the report was an example of the collaboration and dialogue required to successfully continue investigations into the matter.
+In a letter published in Science, a number of scientists, including Ralph Baric, argued that the accidental laboratory leak hypothesis had not been sufficiently investigated and remained possible, calling for greater clarity and additional data. Their letter was criticized by some virologists and public health experts, who said that a "hostile" and "divisive" focus on the WIV was unsupported by evidence, and would cause Chinese scientists and authorities to share less, rather than more data.
+
+== Phase 2 ==
+On 27 May 2021, Danish epidemiologist Tina Fischer spoke on the This Week in Virology podcast, advocating for a second phase of the study to audit blood samples for COVID-19 antibodies in China. WHO-convened study team member Marion Koopmans, on that same broadcast, advocated for WHO member states to make a decision on the second phase of the study, though she also cautioned that an investigatory audit of the laboratory itself may be inconclusive. In early July 2021, WHO emergency chief Michael Ryan said the final details of phase 2 were being worked out in negotiations between WHO and its member states, as the WHO works "by persuasion" and cannot compel any member state (including China) to cooperate.
+In July 2021 China rejected WHO requests for greater transparency, cooperation, and access to data as part of Phase 2. On 16 July 2021, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian declared that China's position was that future investigations should be conducted elsewhere and should focus on cold chain transmission and the US military's labs. On 22 July 2021, the Chinese government held a press conference in which Zeng Yixin, Vice Health Minister of the National Health Commission (NHC), said that China would not participate in a second phase of the WHO's investigation, denouncing it as "shocking" and "arrogant". He elaborated "In some aspects, the WHO's plan for next phase of investigation of the coronavirus origin doesn't respect common sense, and it's against science. It's impossible for us to accept such a plan."
+
+== See also ==
+Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
+Scientific Advisory Group for Origins of Novel Pathogens
+World Health Organization's response to the COVID-19 pandemic
+
+== References ==