--- tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
So, reiterating what I've said twice: it's not "larry's OWN text". It's been called "Larry's text" as an abbreviation.
Hmm.. I think I overreacted to the use of the "'s", like Larry "owns" this text, still, I think wikipedia's ethics should not allow contributors to write under their own name, this is a part of the GFDL. If Larry or anyone wants to be recognized, they can publish this on their personal website.
Please don't let's turn this into a huge issue where there is none. oh, wait, it already has been.
It is not a "huge" issue, just something i'm trying to point out.
Maybe it's not about Larry (nothing here is personal anyway). Maybe it's about the introduction of highly pre-mature (and somewhat biased and misorienting) *SCIENTIFIC* texts/text-books/papers into the 'pedia, why should this be done? If the contributor already knows his/her addition is of a specialized field, in which chances are low that fellow peers literate in the field will review and modify, I think they shouldn't have added that in the first place.
I'd rather 20 lines of accurate information, than 500 lines of "unreviewed-unsupported-somewhat-scientific-text-of- undergraduate-lectures"
Wikipedia seems to work for encyclopedic articles, not for scientific papers or text-books. As for the Knowledge article, I think a book reference would have been suffice.
you should grant *everyone* to put their own text
well, we already do.... note the "Edit text of this page" link ;-)
Unfortunately, I am not a philosopher (or pretending to be) and that is not the point.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com