You also have to understand that Wikipedia is not PRIMARY source of information. One of the basic rules is "no original research". Whatever you want to be stated in Wikipedia it must be said and proved elsewhere, so that a source of information can be given. Your own interpretation is not allowed.

Even if it is the best interpretation in the world then Wikipedia is not the place to publish it. Write a peer-reviewed article or a book first, publish it, and then that information can be used, because a reviewed source can be given.

Please note that although being very frustrating, the system actually works reasonably well.

And yes, I am a Wikipedia contributor as well, and I get frustrated with editing it too.

Hi Cyril,

The way I see, Wikipedia is a compilation of popular wisdom, rather than a true space for fruitful discussion of several topics in electronic/electronic engineering. That's exactly why I am constantly encouraging my students to use Wikipedia only as a first approach. That is, if you have no idea about one specific topic, then, you should use Wikipedia. But, If you want to go deeper about that topic, then, you must look for more reliable sources of information.

just an opinion...

Cyril, nobody is perfect. Take it easy. Focus on positive (rather than negative) moments and you will feel better. Trust me.

Yes, Erick... Wikipedia is a huge collection of a common knowledge presented in a popular form; so, as you said, It is extremely useful for getting started. I do not know exactly what are motives (objective or situational) Google to put Wikipedia pages at the first place in its list... but it is a fact and we are almost compelled first to click them...

Sergej, you are right - nobody (I especially:) is perfect. I share your "think positive!" philosophy and try to obey it... and the RG discussions help me very much... Wikipedia is largely experienced suffering for me and now I am more an observer than a participant in this endeavor...

But I can not stay indifferent to what is happening in Wikipedia, and especially to what I created there with much enthusiasm and hard work on time... So, I have a wonderful idea - instead of telling in a boring way what is and what is not Wikipedia, just to show it in a real time to you... This idea came to me this morning when I saw in my WP watchlist (the attached picture below) that it starts the systematic deletion of one of my first Wikipedia pages (about the current-to-voltage converter). We have the unique opportunity to see how this will be done in time ... and the thrill is that we do not know exactly how it would happen, we can only guess ...

Here is a little history... In July 24, 2006, I found this page in the following state:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&oldid=65586298

At this time, I had a good notion about the topic. I had already created two stories about the transimpedance amplifier on my site of circuit-fantasia.com

http://www.circuit-fantasia.com/circuit_stories/inventing_circuits/active_i-to-v_converter/active_i-to-v_converter.htm

http://www.circuit-fantasia.com/circuit_stories/inventing_circuits/transimpedance_amplifier/transimpedance_amplifier.htm,

and even I had exposed my view as a comment below the Bob Pease's EDN article

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255961049_Transimpedance_amplifier_(my_comments_to_Bob_Peases_EDN_article)

So, I began to expose my philosophy in the article. Wikipedians (especially English natural speakers) would help me, I naively thought; so I should only briefly outline the fundamental ideas behind the famous circuit. Inspired by the Bob Pease's hand-drawn picture, I also began drawing my pictures in the same impressive manner; Wikipedians should help me (this was the great Wikipedia collaboration idea, I thought again) by redrawing them with a professional graphical editor... See what I wrote in the talk page then

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Current-to-voltage_converter

"Of course, my insertions need improving by a native English speaker(s). I have realized that I have only roughly exposed the topic. I promise you that I will assist you (in return for your editorial help), if you ever decide to join the BG Wikipedia :) Circuit-fantasist 11:06 am, 12 August 2006, Saturday (7 years, 2 months, 28 days ago) (UTC+3)"

But as you probably guess, excluding the Wikipedian "Light current" (now banned from editing Wikipedia and blocked indefinitely)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Light_current,

no one helped me... and I had myself to finish this story... it became in April 2007:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&oldid=119657926

After I abandoned Wikipedia in 2007, I created three similar stories in Wikibooks:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Circuit_Idea/Passive_Current-to-Voltage_Converter

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Circuit_Idea/Op-amp_Inverting_Current-to-Voltage_Converter

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Circuit_Idea/Op-amp_Inverting_Current-to-Voltage_Converter_Visualized\

Three months ago, I also asked a question about the ubiquitous transimpedance amplifier here, in ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_any_connection_between_the_humble_resistor_and_the_transimpedance_amplifier_What_does_the_op-amp_really_do_in_this_electronic_circuit

Data Transimpedance amplifier (my comments to Bob Pease’s EDN article)

Thus you already know the pre-history of this suffering Wikipedia page...It is interesting to see what happens now...

The main "actor" in this "noble initiative" (I continue repeating the Sergei's advice, "Think positive!" again and again:) is Zen-in. Wikipedians (excluding me) stay anonymous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zen-in

If you look at his contribution page

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20140101000000&limit=500&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=Zen-in&namespace=,

you will find that 99.9999999% of his scanty 693 edits are simply removals of my (Circuit dreamer) edits. For comparison, almost all of my 7484 Wikipedia edits are (were) creative insertions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Circuit_dreamer

Now look at the history page to see what our "hero" did a few hours ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&action=history

See the first row where it is writen:

(cur | prev) 05:22, November 6, 2013‎ Zen-in (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (20,264 bytes) (-973)‎ . . (rm unreferenced and speculative section on multimeter)

His comment (in the brackets on the right) means, "I have removed unreferenced and speculative section on multimeter". To see what he has removed, click "prev" and the two versions (the present and the previous) will appear on the screen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&diff=prev&oldid=580400197

As you can see, he has removed the entire section about the so important circuit application - making a compound ammeter by connecting a voltmeter in parallel to a pasive curent-to-voltage converter (simply, a resistor)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&oldid=580268829#I-to-V_converter_acting_as_an_input_device

And why he has removed it? Because it was "unreferenced and speculative"?!?! It turned out I should reference the humble Ohm's resistor?!?!? To put a link to the famous Ohm's work?

https://archive.org/details/galvaniccircuit00lockgoog

And where is the speculation here?

