Hi guys! I'm glad my little post helped re-start such a productive conversation.
Since some people are replying only to the research-l list and some to both research-l and foundation-l (my fault for cc'ing both) maybe we should centralize this discussion (at least of the nitty gritty metadata issues) on the research list for now? thread here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2010-July/thread.html Of course the perennial issue of how to propose a new WMF project is very much a foundation-l topic. regards, phoebe On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Brian J Mingus <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Jodi Schneider <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi Brian, >> On 20 Jul 2010, at 18:02, Brian J Mingus wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Finn Aarup Nielsen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Brian and others, >>> >>> I also think that it would be interesting with some bibliographic >>> support, for two-way citation tracking and commenting on articles (for >>> example), but I furthermore find that particular in science article we often >>> find data that is worth structuring and put in a database or a structured >>> wiki, so that we can extract the data for meta-analysis and specialized >>> information retrieval. That is what I also do in the Brede Wiki. I use the >>> templates to store such data. So if such a system as yours is implemented we >>> should not just think of it as a bibliographic database but in more broader >>> terms: A data wiki. >> _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
