[AUUG-Talk]: Personal Contributions - AUUG's Value Add

[David J N Begley]

Quoting Dave Horsfall <dave at horsfall.org>:

> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, David Newall wrote:
>
>> I can see that you place great value on an academic process. Your phrase
>> "unsubstantiated source" (to which I take objection) reveals this as
>> much as "peer-reviewed".
>
> Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether I do (especially
> since I've never worked in academia), what exactly is your objection to
> said process?

DavidN clearly wrote that his objection was to your use of the phrase,  
"unsubstantiated source" - not to an academic process per se:

   "Your phrase 'unsubstantiated source' (to which I take objection)..."

>> I don't think mailing lists are particularly peer-reviewed;
>
> Everything you post is potentially reviewed by your peers, and after a
> while one forms an opinion as to the value of another's posts.  QED.

Mailing lists are no more or less "peer-reviewed" (unless heavily  
moderated) than the Web - both require a degree of critical thinking  
and cross-checking of sources.

As you have correctly indicated, there is a level of trust involved -  
if you trust the poster/publisher of information, it matters not  
whether the information is distributed via mailing lists, the Web,  
Goodies Post Office or stone tablet.

> Nice try at drawing red herrings, but I'll be polite and assume that you
> merely misread what I wrote in the second paragraph from the top.  *You*

Pot.call( &Kettle, "black" );