On 31 August 2010 00:55, David Gerard wrote:
> On 31 August 2010 00:21, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> Irony. David Gerard disparaging CZ using a rationalwiki page as evidence.
> The links are there if you want to read them.
Or, if you prefer: of course the wiki is fluff and amusement with a
huge
On 31 August 2010 00:21, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Irony. David Gerard disparaging CZ using a rationalwiki page as evidence.
The links are there if you want to read them.
> Pseudo-science, pseudo-humanities, etc are no stranger to Wikipedia,
> and our processes have not always been victorious
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:35 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> ...This, btw, is how Citizendium
> became a pseudoscience haven:
>
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Citizendium#The_concept_of_expertise_on_Citizendium
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:57 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 August 2010 17:52, David Moran
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro_hominem&oldid=369721624
- Original Message -
From: "Fred Bauder"
> It's a simple error that most proof-readers would find.
Well only if they can read Latin, which is not that usual these days.
>>It looks right at first glance but is not. I
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 23:52, Andrea Zanni wrote:
> From what I've experienced, it is generally more difficult to explain these
> things to humanities scholars
> that stm scholars.
As someone with background in humanities, I can say that it is often
hard to explain science to humanities scholars
On 08/29/2010 11:52 PM, Andrea Zanni wrote:
> And I was wondering if Wikipedia, limiting the article to one, single and
> neutral version,
> is enough to some Humanities scholars, who maybe would prefer the
> possibility of
> many articles/monographies, one for interpretation.
There are no policie
