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:
...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".
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Stirling Newberry
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
> 2012/10/27 Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
>> <xekoukou(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The solution to this problem is really easy IMO. Let all articles be
>>> and provide a personalized reputation system that will only fetch only
>>> page per article for every user.
>> Yes! Let's build our own [[Filter bubble]] right into Wikipedia!
>> (who was there when Stallman talked about GNUpedia, aiming for that
>> very concept. Still aiming, though.)