Now we have just to wait patiently for a response from the "mere mortal" Wikipedians:) and their protectors - Wikipedia administrators... Whether they will restore the page? Or will silently watch as they (he) destroy(s) it? We will see... Every day we will check the history page to see what will happen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&action=history

Can you predict the result? I can... But whatever it is, we will eventually place it in the talk page of Jimmy Wales

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales

... accompanied with a link to our discussion... to give him a feedback what (electronics) Wikipedia is inside...

With regard to your question about "why does Google put Wikipedia at first place in its results list?", I think the answer is related to what I said to you above. Perhaps, Wikipedians are more interested on availability of information, rather than on quality and/or reliability. If this is so, then, when you "google" negative resistance (as an example), you will always get wikipedia at the top of the list. However, it does not mean that the top result is the best one, but the most accessible for the masses (i.e. those who have absolutely no idea about what is a negative...).

And I agree with Sergei, we need to focus on positive aspects. I truly understand your situation and, perhaps, we could learn something about all you went through.

Best regards!

Thank you, Erick for the well balanced comment! I hope that you, Sergei and others here will not accept my idea to take a look inside the "kitchen" of Wikipedia from her bad side... rather it would orient its visitors how to become active participants in it... For this purpose, I show in detail specific activities (links to Wikipedia resources) that Wikipedians should perform...

My story is very indicative because it shows the attitude of this great web community to people with a pronounced creative thinking. There is definitely a problem and it needs to be solved; these people need to be integrated in some way in this society, because it benefits from them...

Dear Dr. Cyrill Merchkov, Wikipedia is a semi-database. The people get quick information from that.

I respect your feelings and admire of your contribution and depth about Wikipedia..

You also have to understand that Wikipedia is not PRIMARY source of information. One of the basic rules is "no original research". Whatever you want to be stated in Wikipedia it must be said and proved elsewhere, so that a source of information can be given. Your own interpretation is not allowed.

Even if it is the best interpretation in the world then Wikipedia is not the place to publish it. Write a peer-reviewed article or a book first, publish it, and then that information can be used, because a reviewed source can be given.

Please note that although being very frustrating, the system actually works reasonably well.

And yes, I am a Wikipedia contributor as well, and I get frustrated with editing it too.

I had a similar bad experience when I tried to collaborate with the spanish version of the wikipedia. Some editors only copy information from other pages. Also some editors make modifications according to the public tendency and distort some topics. I finally advise to my students not to trust wikipedia entirely and try to compare the information with other sources.

Thank you for the so valuable and brilliant general thoughts about Wikipedia and its inhabitants - Wikipedians. I will Ieave you (both WP readers and contributors... and why not Wikipedia administrators?) to discuss common problems of Wikipedia... but I will continue developing my unique "real-time experiment" in the "kitchen" of the electronics Wikipedia page about current-to-voltage converter (the so-called "transimpedance amplifier"). I want to invite experts in this area (Lutz, David, Ismat, Abdelhalim, Tolga, Erik... and many others...) to take a position on the content of the material... but also I have an appeal to non-specialists (especially educators) to make some effort to understand it... since it will help understanding common problems of Wikipedia... It is not so hard since, as you will see, I have written it for humans, not for computers:)

It's time to see what happened four days ago in the Wikipedia page about the current-to-voltage converter after the removal of the so useful text about the widespread use of the device as a current input of digital multimeters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&diff=prev&oldid=580400197

A little clarification on wiki technology: On the upper part of the screen you see only the changed part of the page in its source form written in a Wikimarkup (a kind of a simplified html): the old - on the left; the new - on the right. In the lower part of the page you see the new page (after the removal) as it will be displayd by your browser. Here is a copy of the removed text:

"----------------- I-to-V converter acting as an input device ------------------

Compound ammeter: Today's measuring instruments (DVMs, analog-to-digital converters, etc.) are mainly voltmeters. If there is a need to measure a current, a simple current-to-voltage converter (a shunt resistor) is connected before the voltmeter (see the attached figure). This ammeter is a composed device consisting of two components:

Compound ammeter = Current-to-voltage converter + voltmeter

The shunt resistor of a composed ammeter acts as a current-to-voltage converter.

Although the active version is the perfect current measurement solution, the popular multimeters use the passive version to measure big currents (see the section about power considerations below)."

This was the text removed as "unreferenced and speculative"...

After such a "vandalism" (a great problem for the encyclopedia), Wikipedians and administrators should immediately react and restore the removed text since they see the intervention in their watchlists as I saw it in my list four days ago (the attached picture below). Then let's look at the history page to see if they did it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&action=history

Alas, there is no any response either from Wikipedians or from administrators:( What do we do then?

If I was in Wikipedia, I would immediately recover the deleted text. But I am banished ("topic banned") from Wikipedia. So, I can't do it (I can but after that I will be blocked what is even greater "punishment").

Only imagine the absurd situation in which I fallen - I am the author who actually created this page... it is subject of vandalism... all (both Wikpedians and administrators) look impassively... only I want to recover it... but I have no right to do it... What do you advise me to do?

You need to understand, that Wikipedia "administrators" do not carry any greater power than any other editors. The "administrators" are only there to do a "cleaning" job - they have rights to delete and undelete pages, block vandalising users, etc. But they do NOT have any greater knowledge, so they can't judge the scientific or technical input. And if a given statement is not referenced, then the "accusation" is unfortunately valid.

Please note that there is no reason to undelete this. Was there a reference for this statement given? No. So if there is no reference, then it might be as well a personal opinion of the editing person. If you want this content to stay there, you can add it, and support with several references to the construction of multimeters, to datasheets, to books, etc.

Example - "...the popular multimeters ...". What is meant by "popular"? Popular how? Among the users or the designers of the multimeters? Do you have a book or an article really stating this? If so, add that source and there will be no problem.

To avoid frustration I would strongly advise to first learn more about the rules and recommendations - and only then edit. And one of the first ones to read would be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACiting_sources

closely followed by:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch

Do not be angry with those, who need to do a very tedious and painstaking job at keeping things tidy. If you work within the rules you will avoid frustration of yourself, as well as those who do a great job of running the Wikipedia as it is.

