Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

2019-06-03 Thread Thomas Shafee
In response to a few of the earlier questions (apologies for the delays):

*Quality control*
There are a few mechanisms in place for quality control:

   - Standard academic processes of external peer reviews which for
   wikijournals are all public (journals such as PLOS are moving in the same
   direction)
   - Accountability to the academic community - indexing by cope
   , doaj ,
   pubmed , scopus
   , web of science
   , free journal network
    etc all require *extensive *external auditing
   of processes. Each journal has to apply for these individually and they are
   challenging to gain and retain.
   - Accountability and transparency to the wider community - unlike other
   academic publishing houses, we try to get feedback on ideas, votes and
   governance (which could be much greater with more exposure to the academic
   community)

*Why would an academic choose a WikiJournal*

   1. Most OA journals charge $2000-3000 per publication.
   2. Idealistic academics may value it for its adherence to the ideals of
   the wikimedia movement (public focussed, more democratic than most journals)
   3. Cynical academics may be drawn by the likely high impact that the
   journal will likely get form publishing a lot of broad review articles and
   the exposure of those through wikipedia
   4. Multiple 'unique selling points' from being integrated with wikimedia
   to give further impact:
  - Obviously, broad review articles are also integrated into Wikipedia
  so vastly wider read than typical journal reviews
  - Image-based article can have their figures added to commons
(e.g.*10.15347/wjm/2017.008
  *)
  - It could be a way to peer review parts of wikidata (e.g. whether
  the Drug interactions (P769) property set is up to date, and what
  references should support any additions)
  - possible integration of some articles into wikiversity taught
  courses (e.g. this teaching case study *10.15347/wjm/2017.006
  *)
   5. Indirectly, I also hope it can act as a gateway drug to get more
   experts wanting to engage in the other projects. Because it accepts
   submissions straight out of wikipedia, it might also increase the incentive
   for an academic to contribute to wp if they can later submitting it to wj.

*Democracy*
So far the only inherently undemocratic part of the project has been the
strict requirements on the peer reviewers.
Conversely, authors have included professors, students, and people
completely unaffiliated with any university. Editorial board composition
ranges from the academics you'd expect to see, but also science
communicators, science librarians and experienced wikimedians which are
uncommon in other journals.
The indexed draft areas (currently called WikiJournal Preprints
) will be a
free-for-all. Currently we have no exclusion criteria other than the
standard Wikimedia copyvio/slander/etc. If there become problems we might
need editors to keep an eye on them like ArXiv does, but I hope to keep it
light-touch.

*Plan S*
The journals definitely intend to be Plan_S compliant. I'll raise the idea
of putting out some statement of intention over at the project. Plan_S will
likely have a large direct impact in Europe and the US, and likely far
wider-reaching indirect ripple effects across all of academic publishing.

*Translation*
So far there has been little translation of articles. This is possibly
because the project started in English, which is especially dominant as a
lingua franca in scholarly publishing. However, there have been a few
proposals for translation that have been raised:

   - Translation of whole articles if they are thought by the community to
   be particularly useful (e.g. *Teladorsagia circumcincta *is one of the
   most important agricultural parasites*10.15347/wjs/2019.004
   * yet is almost completely absent
   from wikimedia )
   - Translation of many/all abstracts into multiple languages

Thank you for the the really interesting discussions, ideas and feedback so
far!
Thomas

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 04:07, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> How often do you expect a scientific article to be translated?
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:46 PM James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that
> > would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree
> with
> > Plan S's move to allow ND.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:08 AM Vi to  wrote:
> >
> > > En.wikiversity user I'm dealing with was a custodian (in other words a
> well

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of the Grupo de Usuários Wiki Movimento Brasil

2019-06-03 Thread Chico Venancio
Dear Seddon,

Thank you for your interest in the Brazilian community.

The Affiliations Committee has created a page to discuss the situation in
the Brazilian community. You may want to direct questions to them or in
general to community members on this page [1].

The User Group Wiki Movimento Brasil is strongly committed to improving
community health, striving to engage the Wikimedian communities and keep a
safe environment for participation. With that commitment in mind --and even
before the official re-recognition-- we have looked for support and have
created a code of conduct [2] and a friendly space policy [3], to which all
members must abide. We are currently working on a diversity plan with
Community Development staff members, that should be ready in less than six
months.

