> > One reason; reach.
> >
> In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is.

Reach leads to impact. You can't get impact without reach, but reach
in non-scientific communities does not necessarily turn into reach in
scientific communities.

> 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 Wikipedia you have no means to tell what is a good research, anyway.

There are nothing that blocks Wikipedia from doing peer review. (It
has implicit peer review.) What you propose for WikiJournal is to make
peer review a policy. That does not in itself turn articles into good

You can turn your statement around and say if you can not write good
reasearch on Wikipedia, then you can not write good reasearch on
WikiJournal. The tools are basically the same, the only real
differences are in the policies.

Actually, some of the example articles at WikiJournal are nothing more
than FA, but that is another discussion.

Intent is the major difference on what WikiJournal could be compared
to Wikipedia.

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

Reply via email to