Stan... but this is exactly the Ohm's law in its second form V = I.R... this is a humble resistor... what to quote here? Do we need to quote any trivial thing? Then Wikipedia pages will be filled with thousands of links...

Quote Cyril: „I want to invite experts in this area (Lutz, David, Ismat, Abdelhalim, Tolga, Erik... and many others...) to take a position on the content of the material.“

Well Cyril, I cannot comment on Wikipedia`s administrative and publishing rules, but you have asked for some technical comments to your contribution as contained in

http://www.researchgate.net/go.Deref.html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DCurrent-to-voltage_converter%26diff%3Dprev%26oldid%3D580400197

Here are my comments:

* Your Explanation to Fig. 2:

“..the voltage drop Vr is created not by the resistor; it is created by the excitation voltage source inside the input current source“

My understanding of this sentence is as follows: The sentence implies that physically spoken, each source that we call „current source“ consists in reality of a voltage source in combination with a sufficiently high internal resistance

(static or dynamic).

Is my understanding of your claim correct?

In this case, I fully agree to this explanation of the physical background of a current source.

*This view immediately leads to Fig. 11 where this internal resistance is shown (Ri).

For my opinion, this figure again demonstrates clearly that the voltage Vout is NOT created by the current but by the originating voltage source Vin (in accordance with the above quoted explanation to Fig. 2).

With other words:

The voltage source Vin creates a current through a series combination of two resistors (Ri and R) and the voltage across R (Vout) results simply from voltage division between both resistors (voltage divider rule).

To my understanding, the following general rule applies:

A current through a resistor is not the cause (physically) of the voltage across the resistor. We can use the current to calculate the voltage drop (Ohms law), however, the cause is the current driving voltage - even in case of a so called „current source“.

Wikipedia is a beautiful idea, but only in a platonic sense. It's free to use, and everybody can edit, so it's sort of bound to get progressively better, right? Well, no. The principal problem is the human component of the system is poorly accounted for, excepting the proclaimed egalitarity of access (which turns out to be a fiction anyway).

The original post effectively confirms this. The wikibook is sort of opposite of wikipedia article, w/r to the ideology/philosophy, after all.

Oh Lutz... it's lucky that you come here... With people like you (that read, think, understand, discuss, suggest circuit ideas... and appreciate else's ideas just because they have their own ideas) I will always get along... As I said, I will refrain from general conclusions regarding Wikipedia to prevent common conversations as above. Instead, I will try to show a piece of the truth about Wikipedia in a "real time" by working on-line in Wikipedia resources (articles, talk pages, user pages...). Of course, it is difficult for me since, as I said above, I have no right to edit whatever in Wikipedia electronics section (not only articles but imagine even talk pages!) I have written a lot of these articles but I can't edit them... You can edit them, David, Ismat, Abdelhalim, Tolga, Erik can edit them... my students can edit them... even my 8-year-old grandson can edit them:)... everyone can edit them... but I can't... this is the sorry situation...

But let's return to these great circuit ideas... Well, first I will comment your insertion... but then, will you let me tell the whole story about this topic... to show what I created then in Wikipedia?

"I have no right to edit whatever in Wikipedia electronics section"

What has happened? Why you are not allowed to edit?

Lutz... I prefer to talk about great circuit ideas... but if you really what to know, here is the end of this sorry story (click on the link "show" on the right end of the green fields to expand the window and to see the most interesting details):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive716#Circuit_dreamer_and_his_disruptive_editing

By the way, this happened after that unfortunate discussion about the Wien bridge oscillator (you know it) where I tried to reveal how sine oscillations arise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wien_bridge_oscillator#Some_intuitive_explanations

(it was the "appreciation" to my efforts)... Thank you for the support. Cyril

About my explanations to Fig. 2 (the attached picture below)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current-to-voltage_converter#Electrical_domain:_Current_causes_voltage

Here I have shown that we can create a voltage (drop) Vr by passing a current I through a resistor R (Vr = I.R) and to eliminate any misunderstandings, I have added that “the voltage drop Vr is created not by the resistor; it is created by the excitation voltage source inside the input current source“. Someone can think this is obvious but then I will recommend to him/her our discussion about voltage drop and voltage to see how complex are the simplest things in electricity:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_voltage_drop_and_what_voltage_How_are_they_related_What_is_common_and_what_is_different_between_them

You probably remember my animated story about the current-to-voltage converter:

http://www.circuit-fantasia.com/collections/circuit-collection/circuits/old-circuits/i-to-v-old.html

Your understanding of this sentence that "each source that we call 'current source' consists in reality of a voltage source in combination with a sufficiently high internal resistance" is sooner about the dual arrangement - voltage-to-current converter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voltage-to-current_converter&oldid=363421336#The_basic_idea_behind_the_passive_version

As you can see, in 2007 I started and created another "symmetrical" story about the dual voltage-to-current converter. It lasted three years and finally the whole page was sent into oblivion by another "evil" but clever "wikigenius". His trick was just an "elegant simplicity" - he simply redirected it to another page about transconductance; see the top line in the history page of the former voltage-to-current converter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voltage-to-current_converter&action=history

Now, if someone writes "voltage-to-current converter" in the Wikipedia search window, he/she will be redirected to the transconductance page that is awful (something like "mishmash"). Try it by clicking the link below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage-to-current_converter

Of course, then I created Wikibooks (contra-Wikipedia:) stories about the passive and active versions of the voltage-to-current converter

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Circuit_Idea/Passive_Voltage-to-Current_Converter

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Circuit_Idea/Op-amp_Inverting_Voltage-to-Current_Converter

... in addition to the existing circuit-fantasia animated story :

http://www.circuit-fantasia.com/collections/circuit-collection/circuits/old-circuits/v-to-i-old.html

And as one of the purposes of this question was to show the moral of Wikipedians and Wikpedia administrators, let's see the discussion at the end of the talk page of the voltage-to-current converter article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Voltage-to-current_converter#This_page_needs_to_be_removed

There, I was compelled to say these unpleasant things to this "evil genius":

"You have boasted of your famous tutors at university. Well, it is wonderful that they were teaching perfectly circuit analysis to their alumni. But it would be also very well if they were showing concepts behind circuits and finally, if they were bringing up some elementary human ethics to them. Because, if you had such morals, when encountering a mind that excels (in some respect) yours, you would not consider his/her success as your unsuccess; you would not destroy else's creations or (worse) instigate stupidity and mediocrity to do this and then enjoy seeing the results... You would try to rise to his/her level instead to pull down him/her to your level; you would admire his/her achievements; you would join and improve them (what is the great Wikipedia idea); you would be wikipedian, not the opposite. If you respect the elementary Wikipedia ethics, you would restore the link to the most popular op-amp Miller integrator or current integrator in the Miller effect page that you have removed absolutely intentionally."

