(Welcome, and thoughts on rigor/science policies) |
m (→Welcome!: move intro note above template message) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
== Welcome! == | == Welcome! == | ||
Hi! Sounds like you probably don't need the usual tips for newbies, but anyway, welcome...! | |||
<div style="border:2px solid #fda; padding:8px; margin:1px; background-color:#fffdf9"> | <div style="border:2px solid #fda; padding:8px; margin:1px; background-color:#fffdf9"> | ||
| Line 26: | Line 29: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Good questions - our policies are still being developed (I'll have a look and see if there's any you haven't seen - but I think [[Appropedia:Rigor]] is the main one. but the bottom line, I think, is that as a community of science-minded people, we require contributions to be consistent with science. There are potential pitfalls in this, of course, and we have other policies that I believe will provide safeguards - openness, allowing opinion (in the appropriate place, and marked as such) and encouraging questions. So there may well be pages on things we believe are pseudoscience - and these should have a rigorous discussion, clearly laying out the arguments for each side. | Good questions - our policies are still being developed (I'll have a look and see if there's any you haven't seen - but I think [[Appropedia:Rigor]] is the main one. but the bottom line, I think, is that as a community of science-minded people, we require contributions to be consistent with science. There are potential pitfalls in this, of course, and we have other policies that I believe will provide safeguards - openness, allowing opinion (in the appropriate place, and marked as such) and encouraging questions. So there may well be pages on things we believe are pseudoscience - and these should have a rigorous discussion, clearly laying out the arguments for each side. | ||
That's my feeling anyway. We welcome your contributions, both to the site as a whole, and any ideas on policy. It looks like you do a lot of very valuable editing on Wikipedia, and it's great to have you here! --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] · <small>[[User talk:Chriswaterguy|talk]]</small> 17:20, 15 February 2008 (PST) | That's my feeling anyway. We welcome your contributions, both to the site as a whole, and any ideas on policy. It looks like you do a lot of very valuable editing on Wikipedia, and it's great to have you here! --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] · <small>[[User talk:Chriswaterguy|talk]]</small> 17:20, 15 February 2008 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 01:21, 16 February 2008
Hi Writenonsand,
Welcome to Appropedia. I think your plan to be bold and learn about what's appropriate here is a great idea.
One of the admins will be getting back to you on your excellent question regarding our policy on the scientific method. You may also be interested to check out our nascent topic expert concept.
We are excited to have you here, --Lonny 12:52, 15 February 2008 (PST)
Welcome!
Hi! Sounds like you probably don't need the usual tips for newbies, but anyway, welcome...!
Hi Writtenonsand,
Welcome to the Appropedia wiki. Please make yourself at home! If you need a general wiki-tutorial, Wikieducator has some excellent ones.
Check your preferences and be sure you verify your email address and turn on email notification if you'd like it -- you can find out when your talk page, or any page on your watchlist, is modified. You may want to upload a photo or information about yourself to your userpage (which is at http://appropedia.org/User:Writtenonsand).
If you have a particular interest or project in mind, go ahead and start it! Feel free to leave me a note on my talk page if you have further questions, need help finding your way around, have a cool idea for a project, or just want to chat. You can also call, text, or email me anytime; contact information is on my user page.
Glad to have you here!
Good questions - our policies are still being developed (I'll have a look and see if there's any you haven't seen - but I think Appropedia:Rigor is the main one. but the bottom line, I think, is that as a community of science-minded people, we require contributions to be consistent with science. There are potential pitfalls in this, of course, and we have other policies that I believe will provide safeguards - openness, allowing opinion (in the appropriate place, and marked as such) and encouraging questions. So there may well be pages on things we believe are pseudoscience - and these should have a rigorous discussion, clearly laying out the arguments for each side.
That's my feeling anyway. We welcome your contributions, both to the site as a whole, and any ideas on policy. It looks like you do a lot of very valuable editing on Wikipedia, and it's great to have you here! --Chriswaterguy · talk 17:20, 15 February 2008 (PST)