Hi again – I'm just throwing in comments now, The Business has... forked... as I think you would say :-/
"It's pretty simple, publish original work elsewhere first."
Good – so you do, then people who know nothing about anything announce another requirement. Usually, it's that you ask them or some other self-serving gatekeeper all over again.
It's useful that "peer review" is so commonly mentioned. It helps warn the real people quickly of those who think it's more than a political game, so we can avoid them/make plans for them. It might be less ludicrous if PR supporters expected a Phi. of Sci expert on each review board. Without that it's an obvious farce.
There is only this in some form or another: http://sciencepolice2010.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/sciencepolice-14-latest...
...and politics in some form or another, usually Wizard of Oz'd to the full.
Fact: Popper never even MENTIONED peer review in either of his most notable Phi. of Sci. books. Don't expect others to assume Popper's view is automatically wrong; don't assume either that those with a good handle on how to make robots think scientifically, would expect those robots to need multi-stage publication reviews before they accept any useful new belief.
Peer review is a method of preventing thorough consideration of a theory, not of ensuring it. ...AS I EXPLAIN THOROUGHLY IN MY BOOK WHICH I HAVE BEEN TOLD A HUNDRED TIMES THIS WEEK BY PEOPLE WHO WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO ALTER THE FABRIC OF SCIENCE, NEEDS TO PASSED BY OTHERS LIKE THEM BEFORE IT COUNTS AS SCIENCE.
Thanks to those who are also expressing doubts about PR!
I realise most people are talking about what Wiki is or should be, and that is more of a live topic for me at the moment.
I'm most struck though, by the way my situation always seems to be projected into what others expect it to be. People are desperate to believe that I can't verify/confirm (whatever the ridiculous word is) what I'm saying. I guessed within a minute of first investigating Wiki that people would be obsessing about this, which is why I made sure I could satisfy the rules no matter what I thought of them. But it's just another "but this goes up to eleven" thing, with them keeping on saying "you haven't verified it".
Cordially,
JJ
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net wrote:
This is the place for talking about how we can make the software better, however. One way would be to have some means of making it easier for people to read, in situ, excerpts from texts cited, so that people can look directly at the cited work. We have more that a few dead citations, perhaps a page on writing a bot to keep citations and links up to date?
As for the long standing problem of integrating expertise, while it is very real and of intense interest, this is not the best forum for the discussion. Wikipedia is not peer review, it is public review.
On Oct 26, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis wrote:
Progress only occurs when there are different views that can coexist. When you force the less popular views to disapear into a talk page, ie into obscurity, then the stronger view becomes the only view. So wikipedia is not solving the filter buble problem as it is now. It simply has one filter buble created by the most enduring, by the strongest.
In my proposal, all different opinions could and should be easiliy accessible.
2012/10/27 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis xekoukou@gmail.com wrote:
The solution to this problem is really easy IMO. Let all articles be
forked
and provide a personalized reputation system that will only fetch only
one
page per article for every user.
Yes! Let's build our own [[Filter bubble]] right into Wikipedia!
Magnus (who was there when Stallman talked about GNUpedia, aiming for that very concept. Still aiming, though.)