You can see the result at the bottom of the page:

"I've skipped all the ad hominem material in your reply... in summary:

this article is not written in an encyclopaedic fashion.

a network that takes a voltage input and presents a current output is, by definition, a transconductance. We do not need two articles on the same topic, so my suggestion is to redirect to the transconductance article, as it's better-written. Any material that can be salvaged from this article should be merged there!

linking to your Wikibooks modules is still inappropriate, for reasons that I've explained previously.

Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 2:16 pm, 22 May 2010, Saturday (3 years, 5 months, 21 days ago) (UTC+3)"

Now, more than three years later, I would ask, "What is salvaged from my article? Where is it to see?"

Hi Cyril - what shall I say?

I had a look in some of the links as referenced by you - but I must confess that I was a bit confused. Of course, I couldn`t read all the text and it was not always clear to me what the problem was. However, now I understand better the reason behind some of your questions you have raised here in the RG forum (Wien oscillator, negative resistance, Miller effect,...). Regarding the Wien oscillator, I have the feeling that still there is no common agreement about

* the question "why does it really oscillate", and

* about the role of the amplitude control mechanism (tungsten lamp, NTC thermistor).

I think, in this context it is also important to find an answer to the question "why does a circuit NOT oscillate - although it fulfills the oscillation criterion (Barkhausen)"?

Well Lutz, I see... But the "edit war" below would be very interesting to you since it was about the ubiquitous Miller effect and its most typical (useful) application - the op-amp inverting integrator (it even bears his name - "Miller integrator"). As you can see, three times I added a link to this application (in another Wikipedia article)... and three times it was removed by this "internal Wikipedia vandal"... and what is more interesting, it was becoming in the presence of the reputable administrator Spinningspark... Then I added a link to the charge amplifier (capacitive current integrator, i.e. a pure Miller integrator) and it was removed ("rm" in the brackets) as well...

--------------------------------------------------------------

22:26, May 10, 2010‎ Circuit dreamer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,456 bytes) (+80)‎ . . (→‎See also: Adding a link to a related Wikipedia article about an op-amp implementation of Miller integrator (an op-amp inverting integrator is a Miller integrator))

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller_effect&oldid=361340354#See_also

--------------------------------------------------------------

01:15, May 11, 2010‎ Zen-in (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,376 bytes) (-80)‎ . . (rm unrelated reference)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller_effect&oldid=361369106#See_also

--------------------------------------------------------------

01:37, May 11, 2010‎ Circuit dreamer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,456 bytes) (+80)‎ . . (→‎See also: Restoring a link (an op-amp inverting integrator is exactly a Miller integrator; see the talk))

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller_effect&oldid=361372610#See_also

--------------------------------------------------------------

03:19, May 11, 2010‎ Zen-in (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,376 bytes) (-80)‎ . . (rm unrelated link)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller_effect&oldid=361389136#See_also

--------------------------------------------------------------

22:46, May 11, 2010‎ Circuit dreamer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,561 bytes) (+80)‎ . . (Restoring a link pointing to the most popular op-amp implementation of the Miller integrator)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller_effect&oldid=361545613#See_also

--------------------------------------------------------------

22:53, May 11, 2010‎ Circuit dreamer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,584 bytes) (+23)‎ . . (→‎See also: Adding a link to a related Wikipedia article about an op-amp implementation of the Miller integrator (a current integrator, or a charge amplifier, is exactly a Miller integrator))

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller_effect&oldid=361546834#See_also

--------------------------------------------------------------

03:11, May 12, 2010‎ Zen-in (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,928 bytes) (-80)‎ . . (rm unrelated reference)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller_effect&oldid=361590180#See_also

It is still interesting to see what were the reasons оf our "hero" for deletion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miller_effect#Op-Amp_Integrator_and_HF_transistor_stages

Only see... "I removed the link to op-amp integrators that was put here because it isn't relevant. The Miller effect, as it applies to junction capacitances in transistor stages, affects the HF roll-off of an amplifier. An op-amp integrator is a VLF (actually quasi-DC) circuit. There is very little in common between the two. Zen-in (talk) 4:36 am, 11 May 2010, Tuesday (3 years, 6 months, 4 days ago) (UTC+3)"

Finally I gave up and now there is neither of the two links... I managed to salvage only the link to the Miller theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_effect#See_also

Lutz, you are an expert in this field... and we have discussed this topic many times... What do you think now about Wikipedians and their administrators "wielding" this page? In this connection, I have a suggestion to you - if you think that these two links (about the "RC Miller integrator" and the "C Miller integrator") are closely related to the Miller effect... and you are bold enough, to restore them... I will show how to do it (this is the smallest problem)...

It will be a noble mission since we will give a chance to visitors writing "Miller effect" in the Google window

https://www.google.com/search?client=aff-maxthon-newtab&channel=t2&q=this%20is%20the%20smallest%20problem#channel=t2&q=Miller%20effect&safe=off

... and seeing the Wikipedia page about Miller effect at the first place in the Google list (before the next about 200,000,000 pages), to know that there is some relationship between the Miller effect and Miller integrator:) Thus, by using this "stimulus - response" technique, we will test the alertness and reflexes of the "wikiguardians" of this page:)

Best regards, Cyril

Because there is no response to my suggestion I started to doubt of my own rightness... Is there really a connection between Miller effect and Miller integrator? Lest I see something that does not actually exist?

