I don't have much time at the moment for a proper response, but I wanted to point you to the Research Index on meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research
I've personally cataloged ongoing experiments in this space and reviewed the work of others.
See also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Projects_reviewed_by_RCom and check the talk pages for discussions.
-Aaron
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:38 PM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Answer 2:
articles are not "submitted" to the journal's editors but written openly
on the journals' platform (and then
maybe sent to a review process elsewhere as well as opening up to public
review here)
My answer would be like your Answer 2 above.
Let me be clear that what I envision would be more like a "research hub" than a journal -- but in the end, it would of course include papers that could be cited (and that could be noted down on contributors' CVs). But not all contributions would have to be like that. If we extended the scope quite broadly, it would be "like Wikipedia, but without the 'no original research' clause." We'd presumably want some other rule, about "focusing on high quality research."
I might also go further:
Answer 2a:
The platform itself could be a target for experiment by contributors. So, while we could start with a standard MediaWiki installation and standard papers, the journal could also review "papers plus experiments". The experiment could take place with extensions to the basic MediaWiki installation, or in some other attached wiki. (In mathematics, there's a journal called "Experimental Mathematics" which captures a similar sort of spirit.)
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l