> The book is way broader than Wiki, basically it wants "epistemological anarchy". Let scientists do their thing regardless of what the current view on it is. O

> The book is way broader than Wiki, basically it wants "epistemological anarchy". Let scientists do their thing regardless of what the current view on it is. Only by pushing do we discover new things. People here may be familiar with the exploration–exploitation tradeoff (which, by the way, has a Wikipedia article that could use some significant expansion by some people who are familiar). It is rightly pointed out here that there are areas where it is appropriate for there to be less discovery and greater focus on exploiting or validating existing knowledge, and of course, vice versa. One may propose also the possibility that there be multiple points on the spectrum that one could take even in the same field, for example, preliminary results may be shared as preprints before peer-review, yet even after review, post-publication review and replication are essential for robustness. Still, it may seem odd that exploration, original research, is expressly prohibited on Wikipedia. But should we be without any such restriction, Wikipedia is written by Randy in Boise.