Thanks for these thoughtful comments. That's the kind of feedback I was expecting.
I agree that a recall of preceding meta-analyses could prove useful. In fact, this
research was initially planned in a more customary way. Then I discovered that there have
been no general appraisal of the existent literature since 2007 and that going in that
direction might be more interesting. My thereotical framework was more the result of a
personal evolution than of a predefinite choice.
If I've got time enough, I will enhance a bit my version hosted on Wikipapers. I'm
wondering how we would call it in this case: too advanced for preprint and too soon for a
postprint; an interprint?
Anyway by the next few months, I'm going to dive more deeply into the epistemic
debates on Wikipedia. The main French Institute for Communication (ISCC) sets up a seminar
on Wikipedia and Science (Wikipédia et la science) by the beginning of June. My conference
will bear on the advent of the "quotation needed" norm on the French Wikipedia.
Greetings,
Pierre-Carl Langlais
Le 27 avr. 2013 à 18:21, Han-Teng Liao <hanteng(a)gmail.com> a écrit :
Hello Pierre-Carl Langlais,
I believe that [Wiki-research-l] can use more research like yours
that attempts to generalize the findings from the previous literature.
Have you considered using "meta-analyses" of case studies so as to
provide a bit more methodological grounding? I am not a methodologist
myself. Still I think your main work is to provide more than just a
literature review of 30 case studies. It might work better to convince
the readers how you have done more than a literature review.
Also, I am not sure whether you use the two terms "Wiki" and
"Wikipedia" as synonym. If your work focus on analyzing the previous
literature on 30 case studies on Wikipedia, a special instance of
global wiki project, perhaps it is better to use simply the term
"Wikipedia". I do not know what to on the subjects as a reader. Some
clarification will help. Otherwise I keep thinking if it is about
using Wikipedia or about using Wiki the technology.
You might feel a bit of heat over your use of "scientific
community" analogy or comparison. All I can say is that it will be
very controversial. Not to mention the "no original policy"! One way
out might be a historical context. Enyclopedias in enlightenment era
are positioned somewhere between scientific journals and the general
public. Here the modern citation systems that distinguishes primary-
secondary- and tertiary sources may be of use here. I will tend to
search for some literature form (Library and) Information Science, or
even enlightenment history to make a case of "popular or general
scientific community" instead of your phrase of pseudo-scientific
community.
Do not worry so much about the critical reviews or comments.
Sometimes negative reviews are better than silence.
Best,
han-teng liao
dphil candidate
oxford internet institute
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l