Hello,

We're creating a large wiki covering science and other fields and need
volunteer writers/editors.

The idea is to gather a group of 1000+ volunteers.

By restricting the edition of this wiki to scientists and amateur
scientists, we're mostly assured to get true and reliable facts for the
benefit of all.

Interested? Please find contact info at:

http://www.united.co.uk

wrote in message
ps.com...

By restricting the edition of this wiki to scientists and amateur
scientists, we're mostly assured to get true and reliable facts for the
benefit of all.


Hmm, our benefactor doesn't know a lot about science, does he?

--riverman

I am a physicist. Why would you say that?

Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
In message . com,
writes
I am a physicist. Why would you say that?

Scientists have opinions, just like everyone else. They're quite likely
to incorporate their opinions in the Wiki, rather just the facts.
Restricting input to scientists won't avoid errors; it'll just get you a
better class of error.

For example, how many planets are there in the solar system? (My
preferred answer is 15, but you can make a case for all sorts of numbers.)

When it comes to biologists you'll find all sorts of disagreements on
taxonomy.

Depends what you classify as a "biologist" ;-)

--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos,
puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

wrote in message
ups.com...
I am a physicist. Why would you say that?


Disagreement and debate being a core element of the scientific method. The
OP is expecting to get "get true and reliable facts", but afaik, scientists
aren't in the business of finding facts. We're in the business of
discovering new questions.

Its this expectation that science provides 'true facts' that makes people
think science is discreditable when old ideas are replaced with new ones.

--riverman

In article , Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
In message . com,
writes
I am a physicist. Why would you say that?

Scientists have opinions, just like everyone else. They're quite likely
to incorporate their opinions in the Wiki, rather just the facts.
Restricting input to scientists won't avoid errors; it'll just get you a
better class of error.

For example, how many planets are there in the solar system? (My
preferred answer is 15, but you can make a case for all sorts of
numbers.)

When it comes to biologists you'll find all sorts of disagreements on
taxonomy.

When it comes to taxonomy, there are no agreements. ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

In article om, wrote:
Hello,

We're creating a large wiki covering science and other fields and need
volunteer writers/editors.

The idea is to gather a group of 1000+ volunteers.

By restricting the edition of this wiki to scientists and amateur
scientists, we're mostly assured to get true and reliable facts for the
benefit of all.

Do you know any untrue facts?

Interested? Please find contact info at:

http://www.united.co.uk


Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

wrote:
Hello,

We're creating a large wiki covering science and other fields and need
volunteer writers/editors.

The idea is to gather a group of 1000+ volunteers.

By restricting the edition of this wiki to scientists and amateur
scientists, we're mostly assured to get true and reliable facts for the
benefit of all.

"Phred" schreef
Do you know any untrue facts?

***
Yes, linguistically a great deal could be said about "true facts"

However, what looks more worrisome is the "amateur scientists". This phrase
could apply to an enormous amount of people of quite varying descriptions.
PvR

In message , P van
Rijckevorsel writes
wrote:
Hello,

We're creating a large wiki covering science and other fields and need
volunteer writers/editors.

The idea is to gather a group of 1000+ volunteers.

By restricting the edition of this wiki to scientists and amateur
scientists, we're mostly assured to get true and reliable facts for the
benefit of all.

"Phred" schreef
Do you know any untrue facts?

***
Yes, linguistically a great deal could be said about "true facts"

However, what looks more worrisome is the "amateur scientists". This phrase
could apply to an enormous amount of people of quite varying descriptions.
PvR


The web site, what little it does say, does say that he wants resumes
and sample writing, so presumably there is intended to be some quality
control at the level of vetting applicants.


--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

P van Rijckevorsel writes
However, what looks more worrisome is the "amateur scientists". This
phrase could apply to an enormous amount of people of quite varying
descriptions.
PvR

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" schreef
The web site, what little it does say, does say that he wants resumes
and sample writing, so presumably there is intended to be some quality
control at the level of vetting applicants.

***
Ah, the wonderful world of intent.

There is a balance in such things. If you go by proven track record you can
only pass senior scientists, who will not have much time to devote to such a
project. You need people with time on their hands. In actual practice it
may not be so easy to select people with both time and ability. Not to
mention motivation.
PvR

In article , "P van Rijckevorsel" wrote:
P van Rijckevorsel writes
However, what looks more worrisome is the "amateur scientists". This
phrase could apply to an enormous amount of people of quite varying
descriptions.
PvR

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" schreef
The web site, what little it does say, does say that he wants resumes
and sample writing, so presumably there is intended to be some quality
control at the level of vetting applicants.

***
Ah, the wonderful world of intent.

There is a balance in such things. If you go by proven track record you can
only pass senior scientists, who will not have much time to devote to such a
project. You need people with time on their hands. In actual practice it
may not be so easy to select people with both time and ability. Not to
mention motivation.

What about all those superannuated scientists who are being offered
"voluntary early retirement" or similar, to make salaries available
for managers and PR people? (Or is that only happening in Oz?)

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...
P van Rijckevorsel writes
However, what looks more worrisome is the "amateur scientists". This
phrase could apply to an enormous amount of people of quite varying
descriptions.
PvR

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" schreef
The web site, what little it does say, does say that he wants resumes
and sample writing, so presumably there is intended to be some quality
control at the level of vetting applicants.

***
Ah, the wonderful world of intent.

There is a balance in such things. If you go by proven track record you
can
only pass senior scientists, who will not have much time to devote to such
a
project. You need people with time on their hands. In actual practice it
may not be so easy to select people with both time and ability. Not to
mention motivation.
PvR



Yes, and how exactly does this differ from a minor-league version of
submitting papers to be published, but without the peer review?

--riverman

"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

"Phred" schreef
What about all those superannuated scientists who are being offered
"voluntary early retirement" or similar, to make salaries available
for managers and PR people? (Or is that only happening in Oz?)

***
Well, over here they are expected to continue their work. They are offered
rooms, facilities, etc. Some reasearch groups exist mostly of retired
volunteers.
PvR

"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