[WikiEN-l] Times article (London)

[Marc Riddell]

>> on 8/19/07 4:22 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.woollard at gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>>> I think that domain experts should be paired with wikiexperts; that
>>> way the wikiexperts can hand-hold the domain experts around the
>>> wikirules, and help revert unreasonable edits by others.

On 8/20/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> There's a seed here; something to be seriously considered.
>>> 
>>>> I ask this with my tongue partially planted in my cheek: If a person,
>>>> recognized as especially knowledgeable in a field, makes an edit to a
>>>> article in that field, then cites their own texts as sources, would this be
>>>> acceptable to the Project? Do you see what I¹m getting at? Who would
>>>> Einstein have cited?

on 8/19/07 4:22 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.woollard at gmail.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> Lorentz; or other people that have studied Einstein. Push came to
>>> shove he could ask somebody notable to write something about it and
>>> then reference it ;-)

On 8/20/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>> Einstein was the only person capable of giving Einstein an argument. Can you
>> imagine reverting him! :-)

on 8/19/07 6:21 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen at cimonavaro at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> In fact, Arthur Eddington is the standard source on relativity, not Einstein
> himself. Arguably also the Feynman Lectures would be a good place to
> use.
> 
> And far from people not being able to argue with Einstein, in fact Albert
> held various correspondences with people who espoused rival theories
> (some of them even producing very nearly identical results to those of
> the relativity theory). Not to mention the long and very tight
> argument he had
> against "god playing with dice".
> 
> It is a popular fiction that Einstein had no peer within physics.
> 
Thanks for this, Jussi-Ville. I'm just glad Einstein was able to stand his
ground; otherwise who knows what E would equal :-).

Marc