| Revision as of 05:22, 2 December 2005 editCamridge (talk | contribs)642 edits →Recent edits to NLP page← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:49, 2 December 2005 edit undoAction potential (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers9,090 editsm reply to camridgeNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| ::::::Comaze, I know of no rebuttals for the presented Winkin inclusions. NLP is by nature self excusing even before criticism. Further rebuttals would lead to redundancy and an unbalanced article, or an article full of criticisms, rebuttals and further criticisms involving a lot more editor conflict. The current structure is such that the NLP overpromotion is balanced by a seperate section of criticism as is common on wikipedia. Keep any excuses preemptively within the upper NLP section and that way you will avoid any further trouble and you will still be able to seperate NLP from criticism. ] 05:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | ::::::Comaze, I know of no rebuttals for the presented Winkin inclusions. NLP is by nature self excusing even before criticism. Further rebuttals would lead to redundancy and an unbalanced article, or an article full of criticisms, rebuttals and further criticisms involving a lot more editor conflict. The current structure is such that the NLP overpromotion is balanced by a seperate section of criticism as is common on wikipedia. Keep any excuses preemptively within the upper NLP section and that way you will avoid any further trouble and you will still be able to seperate NLP from criticism. ] 05:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Would you like to get meditation (3rd opinion) on these matters? Additionally, based on the style and content of your posts I suspect that you are also a sockpuppet of HeadleyDown. I would like to get a third party opinion on this. --] 08:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:49, 2 December 2005
Template:User:Encyclopedist/Welcome! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Recent edits to NLP page
Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I noticed that you organised the references in alphabetical order - thankyou. This would have taken some time. I appreciate your contribution. I think we can probably sort through the citations and where possible clear out any which are not primary sources. Ie. when a book citation is used when there is already a citation from an earlier work in the field (original work) or from a more reputable source in some cases (eg. peer reviewed journal) then we can probably remove the reference and replace it with the proper one. This is normal scholarly practice, I assume this is also normal wikipedia policy. It gets confusing however with a field that is not primarily academic. For academic fields only peer-reviewed journals are considered proper sources, in the primary sources would be publication from the original developers, more recent developers, and well as external sources for critical review. --Comaze 07:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comaze, it is clear why you would want the chance to isolate certain references and label them as you wish. The last editor who tried to convince me of such an activity was almost as biased as you. I suggest you learn to cooperate with neutrally inclined editors or simply stop editing Misplaced Pages. Camridge 07:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Camridge, you really did not answer my question. How can we effectively distinguish between poor qualitity and reputable/notable sources? --Comaze 02:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- How can anyone neutrally label them as such? And under which circumstances are they good or bad? If you want to label them good or bad yourself (of course you do) then you are in the wrong place (of course you are) and you should not be editing articles on wikipedia. Camridge 02:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- That was a simple question that you have avoided again. It was a direct question. How shall we distinguish between reputable sources and notable sources, and sources that are of poor quality (or minority view)? The normal academic practise is to use peer-reviewed journals only. For non-academic fields it is normal practise to include opinions of notable members of the field, and other opinions found in reputable publications. --Comaze 03:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sure Comaze, I have a lot of good critical studies on NLP. I will post them on the article for you. Camridge 03:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have no difficultly with this, as long as you also include the reply and rebuttal from NLP proponents. --Comaze 04:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comaze, I know of no rebuttals for the presented Winkin inclusions. NLP is by nature self excusing even before criticism. Further rebuttals would lead to redundancy and an unbalanced article, or an article full of criticisms, rebuttals and further criticisms involving a lot more editor conflict. The current structure is such that the NLP overpromotion is balanced by a seperate section of criticism as is common on wikipedia. Keep any excuses preemptively within the upper NLP section and that way you will avoid any further trouble and you will still be able to seperate NLP from criticism. Camridge 05:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Would you like to get meditation (3rd opinion) on these matters? Additionally, based on the style and content of your posts I suspect that you are also a sockpuppet of HeadleyDown. I would like to get a third party opinion on this. --Comaze 08:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)