[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wikipedia-l
Subject:    Re: [Wikipedia-l] An idea
From:       Stirling Newberry <stirling.newberry () xigenics ! net>
Date:       2005-06-09 5:23:17
Message-ID: bf58d90a5c6c03e4ffeb1f2679c8027e () xigenics ! net
[Download RAW message or body]


On Jun 8, 2005, at 8:46 PM, Stephen Forrest wrote:

> On 6/8/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Eh, it's quite possible, .. for example in making a example for a math
>> article you might stumble on something somewhat novel, but often in
>> mathematics we can empirically confirm the truth of something in a way
>> which doesn't assert POV. So you might say that NOR is less important
>> in articles about math. ... but at the same time, it's not like
>> placing something in an article gets people to test the proof, so NOR
>> is still potentially valuable there because the majority of 'great new
>> mathematical ideas' are actually wrong. :

If you do find something new, then publish. Once published it can be 
included.

The creative effort of wikipedia is the synthesis - it is that which is 
our "original research", namely, the creation of a consensus statement 
of the state of knowledge as it can be documented. This is original - 
it does not exist any place else. If working on wikipedia advances 
original research, then channel that into the appropriate place, namely 
the testing ground for knoweldge. If it then comes back, it is a 
success.

It might even be interesting to document cases of publishable material 
whose origin was on wikipedia as the author did his background work in 
preparation.

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]