All,
I wanted to draw your attention on the recent deletion via WP:PROD [1] of an English Wikipedia article on a large EU research consortium called Open PHACTS [2]. Open PHACTS is a €16m EU-funded research project aiming to create an open body of pharmacological data [3]. It involves 22 partner institutions from research and industry and will run for 3 years. The article in the English Wikipedia was deleted with the following comment: "Nominated for seven days with no objection: concern was 'Ephemeral project. No independent sources, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG.'"
There's something obviously broken in a process that ends up with a decision by a single editor to delete an article on a major EU research project involving hundreds of researchers and millions of taxpayer money by calling it "ephemeral" and "non notable". I am particularly worried by the double standards that we apply to popular indie rock bands with an active fan base (for which notable sources certainly abound) and projects of this kind. I am also worried that this deletionist turn may jeopardize the efforts that many among us are putting into finding effective ways to engage with the academic/expert community and increase their participation in Wikimedia projects. Our own Daniel Mietchen is starting to work with scholarly organizations to increase the visibility of open science articles in Wikipedia and just a few days ago a campus ambassador for the Global Education Program met with people from the National Academy of Science to discuss their institutional involvement in Wikimedia project.
I am confident the Open PHACTS article will be recreated with sourced and better materials, but I wanted to hear your thoughts on what RCom could do to make sure that research-related initiatives that deserve visibility on Wikipedia are not randomly deleted. There is a growing number of initiatives in our community to help companies make genuine contributions to Wikipedia, I wonder if it's not time to start thinking along the same lines for research-related contributions.
Dario
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROD [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_PHACTS [3] http://www.openphacts.org
Hi Dario,
Prod is for uncontentious deletions, anyone can dispute a prod either during the 7 days or after. So as you are disputing it I've restored it per your Email.
There is a risk that someone could now file an AFD on it, but you could prevent that by adding a couple of independent sources.
There is a broader problem that some people are prodding unreferenced articles rather than improving them, and if no-one is watching the articles get deleted.
WereSpielChequers
On 15 August 2011 19:12, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.orgwrote:
All,
I wanted to draw your attention on the recent deletion via WP:PROD [1] of an English Wikipedia article on a large EU research consortium called Open PHACTS [2]. Open PHACTS is a €16m EU-funded research project aiming to create an open body of pharmacological data [3]. It involves 22 partner institutions from research and industry and will run for 3 years. The article in the English Wikipedia was deleted with the following comment: "Nominated for seven days with no objection: concern was 'Ephemeral project. No independent sources, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG.'"
There's something obviously broken in a process that ends up with a decision by a single editor to delete an article on a major EU research project involving hundreds of researchers and millions of taxpayer money by calling it "ephemeral" and "non notable". I am particularly worried by the double standards that we apply to popular indie rock bands with an active fan base (for which notable sources certainly abound) and projects of this kind. I am also worried that this deletionist turn may jeopardize the efforts that many among us are putting into finding effective ways to engage with the academic/expert community and increase their participation in Wikimedia projects. Our own Daniel Mietchen is starting to work with scholarly organizations to increase the visibility of open science articles in Wikipedia and just a few days ago a campus ambassador for the Global Education Program met with people from the National Academy of Science to discuss their institutional involvement in Wikimedia project.
I am confident the Open PHACTS article will be recreated with sourced and better materials, but I wanted to hear your thoughts on what RCom could do to make sure that research-related initiatives that deserve visibility on Wikipedia are not randomly deleted. There is a growing number of initiatives in our community to help companies make genuine contributions to Wikipedia, I wonder if it's not time to start thinking along the same lines for research-related contributions.
Dario
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROD [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_PHACTS [3] http://www.openphacts.org
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
BTW, proposer [1] is actually interesting person for RCom itself. He is Research Director at French National Centre for Scientific Research [2], which is a huge scientific organization.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crusio [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_National_Centre_for_Scientific_Research
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 08:35, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dario, Prod is for uncontentious deletions, anyone can dispute a prod either during the 7 days or after. So as you are disputing it I've restored it per your Email. There is a risk that someone could now file an AFD on it, but you could prevent that by adding a couple of independent sources. There is a broader problem that some people are prodding unreferenced articles rather than improving them, and if no-one is watching the articles get deleted. WereSpielChequers
On 15 August 2011 19:12, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote:
All,
I wanted to draw your attention on the recent deletion via WP:PROD [1] of an English Wikipedia article on a large EU research consortium called Open PHACTS [2]. Open PHACTS is a €16m EU-funded research project aiming to create an open body of pharmacological data [3]. It involves 22 partner institutions from research and industry and will run for 3 years. The article in the English Wikipedia was deleted with the following comment: "Nominated for seven days with no objection: concern was 'Ephemeral project. No independent sources, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG.'"
There's something obviously broken in a process that ends up with a decision by a single editor to delete an article on a major EU research project involving hundreds of researchers and millions of taxpayer money by calling it "ephemeral" and "non notable". I am particularly worried by the double standards that we apply to popular indie rock bands with an active fan base (for which notable sources certainly abound) and projects of this kind. I am also worried that this deletionist turn may jeopardize the efforts that many among us are putting into finding effective ways to engage with the academic/expert community and increase their participation in Wikimedia projects. Our own Daniel Mietchen is starting to work with scholarly organizations to increase the visibility of open science articles in Wikipedia and just a few days ago a campus ambassador for the Global Education Program met with people from the National Academy of Science to discuss their institutional involvement in Wikimedia project.