I keep guessing... Lest you to experience problems with editing in Wikipedia? Here's how simple it is.

1. Open the page about Miller effect and go to the "See also" section

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_effect#See_also

2. Click [edit] on the right and you will enter the text editor

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller_effect&action=edit§ion=8

There you will see a lonely link pointing to Miller theorem:

* [[Miller theorem]]

The syntax of such an internal Wikipedia link is simple: "*" introduses a bullet and the name of the Wikipedia article is enclosed in double brackets. So you should write (before or after the existing link) this line

* [[Operational amplifier applications#Inverting integrator]]

3. You can also add a link to another op-amp integrator page

* [[Op amp integrator]]

4. ... and of course, to the page about current integrator (charge amplifier)

* [[Charge amplifier]]

After that, you would be an (anonimous) Wikpedian! It was so simple! Of course, you can register to become a real Wikipedian...

Oh, I only forget to say that it is preferable to write some short summary in the window at the bottom of the editor page where to explain in a few words (e.g., " Added related links") why you have placed these links in the "See also" section. You can see an example in the attached picture below.

Quote: "Is there really a connection between Miller effect and Miller integrator"

Hi Cyril - if I am not wrong, I think we have discussed this item some time ago, didn`t we?"

I have no motivation to read the whole "Miller story" in Wikipedia and, thus, I cannot comment on the various views which there are presented.

I only can repeat my opinion:

There is not only a "connection" but the Miller integrator is the visual demonstration of the Miller effect.

Explanation:

We all know that a simple passive RC lowpass can act (with a slight phase error) as an integrator for frequencies far beyond the frequency w=1/RC.

Thus, for practical applications the time constant RC should be as large as possible.

What is the capacitance at the inverting input node of the Miller integrator?

According to the Miller effect it is

Cin=(1+AOL); AOL=open-loop gain of the opamp.

Thus, at this node we have a lowpass function with a very large time constant (very low cut-off frequency), which means: An excellent integrating device - unfortunately with a very small amplitude (due to the large capacitance).

However, the voltage at this node is (inverted) available also at the output of the opamp - amplified by AOL. That`s all.

I don`t understand why anybody can doubt if there is a connection between both terms or not.

Of course, Lutz! Well that you wrote these words to distract my doubts about the relation between the two great things assosiated with John Milton Miller - the idea and the implementation...

Now only remains some young, brave and "revolutionary" man who does not put up with injustices in this world, to add these useful links... to give a chance to thousands of Wikipedia visitors to see the relationship between the great Miller idea and its ubiquitous implementation...

But let's now see what happens with the long-suffering Wikipedia page about current-to-voltage converter... Oooo.... there is news - the history page shows that its "improvement " (i.e., "annihilation":) continues unabated

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&curid=30862800&action=history

What was removed now? Aha... the very basic and fundamental (nonelectrical) idea behind Ohm's law (V = I.R)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&diff=581300125&oldid=581289176

In 2002, I dedicated an animated story about it (click "Analogies" and "General idea" on the left)

http://www.circuit-fantasia.com/collections/circuit-collection/circuits/old-circuits/i-to-v-old.html

Let's see the removed text:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&diff=prev&oldid=581289176#The_basic_idea_behind_the_passive_version

"--------------- Non-electrical domain: Flow causes pressure ----------------

In physical terms, there are many situations where a pressure-like quantity induces flow of a substance through an impediment. However, there are also corresponding situations where a flow-like quantity induces pressure at an impediment: mechanical (if one tries to stop a moving car with his body, the "flowing" car exerts pressure on him, the impediment), pneumatic (pinch a hose in the middle and you will see that a pressure appears at the pinch point).

In this arrangement, the flow-, pressure-, and impediment-like attributes are interrelated. Usually, the output pressure-like variable is proportional to the input flow-like one; in this way, the flow-like quantity creates (is converted to) a pressure-like one.

To induce pressure, an impediment must be put in the way of a flowing quantity."

Hmmm... there is a Bulgarian proverb ("Докато умните се намъдруват, лудите се налудуват") very suitable for this case... I do not know exactly how to translate it into English... but let's try: "While the sages are speculating, the insane manage to romp":)...

I have found Wikipedia only useful for a general introduction, and for finding references.

Too many of their detailed stuff is wrong. The people in charge are not experts and tend to keep the whatever they think is 'plausible' , whether it is right or wrong.

I have found so many mistakes that I have given up correcting them.

Yes, I think so... Wikipedians are primarily editors that convey and collect else's knowledge... they are like "bees" that collect else's "honey" in the "hive" of Wikipedia:) and make it easy for consumption... or like "ants" who collect "crumbs" in the "hive" named Wikipedia:)... It is interesting to see why they do that... it is obvious they still have some reasons to do so. I myself have often tried to figure out why I was doing it when I was initially a lot of trouble and afflictions... and I think I know why... In the same way now I ask myself why bother with such activity in RG:) and I think I know why...

Perhaps Wikipedia, being some kind of society, is of interest to sociologists and psychologists, and they have done thorough investigations in this direction...

Very interesting... so many views... but so few responses...

I tried to add some sourced and referenced information to the page about a New Zealand politician. First it was deleted, saying I hadn't given references. I re-added it, with a reference, and it was deleted again, saying it wasn't referenced. The third time this happened, I gave up. It caused me to lose a bit of faith in wikipedia, because it was almost as if she had a PR person from her office checking the page and preventing publication of anything except praise.

I am happy to report that I did not have this problem when I added some biographical material about Dan Walls.

The reason Wikipedians require so many quotations is not that it is so vital for the article itself and its readers (they came here to find knowledge rather than redirect elsewhere)... The reason is that Wikipedians can not judge whether it is true or not because they do not understand the heart of the matter... they know but do not understand it what is something quite different... They need someone else (reputable enough) to tell them "yes" or "no". And that really makes sense when the matter is sufficiently complex and ambiguous ... and it is quite normal to seek support in better professionals... The funny thing is though when they require a citation for something so clear, plain and trivial that person without any erudition relying only on his/her human intuition and common sense can understand...

