"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...
"riverman" schreef
Yes, and how exactly does this differ from a minor-league version of
submitting papers to be published, but without the peer review?

***
It looks to be very different. By the look of it, it is an attempt at a
better grade version of wikipedia.
PvR

Well, thats obviously the intent, but if three different scientists submit
three different writeups on something like, say, the CO2 sink, or the ozone
hole, or the exact date of the P/T boundary, there will most likely be at
least three different points of view, all well-defended and of a better
grade than the average wikipedia post. But which version will be printed,
and based on whose opinion of what is a 'true fact'? To be of any value,
this site will have to include a lot of topics beyond the most elementary
and agreed-upon.

To pretend that there isn't debate over all but the most general of topics
(which Wikipedia already deals with in a sufficiently general way) is to
ignore a significant component of how science is done. But to propose to
archive and champion one point of view over all others is also to ignore how
science is done. The debate of peer review is essential. But to propose a
version of Wikipedia that presents 'true facts' but without the peer review
is like a minor-league version of publishing, without the debate. That
sounds like a cross between censorship and trivia to me.

And, of course, who will use this version of wikipedia? Without complex and
contentious topics, it will be sufficiently mundane enough to be on par with
the Encyclopedia Brittanica, but with this age of technology, it could
easily become recognized as some sort of authority on science-based 'facts',
which means the omission of peer review will be even more glaring.

--riverman