We take this space as an opportunity to invite the global community to get
to know and engage with the set of activities we run. Since 2013, we have
led numerous GLAM partnerships [4], one of the largest education programs
in the world [5], many community events focused on advanced Wikidata topics
[6] and several other outreach activities and programs.

Thank you all and good contributions.

Chico Venancio,
On behalf of User Group Wiki Movimento Brasil

References

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Steps
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Movement_Brazil_User_Group/Code_of_Conduct
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Movement_Brazil_User_Group/Friendly_Space_Policy
[4]
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:This_Month_in_GLAM_Brazil_reports
[5]
https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/campaigns/grupo_de_usu%C3%A1rios_wikimedia_no_brasil/programs
[6] https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:!Wikidata_Labs


Em sáb, 1 de jun de 2019 às 08:59, Joseph Seddon 
escreveu:
>
> I didn't mean for any intended accusation in my initial question, and to
> clarify I do not sit on AffCom along I have a long standing interest in
> affiliates.
>
> After the issues with the two previous affiliates in Brazil, it was the
> Brazilian community themselves who could take the situation into their own
> hands and move forward and I was genuinely interested how the community
> plans to do that and avoid repeats of the past.
>
> Regards
> Seddon
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 11:24 PM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Joseph
> >
> > Perhaps we could assume that your colleagues on the Affiliations
Committee
> > are well aware of the past history and have taken it into consideration
> > privately, which is exactly how such issues sould be considered, rather
> > than on a public mailing list.  Unless you have evidence to the cotrary?
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 11:43 AM Joseph Seddon 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Asking as a volunteer with a broad interest in affiliate matters
rather
> > > than as a staff member:
> > >
> > > What steps is the Brazilian community taking to ensure there isn't a
> > repeat
> > > of past breakdowns in community cooperation?
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > >
> > > Seddon
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:50 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > I would like to correct myself, as since October 2018 there is one
more
> > > > Wikimedia affiliate with Portuguese as its official language, our
very
> > > good
> > > > friends "Muj(lh)eres latinoamericanas en Wikimedia", who have been
> > doing
> > > > quite a notable work in LATAM:
> > > >
> > >
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Muj(lh)eres_latinoamericanas_en_Wikimedia
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Paulo
> > > >
> > > > Paulo Santos Perneta  escreveu no dia
quinta,
> > > > 30/05/2019 à(s) 15:40:
> > > >
> > > > > Wonderful news!
> > > > > Brazil has been for long one of the world leaders in Wikimedia
> > > > educational
> > > > > projects, with an excellent work on GLAMs, often in line with the
> > > > > educational projects, and generally with full Wikidata
integration.
> > > > > It is very rewarding to see the group recognized again as a
> > full-right
> > > > > Wikimedia affiliate.
> > > > > It also happens to be the only other Portuguese speaking
affiliate,
> > > > > besides Wikimedia Portugal. Still a long way to go for one of the
> > most
> > > > > spoken native languages in the globe, but that's a great
improvement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Paulo
> > > > >
> > > > > Rajeeb Dutta  escreveu no dia quinta,
> > 30/05/2019
> > > > > à(s) 13:24:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Congratulations to the entire team of the Grupo de Usuários Wiki
> > > > >> Movimento Brasil!!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Best Regards,
> > > > >> Rajeeb Dutta.
> > > > >> (Marajozkee).
> > > > >> Wikimedia India.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > On 30-May-2019, at 5:40 PM, Shani Evenstein <
shani.e...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > What excellent news!
> > > > >> > This group has been doing amazing and innovative work, so it's
a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

2019-06-03 Thread John Erling Blad
How often do you expect a scientific article to be translated?