For example, five years were not enough to explain to the inhabitants of the Negative resistance page that there is nothing supernatural and mystical in a negative resistance circuit (a "negative resistor")... that it is just a dynamic voltage source (the blue ballon in the attached picture)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Negative_resistance#There_is_NO_negative_resistance.2C_only_.22negative_differential_resistance.22_.28NDR.29

... and that it consists only of two elements in series (the blue ballon in the attached picture) - a resistor R and a variable voltage source 2VR (an amplifier with a gain of 2)... so the result is a negative resistor producing a voltage VR... Here is such a hot discussion in which it came right up to insults:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Negative_resistance#There_is_NO_negative_resistance.2C_only_.22negative_differential_resistance.22_.28NDR.29

If this clear, simple and obvious idea needs to be cited? To cite a network of two elements in series? To place a link to KVL (VR - 2VR = -VR)?

But if this humble idea was accepted, it could be used to explain the voltage-inversion NIC (VNIC) in the sterile Wikipedia article about negative impedance converter...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_impedance_converter

In the attached picture that represents a VNIC, the op-amp acts as the doubling voltage source above - it produces an output voltage that is two times higher than the voltage drop across the upper resistor R... and ads this voltage to the exciting input voltage (inside the input current source)...

Once seen and accepted, this extremely simple idea (resistor and voltage source in series) can be seen in and used to explain all op-amp inverting circuits, e.g. the ubiquitous transimpedance amplifier in the long-suffering Wikipedia page about the current-to-voltage converter...

Can someone deny that the op-amp acts here just like a negative resistor? That it adds an "antivoltage" -VOUT = R.I to the voltage drop VR = R.I across the resistor R bringing to a zero voltage result (virtual ground)? Should we cite this arrangement - a resistor and a voltage source (an op-amp output) in series?

Hmm... still there is no reaction to the "internal Wikipedia vandalism" in the article about the current-to-voltage converter... Maybe it's time to warn the "Wikipedia remover" to stop vandalizing? Well, let's try... although I can guess the result... and it will be even surprising for you... but yet let's see more about Wikipedians and their manners...

To realize our intention, we first open his user page...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zen-in

... then click the tab "edit this page" at the top...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zen-in&action=edit

and place the text below at the end of the page (you will see it since I have already written it there and, of course, if he has not already deleted it):

----------------------------------------------------------------------

A few days ago, I saw that you began to systematically destroy my edits in the Current-to-voltage article: first, you deleted the whole section about the so important passive application - building an ammeter by a voltmeter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&diff=prev&oldid=580400197

Then, you deleted the section about the fundamental (nonelectrical) idea behind the I-to-V converter what was actually the Ohm's law idea (V = I.R):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&diff=581300125&oldid=581289176

I want to remind you that the big Wikipedia idea was to improve already written, not to destroy it and start again from the very beginning... I do not claim that what I wrote then is the most perfect, but I assert that it was true and explained things well. See my appeal to you and other Wikipedians written by me 7 years ago in the beginning of the talk page (above the contents):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Current-to-voltage_converter

"Of course, my insertions need improving by a native English speaker(s). I have realized that I have only roughly exposed the topic. I promise you that I will assist you (in return for your editorial help), if you ever decide to join the BG Wikipedia :) Circuit-fantasist 11:06 am, 12 August 2006, Saturday (7 years, 3 months, 6 days ago) (UTC+3)"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, we sign our notification by writing "~~~~" at the end of the text (the Wiki software will convert them into a personal text), add a short summary ("New section: About your last removals in Current-to-voltage converter"), and click the button "Save" at the botom... Here is the result:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zen-in#About_your_last_removals_in_Current-to-voltage_converter

Now we just have to wait for his reaction (believe me, it will be instant)...

In response to Cyril Mechkov. You have misquoted a phrase. It should be "you can't see the wood from the trees".

Thank you Robin for the responce; I have corrected the quote. Nice to see that there is some reaction to what is written...

Now let's see if there is a response to our notice to stop the destruction of the current-to-voltage converter article. Here is his user-talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zen-in

But where is our text? It has dissapeared... imagine it is deleted from the recipient! Here is how such sort of "Wikipedians" talk to each other... and how they solve the problems - "there was a text - there was a problem; no text - no problem":) Here is what I meant telling you that you will be surprised... and my predictions have come true...

But one of the wonderful features of Wikipedia is that it preserves the history of everything written there... So we open his user-talk history page

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zen-in&action=history

... we see what he has created...

(cur | prev) 07:16, November 16, 2013‎ Zen-in (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (8,702 bytes) (-1,650)‎ . . (rm inappropriate remarks by banned editor)

(the explanatory text in brackets means "removed inappropriate remarks written by a banned editor")

... we click on the previous version from 03:35, November 16, 2013...

(cur | prev) 03:35, November 16, 2013‎ Circuit dreamer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,352 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (→‎About your last removals in Current-to-voltage converter)

... and finally we see our warning to him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zen-in&oldid=581850759#About_your_last_removals_in_Current-to-voltage_converter

Well, let's be noble and instead react negatively to his vandal behavior to help him something, and to see what would be his reaction (what is more important to him - his EGO or the Wikipedia). For example, let's send him a useful link to the remarkable genuine paper written by Dan Sheingold in the enthusiastic issue The Lightning Empiricist of Philbrick Researches in the distant 60's (this article contains valuable information about the use of the transimpedance amplifier in photomultipliers:

http://www.philbrickarchive.org/1964-1_v12_no1_the_lightning_empiricist.htm

As above, we open his user page...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zen-in

... click the tab "edit this page" at the top...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zen-in&action=edit

... and add the so useful and valuable resource. I would write the sentence below:

"Because you emphasize various photo applications of the TIA, here is a useful link that can help you:

http://www.philbrickarchive.org/1964-1_v12_no1_the_lightning_empiricist.htm "

Finally, we sign our notification by "~~~~" at the end of the text, add a short summary ("New section: Suggesting a useful link to a reputable genuine article"), and click the button "Save" at the botom... Here is the result:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zen-in#A_useful_link_to_some_photo_applications_of_the_TIA

Now we just have to wait to see how these "Wikipedians" react to such nobble suggestions... and so we will gradually accumulate concrete notions about them...

