CZ Talk:Topic Choice: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Daniel Mietchen (on "topics that reflect original research") |
imported>Daniel Mietchen m (typo) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:I just noticed this and fear that most of my contributions fall into the latter category (in fact, I mainly use CZ to reflect on original research, and I do not see how experts could be drawn in here if that is "excluded"). I would prefer the second part to read more like | :I just noticed this and fear that most of my contributions fall into the latter category (in fact, I mainly use CZ to reflect on original research, and I do not see how experts could be drawn in here if that is "excluded"). I would prefer the second part to read more like | ||
but articles that reflect original research (e.g., "Fruit production in France, Turkmenistan, and Australia") are | but articles that reflect original research (e.g., "Fruit production in France, Turkmenistan, and Australia") are | ||
allowed as long as all the information they | allowed as long as all the information they contain has been peer reviewed. | ||
I am tempted to rephrase this right away but since it's policy, I would like to read others' opinions first. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 09:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC) | I am tempted to rephrase this right away but since it's policy, I would like to read others' opinions first. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 09:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:39, 23 January 2009
Encyclopedia topics
This currently reads
Topics should be plausible as encyclopedia article topics. This excludes, for example, topics expressing personal opinions (e.g., "Why I think God does not exist"), or highly complicated topics that reflect original research (e.g., "Fruit production in France, Turkmenistan, and Australia").
- I just noticed this and fear that most of my contributions fall into the latter category (in fact, I mainly use CZ to reflect on original research, and I do not see how experts could be drawn in here if that is "excluded"). I would prefer the second part to read more like
but articles that reflect original research (e.g., "Fruit production in France, Turkmenistan, and Australia") are allowed as long as all the information they contain has been peer reviewed.
I am tempted to rephrase this right away but since it's policy, I would like to read others' opinions first. --Daniel Mietchen 09:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)