[Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

Thomas Shafee
Such translation of CC content is pretty much unpreventable and can be a
benefit or a drawback depending on the author's own opinion.

From the point of view of an official 'version of record' (i.e. what the
doi points to) the authors would be named along with attribution of all
contributors. If there are translations, they'd likely be marked as
somethign like "adapted by translators XYZ from article XYZ by original
authors XYZ under a CC-BY license", though details would need to be decided
if it came up. See this 2008 article
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2268932/> for some ideas
floated previously floated. I'll admit I've limited knowledge of
translation practices though, so the project would need advice!

For some existing Wikipedia-based examples:

   - PLOS article
   <https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002803>
and
   uk.wp page
   <https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%94%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F>
   - PLOS article
   <https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004095>
    and es.wp page
   <https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infiriendo_transferencia_gen%C3%A9tica_horizontal>


Thomas

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 12:48, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> When we publish CC BY SA on Wikipedia, we allow translation into other
> languages without having any control over the translations (but we require
> our name to be attached in some fashion). So right now we do all the time.
> Most of my academic publications are CC BY which is even more permissive.
>
> James
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:27 PM Thomas Townsend <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 18:46, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that
> > > would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree
> > with
> > > Plan S's move to allow ND.
> > >
> >
> > So part of the offer is that an author's article may be translated into
> > other languages without the original author having any say in the
> process?
> >  Surely you would not permit your own articles to be republished in
> another
> > language with your name still on them and your having no control over
> what
> > the translation says in your name?
> >
> > The Turnip
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

Vi to
 Thanks anyone of the interesting replies!

Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 17:03 John Erling Blad <[hidden email]>
ha scritto:

> One reason; reach.
>

In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is.

At nowiki we vere approached some years ago by a
> university about publishing cutting edge research in fish farming. We
> could not publish their work because some claimed it to be "original
> research". Sure it was, and it was darn good original research too. I
> don't think that was a single occurence, other communities has
> probably had similar questions.
>

On Wikipedia you have no means to tell what is a good research, anyway.

Il giorno mar 4 giu 2019 alle ore 03:20 Thomas Shafee <
[hidden email]> ha scritto:

>
>    - Accountability to the academic community - indexing by cope
>    <https://publicationethics.org/misconduct>, doaj <https://doaj.org>,
>    pubmed <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/>, scopus
>    <https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic>, web of science
>    <https://clarivate.com/products/web-of-science/>, free journal network
>    <https://freejournals.org> etc all require *extensive *external
> auditing
>    of processes. Each journal has to apply for these individually and they
> are
>    challenging to gain and retain.
>

Yup, indexing is definitely needed, though challenging.


>    3. Cynical academics may be drawn by the likely high impact that the
>    journal will likely get form publishing a lot of broad review articles
> and
>    the exposure of those through wikipedia
>

I'm not sure it would be auspicable to cite "our journal" on Wikipedia,
also it may boost COI.


>       - It could be a way to peer review parts of wikidata (e.g. whether
>       the Drug interactions (P769) property set is up to date, and what
>       references should support any additions)
>

That's way interesting, though some mechanism of automatic update would
have the drawback of making some papers incoherent.


> *Democracy*
> So far the only inherently undemocratic part of the project has been the
> strict requirements on the peer reviewers.
>

Our inner "gerarchy" is somehow based upon committment/process knowledge
rather than competence in specific fields. While academia is (well, should
be) exactly the opposite, both systems works where they are supposed to
work, I hope they'll work the same if mixed up!

Translation is a complex issue.
Using English as the lingua franca for science deeply boosted
internationalisation of research, but also added an extra requirement for
researchers. Translation also adds a non negligible delay in information
spread. I, for one, don't judge scientific article worth translation, but I
wouldn't oppose it.

I think the ND in plan-S is meant to address the plagiarism (also
self-plagiarism) problem/fears.

