Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [WikiEN-l] Joseph Farah:...

Re: [WikiEN-l] The Community vs....

David Gerard

16 Dec 2008 16 Dec '08

10:24 p.m.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html What could possibly go wrong? (Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!) - d.

Show replies by date

Thomas Dalton

16 Dec 16 Dec

10:30 p.m.

2008/12/16 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html What could possibly go wrong? (Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!)

Sounds like a fantastic idea. Only problem seems to be that they publish the wikipedia articles/summaries before the papers, it needs to be the other way around so the paper can be a reference for the summary.

Fred Bauder

10:32 p.m.

...

2008/12/16 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html What could possibly go wrong? (Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!)

I think we could make an exception. This is too promising to impose work to rule. Fred

Phil Sandifer

17 Dec 17 Dec

12:27 a.m.

On Dec 16, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:

...

I think we could make an exception. This is too promising to impose work to rule.

Fred, you're too much. This less than a week after you denounce peer reviewed scholarship in another field as mere opinion! Hilarious! -Phil

David Gerard

16 Dec 16 Dec

10:34 p.m.

2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

* '''d''', nn, v, auto, spam - ~~~~

Thomas Dalton

11:36 p.m.

2008/12/16 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:

* '''d''', nn, v, auto, spam - ~~~~

Are you serious?

Wily D

17 Dec 17 Dec

12:05 a.m.

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2008/12/16 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:

2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:

* '''d''', nn, v, auto, spam - ~~~~

Are you serious?

That would be the outcome at AfD, assuming it got there, which would depend on how trigger happy the C:CSD patrollers that day are. Brian

Thomas Dalton

12:13 a.m.

2008/12/17 Wily D <wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

2008/12/16 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:

2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:

* '''d''', nn, v, auto, spam - ~~~~

Are you serious?

That would be the outcome at AfD, assuming it got there, which would depend on how trigger happy the C:CSD patrollers that day are.

It's discussed in a peer reviewed journal, that covers verifiability. I don't see how it's autobiographical, it's about science, not a person. It's not commercial, so it's not spam. I'm not sure what the notability guidelines are for science, so I guess it might fail there, I'd have to look it up.

Jay Litwyn

12:05 p.m.

Hefty point for the writers who do not get a new article accepted and resort to promoting their web page (no self reference) or usenet article -- get warned and then wonder what is left to do, here (hordes, of course, and you gotta look). Looking at it this way, "Nature" might seem out of order, and you never can tell if someone might gravitate to tweaking stuff out of their field. (I'm a stylist. Supposed to an eventualist...stuborn, maybe. [Okay...one more piece of spam control, belay concerns with Jeremy Hanson that I can not directly support, ATM, then I try to colour that fractal that looks like a cat if I can find it --booger-- lost drive for testing music. OH! I haven't done any caffeine in ten hours. Maybe I can clear my spam kyuu, after all.]). Anybody welcomed somebody with suggestbot? _______ Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it. --Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi From: "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>

...

2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:

* '''d''', nn, v, auto, spam - ~~~~ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Scientia Potentia est

16 Dec 16 Dec

10:38 p.m.

We need more of these things. bibliomaniac15 --- On Tue, 12/16/08, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else" To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 2:24 PM http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html What could possibly go wrong? (Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!) - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Carl Beckhorn

17 Dec 17 Dec

12:35 a.m.

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:24:01PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:

...

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html

This is very exciting! The first article appears to be [[SmY]], and I don't see any glaring problems with it. The two diagrams could use a footnote in each of their long captions, but there are three references provided that seem reasonably on this topic. Of course some people will complain that it's too technical, but that's an issue to take up at WP:PEREN. - Carl

Thomas Larsen

1:21 a.m.

