While generally I'd agree with you Piotr about preferring on-wiki
organization, I think it's appropriate to expand our thinking and try new
forums when we're reaching out to certain groups.
While it would be great to see the Wikipedia in academic studies page grow,
if Zotero is where the researchers are hanging out, so to speak, then we
should meet them in their own space.
Just my two cents,
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Piotr Konieczny <piokon(a)post.pl> wrote:
Michael Ekstrand wrote:
Cormac Lawler wrote:
> Thanks for this Michael,
> 2009/11/2 Michael Ekstrand <ekstrand(a)cs.umn.edu
> At WikiSym this year, some of us started a Zotero group for
> research papers about Wikipedia.
It's intended to serve a purpose
> similar to that of the "Wikipedia in academic studies" page, but
> Zotero so that it integrates well with
the research process.
currently open to all, and anyone can add resources.
Can you give a link?
Here it is:
Can you explain how Zotero integrates well with the research process?
Why not focus on expanding
I have not used Zotero myself; I see it is a Firefox extension
) - nifty, but it doesn't work with
my SeaMonkey (nor with Chrome, Opera, and so on). Also, the entries are
not sortable, and seem listed only by name of the article.
Personally, I am not fond of off wiki projects, as while we can be
pretty certain Wikipedia will be there in few years, who can quarantee
Zotero will not go under and disappear (somebody has to keep paying for
domain, for example...)?
WP:ACST is also sortable by publication name, author name, venue of
publication, year, has expandable abstracts, links - all on the main
page (and being a wiki, we can keep improving it).
Further, forking into a new database makes people chose where to
contribute. There are several other databases already (linked at the
bottom of WP:ACST); neither is complete, some are inactive.
I think we should focus on one of them, try to make it as complete as
possible, and ignore the others.
And I think WP:ACST being in a wiki format and on Wikipedia is the best
to focus on, and it seems to me that it has a better functionality than
Please note I am very, very appreciative of any efforts to improve our
knowledge of the current state of Wikipedia research. It is just that I
am afraid that forking into new databases is less optimal than focusing
on one of them (and if we all reach consensus that we should abandon
ACST and migrate to Zotero, fine - but let's agree on one database first).
"The problem about Wikipedia is, that it just works in reality, not in
Wiki-research-l mailing list