Vito


Il giorno mer 5 giu 2019 alle ore 07:27 Thomas Shafee <
[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> Such translation of CC content is pretty much unpreventable and can be a
> benefit or a drawback depending on the author's own opinion.
>
> From the point of view of an official 'version of record' (i.e. what the
> doi points to) the authors would be named along with attribution of all
> contributors. If there are translations, they'd likely be marked as
> somethign like "adapted by translators XYZ from article XYZ by original
> authors XYZ under a CC-BY license", though details would need to be decided
> if it came up. See this 2008 article
> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2268932/> for some ideas
> floated previously floated. I'll admit I've limited knowledge of
> translation practices though, so the project would need advice!
>
> For some existing Wikipedia-based examples:
>
>    - PLOS article
>    <
> https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002803
> >
> and
>    uk.wp page
>    <
> https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%94%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F
> >
>    - PLOS article
>    <
> https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004095
> >
>     and es.wp page
>    <
> https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infiriendo_transferencia_gen%C3%A9tica_horizontal
> >
>
>
> Thomas
>
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 12:48, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > When we publish CC BY SA on Wikipedia, we allow translation into other
> > languages without having any control over the translations (but we
> require
> > our name to be attached in some fashion). So right now we do all the
> time.
> > Most of my academic publications are CC BY which is even more permissive.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:27 PM Thomas Townsend <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 18:46, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as
> that
> > > > would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I
> disagree
> > > with
> > > > Plan S's move to allow ND.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So part of the offer is that an author's article may be translated into
> > > other languages without the original author having any say in the
> > process?
> > >  Surely you would not permit your own articles to be republished in
> > another
> > > language with your name still on them and your having no control over
> > what
> > > the translation says in your name?
> > >
> > > The Turnip
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

John Erling Blad
> > One reason; reach.
> >
>
> In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is.

Reach leads to impact. You can't get impact without reach, but reach
in non-scientific communities does not necessarily turn into reach in
scientific communities.

> At nowiki we vere approached some years ago by a
> > university about publishing cutting edge research in fish farming. We
> > could not publish their work because some claimed it to be "original
> > research". Sure it was, and it was darn good original research too. I
> > don't think that was a single occurence, other communities has
> > probably had similar questions.
> >
>
> On Wikipedia you have no means to tell what is a good research, anyway.

There are nothing that blocks Wikipedia from doing peer review. (It
has implicit peer review.) What you propose for WikiJournal is to make
peer review a policy. That does not in itself turn articles into good
research.

You can turn your statement around and say if you can not write good
reasearch on Wikipedia, then you can not write good reasearch on
WikiJournal. The tools are basically the same, the only real
differences are in the policies.

Actually, some of the example articles at WikiJournal are nothing more
than FA, but that is another discussion.

Intent is the major difference on what WikiJournal could be compared
to Wikipedia.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

Vi to
Il giorno mer 5 giu 2019 alle ore 12:00 John Erling Blad <[hidden email]>
ha scritto:

> > > One reason; reach.
> > >
> >
> > In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is.
>
> Reach leads to impact. You can't get impact without reach, but reach
> in non-scientific communities does not necessarily turn into reach in
> scientific communities.
>

Apart from the hype I wouldn't releate reach and scientific impact. Most of
research community is forced to seek for impact, bibliometric indicators
and abiding by the publish or perish principle.


> There are nothing that blocks Wikipedia from doing peer review. (It
> has implicit peer review.) What you propose for WikiJournal is to make
> peer review a policy. That does not in itself turn articles into good
> research.


I disagree with this, Wikipedia doesn't make original research by
definition.
I concur we have something similar to peer review, though ours is less
"autorithy-centered".

Vito
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

Thomas Shafee
Some more notes, responses and thoughts on the topics raised above!

