Comments on: Journal to Require Authors to Create Wikipedia Pages http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4797 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4797&cpage=1#comment-11422 David Bruggeman Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:28:12 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4797#comment-11422 While I'm in favor of the PLoS journals, they are still journals. Even with lay abstracts, it seems more likely that an average reader that is seeking out something about a scientific topic will start with Google (and not with Google Scholar). Curt's concerns about the editing of Wikipedia are important. However, all pages in Wikipedia have a history tab where you can visit all previous versions. I wish it was larger and I wish that Wikipedia readers had a clue about it. That would go a long way to weeding out the use of bad, incorrect or otherwise useless pages. While I’m in favor of the PLoS journals, they are still journals. Even with lay abstracts, it seems more likely that an average reader that is seeking out something about a scientific topic will start with Google (and not with Google Scholar).

Curt’s concerns about the editing of Wikipedia are important. However, all pages in Wikipedia have a history tab where you can visit all previous versions. I wish it was larger and I wish that Wikipedia readers had a clue about it. That would go a long way to weeding out the use of bad, incorrect or otherwise useless pages.

]]> By: CurtFischer http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4797&cpage=1#comment-11417 CurtFischer Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:27:52 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4797#comment-11417 If I were an author in RNA Biology, I would never want the connection between my article and the page to be explicit. If it were, then it would be my reputation that was sullied when some wikivandal edited in crap about Sarah Palin jpgs or whatever. In essence, if anyone can edit the page, I do not want my name attached. Even if you regard my vandalism example as extreme, what if your research rival edits the page to call into question all of the results from your paper, and does so in a way that you feel is unfair to your work? What can you do? I am not sure that requiring Wikipedia page creation is a good idea at all, even if it is anonymous. I do appreciate the need for scientists to do a better job of making their work accessible to lay people. But to me it seems like a better way to democratize knowledge is by reducing costs and barriers to existing scientific literature. Stuff like PLoS comes to mind. Maybe they should just require a "Lay Abstract" for every paper. If I were an author in RNA Biology, I would never want the connection between my article and the page to be explicit. If it were, then it would be my reputation that was sullied when some wikivandal edited in crap about Sarah Palin jpgs or whatever. In essence, if anyone can edit the page, I do not want my name attached. Even if you regard my vandalism example as extreme, what if your research rival edits the page to call into question all of the results from your paper, and does so in a way that you feel is unfair to your work? What can you do?

I am not sure that requiring Wikipedia page creation is a good idea at all, even if it is anonymous. I do appreciate the need for scientists to do a better job of making their work accessible to lay people. But to me it seems like a better way to democratize knowledge is by reducing costs and barriers to existing scientific literature. Stuff like PLoS comes to mind. Maybe they should just require a “Lay Abstract” for every paper.

]]> By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4797&cpage=1#comment-11415 David Bruggeman Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:47:59 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4797#comment-11415 I think making the connection to the journal much more explicit could address some of these concerns. Otherwise, it's not particularly clear that the implied expertise of the knowledge in the pages would be well communicated. I think making the connection to the journal much more explicit could address some of these concerns. Otherwise, it’s not particularly clear that the implied expertise of the knowledge in the pages would be well communicated.

]]> By: bend http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4797&cpage=1#comment-11411 bend Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:39:04 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4797#comment-11411 I often rely on wikipedia for basic general knowledge in areas in which I am weak, but I have to admit that it is difficult, sometimes, discerning the wheat from the tares. While a lot of useful information is made easily available by wiki sites, so too is misinformation. I think that this policy may be considered as means to provide more and more rigorously verified information, but I feel it will feed the clutter of wikipedia as much as anything. I often rely on wikipedia for basic general knowledge in areas in which I am weak, but I have to admit that it is difficult, sometimes, discerning the wheat from the tares. While a lot of useful information is made easily available by wiki sites, so too is misinformation. I think that this policy may be considered as means to provide more and more rigorously verified information, but I feel it will feed the clutter of wikipedia as much as anything.

]]>