Difference between revisions of "User talk:JimR"
(independent review online) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
How was that trolling? The claims that were made were not facts, and were not supported by facts, so I said it needed citation. It even says that all claims must cited. I'm only following the rules.--[[User:Jselin|Jselin]] 16:36, 15 December 2009 (EST) | How was that trolling? The claims that were made were not facts, and were not supported by facts, so I said it needed citation. It even says that all claims must cited. I'm only following the rules.--[[User:Jselin|Jselin]] 16:36, 15 December 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:50, 18 December 2009 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 15:50, December 18, 2009
Welcome!
Hello, JimR, and welcome to Conservapedia!
We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.
At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!
Thanks for reading, JimR!
Got it. Thanks for your vigilance, Jim. We're hoping at least one or two of the people who come here from Colbert might contribute constructively. JacobB 00:41, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Reverts
You are awesome, thanks for the heroic efforts. I will be recommending block rights for you.--Jpatt 13:06, 12 December 2009 (EST)
- Happy to help! --JimR 13:20, 12 December 2009 (EST)
How was that trolling? The claims that were made were not facts, and were not supported by facts, so I said it needed citation. It even says that all claims must cited. I'm only following the rules.--Jselin 16:36, 15 December 2009 (EST)
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.
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. --Ed Poor Talk 10:50, 18 December 2009 (EST)