*Impact and reach*
I fully agree that impact factor is of primary importance to many
researchers. However, many grants that fund research also have started
looking for evidence that researchers are making genuine efforts in public
outreach. Example: A researcher spends 30 years on one of the most
important livestock parasites, publishing review articles read by 100-1000
people, yet the Wikipedia page is only 2 sentences long
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teladorsagia_circumcincta&oldid=860605498>.
Their grant reviewers, potential students, farmers, politicians, and
journalists read the WP page which gives a false impression of obscurity to
the topic. Then they publish a review article with a WikiJournal which is
dual-published as a citable version for their cv and copied into WP to show
they they are trying hard to keep the general public informed
(*10.15347/wjs/2019.004
<https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2019.004>*).

*Citing WikiJournals in Wikipedia*
I see the COI point of view. On the other hand, the best cure for coi is
transparency and I think the publishing of peer reviews that go along with
papers. Overall, I think WP use of WikiJournals articles as sources
(e.g. *10.15347/wjm/2017.005
<https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2017.005>*) would remain independent and a
matter for WP:RS discussion once the journals are accredited. However, one
perennial problem in WP has notable topics lacking citable sources (e.g.
first nations history / neglected tropical diseases / women historical
figures). If a wikipedian were able to do the research into an aspect of
that topic to a level that it meets rigorous scholarly standards and passes
external peer review, then that may a be a reasonable way of minting a
valuable new citable source. Again, that'd be up for the community to
decide as the project progresses.

*Indexing*
We have started the practice of drafting indexing applications publicly
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine#SCOPUS_reapplication>
for greater transparency (unique as far as I know).

*Comparison to peer review within Wikipedia*
WP essentially does post-publication editorial review (rather than peer
review). External peer review by WikiJournals and internal PR/GA/FA review
by wp editors perform complementary (not competing) roles. Many FA articles
are definitely up to academic standards - and indeed their performance
through peer review proves just that as an additional quality-assurance
mechanism. That is not universally true (e.g. the review of GA article Surface
tension
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_Preprints/Surface_tension>
includes
"in some instances the ideas are incorrect ... It will confuse rather then
enlighten readers new to the field"). FA has unique aspects that external
academic peer review lacks (e.g. a sharper focus on readability, and
formatting, spot-chacking of references).

All the best,
Thomas

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 23:37, Vi to <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Il giorno mer 5 giu 2019 alle ore 12:00 John Erling Blad <[hidden email]
> >
> ha scritto:
>
> > > > One reason; reach.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is.
> >
> > Reach leads to impact. You can't get impact without reach, but reach
> > in non-scientific communities does not necessarily turn into reach in
> > scientific communities.
> >
>
> Apart from the hype I wouldn't releate reach and scientific impact. Most of
> research community is forced to seek for impact, bibliometric indicators
> and abiding by the publish or perish principle.
>
>
> > There are nothing that blocks Wikipedia from doing peer review. (It
> > has implicit peer review.) What you propose for WikiJournal is to make
> > peer review a policy. That does not in itself turn articles into good
> > research.
>
>
> I disagree with this, Wikipedia doesn't make original research by
> definition.
> I concur we have something similar to peer review, though ours is less
> "autorithy-centered".
>
> Vito
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

metasj
Nice work.  It will take time, but keep it up.