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:46 PM James Heilman  wrote:
>
> Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that
> would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree with
> Plan S's move to allow ND.
>
> James
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:08 AM Vi to  wrote:
>
> > En.wikiversity user I'm dealing with was a custodian (in other words a well
> > established user within the community).
> >
> > Keeping it short my main concern is: we are a naturally democratic
> > community, while the science cannot be. Also, we've been attracting low
> > quality "research" for years.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 16:36 James Heilman 
> > ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > > The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question. This
> > > is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all peer
> > > reviewed literature.
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to  wrote:
> > >
> > > > In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects
> > > > which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"
> > principle.
> > > > Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his
> > > > friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion,
> > paranormal
> > > > and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of
> > > > gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
> > > >
> > > > Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to
> > > > define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious"
> > research
> > > > group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals
> > or
> > > > classical PR journals?
> > > >
> > > > Vito
> > > >
> > > > Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee <
> > > > thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> > > > > >
> > > > > ).
> > > > >
> > > > > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved
> > (e.g.
> > > > > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced
> > > stringency
> > > > > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
> > > > said,
> > > > > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be
> > valuable
> > > to
> > > > > implement anyway for machine readability.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thomas
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > James
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thomas
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
> > > > thomas.sha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > > > > > >  has
> > > been
> > > > > > > building
> > > > > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a
> > > mediawiki
> > > > > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review
> > > and
> > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > >(example )
> > > > > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > > > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > >example )
> > > > > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > > > > (example
> > > > > > > ><
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system
> > > to
> > > > > > > Featured
> > > > > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > > > > > >,
> > > > > > > > implementing 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

2019-06-03 Thread James Heilman
But to clarify, the intent is to be Plan-S compliant from what I understand.

James

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:46 AM James Heilman  wrote:

> Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that
> would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree with
> Plan S's move to allow ND.
>
> James
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:08 AM Vi to  wrote:
>
>> En.wikiversity user I'm dealing with was a custodian (in other words a
>> well
>> established user within the community).
>>
>> Keeping it short my main concern is: we are a naturally democratic
>> community, while the science cannot be. Also, we've been attracting low
>> quality "research" for years.
>>
>> Vito
>>
>> Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 16:36 James Heilman 
>> ha
>> scritto:
>>
>> > The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question.
>> This
>> > is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all peer
>> > reviewed literature.
>> >
>> > J
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to  wrote:
>> >
>> > > In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects
>> > > which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"
>> principle.
>> > > Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his
>> > > friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion,
>> paranormal
>> > > and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind
>> of
>> > > gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
>> > >
>> > > Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to
>> > > define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious"
>> research
>> > > group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals
>> or
>> > > classical PR journals?
>> > >
>> > > Vito
>> > >
>> > > Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee <
>> > > thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>> > >
>> > > > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
>> > > > <
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
>> > > > >
>> > > > ).
>> > > >
>> > > > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved
>> (e.g.
>> > > > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced
>> > stringency
>> > > > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
>> > > said,
>> > > > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be
>> valuable
>> > to
>> > > > implement anyway for machine readability.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thomas
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman 
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > James
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
>> > > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Thomas
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thrapostibongles
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
>> > > thomas.sha...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
>> > > > > > >  has
>> > been
>> > > > > > building
>> > > > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a
>> > mediawiki
>> > > > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review
>> > and
>> > > > > > feedback
>> > > > > > >(example )
>> > > > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
>> > > > > Wikipedia
>> > > > > > (
>> > > > > > >example )
>> > > > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to
>> > Wikipedia
>> > > > > > (example
>> > > > > > ><
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >)
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
>> > > > > > > *
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary
>> system
>> > to
>> > > > > > Featured
>> > > > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
>> > > > > > > <
>> > > >
>> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
>> > > > > >,
>> > > > > > > implementing established scholarly practices
>> > > > > > > <
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

2019-06-03 Thread James Heilman
Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that
would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree with
Plan S's move to allow ND.

