On 02/22/12 6:04 PM, David Goodman wrote:
There are many subjects in which there would be multiple schools of
thought with little agreement; anyone following book reviews in the
humanities or social sciences or even some of the sciences would know
the intensity with which the highest level
On 24 February 2012 09:34, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 02/22/12 6:04 PM, David Goodman wrote:
There are many subjects in which there would be multiple schools of
thought with little agreement; anyone following book reviews in the
humanities or social sciences or even some of
On 24 February 2012 09:34, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 02/22/12 6:04 PM, David Goodman wrote:
There are many subjects in which there would be multiple schools of
thought with little agreement; anyone following book reviews in the
humanities or social sciences or even some of
Andrew Lih and Steven Walling and Timothy Messer-Kruse on NPR,
discussing exactly this today:
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1t=1islist=falseid=147261659m=147261652
On Thursday 23 February 2012 08:11 AM, Robin McCain wrote:
Well, I'm not an active academic, but I have
I think you have inadvertently hit upon something essential.
Content has some relative value. Someone has always had to put energy
into creating content. More importantly for our current discussion,
someone has always had to make a decision to invest in the REPRODUCTION
of content. Printing
I was one of the initial subject editors at Citizendium. One of its
key problems was the poor choice of subject matter experts. The
selection of which people to trust was ultimately in the hands of the
founder, and he was unduly impressed by formal academic credentials
without concerning himself
Well, I'm not an active academic, but I have been given to understand
that the quality of the peer review process varies greatly. About 10
years back, I was briefly involved in an attempt to develop an online
peer reviewed publications infrastructure. This was one of our concerns
- is it
