Wikipedia is a tertiary source, built from secondary sources. Journal articles which contain innovative research or new contributions are primary sources. Review articles are secondary sources.
The median contribution to wikipedia of most journal articles is going to be nil. Some will contribute diagrams and images, but only after validation in the form of review articles or republishing in widely used textbooks.
We already have enough academics wikilawyering references to their own articles in wikipedia.
cheers stuart
-- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 07:02, Alexandre Hocquet alexandre.hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr wrote:
On 17/04/2019 20:36, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Alexandre Hocquet, 17/04/19 20:40:
My point is : as it can be imagined that the number of CC-BY scientific papers will likely sky-rocket in the next years, would not it be relevant to try to organise "CC-BY scientific papers" driven edit-a-thons
Importing text and images from freely licensed papers to Wikimedia wikis is a common practice. Several initiatives exist to further spread it. Wikimedia entities have stressed the importance of "libre open access" (free licenses) for over a decade now.
I do not doubt that the inclination and the infrastructure exist on the Wikimedia side. My point is that the number of compatible academic papers is on the verge of increasing exponentially in the next few years and that people involved in higher education should be aware of that potentiality, be they scholars or (crucially) librarians.
--
Alexandre Hocquet Archives Henri Poincaré & Science History Institute Alexandre.Hocquet@univ-lorraine.fr https://www.sciencehistory.org/profile/alexandre-hocquet https://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/membre-titulaire/alexandre-hocquet
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l