On 3 October 2014 00:24, James Heilman wrote:
> Article published by the journal Open Medicine
> http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/viewFile/562/564
Congratulations!
I know your and J. De Wolff's user names, but the other two are harder
to find. Is there a reason they're not made apparent? Can
@ Cristian. I mean by number of "edits". Wikipedians by number of edits is
listed here for the Dengue fever article.
https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Dengue_fever&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia
Yes I do know number of edits is not perfect and that someone who has made
a singl
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:24 PM, James Heilman wrote:
> Article published by the journal Open Medicine
> http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/viewFile/562/564
>
> Will soon be pubmed indexed. Editorial regarding the efforts are here
> http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/652/565
>
> Hope these so
Hi James,
first of all, congrats for proving this to be possible. As it has
already been said it is an achievement nothing short of great.
2014-10-04 15:47 GMT+02:00 James Heilman :
> I agree all Wikipedia articles are sort of peer reviewed. When I speak
> about GA/FA I refer to it as Wikipedia's
The day has finally come- Amazing and Congratulations!
Emily Blanchard
Talent Acquisition Team
Wikimedia Foundation
eblanchard@wikimedia. org
Follow us on Twitter @wikimediaatwork
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home
Become a Contributor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse
Jo
James -- this is really great, thank you for sharing.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:24 PM, James Heilman wrote:
> Article published by the journal Open Medicine
> http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/viewFile/562/564
>
> Will soon be pubmed indexed. Editorial regarding the efforts are here
> http://www
On Oct 4, 2014 1:30 PM, "Ziko van Dijk" wrote:
>
I hope that
> someone will do something with our etherpad notes.
>
Link?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
Dear friends,
at the WikiCon 2014 in Cologne (the Wikimania for the German speaking
countries) we discussed similar issues, together with some external people.
Can one quote from WP, under what circumstances, and why not. I hope that
someone will do something with our etherpad notes.
A panel disc
This is indeed an accomplishment. Well due congratulations to all involved.
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 7:47 AM, James Heilman wrote:
> I agree all Wikipedia articles are sort of peer reviewed. When I speak
> about GA/FA I refer to it as Wikipedia's semi-formal peer review process.
>
> With respect t
I agree all Wikipedia articles are sort of peer reviewed. When I speak
about GA/FA I refer to it as Wikipedia's semi-formal peer review process.
With respect to authorship, the 5th to 10th contributors by number of
editors were contacted and asked if they wished to be listed as an author.
All of t
edia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
> > wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Erlend Bjørtvedt
> > Sent: 03 October 2014 09:57 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] First Wikipedia Article has been Formally
org] On Behalf Of Erlend Bjørtvedt
> Sent: 03 October 2014 09:57 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] First Wikipedia Article has been Formally Peer
> Reviewed and Published
>
> But remember: all Wikipedia articles are peer reviewed..
>
> Erlend Bjør
Not really
P
-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Erlend Bjørtvedt
Sent: 03 October 2014 09:57 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] First Wikipedia Article has been Formally Peer
On 10/03/2014 06:58 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
> It’s great to see that this article has been formally reviewed, although it
> is disappointing to see how short the author list for the formal article is
> here, given how many people have actually contributed to the article over the
> years.
In the
Wikipedia articles are passively peer reviewed every time someone with
knowledge of the topic reads the article. Ideally, this would be the equal of
scientific peer review. In reality, most such people don’t bother giving
feedback, or are unable to figure out how to give feedback. Hopefully we c
Umm, no, they aren't - at least not in the way the term is used in
scientific subjects.
Many articles are never reviewed in any systematic manner; in fact, that is
the overwhelming majority of our articles. Those that are formally
reviewed are reviewed in the context of meeting *Wikipedia* standa
But remember: all Wikipedia articles are peer reviewed..
Erlend Bjørtvedt
Den fredag 3. oktober 2014 skrev Vishnu følgende:
> Congratulations!
>
> A great model that could be emulated by many of us across other
> disciplines too.
>
> Cheers,
> Vishnu
>
>
> On Friday 03 October 2014 04:54
Big congrats James!
And:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> On 10/02/2014 07:24 PM, James Heilman wrote:
> > Hope these sorts of efforts will improve the reputation of Wikipedia and
> > the number of contributors. I guess we will see.
>
> Beyond this, and (IMO) even more
James - I suggest you (or someone) draft a post for the WIkimedia blog
on the topic: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog
On 3 October 2014 00:24, James Heilman wrote:
> Article published by the journal Open Medicine
> http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/viewFile/562/564
>
> Will soon be
Congratulations!
A great model that could be emulated by many of us across other
disciplines too.
Cheers,
Vishnu
On Friday 03 October 2014 04:54 AM, James Heilman wrote:
Article published by the journal Open Medicine
http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/viewFile/562/564
Will soon be pubmed i
October 2014 01:24 AM
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] First Wikipedia Article has been Formally Peer
> Reviewed and Published
>
> Article published by the journal Open Medicine
> http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/viewFile/562/564
>
> Will soon be
has been Formally Peer Reviewed
and Published
Article published by the journal Open Medicine
http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/viewFile/562/564
Will soon be pubmed indexed. Editorial regarding the efforts are here
http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/652/565
Hope these sorts of efforts will
Kudos, doc! You've done it again. :)
A.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:24 PM, James Heilman wrote:
> Article published by the journal Open Medicine
> http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/viewFile/562/564
>
> Will soon be pubmed indexed. Editorial regarding the efforts are here
> http://www.openmedi
Nice work, James.
Rock on,
/a
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Anasuya Sengupta
wrote:
> Congratulations, James - and everyone else who worked on this. This is a
> significant achievement, not only because of the publishing of the article
> itself, but for what it heralds more broadly, as Coren s
Congratulations, James - and everyone else who worked on this. This is a
significant achievement, not only because of the publishing of the article
itself, but for what it heralds more broadly, as Coren said.
Warmly,
Anasuya
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:24 PM, James Heilman wrote:
> Article publish
On 10/02/2014 07:24 PM, James Heilman wrote:
> Hope these sorts of efforts will improve the reputation of Wikipedia and
> the number of contributors. I guess we will see.
Beyond this, and (IMO) even more importantly, it means that we are
succeeding at our mission where it counts. That a Wikipedia
Article published by the journal Open Medicine
http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/viewFile/562/564
Will soon be pubmed indexed. Editorial regarding the efforts are here
http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/652/565
Hope these sorts of efforts will improve the reputation of Wikipedia and
the num
27 matches
Mail list logo
