User talk:SierraSkier
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome Aboard
We (forestry types) are not a particularly bookish lot, so almost none of the stuff is cited. This leaves it particularly vulnerable to having one structure replaced by another, since being uncited, it's all just opinion. Perhaps the best way to impose some order is to start cracking the old textbooks and inserting some "so-and-so says" content into the discussion that can't just be morphed (but can be edited) by the next editor. But don't look for help from me on that front, since all my edits seem to be minor reorganizational fixes to existing content, making it read more smoothly, linking, etc. I can perhaps help orgnize and smooth whatever content you bring, but without new content, I suspect that this is about as good as the forestry pages are going to get. -Gomm 06:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome from me too. I share your frustration at the disorganisation seen across nearly all the forestry and silviculture articles. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that forestry is a big subject that is practised in slightly different ways around the globe. Now we have a small number of knowledgeable editors who contribute here, each basing their contributions on how the thing is done in their part of the world, when these contributions come together in the articles the minor differences in approach become magnified and coherence suffers. What we really need is a world respected authority in each field to lead the way and the rest of us can follow on behind. Unlikely. Gomm is right, an evidence based approach is required, citations, references and decent writing. When I edit I try to remember that my practical experience is based on British plantation forestry and that, on a global scale, is a very minor part of the whole. Don't get disheartened, if you know things to be true, stick them in.The Boy that time forgot 21:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
