I have realized a much more important reason why one should never put one's original research into WP or CZ. It s not a suitable publication medium.
It is not archival.Anything entered can be changed, and probably will be. Readers will find you saying something you did not intend. Readers will not find your material at all. It is true this can be retrieved from the page histor, but this is putting the reader under a severe handicap, if s/he must read the entire history before being sure. Furthermore, WP has lst the early history of many of its pages due to past technical problems. We will presumably have less vandalism and much fewer unimportant changes, but it will always be possible--and ,given enough time, likely: it's the nature of a wiki. If one thinks the work does not jusify formal publication, a more appropriate place to place it would be a suitabl repository, such as most universities now have, or at least well-managed list, for these are generally being archived fairly well. None of this matters as much for secondary work, but it does provide a reason why important new syntheses or conclusions should probably be published elsewhere as well--again, a repository or good list might be the place. Related to this is another reason: nobody should "own" a page--we see people trying to in WP all the time, and it might happen here, though it would presumably bethe fault of the editors morethan the writers. Putting reall significant things on a subject page implies that you want to claim them as your own, which can only be done reliably if you control that page. On 10/19/06, Susan Awbrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear All: > I agree with Russell's statement below since that is just what is > required when someone does publish in a journal and it could alleviate many > headaches for CZ. > > I think the policy (on original research) should be that any such items > must be the original > research of the author or editor him/herself, and that by including > them the writer affirms that she/he has all needed permissions, and > that the material does not compromise any current research of other > parties. (Russell) > With identifiable authors this should work. > I also agree with the messages from Jon and David that attempting to > separate fact from interpretation is a bit pointless since any article or > statement is written from the author's (or editor's) point of view. Keeping > CZ open and allowing variation with verifiability should be the goal. That > gives everyone the chance to contribute in the way that works best for them > while providing a solid resource for users. Susan > > > > Dr. Susan M. Awbrey > Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education > 520 O'Dowd Hall > Oakland University > Rochester, Michigan 48309 > Phone: 248-370-2188 > Fax: 248-370-2589 > _______________________________________________ > Citizendium-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l > > > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
