User talk:Jonathan M. Feldman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The changes you made to the article Impact factor appeared to me to be a generally unsourced mini-essay, much more general than the criticism of impact factor has scope for. I've accordingly removed it, but if you are interested in the subject, I urge you to look around for more broadly focused articles. I do advise you on the basis of my experience here that the argument should probably be supported by more sourcing that the general ones to the philosophers concerned. best of luck with it.

I should also say that if you disagree, please feel free to discuss the matter on the article talk page--I do not want to give the impression that the people already there WP:OWN the page. (& See WP:BOLD.) But I think we do need some more articles on the practice of science in general, and this might be the start of one, though I cannot immediately think what to call it. DGG (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to John Kerry. As a member of the Wikipedia community, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article must include proper sources. Thank you. Blogs are not allowed as sources. Crockspot 12:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply from Jonathan M. Feldman: I have challenged the "impact factor" article using a methodology that is beyond the scope of the primary and original author of this article and have given you plenty of references to support my position. One of these is the work of Thomas Kuhn who speaks of paradigms linked to power relations. The problem here is that you are using the kind of positivist methodology that I am criticizing. We are speaking a different language.