Changes

==Best==

==Best==

Hi, Jim. I've heard of a project proposal within the scientific community to bypass traditional "[[peer review]]" and put article of journal-level quality online right away. This would subject the articles to massive [[independent review]] in a public way.

Hi, Jim. I've heard of a project proposal within the scientific community to bypass traditional "[[peer review]]" and put articles of journal-level quality online right away. This would subject the articles to massive [[independent review]] in a public way.

It also sidesteps the censorship or [[spiking]] of really good and important findings which expose errors in theories which the general public has come to regard as mainstream. I recall reading this week an email from [[Michael Mann] in which he boasted to a colleague that '''as a peer reviewer''' he was able to prevent an entire article from being published, merely on the grounds that it challenged [[AGW]], rather than because of any specific problem with the article itself, or the methods or ideas of its author. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 10:50, 18 December 2009 (EST)

It also sidesteps the censorship or [[spiking]] of really good and important findings which expose errors in theories which the general public has come to regard as mainstream. I recall reading this week an email from [[Michael Mann]] in which he boasted to a colleague that '''as a peer reviewer''' he was able to prevent an entire article from being published, merely on the grounds that it challenged [[AGW]], rather than because of any specific problem with the article itself, or the methods or ideas of its author. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 10:50, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Interesting! Another neat example, this one from math, is the recent [http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Main_Page Polymath project].  They post open problems on a Wiki and large numbers of editors collaborate on them.  Finding the best of the public in math is probably easier than in something like chess, as it's usually easy to see who has the correct idea, without regard for his standing.  The first polymath event gave a much nicer proof of a well-known theorem and solved one open problem.  It's probably not "the best of the public" per se, as most contributors are graduate students and professors, but it surely isn't "the best of the experts", and I think the principle here is the same. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 11:05, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Interesting! Another neat example, this one from math, is the recent [http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Main_Page Polymath project].  They post open problems on a Wiki and large numbers of editors collaborate on them.  Finding the best of the public in math is probably easier than in something like chess, as it's usually easy to see who has the correct idea, without regard for his standing.  The first polymath event gave a much nicer proof of a well-known theorem and solved one open problem.  It's probably not "the best of the public" per se, as most contributors are graduate students and professors, but it surely isn't "the best of the experts", and I think the principle here is the same. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 11:05, 18 December 2009 (EST)