I've been quite keen on wikipedia - here and in sci.env and in a number of places. However, it has a downside, which is laid out on the table for you to view its entrails at:
Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley if you want to see something ugly.
WoW!
ReplyDeleteAfter reaeding all that, I don't think I'll ever dare to participate in Wikipedia (although I must say I have been tempted quite a few times), if this is a typical example of what happens when there are disagreements over content...
Hmmm, well, I put that in to balance my overenthusiasm earlier. And don't check wiki now, its servers re recovering from a power failure.
ReplyDeleteBut... don't let me put you off either. The debate begun then is continuing, and with contributions from other good people is swinging over to sanity.
So, I would encourage you to contribute to wikipedia (not now: wait a day or two) but best to begin by sticking to non-controversial articles.
Belette said:
ReplyDelete"So, I would encourage you to contribute to wikipedia (not now: wait a day or two) but best to begin by sticking to non-controversial articles."
Yes, that probably is the way to go - but then again, a statement or article that appears wholly noncontroversial to one person could be a fierce attack on someone else's pet theory...
Anyway, although I may not agree on all you say here or at RealClimate, I do value your efforts to instill a more "scientific" method on the 'Net, including stringent definitions & problem descriptions and critical evaluation of information sources.
Keep up the good work!