As Reid and James point out, the idea of collecting notable wiki-related research in one
place is a very good one.
Just to give my 2 cents, at WikiSym 2008 we had a workshop in which this issue raised as a
proposal. Then, it was clear that you need *real effort* (apart from some of your time,
that was all I could offer) to make this real. I mean a semi-permanent staff of reviewers
and writers, so that the site keeps lively action.
I myself liked the idea very much, but then the dissertation run over me, literally
spending all my time and brain resources.
Indeed, for Math and Physics (I think) it works pretty well.
--- El vie, 25/9/09, James Howison <james(a)howison.name> escribió:
De: James Howison <james(a)howison.name>
Asunto: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia Journal?
Para: "Research into Wikimedia content and communities"
Fecha: viernes, 25 septiembre, 2009 5:26
On Sep 25, 2009, at 10:56, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
On 09/25/09 06:59, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> But I think that this issue (that of "but would
academics * actually*
> write for this Journal?") is the one
piece of the
proposal that is
> the genuine and acceptable risk. [...] The
> failing because of a lack of interest from
academics is indeed a
> possibility. But, I think that is the thing
needs to be tested.
> Academics have never yet been given
> to participate and I would like to give them
option. If the
> Journal were to fail for lack of interest
Academics, then that
> is a very important lesson and worth the
Sorry to be a party pooper. But, I think that lack of
academics is not a risk, it's a
of journals and conferences out there, and I can tell
you now that we
would not be submitting anything.
Now, if the goal is to bring the whole of
into one place -- which is a good one, though I
extend it to all
wiki research since Wikipedia is just one example
to the exclusion of other systems -- then a
publication which put out summaries/reviews of
it's published (think the page on Wikipedia,
better) would be
desirable. Math does this sort of thing to great
success, I think.
I've considered this for research on free and open source
too. One of the troubles of forming one's "own
journal" is that you
are essentially ghettoizing the research, ensuring that it
will not be
read as widely in one's "home/reference discipline".
Reid's suggestion is a good one, if I understand it right
possibly even if I've gotten it wrong ;), I'd imagine it as
'best papers' award, a meta-journal, which on a regular
the peer-reviewed literature and provides pointers and
about the Wikipedia-related articles there.
Obviously, for copyright
reasons, one cannot re-publish the articles, but there's no
that an editorial board couldn't review submitted, already
papers, and build consensus on the best and most important
related papers, perhaps on a bi-monthly basis.
nominating their papers could provide 2 page
pieces explaining to the interdisciplinary community
the venue and why they published there...
Is the Math reference you make something vaguely similar to
Wiki-research-l mailing list