Carcharoth wrote:
> The ideal is a mix of lots of tertiary and secondary sources. We need
> to use multiple and independent sources to avoid over-representing or
> copying a single source (in the sense of 'light rewriting' or 'close
> paraphrasing'), and to produce something that is distinct and
>
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Delirium <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> phoebe ayers wrote:
>> Maybe we need to put more emphasis on "encyclopedia as a tertiary
>> source" -- let other people do the summarizing and the vetting and
>> sorting out of what ideas are going to stick around for the long-t
phoebe ayers wrote:
> Maybe we need to put more emphasis on "encyclopedia as a tertiary
> source" -- let other people do the summarizing and the vetting and
> sorting out of what ideas are going to stick around for the long-term,
> and focus away from citing original research directly, which helps
> There's currently a big discussion in the academic science publishing
> & library world over the case of M. S. El Naschie, the editor in chief
> of "Chaos, Solitons and Fractals," an expensive Elsevier journal. [...]
Not the first case and not the last case.
[[Ruggero Santilli]] did create a ra
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Delirium <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> phoebe ayers wrote:
>> Of course, what's interesting and troubling for us is that this is a
>> respected publisher who apparently did all the normal things in
>> setting up an academic journal that is typical of the sort of thing
An academic press book MUST make at least one claim that is
controversial or it will not be published. In the humanities at least,
where scholarship consists of new interpretation and fuller
understanding, the entire process is a matter of challenging other
people's interpretations and understandin
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:40 PM, phoebe ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> (At any rate, someone knowledgable might want to check over our own
> relevant math/physics articles and make sure there's nothing fishy
> there).
A fair bit of the material in question is patent nonsense of the
highe
In a message dated 12/1/2008 2:00:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This isn't as rare as people might think either; I'd
say the *majority* of academic-press books make at least one significant
claim that is controversial in its field, often without even admitting
th
phoebe ayers wrote:
> Of course, what's interesting and troubling for us is that this is a
> respected publisher who apparently did all the normal things in
> setting up an academic journal that is typical of the sort of thing
> Wikipedia is supposed to use as a "reliable source." But (naturally, I
2008/12/1 phoebe ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Of course, what's interesting and troubling for us is that this is a
>respected publisher who apparently did all the normal things in
>setting up an academic journal that is typical of the sort of thing
>Wikipedia is supposed to use as a "reliable source
This is off-topic for Wikipedia specifically, but on-topic for those
interested in the reliability of academic sources generally:
There's currently a big discussion in the academic science publishing
& library world over the case of M. S. El Naschie, the editor in chief
of "Chaos, Solitons and Fra
11 matches
Mail list logo