James

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:08 AM Vi to  wrote:

> En.wikiversity user I'm dealing with was a custodian (in other words a well
> established user within the community).
>
> Keeping it short my main concern is: we are a naturally democratic
> community, while the science cannot be. Also, we've been attracting low
> quality "research" for years.
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 16:36 James Heilman 
> ha
> scritto:
>
> > The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question. This
> > is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all peer
> > reviewed literature.
> >
> > J
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to  wrote:
> >
> > > In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects
> > > which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"
> principle.
> > > Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his
> > > friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion,
> paranormal
> > > and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of
> > > gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
> > >
> > > Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to
> > > define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious"
> research
> > > group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals
> or
> > > classical PR journals?
> > >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee <
> > > thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> > > > >
> > > > ).
> > > >
> > > > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved
> (e.g.
> > > > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced
> > stringency
> > > > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
> > > said,
> > > > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be
> valuable
> > to
> > > > implement anyway for machine readability.
> > > >
> > > > Thomas
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> > > > >
> > > > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thomas
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
> > > thomas.sha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > > > > >  has
> > been
> > > > > > building
> > > > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a
> > mediawiki
> > > > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review
> > and
> > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > >(example )
> > > > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > > (
> > > > > > >example )
> > > > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to
> > Wikipedia
> > > > > > (example
> > > > > > ><
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system
> > to
> > > > > > Featured
> > > > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > > > > <
> > > >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > > > > >,
> > > > > > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > > > > > <
> > > > >
> > >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > > > > > >,
> > > > > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > > > > > <
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing
> > > >.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

2019-06-03 Thread Vi to
En.wikiversity user I'm dealing with was a custodian (in other words a well
established user within the community).

Keeping it short my main concern is: we are a naturally democratic
community, while the science cannot be. Also, we've been attracting low
quality "research" for years.

Vito

Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 16:36 James Heilman  ha
scritto:

> The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question. This
> is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all peer
> reviewed literature.
>
> J
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to  wrote:
>
> > In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects
> > which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"  principle.
> > Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his
> > friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion, paranormal
> > and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of
> > gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
> >
> > Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to
> > define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious" research
> > group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals or
> > classical PR journals?
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee <
> > thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> > > >
> > > ).
> > >
> > > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g.
> > > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced
> stringency
> > > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
> > said,
> > > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable
> to
> > > implement anyway for machine readability.
> > >
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
> > >
> > > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> > > >
> > > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thomas
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
> > thomas.sha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > > > >  has
> been
> > > > > building
> > > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a
> mediawiki
> > > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review
> and
> > > > > feedback
> > > > > >(example )
> > > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > (
> > > > > >example )
> > > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to
> Wikipedia
> > > > > (example
> > > > > ><
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > > > *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system
> to
> > > > > Featured
> > > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > > > <
> > > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > > > >,
> > > > > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > > > > <
> > > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > > > > >,
> > > > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > > > > <
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing
> > >.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > > > > All the best,
> > > > > > Thomas Shafee
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> > > > wikimedia
> > > > > > community, so feel free to share with others.
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

2019-06-03 Thread John Erling Blad
Do editing in a non-indexed draft space and then move the articles
into an indexed mainspace after passing peer review.

I guess a "WikiJournal" should be CC-ND by default. Authors should be
able to relax the license. If others are allowed to edit then the
license should be forced to CC-by-SA.

Authors should be explicitly listed, and if authors allow other to
edit, then they must explicitly say so. A "front matter" like in
Jekyll should be sufficient for declaring the authors.

There must also be a process for verifying the identity for authors.
That can be really fun! And btw, Mediawiki has a field for real names,
but lacks methods for verifying those names.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 4:36 PM James Heilman  wrote:
>
> The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question. This
> is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all peer
> reviewed literature.
>
> J
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to  wrote:
>
> > In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects
> > which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"  principle.
> > Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his
> > friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion, paranormal
> > and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of
> > gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
> >
> > Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to
> > define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious" research
> > group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals or
> > classical PR journals?
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee <
> > thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> > > <
> > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> > > >
> > > ).
> > >
> > > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g.
> > > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency
> > > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
> > said,
> > > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to
> > > implement anyway for machine readability.
> > >
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
> > >
> > > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> > > >
> > > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thomas
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
> > thomas.sha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > > > >  has been
> > > > > building
> > > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> > > > > feedback
> > > > > >(example )
> > > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > (
> > > > > >example )
> > > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> > > > > (example
> > > > > ><
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > > > *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> > > > > Featured
> > > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > > > <
> > > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > > > >,
> > > > > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > > > > <
> > > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > > > > >,
> > > > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > > > >  > >.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > > > > All the best,
> > > > > > Thomas Shafee
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> > > > wikimedia
> > > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

