Talk:Orch-OR: Difference between revisions
imported>John Dvorak No edit summary |
imported>Gareth Leng No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
[[User:Pierre-Alain Gouanvic|Pierre-Alain Gouanvic]] 22:32, 25 April 2008 (CDT) | [[User:Pierre-Alain Gouanvic|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.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 17:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:07, 10 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)