stevertigo wrote
> > "David Gerard" wrote
> > > arXiv.org is reputed to perform a useful role. How's it look from your
> > > view as an academic mathematician?
>
> > charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
> > Experts writing for experts. Even within the field this stuff is hardly readable.
>
> There are a few [[Open access]] repositories out there.
> But is it really the case that "this stuff is hardly readable" or is
> it the case that this stuff isnt linkable and therefore hard to
> corroborate with other current research, as well as authoritative
> references (like Wikipedia)?
See a page such as [[K-theory (physics)]] to get the flavour.
Note that it is not the failure to wikify and provide sources that makes this (I imagine) inaccessible to 99.9% of readers.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
> Calls to CITE are too often just smokescreen for a weak
> or incivil or POV argument,
And objections to CITE are sometimes just smokescreens for
disagreement with the verifiability policy itself.
On 31 Aug 2006 at 18:04, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Or, to summarise the summary of the summary, people are a problem.
The world would be such a better place if they were all exterminated,
wouldn't it?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
>>Yeah, he said it doesn't seem to be working, and it's not open. So
>>when is this policy change going to be reverted?
>
>A good question. There seems to be a slight majority in favor of
>repealing that change (if I may be permitted to make a totally
>unscientific and biased estimate) on this list.
>
>That said, I think most are either waiting for the year (and more
>importantly, [[Eternal September|September]]) to end, to turn over a
>fresh lear; or they are waiting for the long promised statistical
>analyses.
>
>~maru
If we do decide to turn it off, perhaps we should decide ahead of time what
statistics we'd like to watch, and collect them for a month or two ahead of
time. Things like current rate of new article creation, rate of speedy
deletes, average number of people doing new pages patrol per day,
stress-level of new pages patrollers.... ;)
If we do that this time, we'll have some real figures to go by to judge
what the difference is with anon page creation off and on.
Catherine
