Thanks Tilman. Good to see the offer is in the public FAQ.
I was on my phone at the time I saw it, and having some time on my hands I
tried to fill it in. I managed to screw up the survey software on the
languages selection by trying to select more than one, and then it wouldnt
let me pick any. I
I'm confused. I'm a Wikipedia editor and I am not seeing this invitation to
the survey at akk?
Kerry
-Original Message-
From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Tilman
Bayer
Sent: Saturday, 3 November 2012 1:58 PM
Hi John,
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:05 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Hi Tilman,
>
> Could you explain the logic behind the survey link not being static until
> the user completes the survey or dismisses the notice?
I guess you are referring to the fact that the survey invitation
banner is designed t
Hi Tilman,
Could you explain the logic behind the survey link not being static until
the user completes the survey or dismisses the notice?
I appreciate that you're offering, via email, to give people the survey
link if they missed it, but that will influence who ends up your survey
population. N
Hello,
I wouldn't call it a "wiki journal", that gives a wrong impression,
and also not call the draft like that.
Kind regards
Ziko
2012/11/2 Pierre-Carl Langlais :
>
> Thanks a lot for these interesting information. I have given a look at the
> French Institute of scientific evaluation (AERES). T
Hej, this is great. I think you should consider the following combined
model:
* Organize [papers] and [reviews] on a wiki. Aim for open collaboration
and discussion among researchers in the draft phase.
[papers] := drafts, data, analysis, reflists; casual peer review
[reviews] := comments, quest
I like the draft design. Here's an idea on how to do tackle the double
blind peer review, wiki way:
1) anonymous submissions: let's have a public account for submissions
(username and password either listed on the journal page, or given out
by editor through email). This being meta or wikivers
Have you all considered whether the costs of bootstrapping up a set of
editors and authors, playing the impact factor game, and articulating a
mission that is broad enough to include computer scientists and historians
warrant the benefits of having yet another outlet to publish wiki research?
The b
I would like to volunteer to help, but I agree with Darek that we need
to aim towards entering serious journal rankings from day 1. I think we
can both experiment with the wiki publishing model, and prepare a pdf
versions if needed for the traditionalists; it's not like it's difficult
- MediaWi
As for any candidates for institutional academic support, I could easily
arrange for my university, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro State
(UNIRIO - http://www.unirio.br), where I've been setting a wiki research
Lab and we have a very good Library Studies Dept., where they can help us
with the
Thanks a lot for these interesting information. I have given a look at
the French Institute of scientific evaluation (AERES). Their
requirements are very simlar :
(1) Open editorial comittee, with international range and a main focus
of research.
(2) Efficient selection process (which imply
https://github.com/embr/userstats
"We're pleased to release version 0.1.0 of the userstats Python library
and command-line tool for computing user-centric metrics on Wikipedia
users. The goal of the software is to make it easy for project owners to
track the contributions and status of users invol
Dear all,
please find attached the call for a Special Issue on Multilingual Linked
Open Data (MLOD) 2012.
Continuing the great success of the MLODE 2012 workshop[1], we welcome
novel submission until *Nov 23rd* to this special issue of the Semantic
Web Journal.
We also produced a new version
Hello,
I find it a very good idea (I expressed it in 2008 or 2009); the focus
should be somewhat defined, e..g wiki's and open content; and it
should be done in a way that others respect the journal.
Kind regards
Ziko
2012/11/2 Juliana Bastos Marques :
> As far as my experience goes, the required
I'd like to provide some data for comparison in terms of requirements for
traditional academic journals. The Brazilian committee for my area that
rates journals and acts as standard for cvs, tenures etc, lists [1]:
- editor-in-chief
- editorial committee
- consultive committee
- ISSN
- editorial p
I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the
journal could be : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal
It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the
working and contextual texts that are not visibl
fair enough, when people tell you that something is impossible, it means
you're probably on the right way :) good luck.
dj
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:01 PM, emijrp wrote:
> Great Dariusz : ) I will launch the Journal of Wikis project and I will
> learn a lot. It won't be just a journal in the o
One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer editor(s). They
could ensure all the formal and administrative aspects of the journal:
receiving and anonymizing the propositions, publishing them on the
wiki, editing the final Wiki and PDF versions, keep in touch with ISI
and other e
Great Dariusz : ) I will launch the Journal of Wikis project and I will
learn a lot. It won't be just a journal in the old sense, it will be
something new.
I remember when people on this mailing list talked during years about a way
to compile wiki literature, but no advances were done. Until I dec
>
> Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that situation.
> This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that only an
> expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be successful.
>
Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that possibly
even
2012/11/2 Dariusz Jemielniak
> unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of
> "all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of
> open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure
> reviews, etc.
Not my case, but I unde
+1
Let me add that the peer-reviewing system is a must, but not enough by
itself for considering the magazine an addition to science. There is
another important fact: who reviews the papers?
If a groups of enthusiastic but non-experienced, non-expert in research
people review the submissions, wha
unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of
"all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of
open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure
reviews, etc. As long as reality is as it is now, we'd have to have a
"proper"
Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so
broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the
WikiSym move to OpenSym.
But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open
publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writ
24 matches
Mail list logo