2019-06-03 Thread John Erling Blad
One reason; reach. At nowiki we vere approached some years ago by a
university about publishing cutting edge research in fish farming. We
could not publish their work because some claimed it to be "original
research". Sure it was, and it was darn good original research too. I
don't think that was a single occurence, other communities has
probably had similar questions.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:29 PM Vi to  wrote:
>
> In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects
> which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"  principle.
> Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his
> friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion, paranormal
> and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of
> gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
>
> Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to
> define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious" research
> group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals or
> classical PR journals?
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee <
> thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> > <
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> > >
> > ).
> >
> > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g.
> > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency
> > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being said,
> > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to
> > implement anyway for machine readability.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> > >
> > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thomas
> > > >
> > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > > >
> > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > > >
> > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > > >  has been
> > > > building
> > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > > >
> > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> > > > feedback
> > > > >(example )
> > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > (
> > > > >example )
> > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> > > > (example
> > > > ><
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > > >
> > > > >)
> > > > >
> > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> > > > Featured
> > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > > <
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > > >,
> > > > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > > > <
> > > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > > > >,
> > > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > > > All the best,
> > > > > Thomas Shafee
> > > > >
> > > > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> > > wikimedia
> > > > > community, so feel free to share with others.
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > 
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

2019-06-03 Thread John Erling Blad
Ok. Works might not be accepted if people outside a well-defined group
contributes to the work.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 3:50 PM Thomas Shafee  wrote:
>
> So at the moment, there is no locking of any sort. However, but it's noted
> that once an article is assigned a doi, that meaning-changing edits would
> be re-reviewed and an updated doi minted by from crossref's crossmark
> service  along the lines of this
> article . Copyedits and
> formatting are always fine though. So far, the vast majority of editing has
> occurred before the doi assignment, and articles integrated into Wikipedia
> have a note in the top right to let people know that they can more
> logically be edited there (example
> 
> ).
>
> Thomas
>
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 14:18, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > How do you handle lock down of articles? That is only listed authors should
> > write a given article, so you can't allow random user edit access as it is
> > today.
> >
> > Jeblad
> >
> > man. 3. jun. 2019, 04.16 skrev Thomas Shafee :
> >
> > > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> > > <
> > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> > > >
> > > ).
> > >
> > > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g.
> > > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency
> > > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
> > said,
> > > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to
> > > implement anyway for machine readability.
> > >
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
> > >
> > > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> > > >
> > > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thomas
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
> > thomas.sha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > > > >  has been
> > > > > building
> > > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> > > > > feedback
> > > > > >(example )
> > > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > (
> > > > > >example )
> > > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> > > > > (example
> > > > > ><
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > > > *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> > > > > Featured
> > > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > > > <
> > > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > > > >,
> > > > > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > > > > <
> > > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > > > > >,
> > > > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > > > >  > >.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > > > > All the best,
> > > > > > Thomas Shafee
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> > > > wikimedia
> > > > > > community, so feel free to share with others.
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > >  > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

2019-06-03 Thread James Heilman
The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question. This
is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all peer
reviewed literature.

J

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to  wrote:

> In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects
> which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"  principle.
> Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his
> friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion, paranormal
> and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of
> gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
>
> Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to
> define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious" research
> group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals or
> classical PR journals?
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee <
> thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> > >
> > ).
> >
> > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g.
> > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency
> > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
> said,
> > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to
> > implement anyway for machine readability.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> > >
> > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thomas
> > > >
> > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > > >
> > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
> thomas.sha...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > > >
> > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > > >  has been
> > > > building
> > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > > >
> > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> > > > feedback
> > > > >(example )
> > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > (
> > > > >example )
> > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> > > > (example
> > > > ><
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > > >
> > > > >)
> > > > >
> > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> > > > Featured
> > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > > <
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > > >,
> > > > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > > > <
> > >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > > > >,
> > > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > > >  >.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > > > All the best,
> > > > > Thomas Shafee
> > > > >
> > > > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> > > wikimedia
> > > > > community, so feel free to share with others.
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > >
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

2019-06-03 Thread Thomas Townsend
What is the objection in principle to ND licencing?  If you publish a paper
detailing your experiments on apricot kernels as a cure for cancer with a
conclusion that they are completely worthless, and give it a BY licence, I
can now "remix" it, that is publish exactly the same material, except with
a new conclusion that apricot kernels are a complete cure for cancer,
provided that I attribute it to you.  Is that what you want, in any sense
at all?

