The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Images > Image of the Day

Image of the Day Images that will blow your mind - every day. [Blog] [RSS] [XML]

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 02-10-2007, 05:37 PM   #46
bluesdave
Getting older every day
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
As a Wikipedia advocate I take this combination of statements to be highly ironic.
Research institutions often post news releases about their research projects, on their web sites. That was what I was looking for, not the research paper itself. Very few of these sites offer archives, so if they have a busy publicity/communications department, the news releases can drop out of sight pretty quickly.

I have only ever quoted a link to Wikipedia if the subject content looked OK to me, and as I have already said, I know that most web users accept Wikipedia as being an impeccable source. I too wish that more of our work was published on the web, but there is very strong resistance to doing this amongst the scientific community. I tried to do something about it, but I was virtually a lone voice.
__________________
History is a great teacher; it is a shame that people never learn from it.
bluesdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2007, 05:40 PM   #47
missaminus
Writer of Writings
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: I bloom where planted
Posts: 14
sluurrrrp!

anything I can suck up in my Dyson vacuum is tolerable. Anything else that I can't- mice, rats, snakes, kids (eewwww!)- intolerable!
missaminus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2007, 06:15 PM   #48
bluesdave
Getting older every day
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
C'mon Dave, I believe ya. I'm just trying to help you out here, by linking pertinent articles.
I know Bruce, and I appreciate your efforts. I meant no disrespect to you.
__________________
History is a great teacher; it is a shame that people never learn from it.
bluesdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2007, 09:11 PM   #49
skysidhe
~~Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.~~
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 6,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV View Post
GAH!!
skysidhe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 04:41 PM   #50
Wombat
(marsupial with backward-facing pouch)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Canberra
Posts: 251
In Australia, the term daddy long legs refers to a different creep-crawly... ours is a true spider, with a small pale body and very long thin legs. It is rumored to be one of the most venomous spiders in the world, however it is harmless to humans because its fangs are too small to pierce human skin.

__________________
If you don't do it properly, you'll get to the pub sooner.
Wombat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2007, 09:23 AM   #51
LabRat
twatfaced two legged bumhole
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesdave View Post
Research institutions often post news releases about their research projects, on their web sites.
So, they are telling what they found out, and you are saying OK, that must be true then. Right?

Just because a "Research Institution" says something , doesn't mean it's necessarily right.

All scientific articles must go thru a peer review process before being accepted for publication, online and eventually print in a scientific journal. The papers are usually sent to 3 researchers in the same field, who are asked to review the paper. (If they do not wish to review it, it is sent out again until at least 3 people review it.) If all 3 say sure, looks good to us, it generally gets published. If there are apparent problems withthe method of experiment, or conclusions drawn, the author(s) are either asked to make corrections and resubmit for further review, or the paper is totally denied for that publication in that journal. The Authors can then send the paper out to another (less picky/lower quality) journal, and try to get it published again, with or without revisions.

I am a researcher, so I know this process.

Scientific journal editors are relying on the collective knowledge of experts to put out reliable information.

Essentially this is what Wiki is doing also. The info is out there, but "we" are the reviewers. It's really no more or less reliable than the set of people reviewing the initial submissions.
__________________
Strength does not come from how much weight you can lift, or how many miles you can run. It comes from knowing that you set a goal, and rose to the challenge. Strength comes from within.
LabRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2007, 04:30 PM   #52
bluesdave
Getting older every day
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabRat View Post
So, they are telling what they found out, and you are saying OK, that must be true then. Right?
No.

Quote:
Just because a "Research Institution" says something , doesn't mean it's necessarily right.
True. I never said otherwise.

Quote:
All scientific articles must go thru a peer review process before being accepted for publication, online and eventually print in a scientific journal. The papers are usually sent to 3 researchers in the same field, who are asked to review the paper. (If they do not wish to review it, it is sent out again until at least 3 people review it.) If all 3 say sure, looks good to us, it generally gets published. If there are apparent problems withthe method of experiment, or conclusions drawn, the author(s) are either asked to make corrections and resubmit for further review, or the paper is totally denied for that publication in that journal. The Authors can then send the paper out to another (less picky/lower quality) journal, and try to get it published again, with or without revisions.
Don't try to teach your grandpa how to suck eggs, girlie. :p

Quote:
I am a researcher, so I know this process.
I was undertaking research when you were just a gleam in your parents' eyes.
Quote:
Essentially this is what Wiki is doing also. The info is out there, but "we" are the reviewers. It's really no more or less reliable than the set of people reviewing the initial submissions.
Rubbish. First Wiki is not a recognised, nor supported, academic resource, and secondly, any given entry can be modified by anyone, and even the "editors" often cannot agree - a fact admitted on NPR by the head of Wiki last Friday. He said that he knows of entries that have been modified several times in only a few minutes, and that he has no control over it. He seemed to be quite proud of it. Strange.
__________________
History is a great teacher; it is a shame that people never learn from it.
bluesdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2007, 06:43 PM   #53
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
Here is an excellent article that explains how Wikipedia really works. It appears from the comments below the article, there's some politics, some money, some ego, some disention....but it's working.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:57 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.