Alas... our nobility was not appreciated in dignity:( Imagine even the link to the remarkable genuine paper of Dan Sheingold in the legendary Philbrick 's "The Lightning Empiricist" magazine could not touch this arrogant "Wikipedian"! ...

Just look at how (in his - clever, but simple in our opinion), he wiped our precious link - he masked the removal by deleting the message sent by a bot program... only see this "hidden removal" in the history of his talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zen-in&diff=next&oldid=582027492

Of course, he is such because he stands behind the back of an administrator ... later we'll find out who he is ... let's first be clear what ordinary Wikipedians are, then we will get on with their administrators...

The destruction of the page about current-to-voltage converter continues at full steam:

Current-to-voltage converter‎; 09:19 . . (-2,370)‎ . . ‎Zen-in (talk | contribs)‎ (added gain derivation, rm earlier graphi-analytic stuff) ?!?!?!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&curid=30862800&diff=582169144&oldid=581941150

Current-to-voltage converter‎; 09:22 . . (-1,367)‎ . . ‎Zen-in (talk | contribs)‎ (fixed a typo in equation) ?!?!?!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&curid=30862800&diff=582169477&oldid=582169144

Maybe it's time to turn for help to Wikipedia administrators?

Cyril, I am sorry, but it looks like you are very disruptive editor to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for testing new ideas, it is ENCYCLOPEDIA! Only tested and widely accepted knowledge belongs to encyclopedia. Please, stop your “editing”! Publish your results in a proper place.

Well, let's do it... let Wikipedia administrators know that this page is systematically destroyed... they should care about Wikipedia articles, and to take appropriate measures to stop this "Wikipedia vandalization" (a Wikipedian vandalizes a Wikipedia article)... Let's turn to a well knowledgeable and technically competent administrator - Spinningspark (the only little problem is that he feels sympathy for the "Wikpedian remover" and dislike for me)...

To realize our intention, we first open his user page...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spinningspark

... then click the envelope icon at the top...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spinningspark&action=edit§ion=new

...and place the text below in the editor window:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"About ten days ago, I saw that the infamous Zen-in began to systematically destroy my edits in the Current-to-voltage converter article. First, he deleted the whole section about the so important passive application - building an ammeter by a voltmeter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&diff=prev&oldid=580400197

Then, he deleted the section about the fundamental (nonelectrical) idea behind the I-to-V converter what was actually the Ohm's law idea (V = I.R):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&diff=581300125&oldid=581289176

I reminded he that the big Wikipedia idea was to improve, rewrite and enrich the already written, not to destroy it and start again from the very beginning...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zen-in&oldid=581775600#About_your_last_removals_in_Current-to-voltage_converter_.3D

... but he deleted my message from his talk page...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zen-in&diff=581868638&oldid=581850759

He deleted even the extremely useful link to the remarkable genuine paper of Dan Sheingold in the legendary Philbrick 's "The Lightning Empiricist" magazine that I suggested to include in the article (note in this he wrote deceptive explanations in the summary fields)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zen-in&oldid=581897387#A_useful_link_to_some_photo_applications_of_the_TIA

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zen-in&diff=582073186&oldid=582027492

Today, he erased another big part of my edits...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&curid=30862800&diff=582169144&oldid=581941150

... including the important section about the passive circuit imperfections...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&curid=30862800&diff=582169477&oldid=582169144

... and writing again misleading comments in the summary field

(diff | hist) . . Current-to-voltage converter‎; 09:22 . . (-1,367)‎ . . ‎Zen-in (talk | contribs)‎ (fixed a typo in equation)

In this connection I want to say that I do not claim that what I wrote then is the most perfect, but I assert that it was true and explained things well. I wrote it 7 years ago when naively believed that the form is not so important for an encyclopedia, but rather the content. So I tried to explain the ideas and the implementation of these circuits in a human friendly way; now I would not write it in this way... Then I naively hoped that Wikipedians would help me to write together this page... what was the great Wikipedia idea... See my appeal to them (perhaps including you) written by me 7 years ago in the beginning of the talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Current-to-voltage_converter

"Of course, my insertions need improving by a native English speaker(s). I have realized that I have only roughly exposed the topic... Circuit-fantasist 11:06 am, 12 August 2006, Saturday (7 years, 3 months, 6 days ago) (UTC+3)"

So, the article should be rewritten... but by a person(s) who can do it... who understands the specific subject and so can appreciate and salvage the already written... The article cannot be rewritten by a person that can only blindly blank articles and destroy else's creations just because he cannot realize even the simplest circuit ideas (If you have forgotten this sorry truth, I can recall it by links to the history)..."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, we sign our notification by writing "~~~~" at the end of the text (the Wiki software will convert them into a personal text), add a short summary ("About the last removals in Current-to-voltage converter"), and click the button "Save page" at the bottom... Here is the result:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spinningspark#About_the_last_removals_in_Current-to-voltage_converter

Now we just have to wait for the administrator's reaction (I'm afraid that still I know what it will be)...

Ooh... yet there is an adequate response from the administrators... there is a hope...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zen-in#Please_do_not_use_misleading_edit_summaries

"fixed a typo in equation is unlikely to be an adequate summary of an edit which removes thousands of bytes. SpinningSpark 10:45 pm, Today (UTC+2)"

... and, of course, the Wikipedian response is not delayed....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spinningspark#About_the_last_removals_in_Current-to-voltage_converter

"Sorry about the inaccurate edit summaries, my bad. All Wikipedia editors have the right to edit whatever they choose. The page in question needs a total re-write. The stick figure "graphi-analytical" illustrations were judged to be unencyclopediac and a judgement was made that they should all be removed after an ANI hearing in 2012. I don't think a former editor who has an indefinite ban has any say in these matters. I have recently done a lot of research in this area and have found several good references. I am making a good-faith effort to improve this page and have so far refrained from removing all of the banned editor's work. But it all will have to go. This graphi-analytical portrayal of electronic circuits is unencyclopediac and cannot be cited by any references. Zen-in (talk) 6:03 pm, Today (UTC+2)"

An interesting approach - first totally delete, then (ever) re-write!?

