Talk:SETI Institute

Copied text

I am new to editing Wikipedia, how do I get the "stub" removed from the article? --DZule (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This page appears to be a copyright violation of www.seti.org. Before removing stub tags, please clarify the copyright position, otherwise it may be speedily deleted at short notice for this reason. --Karenjc 23:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted DZule's edits. Feel free to add original text to the article, but don't copy from copyrighted sources. Adam McMaster (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am an employee of the SETI Institute, and charged with the update and maintenance of SETI Institute information. What is the process to prove I am who I say I am, and insure that the SETI Institute maintains an accurate Wikipedia presence? Thanks for your help! --DZule (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the process for proving your identity, but if you can add a GFDL notice to the relevant pages on the Institute web site then that should be enough. Please also see WP:COI. Adam McMaster (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Interwikis

What a mess. It has almost the same interwikis as Search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Institute and the project is quite different. --kwan-in (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed. --Shureg (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Gov't funded?

Was SETI once funded by the feds? This article suggests as much: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/05/01/the-cost-of-seti-infographic/ Kortoso (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, SETI research was partly funded by the US government many years ago - but not directly funding the SETI Institute. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not true. Look at SETIs 990 for 2014, page 10 (page 9 in the original) (http://pdfs.citizenaudit.org/2014_09_EO/94-2951356_990_201309.pdf) Tell me how that's not gov't funding. It's 79% of their income. For a "Charter Associate of the SETI Institute", you don't know much about it, David. Fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.182.171 (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh please 99.140.182.171, check the dates first regarding the question. You do yourself no favors by your attitude, unregistered status and not signing your "contribution". Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The quality of the Poster's comment may be low, but that lowness is not a function of registration status nor of signage. Those are other issues altogether. You do yourself no favors by your Us vs Outsiders paradigm.

You haven't mentioned the tax return. Did you read it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.182.171 (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it. I really don't see your point. What Kortoso and I were talking about was the situation some years ago, not the present. What is wrong with you - you can't even sign your "contributions", cannot even be civil, or even create an account - instead hiding behind an anon IP address? As far as I'm am concerned, your query has been answered and this correspondence is closed. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, David, I take your point, and apologize for jumping to conclusions (with attitude). You were talking about the SETI _searches_, not ALL of their projects, which, I think, is a much smaller portion of SETIs total income. I stand corrected. I fully intend to 'sign up' soon, as time permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.188.236 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, here are some facts:

http://openseti.org/Budget.html

What with Yuri Milner's new funding of SETI programs in general, this info (current SETI Inst budget) will, I suspect, be sought by Wikipedia readers. Kortoso (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Link to CSETI article removed for invalid reason

I just added a link to the Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CSETI) under the See also section. The link was removed with the motivation "The SETI Institute does not support UFO groups". I think there must have been some misunderstanding; the links in the See also section do not have to be supported by whatever the article is about. I'm therefore restoring the link. —Kri (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You should realise that the SETI Institute is a professional scientific organisation, the Center for the Study of Extraterrestial Intelligence is not and has been criticized by the serious SETI community for their poor research and fringe theories - read the Wikipedia articles. The link is therefore deleted. David J Johnson (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Another point. You state that "the links in the see also section do not have to be supported by whatever the article is about", by that logic virtually anything could be in the see also section. The section should be about topics that are associated with the article.

Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Simplifying lede?

The SETI Institute is a not-for-profit research organization incorporated in 1984 whose mission is to explore, understand, and explain the origin and nature of life in the universe, and to use this knowledge to inspire and guide present and future generations. It aims for discovery and for sharing knowledge as scientific ambassadors to the public, the press, and the government.

This entire second sentence ("It aims…”) seems superfluous and awkwardly constructed.
Of course a science nonprofit wants to "discover" things and "share" them; why else would it exist, and why would it share with only one or two of the three sectors this mentions? And "scientific ambassadors"—what does that add, other than an unnecessarily flowery term evoking images of people in red sashes and monicles? I haven't presumed remove it, but the lede is most effective when it's clear, direct and trimmed of fat. Please consider. – AndyFielding (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)