User:Daniel Mietchen/Talks/COASP 2010/Wikis as platforms for OA publishing: Difference between revisions
< User:Daniel Mietchen | Talks | COASP 2010
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Daniel Mietchen m (started) |
imported>Daniel Mietchen m (brought over from notes) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<blockquote><font face="Comic Sans MS, Trebuchet MS, Consolas">''Science is already a wiki if you look at it a certain way. It’s just a highly inefficient one — the incremental edits are made in papers instead of wikispace, and significant effort is expended to recapitulate existing knowledge in a paper in order to support the one to three new assertions made in any one paper.</font> — [http://scienceblogs.com/commonknowledge/2009/07/publishing_science_on_the_web.php John Wilbanks]. Illustration: [http://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=en&q=%22magnetic+resonance+imaging+is+a%22 papers] and [http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Magnetic_resonance_imaging wikispace].''</blockquote> | <blockquote><font face="Comic Sans MS, Trebuchet MS, Consolas">''Science is already a wiki if you look at it a certain way. It’s just a highly inefficient one — the incremental edits are made in papers instead of wikispace, and significant effort is expended to recapitulate existing knowledge in a paper in order to support the one to three new assertions made in any one paper.</font> — [http://scienceblogs.com/commonknowledge/2009/07/publishing_science_on_the_web.php John Wilbanks]. Illustration: [http://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=en&q=%22magnetic+resonance+imaging+is+a%22 papers] and [http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Magnetic_resonance_imaging wikispace].''</blockquote> | ||
*Wikis can be used, in principle, for any aspect of scholarly communication, as detailed in [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikis_in_scholarly_communication this comparison of wiki- and paper-based communication systems] and the [http://ways.org/en/blogs/2009/sep/29/what_would_science_look_like_if_it_were_invented_today_part_ii_knowledge_structuring related blog post]. | |||
*[[User:Daniel Mietchen/Talks/Integrating wikis with scientific workflows|Examples exist]] for all steps of the [[Scientific_method#Components_of_the_scientific_method|research cycle]], except successful applications to major funders (see [[User:Daniel Mietchen/Talks/Integrating wikis with scientific workflows/Funding|this overview]] for some attempts) | |||
*Benchmark: [http://wiki.ubc.ca/Size_of_Wikipedia English Wikipedia] | |||
:[http://ragesoss.com/blog/2006/11/20/top-10-reasons-why-academics-should-edit-wikipedia/ Top 10 Reasons Why Academics Should Edit Wikipedia] | |||
Revision as of 04:18, 19 August 2010
Template:User/Daniel Mietchen/COASP2010
Science is already a wiki if you look at it a certain way. It’s just a highly inefficient one — the incremental edits are made in papers instead of wikispace, and significant effort is expended to recapitulate existing knowledge in a paper in order to support the one to three new assertions made in any one paper. — John Wilbanks. Illustration: papers and wikispace.
- Wikis can be used, in principle, for any aspect of scholarly communication, as detailed in this comparison of wiki- and paper-based communication systems and the related blog post.
- Examples exist for all steps of the research cycle, except successful applications to major funders (see this overview for some attempts)
- Benchmark: English Wikipedia