Il giorno mer 5 giu 2019 alle ore 12:00 John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com> 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 definition. I concur we have something similar to peer review, though ours is less "autorithy-centered". Vito _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
