Re: PLoS Comp Biol article on getting stuff intoWikipedia

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PLoS Comp Biol article on getting stuff intoWikipedia

Dr Jacob F. de Wolff
Carcharoth wrote:
>What I'm thinking in particular
is that some FACs would benefit from what is essentially an *external*
peer review process (as opposed to the internal peer review and other
review processes). i.e. Actively soliciting reviews from those holding
credentials (academic or otherwise) in the topic area. Historically,
given the "anyone an edit" and (mostly) pseudonymous nature of
editing, there hasn't been much interest in this model of reviewing,
but I'd be interested to see reactions to this.

Some medical FAs had the benefit of external peer review (coeliac disease, subarachnoid hemorrhage), but as always it depends on someone outside Wikipedia to take an interest. The quality, depth and timeliness of the peer review is largely dependant on that.


Jfdwolff

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PLoS Comp Biol article on getting stuff intoWikipedia

Carcharoth
On 4/11/12, Dr Jacob F. de Wolff <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Carcharoth wrote:
>>What I'm thinking in particular
> is that some FACs would benefit from what is essentially an *external*
> peer review process (as opposed to the internal peer review and other
> review processes). i.e. Actively soliciting reviews from those holding
> credentials (academic or otherwise) in the topic area. Historically,
> given the "anyone an edit" and (mostly) pseudonymous nature of
> editing, there hasn't been much interest in this model of reviewing,
> but I'd be interested to see reactions to this.
>
> Some medical FAs had the benefit of external peer review (coeliac disease,
> subarachnoid hemorrhage), but as always it depends on someone outside
> Wikipedia to take an interest. The quality, depth and timeliness of the peer
> review is largely dependant on that.

Returning to this topic because something similar has come up at WT:FAC, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Subject_matter_experts_and_reviews

I completely forgot to go there (WT:FAC) earlier and point out the
PLoS Comp Biol review process. I'm away this weekend and might not be
able to post on-wiki about this until tonight or Tuesday. I know it is
a big ask, but would someone reading this be able to briefly post at
WT:FAC pointing out this mailing list thread and this talk page
review:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circular_permutation_in_proteins#Open_Peer_Review

It might not be what is planned at WP:FAC, but I think that 'open peer
review' should be brought into that discussion as an example at least.

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l