User talk:NoychoH
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
[edit] Łączenie kont
- Wiem, ze mozna laczyc IP z zarejestrowanym, wiec chyba tak. Ale nie jetem pewien jak: spytaj sie na Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical) albo na WP:ANI (a najlepiej i tu, i tu).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You disagree
Well i think in the interests of comity we should have a discussion in some other venue. I propose msn--Filll 12:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] discussing WP
WP is a good place to do it, & centralize a discussion is convenient, and so I will avail myself of my colleague's invitation, and will look here for a reply.
I see WP as providing a sort of index to knowledge--not a repository of it, which is beyond any encyclopedia, not a summary of it, which needs experts such as on Citizendium, but an fully anotated hyperlinked index of where information is to be found. The role of the WP is the role of the journalist. We organize and report on as much of the world as possible. We have some unique advantages--the variety of contributors, the potential for hyperlinks, the insistance on GFDL. We have some disadvantages--the lack of intellectual sophistication of many contributors, the stubbornness of others, the prejudices of everyone.
In order to keep this job finite it is necessary to set limits. i do not agree with those who think --quite literally--that every human being living or dead should have an article, and every school and building and group and recording and book and software. We record what is worth recording given our facilities. Most editors here do not have access to research libraries, and can therefore on many topics not be expected to do more than summarize other encyclopedias or textbooks--they cannot be expected to be able to gather all the published work and organize it. for other topics, especially those arisen in the last 8 or 10 years, they can, & the consequent emphasis on contemporary culture is appropriate.
The standards of documentation depend on the subject, and it is absurd to expect peer-reviewed formal sources for computer programs, and equally absurd to rely on newspapers for science. And both absurd & disruptive to treat them as equally open to criticism by the same standards and the same people.
My professional career has been organizing the formal documentation of science, in polemics and a little research in how to do it, and I know the limits of both scholarship and argument. DGG 02:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
