Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 37:
Line 37: − +
→To be taken seriously: new and understaffed.
If Joshua is giving his opinion, because he thinks it is true and relevant, that can be tolerated, but only if (1) it helps explain the topic to the reader and (2) can be shown to be true by verifiable references.
If Joshua is giving his opinion, because he thinks it is true and relevant, that can be tolerated, but only if (1) it helps explain the topic to the reader and (2) can be shown to be true by verifiable references.
I do hope that our visitors from Wikipedia will not lower their editorial standards when they come over here. We are now and terribly understaffed. We have possibly ten good writers, while Wikipedia has thousands. If there are any good writers who are knowledgeable about science, they can help us if that's what they want to do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I do hope that our visitors from Wikipedia will not lower their editorial standards when they come over here. We are <s>now</s> new and terribly understaffed. We have possibly ten good writers, while Wikipedia has thousands. If there are any good writers who are knowledgeable about science, they can help us if that's what they want to do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
: Ed, in that case the entire section should be removed since the source is by no means reliable. Again, if you think anyone does this, I challenge you to find this distinction in any work by any serious philosopher of science. You won't find it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:59, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
: Ed, in that case the entire section should be removed since the source is by no means reliable. Again, if you think anyone does this, I challenge you to find this distinction in any work by any serious philosopher of science. You won't find it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:59, 7 May 2007 (EDT)