Talk:Orch-OR: Difference between revisions
imported>Gareth Leng No edit summary |
imported>Peter Schmitt (→History of this article: my suggestion on this) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
I have some problems with this article. This theory has attracted virtually no interest from academic neuroscientists; the Annals paper cited here has been cited just 20 times. Personally I am unsurprised, I don't personally see anything of substance or significance in the theory, but see many errors of fact in this article. As it is a WP import I've left it (for now) but flagged it as a WP import pending other views. It could be trimmed back and given a fair face here, but my view is that this falls below any notability threshold among fringe theories, and I don't really think it's worth the candle. Personal view- harmless nonsense.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 17:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC) | I have some problems with this article. This theory has attracted virtually no interest from academic neuroscientists; the Annals paper cited here has been cited just 20 times. Personally I am unsurprised, I don't personally see anything of substance or significance in the theory, but see many errors of fact in this article. As it is a WP import I've left it (for now) but flagged it as a WP import pending other views. It could be trimmed back and given a fair face here, but my view is that this falls below any notability threshold among fringe theories, and I don't really think it's worth the candle. Personal view- harmless nonsense.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 17:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
: I cannot judge the quality of this article myself and trust your opinion. Moreover, the mere fact that it is a direct WP import and is said to be copied from the website of one of the proponents of the theory makes it a candidate for removal. But even though it is not a topic as "popular" as [[Ormus]] it justifies a page, I think. Roger Penrose is well-known and recognized as a theoretical physicist and mathematician (though not as neuroscientist). This, I think makes even a bogus theory "notable". My approach would be to blank the page, and then use a (more critically) rewritten version of the lead as a short article on the subject (that may or may not be extended later). --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 11:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:50, 11 May 2010
History of this article
This article was published in Wikipedia and featured on the Webpage of Stuart Hameroff, one of the co-founders of this well-known theory of consciousness. Since then, the page has lost interesting features (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR). For instance, the "questions" section is lost and there is an overemphasis on criticisms. Usual problems with WP. I consider that this article is lively and fascinating. I see it as a an example of what CZ should look like; it is written in a style that is simiar to the Life article. Of course, I'm not saying it can't be improved. But some of WP's "improvements" should be avoided. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 22:32, 25 April 2008 (CDT)
I have some problems with this article. This theory has attracted virtually no interest from academic neuroscientists; the Annals paper cited here has been cited just 20 times. Personally I am unsurprised, I don't personally see anything of substance or significance in the theory, but see many errors of fact in this article. As it is a WP import I've left it (for now) but flagged it as a WP import pending other views. It could be trimmed back and given a fair face here, but my view is that this falls below any notability threshold among fringe theories, and I don't really think it's worth the candle. Personal view- harmless nonsense.Gareth Leng 17:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I cannot judge the quality of this article myself and trust your opinion. Moreover, the mere fact that it is a direct WP import and is said to be copied from the website of one of the proponents of the theory makes it a candidate for removal. But even though it is not a topic as "popular" as Ormus it justifies a page, I think. Roger Penrose is well-known and recognized as a theoretical physicist and mathematician (though not as neuroscientist). This, I think makes even a bogus theory "notable". My approach would be to blank the page, and then use a (more critically) rewritten version of the lead as a short article on the subject (that may or may not be extended later). --Peter Schmitt 11:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)