Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

David Gerard-2
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html

What could possibly go wrong?

(Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!)


- d.

_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

Thomas Dalton
2008/12/16 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
>
> What could possibly go wrong?
>
> (Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!)

Sounds like a fantastic idea. Only problem seems to be that they
publish the wikipedia articles/summaries before the papers, it needs
to be the other way around so the paper can be a reference for the
summary.

_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

Fred Bauder-2
> 2008/12/16 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
>>
>> What could possibly go wrong?
>>
>> (Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!)
>
> Sounds like a fantastic idea. Only problem seems to be that they
> publish the wikipedia articles/summaries before the papers, it needs
> to be the other way around so the paper can be a reference for the
> summary.

I think we could make an exception. This is too promising to impose work
to rule.

Fred



_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:

> Sounds like a fantastic idea. Only problem seems to be that they
> publish the wikipedia articles/summaries before the papers, it needs
> to be the other way around so the paper can be a reference for the
> summary.


* '''d''', nn, v, auto, spam - ~~~~

_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

Biblio-2
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
We need more of these things.

bibliomaniac15

--- On Tue, 12/16/08, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
From: David Gerard <[hidden email]>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"
To: "English Wikipedia" <[hidden email]>
Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 2:24 PM

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html

What could possibly go wrong?

(Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!)


- d.

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



     
_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
2008/12/16 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
> 2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Sounds like a fantastic idea. Only problem seems to be that they
>> publish the wikipedia articles/summaries before the papers, it needs
>> to be the other way around so the paper can be a reference for the
>> summary.
>
>
> * '''d''', nn, v, auto, spam - ~~~~

Are you serious?

_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

Wily D
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2008/12/16 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
>> 2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>> Sounds like a fantastic idea. Only problem seems to be that they
>>> publish the wikipedia articles/summaries before the papers, it needs
>>> to be the other way around so the paper can be a reference for the
>>> summary.
>>
>>
>> * '''d''', nn, v, auto, spam - ~~~~
>
> Are you serious?
>
That would be the outcome at AfD, assuming it got there, which would
depend on how trigger happy the C:CSD patrollers that day are.

Brian

_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

Thomas Dalton
2008/12/17 Wily D <[hidden email]>:

> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 2008/12/16 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
>>> 2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>> Sounds like a fantastic idea. Only problem seems to be that they
>>>> publish the wikipedia articles/summaries before the papers, it needs
>>>> to be the other way around so the paper can be a reference for the
>>>> summary.
>>>
>>>
>>> * '''d''', nn, v, auto, spam - ~~~~
>>
>> Are you serious?
>>
> That would be the outcome at AfD, assuming it got there, which would
> depend on how trigger happy the C:CSD patrollers that day are.

It's discussed in a peer reviewed journal, that covers verifiability.
I don't see how it's autobiographical, it's about science, not a
person. It's not commercial, so it's not spam. I'm not sure what the
notability guidelines are for science, so I guess it might fail there,
I'd have to look it up.

_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

Philip Sandifer-2
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder-2

On Dec 16, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:

> I think we could make an exception. This is too promising to impose  
> work
> to rule.

Fred, you're too much. This less than a week after you denounce peer  
reviewed scholarship in another field as mere opinion! Hilarious!

-Phil

_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

Carl Beckhorn
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:24:01PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html

This is very exciting! The first article appears to be [[SmY]], and
I don't see any glaring problems with it. The two diagrams could
use a footnote in each of their long captions, but there are three
references provided that seem reasonably on this topic. Of course some
people will complain that it's too technical, but that's an issue to
take up at WP:PEREN.

 - Carl

_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

Thomas Larsen-3
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Hi,

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.

Personally, I object to writing any full-blown article on Wikipedia
from conscientious grounds. I believe that Wikipedia is severely
flawed--in fact, I'm working on a fork at the moment. While Wikipedia
can be, and commonly _is_, very useful for getting an overview of a
topic, it is flawed both in its quality maintenance processes and,
most seriously, in its participatory culture.

Forcing experts who disagree with Wikipedia's principles and/or
culture to have to contribute to Wikipedia in order to get an article
published in a particular journal forces them to act against their
will or choose another journal.

It's the worst idea ever, seriously.

