On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:55 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2008/12/19 The Cunctator :
>
>> This looks like a genuinely positive experiment that could lead to very good
>> results.
>
>
> Indeed. I'm mostly worried about the possibilities for Olympic-scale
> n00b-biting.
>
>
> - d.
Well, hopefully we c
David Gerard wrote:
> 2008/12/19 The Cunctator :
>
>
>> This looks like a genuinely positive experiment that could lead to very good
>> results.
>>
>
>
> Indeed. I'm mostly worried about the possibilities for Olympic-scale
> n00b-biting.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _
Hey, if you are rea
2008/12/19 The Cunctator :
> This looks like a genuinely positive experiment that could lead to very good
> results.
Indeed. I'm mostly worried about the possibilities for Olympic-scale
n00b-biting.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wiki
This looks like a genuinely positive experiment that could lead to very good
results.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Thomas Larsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for clarifying.
>
> > This is an excellent experiment. With Wikipedia's open edit process I am
> > confident that the plan will adjust as it
Hi,
Thanks for clarifying.
> 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 th
2008/12/18 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
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Thomas Larsen
wrote:
> 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.
So that's what I thought.
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 journ
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Thomas Larsen 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 detai
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,
From: "David Goodman"
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 broa
2008/12/16 David Gerard :
> 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
channels on the internet.
- Original Message -
From: "David Gerard"
To: "English Wikipedia"
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
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 3:24 PM, David Gerard 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
>
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 paper
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. Somethi
>
> From: Carl Beckhorn
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"
> To: English Wikipedia
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:24:01PM +, David Gerard wrote:
> > http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
&g
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 ground
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:24:01PM +, 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
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
_
2008/12/17 Wily D :
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> 2008/12/16 David Gerard :
>>> 2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton :
>>>
Sounds like a fantastic idea. Only problem seems to be that they
publish the wikipedia articles/summaries before the papers, it needs
to be
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2008/12/16 David Gerard :
>> 2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton :
>>
>>> 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 pap
2008/12/16 David Gerard :
> 2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton :
>
>> 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,
We need more of these things.
bibliomaniac15
--- On Tue, 12/16/08, David Gerard wrote:
From: David Gerard
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"
To: "English Wikipedia"
Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 2:24 PM
http://www.nature.com/news/2
2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton :
> 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 -
__
> 2008/12/16 David Gerard :
>> 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/summari
2008/12/16 David Gerard :
> 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 th
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
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visi
28 matches
Mail list logo
