Somehow I lost this thread - this is great, Finn, I agree that a shared bibliographic resource need not be restricted to conferences, journals, etc, although specific meta-reviews might be.
The main obstacle for this problem of reviewing WP lit seems to be agreeing on a common method for assembling our disparate efforts into something bigger. In another thread I echoed Reid's ideas about using a wiki to accomplish this, a mediawiki instance would be ideal. Andrea On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Finn Aarup Nielsen <f...@imm.dtu.dk> wrote: > > > >> 1. Create a public Mediawiki instance. >> 2. Decide on a relatively standardized format of reviewing each paper >> (metadata formats, an infobox, how to write reviews of each, etc.) >> 3. Upload your existing Zotero database into this new wiki (I would be >> happy to write a script to do this). >> 4. Proceed with paper readings, with the goal that every single paper is >> looked at by human eyes. >> 5. Use this content to produce one or more review articles. > > There has been some talk of a wiki for papers - also on this list as far > as I remember. There is Bibdex (http://www.bibdex.com/), AcaWiki > (http://acawiki.org) and I have the "Brede Wiki" > (http://neuro.imm.dtu.dk/wiki/). The AcaWiki use Semantic Mediawiki > (AFAIK) and I use MediaWiki templates. You can see an example here: > > http://neuro.imm.dtu.dk/wiki/Putting_Wikipedia_to_the_test:_a_case_study > > There is an infobox with citation information and sections on "related > studies" and "critique". > > It is a question though whether such more general targeted wikis are > appropriate for composing a collaborative paper. > > > I have also begun a small Wikipedia review that I upload to our server > yesterday: > > http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf > > I think I will never be able to do an exhaustive review of all papers, but > my idea was to give an overview of as many aspect as possible. I think > that some research published outside journals and conferences are > interesting, e.g., surveys and some of the statistics performed by Erik > Zachte. I don't think that Pew's survey has be peer-reviewed, so "just" > including journal and conference papers is in my opinion not quite > enough to give a complete picture. > > > /Finn > > ___________________________________________________________________ > > Finn Aarup Nielsen, DTU Informatics, Denmark > Lundbeck Foundation Center for Integrated Molecular Brain Imaging > http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~fn/ http://nru.dk/staff/fnielsen/ > ___________________________________________________________________ > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > -- :: Andrea Forte :: Assistant Professor :: College of Information Science and Technology, Drexel University :: http://www.andreaforte.net -- :: Andrea Forte :: Assistant Professor :: College of Information Science and Technology, Drexel University :: http://www.andreaforte.net _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
