[WikiEN-l] Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

[David Goodman]

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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Thomas Larsen <larsen.thomas.h at gmail.com>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
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at 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