The Turnip

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 19:55, James Heilman  wrote:

> It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
>
> Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
>
> James
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thomas
> >
> > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > >
> > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > >  has been
> > building
> > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > >
> > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> > feedback
> > >(example )
> > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> Wikipedia
> > (
> > >example )
> > >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> > (example
> > ><
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > >
> > >)
> > >
> > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > *
> > >
> > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> > Featured
> > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > >  >,
> > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > <
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > >,
> > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > .
> > >
> > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > All the best,
> > > Thomas Shafee
> > >
> > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> wikimedia
> > > community, so feel free to share with others.
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

2019-06-03 Thread Mister Thrapostibongles
James

It already is Plan-S compliant :-)


Unfortunately Plan-S requires rather more than a conformant licence.  It
also imposes strict conditions on business models and editorial practices,
not all of which have yet been completely finalised: see
https://www.coalition-s.org/rationale-for-the-revisions/ for example.

The best the WikiJournals project can realistically do right now to is
announce an intention to conform.  So my question remains: does the project
intend to become and remain Plan-S compliant?  It seems odd that this is
not considered to be, and publicised as, a major goal of the project, as
non-conformance will be a major setback.

Thrapostibongles
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

2019-06-03 Thread Thomas Shafee
So at the moment, there is no locking of any sort. However, but it's noted
that once an article is assigned a doi, that meaning-changing edits would
be re-reviewed and an updated doi minted by from crossref's crossmark
service  along the lines of this
article . Copyedits and
formatting are always fine though. So far, the vast majority of editing has
occurred before the doi assignment, and articles integrated into Wikipedia
have a note in the top right to let people know that they can more
logically be edited there (example

).

Thomas

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 14:18, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> How do you handle lock down of articles? That is only listed authors should
> write a given article, so you can't allow random user edit access as it is
> today.
>
> Jeblad
>
> man. 3. jun. 2019, 04.16 skrev Thomas Shafee :
>
> > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> > >
> > ).
> >
> > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g.
> > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency
> > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
> said,
> > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to
> > implement anyway for machine readability.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> > >
> > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thomas
> > > >
> > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > > >
> > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
> thomas.sha...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > > >
> > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > > >  has been
> > > > building
> > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > > >
> > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> > > > feedback
> > > > >(example )
> > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > (
> > > > >example )
> > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> > > > (example
> > > > ><
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > > >
> > > > >)
> > > > >
> > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> > > > Featured
> > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > > <
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > > >,
> > > > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > > > <
> > >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > > > >,
> > > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > > >  >.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > > > All the best,
> > > > > Thomas Shafee
> > > > >
> > > > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> > > wikimedia
> > > > > community, so feel free to share with others.
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > >
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

2019-06-03 Thread Vi to
In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects
which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"  principle.
Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his
friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion, paranormal
and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of
gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?

Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to
define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious" research
group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals or
classical PR journals?

Vito

Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee <
thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> <
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> >
> ).
>
> Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g.
> JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency
> and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being said,
> things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to
> implement anyway for machine readability.
>
> Thomas
>
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> >
> > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > >
> > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > >  has been
> > > building
> > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > >
> > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> > > feedback
> > > >(example )
> > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > Wikipedia
> > > (
> > > >example )
> > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> > > (example
> > > ><
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > >
> > > >)
> > > >
> > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> > > Featured
> > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > <
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > >,
> > > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > > <
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > > >,
> > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > > All the best,
> > > > Thomas Shafee
> > > >
> > > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> > wikimedia
> > > > community, so feel free to share with others.
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>