Il giorno mer 5 giu 2019 alle ore 12:00 John Erling Blad <>
ha scritto:

> > > 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.

Apart from the hype I wouldn't releate reach and scientific impact. Most of
research community is forced to seek for impact, bibliometric indicators
and abiding by the publish or perish principle.

> 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
> research.

I disagree with this, Wikipedia doesn't make original research by
I concur we have something similar to peer review, though ours is less

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to