Talk:Open access: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
imported>Robert Badgett No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Some totally non-encyclopedic parts have been removed, but go see them in Wikipedia, because they are clever, as would be expected from it author. I'd like to try to edit it to keep some of the style, but it may be impossible. Id rather someone worked on it other than myself, because I have written 2 reviews on the subject & I fear I will sound the same. (& its not as if I were unprejudiced myself) [[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 23:41, 21 November 2006 (CST) | Some totally non-encyclopedic parts have been removed, but go see them in Wikipedia, because they are clever, as would be expected from it author. I'd like to try to edit it to keep some of the style, but it may be impossible. Id rather someone worked on it other than myself, because I have written 2 reviews on the subject & I fear I will sound the same. (& its not as if I were unprejudiced myself) [[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 23:41, 21 November 2006 (CST) | ||
::meanwhile please keep, it is better than the present WP article.[[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 21:27, 18 February 2007 (CST) | ::meanwhile please keep, it is better than the present WP article.[[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 21:27, 18 February 2007 (CST) | ||
:::This article is a mess. I did some initial cleaning. Curious that an article within information sciences does not correctly use references. - [[User:Robert Badgett|Robert Badgett]] 06:25, 17 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:25, 17 May 2008
As obvious, this was written based entirely on one particular person's POV in the most transparent manner imaginable. Some totally non-encyclopedic parts have been removed, but go see them in Wikipedia, because they are clever, as would be expected from it author. I'd like to try to edit it to keep some of the style, but it may be impossible. Id rather someone worked on it other than myself, because I have written 2 reviews on the subject & I fear I will sound the same. (& its not as if I were unprejudiced myself) DavidGoodman 23:41, 21 November 2006 (CST)
- meanwhile please keep, it is better than the present WP article.DavidGoodman 21:27, 18 February 2007 (CST)
- This article is a mess. I did some initial cleaning. Curious that an article within information sciences does not correctly use references. - Robert Badgett 06:25, 17 May 2008 (CDT)
- meanwhile please keep, it is better than the present WP article.DavidGoodman 21:27, 18 February 2007 (CST)