Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Peer review of articles before publication  (Read 22602 times)
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2418




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2011, 01:55:59 PM »

Having a piece of writing accepted or rejected for display as an eHam article is not a free speech issue.  Just as Scientific American is not obligated to publish ill-informed remarks concerning global climate change, eHam is not obligated to elevate half-baked rants or misinformed technical advice to "Article" status. 

Yes, the eHam editors can do a better job of screening articles.  The suggestion was made by W8JI to have a volunteer peer review committee to help them do their job.

Implementing this suggestion would almost certainly improve the quality of articles.

73,
Chuck  NI0C
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20635




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: August 27, 2011, 06:32:57 PM »

I read the article in question and did not find it offensive at all. It was just an opinion based upon actual experience. There were no "technical" issues or errors involved. The only grammatical error I found, if that is an issue, was that he spelled split as "spit" on the 17 meter band.  Shocked


I think the issue is that this particular article, and some others, are really just "Op Ed" pieces, expressing an opinion and not informing or educating anyone.

That's why there's an Op-Ed section in most newspapers; but they are not considered to be informational nor educational -- just expressions.  If eHam is okay with that, then I guess it's fine.  But some readers might construe "articles" to be factual or educational, and some aren't.
Logged
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9296


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #17 on: August 28, 2011, 05:17:49 AM »

I read the article in question and did not find it offensive at all. It was just an opinion based upon actual experience. There were no "technical" issues or errors involved. The only grammatical error I found, if that is an issue, was that he spelled split as "spit" on the 17 meter band.  Shocked

You either did not do a careful review, or you lack some core ability to know good articles from poor articles.

That article was full of technical errors, including misstating the width of the 17 meter band by 100 kHz.

It also called people disrespectful names, and had a whining unadult tone.

It could have been a good article, and I certainly agree that split operation is abused, but the accuracy and the tone was nothing more than a rant.

73 Tom
Logged
K9IUQ
Member

Posts: 2053




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: August 28, 2011, 05:30:29 AM »


It could have been a good article, and I certainly agree that split operation is abused, but the accuracy and the tone was nothing more than a rant.

73 Tom

I think we need to define what constitutes an article vs what is merely a post for a forum.

The article in discussion was nothing more than a rant designed to elicit more rants...
It should have been posted in the DX Forum and not as an article.

Stan K9IUQ


Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: August 28, 2011, 09:15:35 AM »

Lets review shall we? W8JI first stated that we needed "peer review of articles" for "technical accuracy." However, upon proding by yours truly, he came out of the closet and expanded this need for published oversight to articles he states contain "nasty demeaning, insulting and threatening content." He goes further to include articles that he considers "rants."  Angry

These comments by him are in fact "rants." Why would the owners of eHam.net put someone in charge of reviewing articles for rants, when he and his cohorts are in fact guilty of the same conduct? Here again, like an echo in a canyon, I have proven that the biggest complainers are the biggest violators!  Shocked

As far as the inaccuracy of technical information; almost any article can be accused of being in error by anyone for minutiae, often times for things that have nothing to do with the main content. Think of all the great science and inventions that were discovered by nontechnically correct accident; penicillin, vulcanized rubber, super glue, photography, radioactivity, teflon, plastic, microwave ovens, safety glass, stainless steel, velcro, dynamite, pacemakers (fortunately for many on eHam.net), fingerprinting, matches, cellophane, post it notes and the multi-band operation of the G5RV along with many other ham antennas. Why would you throw out the baby with the bathwater on the possibility of great scientific progress and or ideas, unless someone is just on a power trip?  Grin

Often, on eHam.net, we see the "experts" listed by the proposer of this censorship arguing over technical issues that they themselves cannot agree on. If put in charge of reviewing articles, it could be weeks, months, years or maybe never before an article is approved. However, I suspect that their articles would always and quickly be approved! This is a back door way for them to get what they proposed earlier. To allow only the "approved experts" to publish articles on eHam.net!  Wink

  

      
« Last Edit: August 28, 2011, 05:46:32 PM by KI4SDY » Logged
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9296


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #20 on: August 28, 2011, 02:36:36 PM »

KI4SDY,

I expect a few people to think everyone has a right to dump whatever trash they like in an article or in communications over internet forums or groups.

