Talk:Wikimania05/Presentation-LH1

History on en.wikibooks prior to transwiki:

   * (cur) (last)  13:18, 3 February 2006 24.123.120.10
   * (cur) (last) 22:24, 10 December 2005 Vault m (despam)
   * (cur) (last) 18:45, 10 December 2005 64.92.165.10
   * (cur) (last) 09:35, 26 September 2005 193.205.213.166 (→Presentation slides - Nine observations and ideas around an ongoing paradigm shift =)
   * (cur) (last) 01:48, 29 August 2005 Fuzheado (not real prose)
   * (cur) (last) 01:54, 28 August 2005 JakobVoss m (no paper)
   * (cur) (last) 01:46, 28 August 2005 JakobVoss m (Wikimania05/Paper-LH1 moved to Wikimania05/Presentation-LH1)
   * (cur) (last) 21:39, 12 August 2005 66.248.81.152 (→Thank you! - sp)
   * (cur) (last) 04:42, 12 August 2005 Lambo (Reverted changes by anonymous author from pc122.bzh.uni-heidelberg.de)
   * (cur) (last) 10:02, 11 August 2005 129.206.154.70 (→Who is "guilty", and who (or what) may change this?)
   * (cur) (last) 10:00, 11 August 2005 129.206.154.70 (→Peer Review)
   * (cur) (last) 10:00, 11 August 2005 129.206.154.70 (→Peer Review)
   * (cur) (last) 09:59, 11 August 2005 129.206.154.70 (→Two main starting points of the Open-Access-Movement...)
   * (cur) (last) 09:57, 11 August 2005 129.206.154.70 (→Scholars + their institutions)
   * (cur) (last) 09:55, 11 August 2005 129.206.154.70 (→Two main starting points of the Open-Access-Movement...)
   * (cur) (last) 09:54, 11 August 2005 129.206.154.70 (→Role of commercial scientific publishers)
   * (cur) (last) 09:53, 11 August 2005 129.206.154.70 (→Role of commercial scientific publishers)
   * (cur) (last) 09:52, 11 August 2005 129.206.154.70 (→Role of commercial scientific publishers)
   * (cur) (last) 09:51, 11 August 2005 129.206.154.70 (→Situation today:)
   * (cur) (last) 09:51, 11 August 2005 129.206.154.70 (→Role of commercial scientific publishers)
   * (cur) (last) 09:49, 11 August 2005 129.206.154.70 (→Situation today:)
   * (cur) (last) 09:49, 11 August 2005 129.206.154.70 (→Situation today:)
   * (cur) (last) 06:47, 7 August 2005 66.82.9.83 (→The Open-Access-Movement (OA))
   * (cur) (last) 04:24, 6 August 2005 62.206.65.6
   * (cur) (last) 05:36, 3 August 2005 Lambo
   * (cur) (last) 05:36, 3 August 2005 Lambo ("type=Presentation 30 minutes" added)
   * (cur) (last) 05:34, 3 August 2005 Lambo (Abstract added)
   * (cur) (last) 19:02, 29 July 2005 Fuzheado (templateize)
   * (cur) (last) 18:12, 3 July 2005 JakobVoss m
   * (cur) (last) 13:55, 30 May 2005 Lambo
   * (cur) (last) 13:52, 30 May 2005 Lambo
   * (cur) (last) 13:47, 30 May 2005 Lambo
   * (cur) (last) 16:15, 24 May 2005 JakobVoss (new)

Discussion history:

   * (cur) (last)  22:10, 30 December 2005 Lazyquasar (a bit of an error, perhaps closer investigation of wikimedia operations is warranted)
   * (cur) (last) 01:46, 28 August 2005 JakobVoss m (Talk:Wikimania05/Paper-LH1 moved to Talk:Wikimania05/Presentation-LH1)
   * (cur) (last) 00:22, 15 August 2005 Lambo
   * (cur) (last) 04:41, 12 August 2005 Lambo (Reverted changes by anonymous author from pc122.bzh.uni-heidelberg.de)
   * (cur) (last) 05:30, 4 August 2005 Lambo
   * (cur) (last) 13:15, 14 June 2005 Guaka (Wiki Science:Wikiresearch)

You probably know about Wiki Science:Wikiresearch? :) Guaka 20:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint! --Lambo 12:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I reverted the changes from an anonymous author at 129.206.154.70 (aka pc122.bzh.uni-heidelberg.de) that were made yesterday. Of course, his modified version can still be read under http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimania05/Paper-LH1&oldid=210563 (and of course it can also be used, elsewhere published etc.).

From my point of view, the changes modified the whole direction of my writing in a significant way. For example:

One question: Who is ever getting to read the much valued reviews? And, additionally, who can criticise their criticism? It is very much not like a conversation, and it doesn't value the scientists' work (both the reviewers' and the authors')
(by the way: peer review is also said to be expensive, slow and inefficient…)

was canceled and replaced through:

Peer review is said to be expensive, slow and inefficient, but is there a better way?

(By the way, the presentation already tries to give an answer to exactly that question...)

The author didn't make any attempt to discuss this before.

Now, of course we should still discuss this, but I think it makes no sense to cancel my arguments silently. --Lambo 11:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

This is incorrect

"absolute openness (anyone can edit) and"

While this was advertised on the front page for quite a while (and may still be alleged in the "policies" and the front page); "newbies" are expected to comply rather rapidly with the existing "community"'s allegations of a what a "neutral point of view" is or face labeling, lynching and/or banning. NPOV turns out to be whatever "Jimmy says ..." according to select trusted volunteer subordinates or in person. If Jimmy can agree with your POV, then it is golden (NPOV by definition) and can remain, if not, then it must be revised or deleted. There is no appeal from "Jimmy says ..." as he is the Chairman of the Stacked Board of Directors of the Wikimedia Foundation. This is documented in the wikipedia-l archives unless it has been removed. user:lazyquasar

Add topic