Hi, So, if I read this correctly, anybody wanting to get an article published in this particular journal will need to write an article for Wikipedia first? That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Personally, I object to writing any full-blown article on Wikipedia from conscientious grounds. I believe that Wikipedia is severely flawed--in fact, I'm working on a fork at the moment. While Wikipedia can be, and commonly _is_, very useful for getting an overview of a topic, it is flawed both in its quality maintenance processes and, most seriously, in its participatory culture. Forcing experts who disagree with Wikipedia's principles and/or culture to have to contribute to Wikipedia in order to get an article published in a particular journal forces them to act against their will or choose another journal. It's the worst idea ever, seriously. --Thomas

Jim

2:52 p.m.

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Thomas Larsen <larsen.thomas.h(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

So, if I read this correctly, anybody wanting to get an article published in this particular journal will need to write an article for Wikipedia first? That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

Have you actually read the details - this is an excellent idea. First one has to point to a "summary" Wikipedia article about the content of the submitted paper. No problem there - basically using Wikipedia to vet whether or not it has OR or is sufficiently notable of an area to publish. There is no requirement that the author of the paper draft the article, although that may be the case frequently. Secondly, the paper will then be peer reviewed and published in Wikipedia - the only potential problem I see is original research, but the publication in RNA Biology and the peer reviewed provide significant review and checks. This is an excellent experiment. With Wikipedia's open edit process I am confident that the plan will adjust as it is implemented and I, for one would like to see more academic journals take on this tact of publishing their results under GFDL (on Wikipedia or their own journal). Knowledge is power only if there is access to that knowledge. It's the worst idea ever, seriously.

...

I strongly disagree! Jim

David Goodman

18 Dec 18 Dec

6:41 a.m.

WP is a survey of knowledge at the encylopedic level--it does not include each scientific report separately, but at the summary level that would correspond ,ore closely to a published review article. If a journal publishes an article on something, of particular interest, almost always other journal articles will deal with the subject also--and the Wikipedia article on the subject should be written to present an account of all of them together--with the paper in RNA or other particular paper only one of several references. To the extent that the journal publishes papers that are sufficiently broad to meet the description of a summary at the integrative level of an encyclopedia (and the first one mentioned does seem to be of this sort), then they are suitable for WP. I would be surprised if all or even the majority of the papers in any particular scientific journal were of this nature. It's not just quality, or appropriate level of writing, its sufficient generality. On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Jim <trodel(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Thomas Larsen <larsen.thomas.h(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

So, if I read this correctly, anybody wanting to get an article published in this particular journal will need to write an article for Wikipedia first? That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

I strongly disagree! Jim _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

Thomas Dalton

10:27 a.m.

2008/12/18 David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

But that's the great thing about a wiki - we can come along afterwards and merge articles and otherwise fiddle around with them to get them to meet our requirements. We don't need to turn down contributions just because they're not perfect.

Thomas Larsen

11:32 p.m.

Hi, Thanks for clarifying.

...

This is an excellent experiment. With Wikipedia's open edit process I am confident that the plan will adjust as it is implemented and I, for one would like to see more academic journals take on this tact of publishing their results under GFDL (on Wikipedia or their own journal). Knowledge is power only if there is access to that knowledge.

The issue I have, though, is that I feel that Wikipedia is doing a bad job of giving people "knowledge". Many scientists (I would assume--the proof of the concept is in the editing, I suppose) would agree with my position. These people might object to having their "knowledge" placed on Wikipedia to be torn apart and/or built up by the ignorant masses (no offense intended). The idea might work, but I'm willing to step out and say that I don't think it will. On the other hand, I might be pleasantly wrong :-). --Thomas Larsen

The Cunctator

19 Dec 19 Dec

1:21 p.m.

This looks like a genuinely positive experiment that could lead to very good results. On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Thomas Larsen <larsen.thomas.h(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

Hi, Thanks for clarifying.

power only if there is access to that knowledge.

David Gerard

3:55 p.m.

2008/12/19 The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

This looks like a genuinely positive experiment that could lead to very good results.

Indeed. I'm mostly worried about the possibilities for Olympic-scale n00b-biting. - d.

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

4:18 p.m.

