Physics cranks drive so much. They were responsible for our "No Original Research" rule, and now they've forked arXiv.org:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39845
viXra.org is for the stuff even arXiv.org doesn't want. It appears to be driven by cranks getting butthurt at being put into the "General Physics" category, i.e. where the nutters get put. Note their stuff still got onto arXiv, they just didn't like the category.
I can hardly wait to see what level of crankery viXra produces ...
- d.
2009/7/17 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Physics cranks drive so much. They were responsible for our "No Original Research" rule, and now they've forked arXiv.org:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39845
viXra.org is for the stuff even arXiv.org doesn't want. It appears to be driven by cranks getting butthurt at being put into the "General Physics" category, i.e. where the nutters get put. Note their stuff still got onto arXiv, they just didn't like the category.
I can hardly wait to see what level of crankery viXra produces ...
arXiv's equivalent of Conservapedia...
Last time I checked, arXiv was for pre-prints - the word suggests to me that it has to actually be going to get printed. It's not supposed to be a place to publish papers, just distribute them faster when they are being published elsewhere.
Last time I checked, arXiv was for pre-prints - the word suggests to me that it has to actually be going to get printed. It's not supposed to be a place to publish papers, just distribute them faster when they are being published elsewhere.
That's normally the case, but you do get some papers that just live on arXiv and never get published (either not submitted to a journal at all, or rejected).
It's always good to have several standard alternatives for distributing information, and it will be interesting to see what happens with this one. They could have chosen a better name, though - vixra sounds like something you'd see in a spam email...
On a en.wp note: I assume that arXiv counts as a (mostly) reliable site to reference? It will be interesting to see whether Vixra will also be, although I guess it'll be a case of each individual paper/ author set being taken on its own merits.
Mike
I note the comment in that article
"unfairly reject certain manuscripts or transfer them to the server’s less reputable "general-physics" category. "
This will be a useful quote in explaining that articles in that category are not necessarily as reliable as those in the other sections. We have inadvertently been given a useful tool against the physics cranks.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/17 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Physics cranks drive so much. They were responsible for our "No Original Research" rule, and now they've forked arXiv.org:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39845
viXra.org is for the stuff even arXiv.org doesn't want. It appears to be driven by cranks getting butthurt at being put into the "General Physics" category, i.e. where the nutters get put. Note their stuff still got onto arXiv, they just didn't like the category.
I can hardly wait to see what level of crankery viXra produces ...
arXiv's equivalent of Conservapedia...
Last time I checked, arXiv was for pre-prints - the word suggests to me that it has to actually be going to get printed. It's not supposed to be a place to publish papers, just distribute them faster when they are being published elsewhere.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/7/17 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
On a en.wp note: I assume that arXiv counts as a (mostly) reliable site to reference? It will be interesting to see whether Vixra will also be, although I guess it'll be a case of each individual paper/ author set being taken on its own merits.
Depends. It's a primary source, more or less a self-published one. So if a work is otherwise notable, it's worth linking to said primary source.
- d.
2009/7/17 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
On a en.wp note: I assume that arXiv counts as a (mostly) reliable site to reference? It will be interesting to see whether Vixra will also be, although I guess it'll be a case of each individual paper/ author set being taken on its own merits.
Not really. For the kind of things you get on arXiv "reliable" is usually taken to mean "peer-reviewed", so you would cite the journal the paper was published in. You might link to the arXiv version for convenience, but you would be citing the journal, not arXiv.
2009/7/17 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Not really. For the kind of things you get on arXiv "reliable" is usually taken to mean "peer-reviewed", so you would cite the journal the paper was published in. You might link to the arXiv version for convenience, but you would be citing the journal, not arXiv.
"For convenience" is a good way of putting it. Some arXiv-published work is of minor note (e.g. Garrett Lisi's e8 Theory of Everything was in the news after its release), but being in arXiv is not in itself anything special whatsoever. It's all but self-published.
(Which is why viXra is such thrilling news. It's like Hell wasn't deep enough, so they're digging tenth and eleventh circles below the basement.)
- d.
{{fact}} Can we have a naval-gazing article on the history of the policy?? Perhaps we'd be able to address questions of how it came to be.
<<Physics cranks drive so much. They were responsible for our "No Original Research" rule,>>
-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:49 pm Subject: [WikiEN-l] Ahhh, physics cranks
Physics cranks drive so much. They were responsible for our "No Original Research" rule, and now they've forked arXiv.org:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39845
viXra.org is for the stuff even arXiv.org doesn't want. It appears to be driven by cranks getting butthurt at being put into the "General Physics" category, i.e. where the nutters get put. Note their stuff still got onto arXiv, they just didn't like the category.
I can hardly wait to see what level of crankery viXra produces ...
- d.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Evidently there are some sins which didn't exist when Dante was writing.
<<(Which is why viXra is such thrilling news. It's like Hell wasn't deep enough, so they're digging tenth and eleventh circles below the basement.)>>
-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:40 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Ahhh, physics cranks
2009/7/17 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Not really. For the kind of things you get on arXiv "reliable" is usually taken to mean "peer-reviewed", so you would cite the journal the paper was published in. You might link to the arXiv version for convenience, but you would be citing the journal, not arXiv.
"For convenience" is a good way of putting it. Some arXiv-published work is of minor note (e.g. Garrett Lisi's e8 Theory of Everything was in the news after its release), but being in arXiv is not in itself anything special whatsoever. It's all but self-published.
(Which is why viXra is such thrilling news. It's like Hell wasn't deep enough, so they're digging tenth and eleventh circles below the basement.)
- d.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
You might link to the arXiv version for convenience[...]
[[Template:Cite Journal]] actually recommends linking to arXiv when citing journal articles if the journal is not open to the public:
*"url*: This should point to, in descending order of preference:
1. A *free* online version of the full text 2. An online version of the *full text*, for which subscription is required 3. An abstract or information page, *if* no DOI or PMID record is available"
--Falcorian
Michael Peel wrote:
It's always good to have several standard alternatives for distributing information, and it will be interesting to see what happens with this one. They could have chosen a better name, though - vixra sounds like something you'd see in a spam email...
The capital "X" in the name is significant. One would use it when having difficulty getting a hard physic.
Ec