I have to modify my comments, because after toying around at
wiki.answers.com the voting system doesn't work.
It's the same issue at Knol in general. I get over a thousand views a
day of my knols and very very rarely does anyone vote my articles either up
or down. There has been suspicion
The assumptions that support the use of such polls elsewhere do not
hold with this:
a. for true mass media, polling viewers on their views of news events,
the assumption is that the number of readers is high and diverse
enough to prevent manipulation
b. for professional topics on professional
But your response sounds like There's no problem.? And I just pointed out the
problem.? Just go to wiki.answers.com for example, answer a few questions, then
check back in a month.
Even though people read articles, they aren't voting.
That's not the same as a poll, where you deliberately create
I have an old 1900's or late 1800's encyclopedia here. It says that the sun
must be powered by some unknown process - they knew it couldn't be fossil
fuels, but radioactivity and fusion were yet to be discovered then.
If someone writes a paper and knowledge later advances, let the paper be
In a message dated 9/14/2009 1:30:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ft2.w...@gmail.com writes:
If someone writes a paper and knowledge later advances, let the paper be
updated; provided the update is also peer reviewed it'll mean the topic's
paper is always latest knowledge. Not how it
FT2 wrote:
If we did try, then a WikiJournal would be a classic case where we could do
the job right using present tools, and achieve something that most similar
sites won't do. Try this:
- Anyone can post up a paper, in usual academic form (ie authors info
would be required, formal
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.wittylama.com/2009/09/wikipedia-journal/
snip
[Note: this proposal is not the same as WikiJournal on Meta (the
purpose of which is to encourage Original Research scholarship) or
Wiki Journal on
Hm. I'd assumed that any formal citation would link to a specific history
version. That's still the best way. If it isn't going to do so then you'd
have to have edition dated MM-DD- on different pages. In any event,
you'd archive the various peer reviews and link them from the discussion
page
http://www.wittylama.com/2009/09/wikipedia-journal/
Wikipedia currently has no way of addressing any of these issues due
to the very nature of it being an “anyone can edit” wiki. This
alienates a large number of academics who are already very interested
in learning about and contributing to
This alienates a large number of academics who are already very
interested in learning about and contributing to Wikipedia but have
difficulty justifying it as legitimate work.
[[Academia]] claims ...Academia has come to connote the cultural
accumulation of knowledge, its development and
This is somewhat similar to Citizendium, except their peer-review is
open, as is currently also considered a good practice. they haven't
gotten very far with it, and they seem to have almost all of our
problems in maintaining NPOV.
I suggest we let them develop their model, and we continue ours'.
Simple fixes to this proposal.
Use WikiJournal. Add peer-review to it.
Why not? Allow some WikiJournal articles to become more trusted than
others.
Will Johnson
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing
In a message dated 9/13/2009 9:46:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
This is somewhat similar to Citizendium, except their peer-review is
open, as is currently also considered a good practice. they haven't
gotten very far with it, and they seem to have almost all of
2009/9/13 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com:
We're no longer a few random people thinking wouldn't an online
encyclopedia be cool!. As a #5 website and the largest online reference
site, anything that moves us to be capable of higher quality without
compromising the open ethos that ultimately underpins
If wiki means quick then it would be quick in that the time between
writing and full publication should be much shorter than traditional in print
journals.
If wiki means anyone can edit it, then it wouldn't be a wiki.
If wiki only means that *you* and your *peers* can quickly edit it online
in
2009/9/13 wjhon...@aol.com:
If wiki means quick then it would be quick in that the time between
writing and full publication should be much shorter than traditional in print
journals.
If wiki means anyone can edit it, then it wouldn't be a wiki.
If wiki only means that *you* and your
It doesn't have anything to do with the release of the software,
it's just a matter of using the right tool for the right job.
You're right. My bad.
Emily
On Sep 13, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/9/13 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
You can restrict the editing, but if
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.wittylama.com/2009/09/wikipedia-journal/
Wikipedia currently has no way of addressing any of these issues due
to the very nature of it being an “anyone can edit” wiki. This
alienates a large number of academics
In a message dated 9/13/2009 2:48:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
brian.min...@colorado.edu writes:
Clearly, this information will not be ported back to Wikipedia.
Why is this clear? It isn't clear to me.
Will
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
Two perspectives on a WikiJournal: should we compete in something not our
core, and where others may do better? Or should we go ahead anyway?
If we did try, then a WikiJournal would be a classic case where we could do
the job right using present tools, and achieve something that most similar
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:07 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/13/2009 2:48:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
brian.min...@colorado.edu writes:
Clearly, this information will not be ported back to Wikipedia.
Why is this clear? It isn't clear to me.
Will
Scholarpedia was
Brian, scholarpedia doesn't work as a replacement for wikijournal (or
whatever we decide to call it) because they require each editor to have a PhD
or
MD.
Some fields of endeavor, for which a person could indeed be a qualified
expert, and perhaps the leading expert in the world, don't even
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:20 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Brian, scholarpedia doesn't work as a replacement for wikijournal (or
whatever we decide to call it) because they require each editor to have a
PhD or
MD.
There is no such requirement. It is a correlation only.
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:20 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
That is how I envision this WikiJournal prospective. Not as another
university-driven nowheresville which gets no traction because the vast
majority
of the world doesn't really care to read highly scientific and technical
articles.
In a message dated 9/13/2009 3:19:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ft2.w...@gmail.com writes:
Papers are reviewed annually, or upon major new information, so they
become a living document -- the paper on the higgs boson as it is now,
and
the same paper as it was a year, 2 years ago,
My question Brian was to your remark that this would not pass into
Wikipedia. Your response didn't address why you think that. By pass into I
mean
cited in, quoted in, not *COPIED* obviously. We don't allow copy-paste
right now.
So all I can think is that you meant, that we should not cite
In a message dated 9/13/2009 3:21:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
brian.min...@colorado.edu writes:
There is no such requirement. It is a correlation only.
There is. Right on the main sign-up page
An editor of Scholarpedia should satisfy the following requirements:
Have a PhD or MD.
I take
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:29 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
My question Brian was to your remark that this would not pass into
Wikipedia. Your response didn't address why you think that. By pass
into I mean
cited in, quoted in, not *COPIED* obviously. We don't allow copy-paste
right now.
In a message dated 9/13/2009 2:48:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
brian.min...@colorado.edu writes:
Clearly, this information will not be ported back to Wikipedia.
This is a reminder of what you said.
I don't see why it's clear. You don't say should or cannot or dont
want but rather Will not
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:32 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/13/2009 3:21:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
brian.min...@colorado.edu writes:
There is no such requirement. It is a correlation only.
There is. Right on the main sign-up page
An editor of Scholarpedia should
Here is their sign-up page
http://www.scholarpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin;
create=yes
Notice the requirement to be affiliated with some institution.
So again the entire concept of Scholarpedia is limited to universities and
possibly a few research laboratories.
I believe the
31 matches
Mail list logo