My belief is different. I think people should do their best to have a respectful tone to other people, no matter what the disagreement. I think articles that represent a publising group, be it QST and the ARRL, CQ magazine, or eHam should make some effort to see that people use some reasonable care in what they say, and treat others the way they would want treated.

That's my opinion.

Please don't try to rewrite history by incorrectly stating my opinion, or what I have said.

73 Tom

Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: August 28, 2011, 02:46:24 PM »

So in other words, it is not the "technical content" that you are concerned about, but articles that are "offensive" to you. Obviously, I was correct in my assessment of your position.  Wink

Please don't try to mislead others into thinking that you have a different position by posting the same opinion and then claim that others have incorrectly stated what you said. Unless, of course, your running for office!  Grin
« Last Edit: August 28, 2011, 05:57:24 PM by KI4SDY » Logged
K9IUQ
Member

Posts: 2053




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: August 28, 2011, 05:41:54 PM »

My belief is different. I think people should do their best to have a respectful tone to other people, no matter what the disagreement. I think articles that represent a publising group, be it QST and the ARRL, CQ magazine, or eHam should make some effort to see that people use some reasonable care in what they say, and treat others the way they would want treated.

That's my opinion.

73 Tom

It is my opinion also. You are wasting your time trying to argue with mentalitys like KI4SDY. Him and others like him here on eham have little to nothing to add to any intelligent conversation.

It seems lately that eham is being taken over by jerks like KI4SDY and many others. I only hope that eham starts to take action and do some moderating.

If not I fear that respected hams like you Tom W8JI, will just take your precious knowledge elsewhere or keep it to your self.

To KI4SDY: You are a General. If I had to guess I would say you are probably not a seasoned ham. Your lack of knowledge shows in many posts. Trying to demean and attack W8JI shows that you also have more than a trace of stupidity. Hams like you are why us oldtimers get so disillusioned with new Hams...

Stan K9IUQ


Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: August 28, 2011, 05:55:00 PM »

I believe you violated just about every issue that W8JI was complaining about with your comments. It is unfortunate that some older hams do not want to lead by example, but instead try to run the future of ham radio off with criticism.  Kiss   
Logged
K9IUQ
Member

Posts: 2053




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: August 28, 2011, 06:02:34 PM »

try to run the future of ham radio off with criticism.  Kiss   

I show respect to those that deserve and earn it.
You know, hams like W8JI....

Stan K9IUQ
Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: August 28, 2011, 06:24:14 PM »

Where are you building the temple of worship? I will be glad to put a few nickles in the plate! Grin
Logged
N3JBH
Member

Posts: 2358




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: August 28, 2011, 07:17:20 PM »

KI4SDY would you mind pointing out where Tom W8JI made all these posting's you claim he did?
I am not praising Tom to the point i build a temple to him by any means but i sure as heck have a ton of respect for him.
I agree some times Tom does get kind of finicky about some topic's. But that is only because he is trying to just clear up a issue that is for the benefit of all.
There is some great minds on here not just his and really beside that i hate to see him leave over such silly carrying on. Jeff
Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: August 28, 2011, 07:25:50 PM »

All you have to do is read this string from start to finish. You don't know what was said if you don't read all of the posts.  Wink
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 05:21:16 PM by KI4SDY » Logged
N3JBH
Member

Posts: 2358




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: August 28, 2011, 07:38:38 PM »

I did and i see what i think was a commendable job on what he stated. I think i said enough on the subject you may interpret it how ever you may like but i am standing behind him.
Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: August 28, 2011, 08:51:17 PM »

I have no problem with you being of the same mindset as long as you admit it. Unfortunately, he has not done the same.  Cry
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!