Talk:Science: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 187:

::: I still miss a constructive feedback dealing with the wide array of links relevant for this topic that have not been mentioned at all so far. I fear less about my text, as WP always allows to find articles - and coauthors - (Bruno Latours [[actor-network theory]] applies as well to WP) that welcome expansion based on scholarly sources. I have a more brutish top down approach than [[User:Hafspajen|Hafspajen]], e.g. i put my first edits in the [[David Hume]] lede, after discussion the most part went in the main text but some traces still exist in the lede. Thats as well my goal here. Will you ask at the noticeboard Hafspajen? [[User:Serten II|Serten II]] ([[User talk:Serten II|talk]]) 13:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

::::Actor-network theory? You mean you've observed that people put words into articles and have lots of discussions and think that's it so you think you are productive by sticking in lots of words and going on an on in the discussions? That way of thinking is [[cargo cult science]]. Expanding a cake by sticking in lots of chalk and wood shavings and taking out the flour does not improve it. You've had constructive discussion - you've been told where the stuff could go and that it is inappropriate where you're trying to put it. It just doesn't agree with what you want to do. Your 'brutish approach' is disruptive and you have taken up the time of too many other editors. Try putting the stuff where it belongs in the first place. And stop trying to use every article you come across as a coatrack for your hangups about science. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 14:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)