On Thu., Jun. 6, 2019, 10:05 p.m. Thomas Shafee, <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Some more notes, responses and thoughts on the topics raised above!
>
> *Impact and reach*
> I fully agree that impact factor is of primary importance to many
> researchers. However, many grants that fund research also have started
> looking for evidence that researchers are making genuine efforts in public
> outreach. Example: A researcher spends 30 years on one of the most
> important livestock parasites, publishing review articles read by 100-1000
> people, yet the Wikipedia page is only 2 sentences long
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teladorsagia_circumcincta&oldid=860605498
> >.
> Their grant reviewers, potential students, farmers, politicians, and
> journalists read the WP page which gives a false impression of obscurity to
> the topic. Then they publish a review article with a WikiJournal which is
> dual-published as a citable version for their cv and copied into WP to show
> they they are trying hard to keep the general public informed
> (*10.15347/wjs/2019.004
> <https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2019.004>*).
>
> *Citing WikiJournals in Wikipedia*
> I see the COI point of view. On the other hand, the best cure for coi is
> transparency and I think the publishing of peer reviews that go along with
> papers. Overall, I think WP use of WikiJournals articles as sources
> (e.g. *10.15347/wjm/2017.005
> <https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2017.005>*) would remain independent and a
> matter for WP:RS discussion once the journals are accredited. However, one
> perennial problem in WP has notable topics lacking citable sources (e.g.
> first nations history / neglected tropical diseases / women historical
> figures). If a wikipedian were able to do the research into an aspect of
> that topic to a level that it meets rigorous scholarly standards and passes
> external peer review, then that may a be a reasonable way of minting a
> valuable new citable source. Again, that'd be up for the community to
> decide as the project progresses.
>
> *Indexing*
> We have started the practice of drafting indexing applications publicly
> <
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine#SCOPUS_reapplication
> >
> for greater transparency (unique as far as I know).
>
> *Comparison to peer review within Wikipedia*
> WP essentially does post-publication editorial review (rather than peer
> review). External peer review by WikiJournals and internal PR/GA/FA review
> by wp editors perform complementary (not competing) roles. Many FA articles
> are definitely up to academic standards - and indeed their performance
> through peer review proves just that as an additional quality-assurance
> mechanism. That is not universally true (e.g. the review of GA article
> Surface
> tension
> <
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_Preprints/Surface_tension
> >
> includes
> "in some instances the ideas are incorrect ... It will confuse rather then
> enlighten readers new to the field"). FA has unique aspects that external
> academic peer review lacks (e.g. a sharper focus on readability, and
> formatting, spot-chacking of references).
>
> All the best,
> Thomas
>
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 23:37, Vi to <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Il giorno mer 5 giu 2019 alle ore 12:00 John Erling Blad <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > ha scritto:
> >
> > > > > One reason; reach.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is.
> > >
> > > Reach leads to impact. You can't get impact without reach, but reach
> > > in non-scientific communities does not necessarily turn into reach in
> > > scientific communities.
> > >
> >
> > Apart from the hype I wouldn't releate reach and scientific impact. Most
> of
> > research community is forced to seek for impact, bibliometric indicators
> > and abiding by the publish or perish principle.
> >
> >
> > > There are nothing that blocks Wikipedia from doing peer review. (It
> > > has implicit peer review.) What you propose for WikiJournal is to make
> > > peer review a policy. That does not in itself turn articles into good
> > > research.
> >
> >
> > I disagree with this, Wikipedia doesn't make original research by
> > definition.
> > I concur we have something similar to peer review, though ours is less
> > "autorithy-centered".
> >
> > Vito
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

Amirouche Boubekki
In reply to this post by Thomas Shafee
Hello,


I am new to the mailing list and more generaly on wikipedia as contributor
and as student in wikiversity.

I did not know about WikiJournals as part of Wikiversity. My only remark
will be that the wikiveristy
PhD program is in poor shape. I was lost in the various tools I had to use
and broken links.
Most if not all conversation are old-ish and doesn't say the PhD program is
active or working
at all. (French wikiveristy is in much better shape).

I am certain that the implementation of wikijournal as sister project will
have more impact for WikiJournal.
My point is with a better english wikiversity, both could have more impact.


I think, forking wikijournals outside wikiverity will have a bad impact on
wikiversity.

Also, is it possible to write a publication in the journal without prior
PhD?
Can publication in the wikijournal help obtain the wikiveristy PhD?

Thanks!

Amirouche ~ amz3
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

Thomas Shafee
Hi Amirouche,

It's definitely possible to write articles in WikiJournals without a PhD (
example <https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006>). External peer reviewers
are invited in the same way whether the author is some top prof or an
undergrad.

I definitely think that WikiJournal articles can be useful for Wikiversity
courses (example <https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2017.006>, example
<https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.005>). Bu I think that the two projects
have different technical needs.

