Re: Collaborative wiki - botanists needed
- From: "riverman" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 00:22:02 +0800
"P van Rijckevorsel" <dipteryx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:447ee264$0$82141$dbd41001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
P van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx@xxxxxxxxxx> writes
phrase could apply to an enormous amount of people of quite varyingHowever, what looks more worrisome is the "amateur scientists". This
descriptions.
PvR
"Stewart Robert Hinsley" <{$news$}@meden.demon.co.uk> schreefThe web site, what little it does say, does say that he wants resumes
and sample writing, so presumably there is intended to be some quality
control at the level of vetting applicants.
***
Ah, the wonderful world of intent.
There is a balance in such things. If you go by proven track record you
can
only pass senior scientists, who will not have much time to devote to such
a
project. You need people with time on their hands. In actual practice it
may not be so easy to select people with both time and ability. Not to
mention motivation.
PvR
Yes, and how exactly does this differ from a minor-league version of
submitting papers to be published, but without the peer review?
--riverman
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Collaborative wiki - botanists needed
- From: P van Rijckevorsel
- Re: Collaborative wiki - botanists needed
- References:
- Re: Collaborative wiki - botanists needed
- From: Stewart Robert Hinsley
- Re: Collaborative wiki - botanists needed
- From: P van Rijckevorsel
- Re: Collaborative wiki - botanists needed
- Prev by Date: Re: Collaborative wiki - botanists needed
- Next by Date: Re: Collaborative wiki - botanists needed
- Previous by thread: Re: Collaborative wiki - botanists needed
- Next by thread: Re: Collaborative wiki - botanists needed
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|