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.<div>
<br></div><div><br></div><div>bilal</div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Piotr Konieczny <span dir="ltr">&lt;piokon@post.pl&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
(snip)<br>
<br>
A good idea, but I would advise against making it Australia-centric,<br>
both for reasons raised by others, and because this would vastly<br>
diminish the pool of potential writers.<br>
<br>
In related news (this is not about Liam&#39;s journal but about two others<br>
he mentions in his blog),<br>
<a href="http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal" target="_blank">http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal</a><br>
needs to be merged with<br>
<a href="http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wiki_Journal" target="_blank">http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wiki_Journal</a><br>
We don&#39;t need two ideas that are virtually the same. It&#39;s a good idea to<br>
have an journal &quot;about Wikipedia&quot;, but unless it is properly<br>
peer-reviewed (like any good, average open publishing journal) it is not<br>
going to attract much attention. I&#39;d love to publish in a<br>
Wikipedia-dedicated venue, but I need peer-reviewed publications on my<br>
CV - and I doubt my view point here is in a minority.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Piotr Konieczny<br>
<br>
&quot;The problem about Wikipedia is, that it just works in reality, not in<br>
theory.&quot;<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>
</div>