David Gerard wrote:

...

2008/12/19 The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com>om>:

This looks like a genuinely positive experiment that could lead to very good results.

Indeed. I'm mostly worried about the possibilities for Olympic-scale n00b-biting. - d. _________________

Hey, if you are really worried, and not just actually joking, why not suggest they go Citizendium way? As far as I can see, Citizendium went to the lengths of erasing the whole talk page of Medical Contraception, without any sign there ever was an extended discussion of that pages idiocys including a silly spelling error that couldn't be corrected because the "owner" of that page couldn't be arsed to edit it. And the page you personally lauded on the BSD Daemon, still has the Daemon wielding a "Triton" which does not exist as any kind of implement (hint: it is a "trident") Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

phoebe ayers

6:16 p.m.

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:55 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2008/12/19 The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com>om>:

This looks like a genuinely positive experiment that could lead to very good results.

Indeed. I'm mostly worried about the possibilities for Olympic-scale n00b-biting. - d.

Well, hopefully we can all basically agree on the notability of RNA families and other such info :) I think that a lot of problems with new contributors disappear if they are not, say, trying to write about their favorite band or themselves. But running an active mentorship program would also be good. I wonder if we need a meta-wikiproject for interfacing with groups of academics and other experts who want to write about their field in an organized manner -- referring them to the right subject wikiproject, giving training, etc. As I recall there was a similar linguistics project last summer; others? -- phoebe

phoebe ayers

18 Dec 18 Dec

7:24 a.m.

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Thomas Larsen <larsen.thomas.h(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

<snip> So that's what I thought. And then I read it more closely. It is only articles from a certain section of the journal -- those that describe RNA families. These are not experiments, hypothesis, trials... they want to use Wikipedia to document genes, basically -- something we're doing anyway. And it sounds like active folks from the microbiology project are supporting them. -- phoebe

Todd Allen

17 Dec 17 Dec

5:08 a.m.

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 3:24 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html What could possibly go wrong? (Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!) - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Actually, from the article... "The RNA wiki is a subset of a broader project, the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology..." Seems like we've already got a WikiProject involved here. My question is more if the GFDL and "anyone can edit" implications are being made clear to the scientists publishing. Most scientific papers are reasonably well referenced, so I don't think there's any problem there, but it would certainly be unfortunate to see someone confused about the fact that the paper can be changed and redistributed at will. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

Jay Litwyn

8:33 a.m.

Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it. --Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. There might be a lot of academics touting one study or another as ground-breaking, making it GFDL and linking sixty subjects to it that are only tangentially relevant, then putting a lot of weight on WP:OWN, WP:COI and other anti-bias policy like WP:AWW. Who knows, really, how long any great influx of newbies might last or how productive such a call might be? Might get a wave of people who can fix up a whole sub-category in one sitting, too, if they're determined, and nobody does wholesale reverts for one persistent error. I do not know who is on the internet to make it big. Hopefully, they will give up. If all spoke to all, then one word would be too much. Now way to force people into closely holding their e-mail address is polite. If some law says it's not spam, then it is, and it probably violates an acceptable use policy. If it doesn't, then some internet service provider is providing uncommon terms of service that are not acceptable to me. I vote to list them at http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/ Opt-out is a sentence of death to personal channels on the internet. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 3:24 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

...

geni

9:09 a.m.

2008/12/16 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html What could possibly go wrong? (Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!) - d.

Wikiprojects are not going to be the problem or I suspect the solution here. They are pretty much going to need a page they can link to in their article creation summaries explaining what is going on and that deleting without extreme care will result in consequences. -- geni

5621

days inactive

5624

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

23 comments

16 participants

tags (0)

participants (16)

Carl Beckhorn
David Gerard
David Goodman
Fred Bauder
geni
Jay Litwyn
Jim
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Phil Sandifer
phoebe ayers
Scientia Potentia est
The Cunctator
Thomas Dalton
Thomas Larsen
Todd Allen
Wily D