Here is their sign-up page
http://www.scholarpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&
create=yes
Notice the requirement to be "affiliated" with some institution.
So again the entire concept of Scholarpedia is limited to universities and
possibly a few research laboratories.
I believe the concept of WikiJournal would be universal, just like
Wikipedia. Anyone can be an expert on any topic. The validity of your expertise is
not measured by your affiliation, but rather by your articles.
Will
In a message dated 9/13/2009 3:21:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu writes:
> There is no such requirement. It is a correlation only.>>
There is. Right on the main sign-up page
""An editor of Scholarpedia should satisfy the following requirements:
Have a PhD or MD.""
I take the usage of the word "should" here to mean "must".
In addition, by the way, another "should" requirement is to be recommended
by 2 other curators ! How exclusive. Makes me sick to my stomach.
When the revolution comes, the first thing I'm going to do is execute all
the university scholars. Well that's been done....
Will
In a message dated 9/13/2009 2:48:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu writes:
> Clearly, this information will not be ported back to Wikipedia.>>
This is a reminder of what you said.
I don't see why it's clear. You don't say "should" or "cannot" or "dont
want" but rather "Will not be" which is rather more restrictive.
I don't think it's clear that it "will not be". That's my point.
Will
In a message dated 9/13/2009 3:27:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu writes:
> How is this different than the "peer review" at Wikipedia?>>
Wikipedia has no peer review at all.
I can make an edit and it instantly appears.
In addition, I get no "credit" line for my work.
WikiJournal would be *by* so-and-so and reviewed by *A* *B* and *C*
(peers).
And then get 74 votes averaging 3.7 stars... or whatever.
That sort of thing.
You get a credit-line, just like in E.B.
That would be a major draw, in my mind.
Will
My question Brian was to your remark that this would not pass into
Wikipedia. Your response didn't address why you think that. By "pass into" I mean
cited in, quoted in, not *COPIED* obviously. We don't allow copy-paste
right now.
So all I can think is that you meant, that we should not cite any
scholarpedia articles from within Wikipedia, and so I asked why. If you did not mean
that, than what did you mean?
Brian, scholarpedia doesn't work as a replacement for wikijournal (or
whatever we decide to call it) because they require each editor to have a PhD or
MD.
Some fields of endeavor, for which a person could indeed be a qualified
expert, and perhaps the leading expert in the world, don't even have a method
by which you could get a PhD in the first place.
Scholarpedia is just more ivory-tower silliness, by ivory tower silly
monkeys who think that we're going to keep kow-towing to university stiffs.
One thing that Wikipedia has taught us, if nothing else, is that those days
are over. Down with the man! Information wants to be free. Free of not
only imprisonment, but free of dictated authority.
If I'm the world's leading expert on free-style skateboarding, than I
should be able to write a peer-reviewed article about it, and have it judged by
my peers and voted up or down by my readers.
That is how I envision this WikiJournal prospective. Not as another
university-driven nowheresville which gets no traction because the vast majority
of the world doesn't really care to read highly scientific and technical
articles.
Another example might be, let's say that you write a piece on intricate
details of the Watergate scandal, as an investigative journalist. It's not
"news" but I would think WikiJournal (or whatever) might be a perfect venue to
have such an article peer-reviewed. WikiNews is not peer-reviewed.
Will
In a message dated 9/13/2009 2:48:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu writes:
> Clearly, this information will not be ported back to Wikipedia. >>
Why is this clear? It isn't clear to me.
Will
If "wiki" means quick then it would be quick in that the time between
writing and full publication should be much shorter than traditional in print
journals.
If "wiki" means anyone can edit it, then it wouldn't be a wiki.
If wiki only means that *you* and your *peers* can quickly edit it online
in a collaborative mode, than it would be a wiki.
I would think the hardest part would be the start-up. Who are my peers?
Who judges that? What if I complain that Bozo the Clown isn't my peer at
all?
Who decides that my article has had enough reviews and can now be
published?
Those sort of things need to be worked out more betterer.
Will
In a message dated 9/13/2009 9:46:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com writes:
> This is somewhat similar to Citizendium, except their peer-review is
> open, as is currently also considered a good practice. they haven't
> gotten very far with it, and they seem to have almost all of our
> problems in maintaining NPOV.
> I suggest we let them develop their model, and we continue ours'.>>
David I think the proposal is for a *new* sister project to Wikipedia, not
an adjustment of Wikipedia. Wikinews for example encourages original
research if you are an eye-witness to something you can write about it.
Citizendium has no traction in the real world (just in their own minds).
So the benefit of a new sister project might be to try to create actual
traction with the idea of online peer-review.
I see problems with the idea of "commissioning" works. When Knol first
started, they limited it to just invited guests. Now after some time, those
invited guests have mostly moved on, and their articles aren't doing great (in
general).
I would must prefer a method like WikiAnswers where all readers can *vote*
on who they trust, and *vote* on good questions and good answers, etc, and
the highest trusted authorities gradually percolate to the top of the heap.
Then those *trust* levels get translated into the articles they've written
*AND* the articles they've peer-reviewed. Does that make sense? Sort of a
push-yourself-up-from-your-own-bootstraps method of community consensus.
It surely favors the early adapters, but then all IT does that already.
And even the early adapters (see early Knolians) can get swamped by the more
industrious and clever and persistent authors. That however isn't a bad
thing. At level 0.5 we'd need to install a panel of judges to settle conflict.
Will Johnson
Simple fixes to this proposal.
Use WikiJournal. Add peer-review to it.
Why not? Allow some WikiJournal articles to become more trusted than
others.
Will Johnson