Quality control is easily Wikipedia's biggest issue in my opinion. The level of
scholarship ranges widely, but in general leaves much to be desired. Even the articles judged "best" (i.e. featured) tend to rely on various web pages instead of peer-reviewed information, indicating that most articles are just pulling whatever they can find off the web. Problem is, the best scholarship for any given topic is generally NOT on the web (there are exceptions of course).
Strongest Background is in ecology, especially plant ecology. Also evolution, molecular biology, genetics, botany, wildlife biology, mountains, rives, baseball, scientific methods. Have contributed to a wide range of articles.
Jeeb 01:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Quality control is easily Wikipedia's biggest issue in my opinion. The level of
scholarship ranges widely, but in general leaves much to be desired. Even the articles judged "best" (i.e. featured) tend to rely on various web pages instead of peer-reviewed information, indicating that most articles are just pulling whatever they can find off the web. Problem is, the best scholarship for any given topic is generally NOT on the web (there are exceptions of course).
Strongest Background is in ecology, especially plant ecology. Also evolution, molecular biology, genetics, botany, wildlife biology, mountains, rives, baseball, scientific methods. Have contributed to a wide range of articles.
Jeeb 01:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)