[Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and...

Tue Nov 2 12:45:05 UTC 2010

Let's have our readers vote.

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:49 PM, <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:

> In a message dated 11/1/2010 6:16:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> jayvdb at gmail.com writes:
>
>
> > The PLOS Medicine article is based on a dataset of 78 interventional
> > studies, 81 observational studies, and only 47 scientific reviews.
> > Also, they do not dissect the data based on the reputability of the
> > publishing venue.
> >
> > We should only use peer-reviewed research published in reputable
> > journals, which eliminates vast quantities of 'research'.
> >
>
> This phrase of yours "reputability of the publishing venue" sounds like the
> reputation of the periodical in which the research is published.
> But what we're discussing in this thread, or sub-thread is who is paying
> for the research, not the venue in which it's being published.
> Am I mis understanding your point?
>
> Also whether or not some other article does or does not mention who paid
> for the research, I don't find germane to whether or not we should or
> should
> not do it.
> Even if you're right about what that other group is doing, we don't have to
> do exactly what someone else is doing.
>
> Our main point, IMHO, should be, what's the most reader-centric position to
> take.
> Not what's the most producer-centric position.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>