Hi guys! I'm glad my little post helped re-start such a productive
conversation.
Since some people are replying only to the research-l list and some to
both research-l and foundation-l (my fault for cc'ing both) maybe we
should centralize this discussion (at least of the nitty gritty
metadata issues) on the research list for now? thread here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2010-July/thread.html
Of course the perennial issue of how to propose a new WMF project is
very much a foundation-l topic.
regards,
phoebe
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Brian J Mingus
<Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider(a)deri.org>
wrote:
>
> Hi Brian,
> On 20 Jul 2010, at 18:02, Brian J Mingus wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Finn Aarup Nielsen <fn(a)imm.dtu.dk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Brian and others,
>>
>> I also think that it would be interesting with some bibliographic
>> support, for two-way citation tracking and commenting on articles (for
>> example), but I furthermore find that particular in science article we often
>> find data that is worth structuring and put in a database or a structured
>> wiki, so that we can extract the data for meta-analysis and specialized
>> information retrieval. That is what I also do in the Brede Wiki. I use the
>> templates to store such data. So if such a system as yours is implemented we
>> should not just think of it as a bibliographic database but in more broader
>> terms: A data wiki.
>