A unique web experiment with Wikipedia... Here we have the chance to see how a "fully explaining" article will be gradually transformed into "only saying" or, more precisely, "nothing explaining" article... and this will be a great illustration of how to hide circuit ideas...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_are_circuit_ideas_hidden

Just look at this morning's "re-write" to see the beginning of this undertaking...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&oldid=582471634#DC_Operation

It is branch of engineering which deals with the flow of current through semiconductors, vacuum,and dielectrics.,flow od current means flow of electrons.

Mohammad, I try to see some connection between my question and your comment...

The mutilation of the current-to-voltage converter page continues at full steam...

First, three extremely important and closely related to the topic internal Wikipedia links are removed: about the virtual ground...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_ground

... the dual voltage-to-current converter...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voltage-to-current_converter&oldid=363421336

... and the ubiquitous Miller theorem (this circuit is a typical application of the Miller theorem, Lutz?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_theorem#Applications

Here is the reason for removing:

Current-to-voltage converter‎; 08:51 . . (-600)‎ . . ‎Zen-in (talk | contribs)‎ (rm duplication and unrelated links, added links that are related)

and this is the result of the removal

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&curid=30862800&diff=582638167&oldid=582637709

The administrator tries to smooth the conflict

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spinningspark&oldid=582655104#About_the_last_removals_in_Current-to-voltage_converter

But the "remover" adds more and more (else's, he has not own) thoughts about... various photodiode problems...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&curid=30862800&diff=582785947&oldid=582654435

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&diff=next&oldid=582785947

So, I suggest to his protector to rename the article from "Current-to-voltage converter" to "Photodiode applications":)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spinningspark#About_the_last_removals_in_Current-to-voltage_converter (at the bottom)

Finally, the article "killer" applies a stunning blow... deleting entire 4000 words?!?!?!?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current-to-voltage_converter&curid=30862800&diff=582787181&oldid=582786945

Here is what the (electronics) Wikipedia that "everyone can edit" is ... even "DOS programmers" can "re-write" (annihilate) circuit articles...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zen-in

... as long as they are under the administrator's protection...

Only see how the administrator (а Wikipedian empowered with power) reacts to this massive erasure (4000 words at a time)... He does not discuss (at all!) the content... the usefulness of the written... the fundamental ideas... Instead, he discusses what should be the new name of the page ("Transimpedance Amplifier" or "Transimpedance amplifier"?!?!?)... as though this is the main problem here! If this is not an implicit support ... what else would be?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Current-to-voltage_converter#Page_re-write_and_rename_as_Transimpedance_Amplifier_.28TIA.29

"Both Transimpedance Amplifier (TIA) and Transimpedance Amplifier are non-conforming names. Transimpedance amplifier is ok though. SpinningSpark 6:40 pm, Today (UTC+2)"

How meaningful words! How important it was for Wikipedians the title... and how little - the contents of the article! And the bare fact that the transimpedance amplifier is only a special case of a current-to-voltage converter (only one type - the active) does not matter to them... Do they know that billions of multimeters in the world usе exactly passive current-to-voltage converters (instead transimpedance amplifiers) to measure a current? And if they know why? This is my favorite question to my students...

Of course, the man of power demonstratively (and fully intentionally) ignores my remark that the page is gradually becoming a "warehouse" of "copy & paste" texts on the problems of photodiode circuits... So the depersonalization of the page is skillfully directed by him: one Wikipedian does it with zeal; the others sing along... and this is the typical situation in this (electronics) part of Wikipedia...

Hmm... we will accumulate a rich material to comment on the talk page of Jimmy Wales...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales

... accompanied with a link to this discussion... to show him what (electronics) Wikipedia is inside...

Now I want to stop for a moment and to say a few words to participating in this discussion (however small they are:) Since we enter into the nature of matter and almost no one (excepting Lutz von Wangenheim) supported me and did any assessment of my work, nonspecialists observing this "discussion" may experience difficulties in the assessment of the material. They could be left with the impression that I am an old man who whines and complains:) about the injustices in this world without having any reason for this. So here are two questions that I asked three months ago in RG with the idea to discuss these so interesting devices:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_we_improve_the_real_ammeter_How_do_we_create_an_almost_ideal_ammeter_What_does_the_op-amp_really_do_in_the_circuit_of_an_op-amp_ammeter2

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_any_connection_between_the_humble_resistor_and_the_transimpedance_amplifier_What_does_the_op-amp_really_do_in_this_electronic_circuit

They contain comprehensive information about the basic ideas, implementation, relationship between the passive (resistor) and active (transimpedance amplifier) version, the evolution of the passive into active one, and the evaluation of the imperfections. So I ask those of you who would dare to take part in one concrete discussion on the point, first to learn about these materials, then to compare them with what is currently being done in Wikipedia, and only then to write a comment. Otherwise, we would hardly be understood... Thank you, Cyril.

BTW it is interesting to see what Google will offer when writing "current-to-voltage converter" in its window; my browser shows 738,000 results. When writing "transimpedance amplifier", Google offers 221,000 results...

But have you ever ask why Google always puts Wikipedia pages on the first places in its results list? It is interesting to find out...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_does_Google_put_Wikipedia_pages_at_the_top_of_its_results_list_Does_this_mean_they_are_of_the_highest_quality_or_something_else

Cyril, you have written on your RG page:

“My pursuit is to reveal the fundamental ideas behind circuits and to show them to students and web readers. I do this relying more on my imagination, intuition and emotions than on the pure logic and reasoning”

As you see, it does not work for Wikipedia (and I prize Wikipedia for it). Wikipedia is a place to go for established knowledge, it is not a place for someone “imagination, intuition and emotions”. Please, stop editing Wiki, you have nothing to add to it. I prize editors for erasing fruits of your imagination; I see their work is a hard one. Again, please stop abusing Wiki.