I agree that with the correction of mistakes often it is diplomacy that is
lacking but the other side of the coin is a strong objection by some to
being corrected. As someone who has published many papers in refereed
journals I have become used to having my writing severely corrected. At
times I believe the reviewers have been unfair in their comments so I have
stuck to my guns. However the critical evaluation of data and information
is essential to good science and although the BA site is not a scientific
site it is desirable to maintain a high standard of accuracy as mistakes can
be perpetuated as Philip states. So the lessons to be learned are - correct
mistakes but be diplomatic and accept corrections if they are well founded.
Personalising comments and criticisms is not appropriate.
Regards
Greg
Dr Greg. P. Clancy,
Ecologist and Birding-wildlife Guide
| PO Box 63 Coutts Crossing NSW 2460
| 02 6649 3153 | 0429 601 960
http://www.gregclancyecologistguide.com
http://gregswildliferamblings.blogspot.com.au/
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Shute
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 5:56 PM
To: Philip Veerman
Cc: birding-aus
Subject: The Decline of BA
Membership of the birding-aus mailing list doesn't seem to be declining,
Philip - still growing, I think.
What's changed is the number of postings. Jenny mentioned the trip reports,
but what I've noticed is the vagrant alerts. A vagrant that would once have
generated dozens of postings the same day it was reported, is sometimes
never even mentioned here now, although these reports seem to be returning
to some extent.
Requests for help with identification have moved to Facebook in a big way,
probably because of the ease of posting photos.
As for correcting mistakes, I think all that's lacking at times is
diplomacy. I should know, I've been guilty of it enough times.
Peter Shute
Sent from my iPad
>
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR>
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
|
