Hello Pierre-Carl Langlais,
I believe that [Wiki-research-l] can use more research like yours
that attempts to generalize the findings from the previous literature.
Have you considered using "meta-analyses" of case studies so as to
provide a bit more methodological grounding? I am not a methodologist
myself. Still I think your main work is to provide more than just a
literature review of 30 case studies. It might work better to convince
the readers how you have done more than a literature review.
Also, I am not sure whether you use the two terms "Wiki" and
"Wikipedia" as synonym. If your work focus on analyzing the previous
literature on 30 case studies on Wikipedia, a special instance of
global wiki project, perhaps it is better to use simply the term
"Wikipedia". I do not know what to on the subjects as a reader. Some
clarification will help. Otherwise I keep thinking if it is about
using Wikipedia or about using Wiki the technology.
You might feel a bit of heat over your use of "scientific
community" analogy or comparison. All I can say is that it will be
very controversial. Not to mention the "no original policy"! One way
out might be a historical context. Enyclopedias in enlightenment era
are positioned somewhere between scientific journals and the general
public. Here the modern citation systems that distinguishes primary-
secondary- and tertiary sources may be of use here. I will tend to
search for some literature form (Library and) Information Science, or
even enlightenment history to make a case of "popular or general
scientific community" instead of your phrase of pseudo-scientific
community.
Do not worry so much about the critical reviews or comments.
Sometimes negative reviews are better than silence.
Best,
han-teng liao
dphil candidate
oxford internet institute
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
