|
Consider moving the sleep and learning page to whatever the scientific name is for the theory it advances. Frankly, it's shameful that it wasn't put on such a page in the first place--I mean, what's the point of writing about the theory if you don't so much as give it a name or identify its proponents? Sorry, I'm being harsh again. :-) --LMS |
|
Consider moving the sleep and learning page to whatever the scientific name is for the theory it advances. Frankly, it's shameful that it wasn't put on such a page in the first place--I mean, what's the point of writing about the theory if you don't so much as give it a name or identify its proponents? Sorry, I'm being harsh again. :-) --LMS |
|
The article boldly claims that the main purpose of sleep is "to consolidate and optimize the layout of memories." I want hard evidence that sleep researchers are well agreed that this is the main purpose of sleep, and then I'll shut up. Otherwise, I am forced to conclude that the article is not written from the NeutralPointOfView. Last I heard, it was not agreed upon, just what the purpose of sleep is. If you can't work on article from the NeutralPointOfView, then please don't work on it at all. --LMS |
|
The article boldly claims that the main purpose of sleep is "to consolidate and optimize the layout of memories." I want hard evidence that sleep researchers are well agreed that this is the main purpose of sleep, and then I'll shut up. Otherwise, I am forced to conclude that the article is not written from the neutral point of view. Last I heard, it was not agreed upon, just what the purpose of sleep is. If you can't work on article from the neutral point of view, then please don't work on it at all. --LMS |
|
Piotr, I am more than willing to defer to authority, including yours. If you would take a moment and stop being defensive, you might notice that Wikipedia allows you to edit the article, and, had you simply put what you put in your FAQ, in answer to my question, most of my complaints would be removed. How hard or frustrating is it to do that? We arrive at consensus here, and almost always defer to authority; I imagine the only authorities to which we don't generally defer are the ones that are very obviously biased, and that isn't obvious in your case, not to me. --LMS |
|
Piotr, I am more than willing to defer to authority, including yours. If you would take a moment and stop being defensive, you might notice that Wikipedia allows you to edit the article, and, had you simply put what you put in your FAQ, in answer to my question, most of my complaints would be removed. How hard or frustrating is it to do that? We arrive at consensus here, and almost always defer to authority; I imagine the only authorities to which we don't generally defer are the ones that are very obviously biased, and that isn't obvious in your case, not to me. --LMS *My hope is that someone will do this reediting without a bias. My corrections could spark a new cycle of reedits. In addition, I would never notice that "generalization" or "minimization" or "interference" could cause misunderstandings but ... perhaps this is because I come from a computing background where these are cripsly defined? I am aware I use an idiosyncratic language -- Piotr Wozniak |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)