On 17 Jul 2009 17:47:49 -0400, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
{{fact}}
Can we have a naval-gazing article on the history of the policy??
Perhaps we'd be able to address questions of how it came to be.
Contact the United States Naval Observatory and get somebody there to
write one.
On Fri, 17 Jul
Of course we'd have to have a community consensus that no person with
tools could edit the meta articles, since we'd be trying to present the actual
history of the project, including all the warts. Problematic. Of course
it may collect all the troublesome persons into one area, so perhaps
Michael Peel wrote:
It's always good to have several standard alternatives for
distributing information, and it will be interesting to see what
happens with this one. They could have chosen a better name, though -
vixra sounds like something you'd see in a spam email...
The capital
2009/7/17 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Physics cranks drive so much. They were responsible for our No
Original Research rule, and now they've forked arXiv.org:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39845
viXra.org is for the stuff even arXiv.org doesn't want. It appears to
be driven
Last time I checked, arXiv was for pre-prints - the word suggests to
me that it has to actually be going to get printed. It's not supposed
to be a place to publish papers, just distribute them faster when they
are being published elsewhere.
That's normally the case, but you do get some papers
I note the comment in that article
unfairly reject certain manuscripts or transfer them to the server’s
less reputable general-physics category.
This will be a useful quote in explaining that articles in that
category are not necessarily as reliable as those in the other
sections. We have
2009/7/17 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net:
On a en.wp note: I assume that arXiv counts as a (mostly) reliable
site to reference? It will be interesting to see whether Vixra will
also be, although I guess it'll be a case of each individual paper/
author set being taken on its own merits.
2009/7/17 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net:
On a en.wp note: I assume that arXiv counts as a (mostly) reliable
site to reference? It will be interesting to see whether Vixra will
also be, although I guess it'll be a case of each individual paper/
author set being taken on its own merits.
Not
2009/7/17 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Not really. For the kind of things you get on arXiv reliable is
usually taken to mean peer-reviewed, so you would cite the journal
the paper was published in. You might link to the arXiv version for
convenience, but you would be citing the
...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:49 pm
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Ahhh, physics cranks
Physics cranks drive so much. They were responsible for our No
Original Research rule, and now they've forked arXiv.org:
http://physicsworld.com/cws
...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:40 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Ahhh, physics cranks
2009/7/17 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Not really. For the kind of things you get on arXiv reliable is
usually taken to mean peer-reviewed, so
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
You might link to the arXiv version for
convenience[...]
[[Template:Cite Journal]] actually recommends linking to arXiv when citing
journal articles if the journal is not open to the public:
*url*: This should point
12 matches
Mail list logo
