User talk:JimR
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)
- Interesting! Another neat example, this one from math, is the recent 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. --JimR 11:05, 18 December 2009 (EST)