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 sites won't do. Try this: - Anyone can post up a paper, in usual academic form (ie authors info would be required, formal citations, and so on). - The draft is held back using Flagged Revisions, similar to Wikinews' configuration, at the point of writing. - Other users then discuss and critique and identify as a peer review process, issues to be addressed (NPOV would probably fail as a criteria since many good papers are written from the view of one specific author or team; we'd need some more suitable criterion here). - When the issues are mostly addressed, a poll (community or some kind of "trusted users") takes place to decide whether it passes the peer review it's had. - If it does, it's posted up as a "beta" version - a paper that is believed to meet the appropriate standard and has passed WikiJournal peer review, and is promotedon a list of such papers. - After a month, a second poll takes place, much shorter, to ask if the community still ratifies the paper in light of feedback from the public. if so, it's accepted as a paper. - 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, showing the advance of knowledge and correcting itself as time passes and knowledge develops. FT2 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
