Secondly, I believe that, when someone changes the initial form of an article completely, he/she would better briefly explain in the talk section the bad parts (wrong ideas, bad English etc.) of this initial form. This may be much more didactic for the readers. ErdemTuzun
I don't really disagree with this, and in fact that's why my article explicitly mentions that some later conceptions of the term (such as memetic "organisms") are often the ones most talked about. I wouldn't have any objection to more coverage of that aspect, and more mentions of popular beliefs and misconceptions. But I do think it is important to emphasize the original idea and the solid science behind it more than popular conceptions, extrapolations, and speculations. And Larry's right--this is dangerous ground, and many people use the concept to justify sociological nonsense, the same way that some people use quantum mechanics to justify subjectivity, and the way many earlier writers used Darwin to justify racism, so it must be handled with care. Also, your original text wasn't as clear or explanatory as some of your other stuff (particularly your medical information which is great). That's understandable; it may be a combination of the vagueness of the subject itself and your English (which is actually better than that of many native speakers I know, but still...). I just couldn't understand what you were trying to say, how it was organized, and how it related to Dawkins' original ideas. I think my text is clearer, more useful, and more faithful to the original concept. Feel free to add anything you think important that I may have missed. -- LDC
|
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)