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 can get better at encouraging and supporting such feedback in the future.
I’ve systematically reviewed Wikipedia articles in the past, and I’ve also persuaded others to do the same. However, systematic review isn’t the same as a formal review through a journal. 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. Thanks, Mike On 3 Oct 2014, at 21:58, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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* standards: > formatting, manual of style, reliable sources as references (as opposed to, > say, blogs). It doesn't contain most of the elements of peer review seen > for scientific papers. > > Risker/Anne > > > > > > On 3 October 2014 15:56, Erlend Bjørtvedt <erl...@wikimedia.no> wrote: > >> But remember: all Wikipedia articles are peer reviewed...... >> >> Erlend Bjørtvedt >> >> >> >> >> Den fredag 3. oktober 2014 skrev Vishnu <visdav...@gmail.com> 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 AM, 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 sorts of efforts will improve the reputation of Wikipedia and >>>> the number of contributors. I guess we will see. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Erlend Bjørtvedt* >> Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge >> Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway >> Mob: +47 - 9225 9227 >> http://no.wikimedia.org <http://no.wikimedia.org/wiki/About_us> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
