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@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.
John V. Jackson. http://sciencepolice2010.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/sciencepolice2010-launches... http://sciencepolice2010.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/sciencepolice-14-latest...
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l