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 <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> 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.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com