On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 04:55:03PM -0600, Bob Parks wrote:
> Bernard Lang writes:
> >
> >right ...
> >
> > why not erase all historical mistakes from the history books ... so
> >that we can learn only how thing should go, and not how they can go
> >wrong.
>
> I was not speaking of books nor peer reviewed 'published' papers, but
> rather 'preprints' aka working papers. That is a different issue.
>
> Bob
I realize that. I only meant that information about mistakes made is
also information. There is no shame in having "published" (made
public) a mistake ... especially if you are the one to correct it.
And it is authentic data for science historians, or psychologist or
whatever to understand the scientific process.
It is good and useful to be able to label a version of a paper as
mistaken, so as to warn readers, and even to comment explaining why it
is, eevn why the error was made (actually all comments are good)
... but why remove the information.
Small story that happened to me recently. Someone is developping a
project, and used a search engine to see how is project is referenced.
The first reference is a comment I made about 18 months ago,
criticizing the site (which had been promoted much too early). He
wrote to me asking whether I could do something about it.
Unfortunately, my comment was in the archive of a mailing list I do
not control, and I could do nothing.
Now ... should my message be removed from the archive ?
I believe not. An archive is an archive.
Should the archive be made non accessible ? what use then ?
The conclusion I came to is that I should be able to comment my
message in the archive (the date should be a comment by itself, but
apparently many people cannot read dates).
Regards
Bernard
> >Bernard
> >
> >
> >On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 02:57:02PM -0500, David Goodman wrote:
> >> If they disappear others may well make the same mistake. But if they
> >> continue to exist, with the error noted, people will learn from
> >> them (embarrassing as it may prove to be for the authors of the example).
> >>
> >> Bob Parks wrote:
> >>
> >> > ... There are some papers which prove to be wrong, even
> >> > though there was considerable thought put into them - and possibly
> >> > they should, as much as possible, disappear.
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > >bp> Maybe not for other professions, but certainly in economics, business,
> >> > >bp> and political science (subjects about which I have knowledge).
> >> > >
> >> > >I am sure this was the practise and expectation in paper days, when
> >> > >drafts were sent only to specific trusted colleagues, but it is a fact
> >> > >that public posting on the Web is (like publication) another ball-game
> >> > >(a bit more like guassian roulette).
> >> >
> >> > YES, again I agree.
> >> >
> >> > >bp> The persistent URL should, as with arXiv, point to the most recent
> >> > >bp> draft and penultimate drafts should be in the trash.
> >> > >
> >> > >That is an option that should be available, but its use should be
> >> > >strongly discouraged. Better to selectively email the potentially
> >> > >embarrassing drafts, intended to be forgotten, and self-archive only the
> >> > >ones one feels one can live with being seen publicly (and potentially
> >> > >remembered and referred to forever). It is, after all, something of an
> >> > >antidote to unwelcome citing and quoting to be able to point to the
> >> > >extant draft and say: "See, it said 'temporary draft, to be revised, do
> >> > >not cite or quote'...."
> >> >
> >> > As above, we might have a bit of disagreement about how strongly
> >> > one discourages removal, but I think we are in agreement.
> >> >
> >> > And again, it is not the "potentially embarrassing drafts,
> >> > intended to be forgotten," but rather any 'draft'. I would certainly
> >> > not want to revert to the mailing of drafts - but maybe I make a
> >> > whole lot more mistakes than you do and that is the reason that we
> >> > slightly disagree.
> >> >
> >> > >(Ceterum censeo: This is all irrelevant to the issue of open access,
> >> > >which is mainly about open access to the research literature after peer
> >> > >review. How early a draft one wishes to make openly accessible before
> >> > >peer review is a matter for the author to decide. But open access should
> >> > >in general be thought of as being forever.)
> >> >
> >> > Ah, mea culpa. My open access (moa?) concerns both pre peer review
> >> > and post peer review. In economics, where lags between submission and
> >> > acceptance are large, require an open access working paper culture.
> >> >
> >> > I fully agree that the post peer review literature ought to be
> >> > persistant. If corrections are needed, then errata should be posted
> >> > (and linked).
> >> >
> >> > Gee, now that we nearly completely agree, one of us isn't needed.
> >> > I hope its me.
> >> >
> >> > (;-)
> >> >
> >> > Bob
> >> >
> >> > *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> >> > # Economics Working Paper Archive #
> >> > # http://econwpa.wustl.edu/wpawelcome.html #
> >> > # gopher econwpa.wustl.edu #
> >> > # #
> >> > # Send a mail message (empty body) #
> >> > # To: econ-wp_at_econwpa.wustl.edu #
> >> > # Subject: get announce #
> >> > *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> >> > Always remember: inertia has no effect on the ultimate steady state solution.
> >> > NEVER remember: Keynes said in the long run we are all dead.
> >> > *--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> >> > | Bob Parks Voice: (314) 935-5665 |
> >> > | Department of Economics, Campus Box 1208 Fax: (314) 935-4156 |
> >> > | Washington University |
> >> > | One Brookings Drive |
> >> > | St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899 bparks_at_wuecona.wustl.edu|
> >> > *--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> >> >
> >>
> >> Dr. David Goodman
> >> Biological Sciences Bibliographer
> >> Princeton University Library
> >> dgoodman_at_princeton.edu
> >
> >--
> > Non aux Brevets Logiciels - No to Software Patents
> > SIGNEZ http://petition.eurolinux.org/ SIGN
> >
> >Bernard.Lang_at_inria.fr ,_ /\o \o/ Tel +33 1 3963 5644
> >http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Fax +33 1 3963 5469
> > INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
> > Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
> > CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX
> >
>
>
> --
>
> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> # Economics Working Paper Archive #
> # http://econwpa.wustl.edu/wpawelcome.html #
> # gopher econwpa.wustl.edu #
> # #
> # Send a mail message (empty body) #
> # To: econ-wp_at_econwpa.wustl.edu #
> # Subject: get announce #
> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> Always remember: inertia has no effect on the ultimate steady state solution.
> NEVER remember: Keynes said in the long run we are all dead.
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> | Bob Parks Voice: (314) 935-5665 |
> | Department of Economics, Campus Box 1208 Fax: (314) 935-4156 |
> | Washington University |
> | One Brookings Drive |
> | St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899 bparks_at_wuecona.wustl.edu|
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
--
Non aux Brevets Logiciels - No to Software Patents
SIGNEZ http://petition.eurolinux.org/ SIGN
Bernard.Lang_at_inria.fr ,_ /\o \o/ Tel +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Fax +33 1 3963 5469
INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX
Received on Tue Dec 24 2002 - 07:55:00 GMT