Brian, scholarpedia doesn't work as a replacement for wikijournal (or whatever we decide to call it) because they require each editor to have a PhD or MD.
Some fields of endeavor, for which a person could indeed be a qualified expert, and perhaps the leading expert in the world, don't even have a method by which you could get a PhD in the first place. Scholarpedia is just more ivory-tower silliness, by ivory tower silly monkeys who think that we're going to keep kow-towing to university stiffs. One thing that Wikipedia has taught us, if nothing else, is that those days are over. Down with the man! Information wants to be free. Free of not only imprisonment, but free of dictated authority. If I'm the world's leading expert on free-style skateboarding, than I should be able to write a peer-reviewed article about it, and have it judged by my peers and voted up or down by my readers. That is how I envision this WikiJournal prospective. Not as another university-driven nowheresville which gets no traction because the vast majority of the world doesn't really care to read highly scientific and technical articles. Another example might be, let's say that you write a piece on intricate details of the Watergate scandal, as an investigative journalist. It's not "news" but I would think WikiJournal (or whatever) might be a perfect venue to have such an article peer-reviewed. WikiNews is not peer-reviewed. Will _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
