Talk:Popular science

Two footnotes refer to Amazon sales pages, does RW gain any revenue from possible book sales, and why only Amazon.com and not Amazon.co.uk for example? I think they should be removed as they don't add much. 15:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed? Jack Hughes (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's better than "see the Wikipedia article", though. It's certainly worth linking to the books that are mentioned because, you know, people might want to buy them so find out about them, it doesn't matter if RW gets revenue from it. 15:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if we did get referral credits then that would be useful. Otherwise I was just prompting a bit of discussion about the issue. 15:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't seem to have the ISBN hack switched on here - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Responses to 'Popular science'
... will vary.

At the very simplest it will be 'I know enough about X to understand the basics and make generalisations/ask questions that will not make the experts cringe, and can solve the occasional crossword clue' (ie aware enough for the Dunning-Kruger effect to be inapplicable); and then 'I know enough PS to see that there is a flaw/omission/simplification in this presentation/I can half-understand the expert's response etc.' Anna Livia (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)