I have an old 1900's or late 1800's encyclopedia here. It says that the sun must be powered by some unknown process - they knew it couldn't be fossil fuels, but radioactivity and fusion were yet to be discovered then.
If someone writes a paper and knowledge later advances, let the paper be updated; provided the update is also peer reviewed it'll mean the topic's paper is always latest knowledge. Not how it traditionally works, but in a number of ways, better. FT2 On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 11:27 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > In a message dated 9/13/2009 3:19:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > > Papers are reviewed annually, or upon major new information, so they > > become a living document -- the paper on the higgs boson as it is now, > > and > > the same paper as it was a year, 2 years ago, showing the advance of > > knowledge and correcting itself as time passes and knowledge > develops.>> > > > > > > I would say that by this we'd have to mean that a paper cannot change. In > that way it has to behave like a print version. Once it's set, than it > can't change, otherwise the voting and review process would no longer match > the > current state of the paper. > > Rather, like print, if a new paper is submitted, even by the same author on > the same topic, it has to be a new entry in "this month's" journal, not a > modification of a now-historical version. > > Will > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
