User talk:Linas/Original research, peer review and reputation on Wikipedia

comments
A few comments: well, that's all I can say off the top of my head. -lethe talk 15:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I think this concept would be pretty cool.  Much nicer to read wikipages than arxiv pdfs.  Unless you're printing... which I usually do... but anyway.
 * 2) I don't know if I like the idea of posting any original research to WP before its finished and ready for publication.  Seems there are people who might see it and beat me to the press.
 * 3) Blogs do have support for TeX.  Jacques Distler wrote a plug-in itex for the MoveableType blog.  He and Luboš Motl and others use it in their blogs.  It only does MathML output though.  One notices that although those guys use their blogs to discuss all kinds of new results in physics, they don't really use it for the stuff you're suggesting here.
 * 4) The culture of this proposed place would be quite different (much more academic), and the legal restrictions that would be wanted suggest that this cannot actually be on Wikipedia itself.  That doesn't mean it couldn't still benefit from all the stuff wikipedia does: tex, wikilinks, etc.  It's just that, this place is an encyclopedia, and what you're suggesting is not appropriate for an encyclopdia.


 * Quite right. And thanks for the movable type refs, I will have to explore that a bit. linas 18:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
Vandalism is *not* a problem at all, not even "part of the problem", as the average reader can easily distinguish vandalism from non-vandalism. The only problem is that on more complex topics, most readers cannot distinguish bollocks from reasonable thoughts. Fossa ?! 08:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)