Collaborative wiki - botanists needed
 

"riverman" schreef in
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.

***
Well, in view of the complete absence of any content in the botany part, so
far, the above is academic. I gather that just about all elementary facts
would be welcome.
PvR