Hello
For me, one delimiting factor I see to the progress of Wikiversity is the number of contributors. As compared to Wikipedia, wikiversity has got few people helping expand articles there. Everyone's (if not some) are on Wikipedia most often.
Wikiversity can be a useful and complete research tool provided contributors to it are many (like Wikipedia).
Creating a new journal to hold research stuffs, to me will also depend on user contribution. And if Wikiversity is lacking the huge number of contributors to turn it into a full-fledged research hub, how much more a new journal created?
If there'll be any effort in building a research tool aside Wikiversity, then I think it will be better rather inviting more contributors to Wikiversity.
Starting a new journal isn't easy ('m sure you guys know about Wikidata. ) the work involved and required, I think we can direct it to amassing more users for Wikiversity which is the lifeblood of all Wikimedia project websites.
If Wikiversity doesn't succeed as a research tool, can success be said of a new one?
thanks
rex
On Sunday, November 11, 2012, Joe Corneli wrote:
Hi Juan:
I hope it won't offend anyone too much if I say that the research
currently hosted on Wikiversity is not all of high quality. (Note to
reader: if you were offended by what I just said, please stop reading
now, it's not my intention to offend anyone, I'm just sharing my
impressions of the site as I think about whether it is suitable for
use as the kind of Research Hub I've been imagining, or as a place to
build a scholarly journal, etc.)
Indeed, it's a bit hard to figure out what all is really meant to be
included under the "research" label on Wikiversity.
For instance, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Research links to
the "research-related portal"
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Mathematics -- but this page
says:
"Wikiversity participants who are interested in mathematics are
invited to create and develop *learning projects* and *learning
resources* and help organize them by developing this portal."
If we return to the Research Portal itself, then there's this:
"Guide to Research: The following is a dynamic listing of all the
pages categorised into this portal. To restructure or extend this
list, you will need to edit the category system itself. Where are the
use instructions for this template?"
(It seems like the curator(s) are having a public conversation with
themselves here.)
But, OK, examining the list of pages that are designated as belonging
to research, my eyes are instantly drawn to things like:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Abd/Wikipedia,_Wikiversity_and_disruptive_editing
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Brainless_humans_for_transplants(User:Super_Quantum_immortal)
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Dominant_group
none of which are particularly easy for me to make sense of.
This one is much more straightforward:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Early_telescope
but it looks more like a student research project, rather than
something that is aiming for eventual publication in a journal, or any
other sort of further development. And this would describe many of
the other articles that I sampled. It's not clear what the difference
is between this kind of page and a Wikipedia page on the same topic.
My initial conclusion is that Wikiversity's Research Portal could
potentially be used as a research hub like I was envisioning, but it
would need to be retooled almost completely, and most of the current
content would get pushed into a "student research" or "science
fiction" category.
I'm not sure I have time to take on something like this! I'll be
focusing on developing my own work elsewhere... and I'll report back
to the other people looking at building a Research Hub to see what
they think.
Joe
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Juan de Vojníkov
<juandevojnikov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well,
>
> it could go to Wikiversity. Wikiversity is also about research, not only
> education. Recently I was kicked from Wikibooks, where I left a primary
> research textbook, so I came back to Wikiversity. That is like GLAM
> bulletin, which is on outreach wiki, not at its own special wiki.
>
> There is also the other way to have a special wiki for the journal, but if
> there are not many contributors its better to start on existing project and
> than if needed move it outside.
>
> Think also about Wikiversity Beta, which is suppose to be our multilingual
> hub and incubator.
>
>
> Regards,
> Juandev
>
> 2012/11/9 Joe Corneli <holtzermann17@gmail.com>
>>
>> Dear Wikiversity-ans:
>>
>> There has been some considerable discussion in wiki-research-l about
>> creating a new Wiki Studies journal and/or a new place to do research
>> the wiki way.
>>
>> One question is, why do we need a new place to do research, couldn't
>> we just use Wikiversity for that? For now, Wikiversity seems to focus
>> on education and specifically-educational research, but might it make
>> sense to broaden the scope to include original research more
>> generally?
>>
>> If you could have a look at the skeleton of the proposal here and add
>> your input (or via this thread), I would appreciate it!
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas/Research_Hub
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joe
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikiversity-l mailing list
>> Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikiversity-l mailing list
> Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikiversity-l mailing list
Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
--
+Nyarko Rexford
_______________________________________________
Wikiversity-l mailing list
Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l