As far as I know, Wikiversity is currently not accredited in any country -
a process usually tightly regulated by governments (Australia example
<https://www.teqsa.gov.au/>). Wikiversity is therefore more like P2PU
<https://www.p2pu.org/en/about/> than Open University
<http://www.openuniversity.edu/courses>, in that it can offer courses and
provide completion badges, but not yet award formal PhDs. I don't now
whether there are any users working on it, but accreditation for
Wikiversity courses would probably be most easily achieved by partnering
with established accredited universities, a bit like coursera
<https://www.coursera.org/degrees>, but that would still be a pretty major
project.

Hope that is useful info!
All the best,
Thomas

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 15:39, Amirouche Boubekki <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
> I am new to the mailing list and more generaly on wikipedia as contributor
> and as student in wikiversity.
>
> I did not know about WikiJournals as part of Wikiversity. My only remark
> will be that the wikiveristy
> PhD program is in poor shape. I was lost in the various tools I had to use
> and broken links.
> Most if not all conversation are old-ish and doesn't say the PhD program is
> active or working
> at all. (French wikiveristy is in much better shape).
>
> I am certain that the implementation of wikijournal as sister project will
> have more impact for WikiJournal.
> My point is with a better english wikiversity, both could have more impact.
>
>
> I think, forking wikijournals outside wikiverity will have a bad impact on
> wikiversity.
>
> Also, is it possible to write a publication in the journal without prior
> PhD?
> Can publication in the wikijournal help obtain the wikiveristy PhD?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Amirouche ~ amz3
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

metasj
Indeed... there is no wikiversity phd.  Nor is one planned in the near
future in any language, as far as I know.
Getting WV courses onto accredited platforms seems like a step towards
alignment (or perhaps first: working w/ an existing set of accredited
courses and getting their materials onto WV as a non-accredited space to
find and learn from those materials!)

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 8:35 PM Thomas Shafee <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Amirouche,
>
> It's definitely possible to write articles in WikiJournals without a PhD (
> example <https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006>). External peer reviewers
> are invited in the same way whether the author is some top prof or an
> undergrad.
>
> I definitely think that WikiJournal articles can be useful for Wikiversity
> courses (example <https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2017.006>, example
> <https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.005>). Bu I think that the two projects
> have different technical needs.
>
> As far as I know, Wikiversity is currently not accredited in any country -
> a process usually tightly regulated by governments (Australia example
> <https://www.teqsa.gov.au/>). Wikiversity is therefore more like P2PU
> <https://www.p2pu.org/en/about/> than Open University
> <http://www.openuniversity.edu/courses>, in that it can offer courses and
> provide completion badges, but not yet award formal PhDs. I don't now
> whether there are any users working on it, but accreditation for
> Wikiversity courses would probably be most easily achieved by partnering
> with established accredited universities, a bit like coursera
> <https://www.coursera.org/degrees>, but that would still be a pretty major
> project.
>
> Hope that is useful info!
> All the best,
> Thomas
>
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 15:39, Amirouche Boubekki <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> > I am new to the mailing list and more generaly on wikipedia as
> contributor
> > and as student in wikiversity.
> >
> > I did not know about WikiJournals as part of Wikiversity. My only remark
> > will be that the wikiveristy
> > PhD program is in poor shape. I was lost in the various tools I had to
> use
> > and broken links.
> > Most if not all conversation are old-ish and doesn't say the PhD program
> is
> > active or working
> > at all. (French wikiveristy is in much better shape).
> >
> > I am certain that the implementation of wikijournal as sister project
> will
> > have more impact for WikiJournal.
> > My point is with a better english wikiversity, both could have more
> impact.
> >
> >
> > I think, forking wikijournals outside wikiverity will have a bad impact
> on
> > wikiversity.
> >
> > Also, is it possible to write a publication in the journal without prior
> > PhD?
> > Can publication in the wikijournal help obtain the wikiveristy PhD?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Amirouche ~ amz3
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12