On 09/25/09 06:59, Liam Wyatt wrote: Sorry to be a party pooper. But, I think that lack of interest from academics is not a risk, it's a near-certainty. There are already plenty of journals and conferences out there, and I can tell you now that we would not be submitting anything. Now, if the goal is to bring the whole of Wikipedia-related research into one place -- which is a good one, though I would extend it to all wiki research since Wikipedia is just one example and (IMO) over-studied to the exclusion of other systems -- then a (preferably online) publication which put out summaries/reviews of wiki research wherever it's published (think the page on Wikipedia, but better) would be highly desirable. Math does this sort of thing to great success, I think. Reid

As Reid and James point out, the idea of collecting notable wiki-related research in one place is a very good one. Just to give my 2 cents, at WikiSym 2008 we had a workshop in which this issue raised as a proposal. Then, it was clear that you need *real effort* (apart from some of your time, that was all I could offer) to make this real. I mean a semi-permanent staff of reviewers and writers, so that the site keeps lively action. I myself liked the idea very much, but then the dissertation run over me, literally spending all my time and brain resources. Indeed, for Math and Physics (I think) it works pretty well. Best, Felipe -- --- El vie, 25/9/09, James Howison <james(a)howison.name> escribió:

Dear Wiki-Research-L, Yes, as Andrea said, the original idea proposed was about a new journal *for* Wikipedia but it seems the consensus is that there is far more interest in a journal *about* wikim/pedia research. To that end, I'd like to gauge the opinion of the authors here about the viability of such a journal. I have sounded out a couple of university presses and they're interested in discussing the idea of funding and hosting a "Journal of Wikipedia Research" (or title to that effect). So, I was wondering if the people here could say whether such a thing would be a) viable and b) what factors would be important to you personally in being interested in such a publication. For example: - Do you think that a Journal of Wikipedia Research would be an unhealthy competition against WikiSym, or a boost for it? - Would the reputation/location of the hosting university be a factor for you? - or, would the people on the editorial committee be a more important factor? - would you prefer to see a journal that was entirely an aggregation/synthesis of other publications, or entirely filled with content published no where else, or, would you be happy with a mixture of sections (new work, re-publications, syntheses, reviews...) - Would the frequency of publication be important to you? - Would you prefer something that only published in your particular research field (e.g. statistical/sociological/computer-scinece) or would you be happy with a variety of research fields being included in the one edition? - Would it be more important to you to publish in existing journals with an established reputation or to publish in a journal with a scope that is specific to Wikip/media (even though it's reputation would not yet be established)? Of course, these are all just exploratory/scoping questions just to gauge interest. The original idea that I had proposed was for a different thing, but, if the research community here would like to see a journal created for them (in some way/shape/form) and if you believe that such a thing would help our field grow and develop - then I'm happy to try and help! :-) Sincerely, -Liam wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Andrea Forte <andrea.forte(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

I second Piotr on the importance of the journal idea. In the internet world, it is not a good idea to limit the geographical scope of a Journal. In addition, being peer-reviewed would improve its exposure and gives a push for scholarly research about Wikipedia. bilal On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Piotr Konieczny <piokon(a)post.pl> wrote: