----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Sandifer" snowspinner@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 4:44 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Anti-intellectualism
On Dec 12, 2008, at 6:09 PM, George Herbert wrote:
Even a superlative college paper is only rarely notable or significant criticism. Grad students' product might be, professors or professional critics moreso. But there are plenty of out-in-left-field reviewers and critics who lie outside the body of normal academic criticism et al.
Our criteria for sources have to include enough guidance for filtering that we can filter out random not-notable commentary. What line are we trying to draw - and why. We have to draw the line, otherwise we do become Cruftpedia. We're not here to collect 101 million grade school essays on "Are you there, God? It's me, Margaret" in the article on the book.
There certainly are loonies in the field, but I'd say more papers get rejected from journals for being boring than for being wrong. Which is to say, there's a lot of stuff that is very fundamental and obvious that you'd see in college papers, but not in published essays.
Which is part of the problem. There's a lot of stuff that, in academia, we just consider too obvious to publish.
-Phil
That's about where my review of Mark Purdey's book (about BSE) would go. Purdey's *remotely* plausible explanation of a mechanism is far shy of Occam's Razor, which is so strange coming from a guy who explicitly likes Occam's Razor. Heavy metal poisoning is a very old subject; Roman pathology. So, why all the complications about another metal falling into the category of having limits on exposure and causing [[manganism]]. I wish Purdey's brother Nigel well in preparing another edition of the book. Hoh boy. Yah...then I guess I should look a Brown's book, especially since I agree with him on the point that burning cattle might've been a good idea. Purdey (deceased) did not.