User talk:Jesper Jurcenoks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Jesper Jurcenoks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Valentinian T / C 13:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop moving comments

Please stop moving comments as you are doing on Talk:Simple machine. It's okay to copy them if you want to bring a topic up again but do not remove them from where they were. When you move the comments, you are breaking up the flow of the original person's thoughts. You are also disrupting the attribution of those prior comments. Rossami (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Message. I will follow your advise Jesper Jurcenoks (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Peer review

If you have enough to submit to a publication like Scientific American, you definitely should do so. Even though that is not technically a peer reviewed journal, it has sufficiently high editorial standards that it would be considered a reliable source.

Peer review by wikipedians, unfortunately, would not be considered a reliable source under our own policies. The fundamental challenge is our approach to pseudonymous editing. You have no way to know whether I'm a retired physics teacher, standing professor, rank amateur or even a particularly articulate 10 year old. I am equally in the dark about you. And here is the fun part - There is literally no way to prove our identities and credentials either under the Wikipedia system.

In most situations, that doesn't matter. Encyclopedias are, by definition, tertiary sources. We synopsize the writings of others. As long as my edits are sourcable and in keeping with Wikipedia's mission, my credentials (or lack of them) don't matter. But in this situation, I see your point that as you said you are starting to hit the gray area between summary and synthesis...

I would definitely recommend that you submit the work for external publication if you think you can. First, that will get you some personal recognition and credit - recognition that doesn't come from Wikipedia editing. Second, if it passes their muster, we won't have to worry about arguments of original research in the future. Finally, most journals require that the work not have been previously published. If you publish your work here first, you won't have the option to change your mind. If you publish in SA, you can always re-release your work under GFDL later.

If you choose not to, well, we've taken that path before in some articles. (The page on Intelligent Design comes to mind.) It's often a controversial choice and results in a great deal of debate and discussion on the article's pages. I think it's resulted in some high-quality pages but it's a lot of work. Rossami (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)