On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 04:55:03PM -0600, Bob Parks wrote:
Bernard Lang writes:
right ...
why not erase all historical mistakes from the history books ... so
that we can learn only how thing should go, and not how they can go
wrong.
I was not speaking of books nor peer reviewed
Bernard Lang writes:
right ...
why not erase all historical mistakes from the history books ... so
that we can learn only how thing should go, and not how they can go
wrong.
I was not speaking of books nor peer reviewed 'published' papers, but
rather 'preprints' aka working papers. That is a
right ...
why not erase all historical mistakes from the history books ... so
that we can learn only how thing should go, and not how they can go
wrong.
Bernard
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 02:57:02PM -0500, David Goodman wrote:
If they disappear others may well make the same mistake. But if
At 22:54 03/12/2002, you wrote:
I think deletion should be a (discouraged but available) option, but
with a persistent tag for the deleted (null) text, as a place-holder for
would-be citers who did read that draft and do want to refer to it (even
against the author's request, and even backed up
At 22:54 03/12/02 +, Stevan Harnad wrote:
OED's definition was written before the Internet. One can certainly
write on a draft, prominently This is just a temporary draft, and will
be revised. One can even add Please do not quote or cite. But if you
put that on the Web, not only will some
I agree completely with Mark Doyle and was not (in my reply to a query
from a user) venturing to suggest policy. I was trying to explain to
the user why one could not keep updating the same archived paper
(whether metadata or text). I leave it to Mark, Chris and the experts
to pick the optimal
If they disappear others may well make the same mistake. But if they
continue to exist, with the error noted, people will learn from
them (embarrassing as it may prove to be for the authors of the example).
Bob Parks wrote:
... There are some papers which prove to be wrong, even
though there
I'm considering adding version control to the files. This is going to be
needed for the oft discussed j-prints (eprints with peer review)
I think for archives like ECS letting the author un-deposit then resubmit is
probably OK, but bad for cogprints. I'm considering adding it as an *option*
which
Stevan Harnad writes:
It cuts both ways. Yes, authors should not start archiving willy-nilly
every raw draft and every afterthought. But they should not feel
The word DRAFT implies correction and updates. In economics, where
working papers and revisions of them are extremely common, one would
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Bob Parks wrote:
Stevan Harnad writes:
sh It cuts both ways. Yes, authors should not start archiving willy-nilly
sh every raw draft and every afterthought.
The word DRAFT implies correction and updates. In economics, where
working papers and revisions of them are
Greetings,
On Tuesday, November 26, 2002, at 08:27 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
Now it is conceivable that the eprints architecture can be slightly
modified, so that the old, suppressed URL for the deleted paper
automatically redirects to the new draft if someone tries to access
the old one. That
At 18:02 02/12/2002, you wrote:
I leave it to Mark, Chris and the experts
to pick the optimal technical solution. (Chris?)
It isn't just a technical issue.
If you follow Mark's solution you end up with the risk of people citing
papers that don't contain the information they cite anymore.
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, J Adrian Pickering wrote:
It isn't just a technical issue.
If you follow Mark's solution you end up with the risk of people citing
papers that don't contain the information they cite anymore.
Mark suggested that an archived article should be a persisting object,
with a
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Belinda Weaver wrote:
We've had complaints from archive contributors because they
cannot edit their papers once they have been deposited. If they
want to make a change, they have to clone their paper, edit the
clone and deposit that and then request removal of the
14 matches
Mail list logo