I am confident the Open PHACTS article will be recreated with sourced and better materials, but I wanted to hear your thoughts on what RCom could do to make sure that research-related initiatives that deserve visibility on Wikipedia are not randomly deleted. There is a growing number of initiatives in our community to help companies make genuine contributions to Wikipedia, I wonder if it's not time to start thinking along the same lines for research-related contributions.
Dario
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROD [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_PHACTS [3] http://www.openphacts.org
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
Milos, now that's interesting. I don't know User:Crusio but it's interesting to see an academic propose a page of academic relevance for deletion.
WSC, thanks for restoring the page: I'll ping some of the early contributors (some of them are active Wikipedians and part of the Wikipedia Chemistry page and I think they were planning to rebuild the page anyway with better sources).
Cheers Dario
On Aug 16, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
BTW, proposer [1] is actually interesting person for RCom itself. He is Research Director at French National Centre for Scientific Research [2], which is a huge scientific organization.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crusio [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_National_Centre_for_Scientific_Research
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 08:35, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dario, Prod is for uncontentious deletions, anyone can dispute a prod either during the 7 days or after. So as you are disputing it I've restored it per your Email. There is a risk that someone could now file an AFD on it, but you could prevent that by adding a couple of independent sources. There is a broader problem that some people are prodding unreferenced articles rather than improving them, and if no-one is watching the articles get deleted. WereSpielChequers
On 15 August 2011 19:12, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote:
All,
I wanted to draw your attention on the recent deletion via WP:PROD [1] of an English Wikipedia article on a large EU research consortium called Open PHACTS [2]. Open PHACTS is a €16m EU-funded research project aiming to create an open body of pharmacological data [3]. It involves 22 partner institutions from research and industry and will run for 3 years. The article in the English Wikipedia was deleted with the following comment: "Nominated for seven days with no objection: concern was 'Ephemeral project. No independent sources, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG.'"
There's something obviously broken in a process that ends up with a decision by a single editor to delete an article on a major EU research project involving hundreds of researchers and millions of taxpayer money by calling it "ephemeral" and "non notable". I am particularly worried by the double standards that we apply to popular indie rock bands with an active fan base (for which notable sources certainly abound) and projects of this kind. I am also worried that this deletionist turn may jeopardize the efforts that many among us are putting into finding effective ways to engage with the academic/expert community and increase their participation in Wikimedia projects. Our own Daniel Mietchen is starting to work with scholarly organizations to increase the visibility of open science articles in Wikipedia and just a few days ago a campus ambassador for the Global Education Program met with people from the National Academy of Science to discuss their institutional involvement in Wikimedia project.
I am confident the Open PHACTS article will be recreated with sourced and better materials, but I wanted to hear your thoughts on what RCom could do to make sure that research-related initiatives that deserve visibility on Wikipedia are not randomly deleted. There is a growing number of initiatives in our community to help companies make genuine contributions to Wikipedia, I wonder if it's not time to start thinking along the same lines for research-related contributions.
Dario
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROD [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_PHACTS [3] http://www.openphacts.org
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
The current version at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_PHACTS&oldid=445107832 indeed reads like taken straight from the grant proposal, but I would like to see more of trying to improve such things rather than to delete.
Daniel
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote:
Milos, now that's interesting. I don't know User:Crusio but it's interesting to see an academic propose a page of academic relevance for deletion.
WSC, thanks for restoring the page: I'll ping some of the early contributors (some of them are active Wikipedians and part of the Wikipedia Chemistry page and I think they were planning to rebuild the page anyway with better sources).
Cheers Dario
On Aug 16, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
BTW, proposer [1] is actually interesting person for RCom itself. He is Research Director at French National Centre for Scientific Research [2], which is a huge scientific organization.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crusio [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_National_Centre_for_Scientific_Research
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 08:35, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dario, Prod is for uncontentious deletions, anyone can dispute a prod either during the 7 days or after. So as you are disputing it I've restored it per your Email. There is a risk that someone could now file an AFD on it, but you could prevent that by adding a couple of independent sources. There is a broader problem that some people are prodding unreferenced articles rather than improving them, and if no-one is watching the articles get deleted. WereSpielChequers
On 15 August 2011 19:12, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote:
All,
I wanted to draw your attention on the recent deletion via WP:PROD [1] of an English Wikipedia article on a large EU research consortium called Open PHACTS [2]. Open PHACTS is a €16m EU-funded research project aiming to create an open body of pharmacological data [3]. It involves 22 partner institutions from research and industry and will run for 3 years. The article in the English Wikipedia was deleted with the following comment: "Nominated for seven days with no objection: concern was 'Ephemeral project. No independent sources, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG.'"
There's something obviously broken in a process that ends up with a decision by a single editor to delete an article on a major EU research project involving hundreds of researchers and millions of taxpayer money by calling it "ephemeral" and "non notable". I am particularly worried by the double standards that we apply to popular indie rock bands with an active fan base (for which notable sources certainly abound) and projects of this kind. I am also worried that this deletionist turn may jeopardize the efforts that many among us are putting into finding effective ways to engage with the academic/expert community and increase their participation in Wikimedia projects. Our own Daniel Mietchen is starting to work with scholarly organizations to increase the visibility of open science articles in Wikipedia and just a few days ago a campus ambassador for the Global Education Program met with people from the National Academy of Science to discuss their institutional involvement in Wikimedia project.
I am confident the Open PHACTS article will be recreated with sourced and better materials, but I wanted to hear your thoughts on what RCom could do to make sure that research-related initiatives that deserve visibility on Wikipedia are not randomly deleted. There is a growing number of initiatives in our community to help companies make genuine contributions to Wikipedia, I wonder if it's not time to start thinking along the same lines for research-related contributions.
Dario
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROD [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_PHACTS [3] http://www.openphacts.org
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l