Re: Sort it
George Herbert <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAK__KzsghskwwXiqL1QA80wCmkXgkGp_UroO7eo0q=vO7gdAgA@mail.gmail.com> |
Right. We (Wikipedia) are not qualified to judge if these original claims are accurate, reasonable, worthy of consideration, unlikely, incorrect, or batshit insane. Attempting to publish novel theories via Wikipedia - no matter how well supported - is completely the wrong approach. Scientific inquiry is not a single-handed enterprise. It depends on peer review of theories and evidence and conclusions. That peer review must be by qualified peers in the field. -george william herbert On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Fred Bauder <[email protected]> wrote: > It's pretty simple, publish original work elsewhere first. > > Fred > >> Greetings – >> >> I hope this is a good place to send a weighty message to Wikipedia. >> You’ll want to read all through. >> >> I am a scientist who has always liked the Wikipedia idea, and I like >> your implementation. Lately I’ve started making contributions. >> Although I’m a cognitive scientist who taught biological psychology at >> degree level for several years and have done AI research since the >> ‘80’s, I’ve diverted for a decade or more to resolve a set of major >> evolutionary puzzles. > >> >> John V. Jackson. >> http://sciencepolice2010.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/sciencepolice2010-launches/ >> http://sciencepolice2010.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/sciencepolice-14-latest.pdf >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikipedia-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikipedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l -- -george william herbert [email protected]