--Thomas

_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

Jonathan Hughes-4
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
>
> From: Carl Beckhorn <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"
> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:24:01PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
> > http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
>
> This is very exciting! The first article appears to be [[SmY]], and
> I don't see any glaring problems with it. The two diagrams could
> use a footnote in each of their long captions, but there are three
> references provided that seem reasonably on this topic. Of course some
> people will complain that it's too technical, but that's an issue to
> take up at WP:PEREN.
>
>  - Carl


I'd imagine a simple solution would be to ask if the authors can tone down
the technical language a bit.  Something along the lines of "we layman be
not learned enough to understand".

[[User:Lifebaka]]
Jonathan Hughes
_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

Carl Beckhorn
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 08:50:28PM -0500, Jonathan Hughes wrote:
> > Of course some people will complain that it's too technical, but
> > that's an issue to take up at WP:PEREN.
>
> I'd imagine a simple solution would be to ask if the authors can tone down
> the technical language a bit.  Something along the lines of "we layman be
> not learned enough to understand".

Yes, that's a reasonable suggestion.

The debate about "too technical" has been going on for years and will
not stop anytime soon. The question on the other side is, "if you don't
already know what these basic terms mean, how can you understand what's
being said in this article?".

If the authors just remember to link all the technical terms that may be
unfamiliar, that would be a good start. Also, keeping the lede as
untechnical as possible is a good practice. Even if someone cannot read
the rest of the article, a good lede conveys the basic points as a
sort of micro-article.

 - Carl

_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

David Goodman
As I read their announcement, the intention is to have the Wikipedia
article be non-technical. The first paper being reported there seems
to be appropriate to Wikipedia. But then, its a comprehensive paper,
on a suitable broad topic. If it is their intention to apply ttheir
proposal to imilar papers, such as ones presenting t he genome of a
particualr orgnaism, then all shouldgo well.

But most scientific papers even in good journals are by far too
specific to be suitable as Wikipedia articles.  If they start trying
to insert those, our reaction will probably force them to come to the
realization that there is a difference between an encyclopedia and a
summary of primary research papers--in which case they might want to
consider having their own site for t he summaries they want.  Some
journals, such as PLOS, already do publish lay summaries.



On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Carl Beckhorn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 08:50:28PM -0500, Jonathan Hughes wrote:
>> > Of course some people will complain that it's too technical, but
>> > that's an issue to take up at WP:PEREN.
>>
>> I'd imagine a simple solution would be to ask if the authors can tone down
>> the technical language a bit.  Something along the lines of "we layman be
>> not learned enough to understand".
>
> Yes, that's a reasonable suggestion.
>
> The debate about "too technical" has been going on for years and will
> not stop anytime soon. The question on the other side is, "if you don't
> already know what these basic terms mean, how can you understand what's
> being said in this article?".
>
> If the authors just remember to link all the technical terms that may be
> unfamiliar, that would be a good start. Also, keeping the lede as
> untechnical as possible is a good practice. Even if someone cannot read
> the rest of the article, a good lede conveys the basic points as a
> sort of micro-article.
>
>  - Carl
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> 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

_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 3:24 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
>
> What could possibly go wrong?
>
> (Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!)
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Actually, from the article...

"The RNA wiki is a subset of a broader project, the WikiProject
Molecular and Cellular Biology..."

Seems like we've already got a WikiProject involved here.

My question is more if the GFDL and "anyone can edit" implications are
being made clear to the scientists publishing. Most scientific papers
are reasonably well referenced, so I don't think there's any problem
there, but it would certainly be unfortunate to see someone confused
about the fact that the paper can be changed and redistributed at
will.

--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

Jay Litwyn
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do
it. --Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

There might be a lot of academics touting one study or another as
ground-breaking, making it GFDL and linking sixty subjects to it that are
only tangentially relevant, then putting a lot of weight on WP:OWN, WP:COI
and other anti-bias policy like WP:AWW. Who knows, really, how long any
great influx of newbies might last or how productive such a call might be?
Might get a wave of people who can fix up a whole sub-category in one
sitting, too, if they're determined, and nobody does wholesale reverts for
one persistent error.

I do not know who is on the internet to make it big.
Hopefully, they will give up.

If all spoke to all, then one word would be too much. Now way to force
people into closely holding their e-mail address is polite. If some law says
it's not spam, then it is, and it probably violates an acceptable use
policy. If it doesn't, then some internet service provider is providing
uncommon terms of service that are not acceptable to me. I vote to list them
at http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/ Opt-out is a sentence of death to personal
channels on the internet.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Gerard" <[hidden email]>
To: "English Wikipedia" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 3:24 PM
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"


> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
>
> What could possibly go wrong?
>
> (Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!)
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 


_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

geni
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
2008/12/16 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
>
> What could possibly go wrong?
>
> (Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!)
>
>
> - d.

Wikiprojects are not going to be the problem or I suspect the solution
here. They are pretty much going to need a page they can link to in
their article creation summaries explaining what is going on and that
deleting without extreme care will result in consequences.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

Jay Litwyn
In reply to this post by David Goodman
From: "David Goodman" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 9:02 PM


> As I read their announcement, the intention is to have the Wikipedia
> article be non-technical. The first paper being reported there seems
> to be appropriate to Wikipedia. But then, its a comprehensive paper,
> on a suitable broad topic. If it is their intention to apply ttheir
> proposal to imilar papers, such as ones presenting t he genome of a
> particualr orgnaism, then all shouldgo well.
>
> But most scientific papers even in good journals are by far too
> specific to be suitable as Wikipedia articles.  If they start trying
> to insert those, our reaction will probably force them to come to the
> realization that there is a difference between an encyclopedia and a
> summary of primary research papers--in which case they might want to
> consider having their own site for t he summaries they want.  Some
> journals, such as PLOS, already do publish lay summaries.

It is nice to know that someone likes our work over there, and I do not see
that more fingers is necessarily going to be taxing. If you hav a mind for
what is either hard or tedious (if not both), and I do not see that even ten
percent of Nature subscribers are going to read and heed that call, then
welcome...I estimate that much less than ten percent of subscribers also
write for Nature, even counting letters.

There are welcome templates. If you learn about a newbie from their
ignorance of policy, then make sure they get the pillars or something
besides the specific piece they are ignoring.

> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Carl Beckhorn <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 08:50:28PM -0500, Jonathan Hughes wrote:
>>> > Of course some people will complain that it's too technical, but
>>> > that's an issue to take up at WP:PEREN.
>>>
>>> I'd imagine a simple solution would be to ask if the authors can tone
>>> down
>>> the technical language a bit.  Something along the lines of "we layman
>>> be
>>> not learned enough to understand".
>>
>> Yes, that's a reasonable suggestion.
>>
>> The debate about "too technical" has been going on for years and will
>> not stop anytime soon. The question on the other side is, "if you don't
>> already know what these basic terms mean, how can you understand what's
>> being said in this article?".
>>
>> If the authors just remember to link all the technical terms that may be
>> unfamiliar, that would be a good start. Also, keeping the lede as
>> untechnical as possible is a good practice. Even if someone cannot read
>> the rest of the article, a good lede conveys the basic points as a
>> sort of micro-article.
>>
>>  - Carl
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 


_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

Jay Litwyn
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Hefty point for the writers who do not get a new article accepted
and resort to promoting their web page (no self reference) or usenet
article -- get warned and then wonder what is left to do, here (hordes, of
course, and you gotta look). Looking at it this way, "Nature" might seem out
of order, and you never can tell if someone might gravitate to tweaking
stuff out of their field. (I'm a stylist. Supposed to an
eventualist...stuborn, maybe. [Okay...one more piece of spam control, belay
concerns with Jeremy Hanson that I can not directly support, ATM, then I try
to colour that fractal that looks like a cat if I can find it --booger--  
lost drive for testing music. OH! I haven't done any caffeine in ten hours.
Maybe I can clear my spam kyuu, after all.]).

Anybody welcomed somebody with suggestbot?
_______
Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do
it. --Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

From: "David Gerard" <[hidden email]>

> 2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Sounds like a fantastic idea. Only problem seems to be that they
>> publish the wikipedia articles/summaries before the papers, it needs
>> to be the other way around so the paper can be a reference for the
>> summary.
>
>
> * '''d''', nn, v, auto, spam - ~~~~
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 


_______________________________________________
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: Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

Jim-60
In reply to this post by Thomas Larsen-3
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Thomas Larsen <[hidden email]>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
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
12