SklogWiki - User contributions [en]

Wikis and Science 2.0

2010-07-26T18:50:23Z

122.49.210.50: /* 2007 */

Here is some interesting reading pertaining to wiki, with particular emphasis on their relation to science (in chronological order). For a list of wikis related thematically to SklogWiki see our [[WikiNode]].
==2005==
*[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/438548a Declan Butler "Science in the web age: Joint efforts", Nature '''438''' pp. 548-549 1 December (2005)]
<blockquote>"Yet scientists are largely being left behind in this second revolution, as they are proving slow to adopt many of the latest technologies that could help them communicate online more rapidly and collaboratively than they do now."</blockquote>
==2007==
*[http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/26711 Martin Griffiths "Talking physics in the social Web", Physics World '''20''' January pp. 24-28 (2007)]
*[http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0702140 Dennis M. Wilkinson, Bernardo A. Huberman "Assessing the Value of Coooperation in Wikipedia", arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0702140]
*[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/news070226-6 Philip Ball "The more, the wikier", Nature news 27 February 2007]
*[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nm0307-231 Brandon Keim "WikiMedia", Nature Medicine '''13''' pp. 231-233 (2007)]
<blockquote>"Uneasy with information websites policed by people with little expertise, scientists are creating their own online encyclopedias"</blockquote>
*[http://www.businessweek.com/print/innovate/content/mar2007/id20070302_219704.htm Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams "The New Science of Sharing", BusinessWeek March 2 (2007)]
<blockquote>"...the same technological and demographic forces that are turning the Web into a massive collaborative work space are helping to transform the realm of science into an increasingly open and collaborative endeavor. Yes, the Web was, in fact, invented as a way for scientists to share information. But advances in storage, bandwidth, software, and computing power are pushing collaboration to the next level. Call it Science 2.0."</blockquote>
and
<blockquote>"Leading scientific observers already expect more change in the next 50 years of science than in the last 400 years of inquiry combined. As the pace of science quickens, there will be less value in stashing new scientific ideas, methods, and results in subscription-only journals and databases, and more value in wide-open collaborative-knowledge platforms that are refreshed with each new discovery. These changes will enhance the ability of scientists to find, retrieve, sort, evaluate, and filter the wealth of human knowledge, and, of course, to continue to enlarge and improve it."</blockquote>
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/11/sxsw_science_web_2/ Chris Williams "Scientists shun Web 2.0", The Register 11th March (2007)]
<blockquote>"Science publishers' efforts to have the research community sup the Web 2.0 Kool-Aid have failed, and scientists have given a resounding thumbs down to a gamut of crowd-tapping initiatives, showgoers at SXSW heard on Saturday.
A panel of science web publishers said scientists had consistently shunned wikis, tagging, and social networks, and have even proven reticent to leave comments on web pages."</blockquote>
*[http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/articles/2007/08/web-20-in-science/ Timo Hannay "Web 2.0 in Science", CTWatch Quarterly, Volume 3, Number 3, August (2007)]
[http://www.customessaywritinghelp.com/ custom essay papers writing service]

==2008==
*[http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2008/01/wikipedia-community-publishing.html Tim O’Reilly "Wikipedia: A community of editors or a community of authors?", January 3 2008]
<blockquote>"This is why publishers should be studying Wikipedia (and YouTube, and Google) -- because they are all showing us the new face of publishing. At their heart, they involve new means of content creation yes, but more profoundly, they involve new means of curation. Wikipedia creates a context within which authors can exercise their skills, displaying their knowledge and their passion. Yes, it allows for collaborative creation, and that's good."</blockquote>
*[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-new-tool-or-great-risk&page=1 M. Mitchell Waldrop "Science 2.0: Great New Tool, or Great Risk?", Scientific American January 9 (2008)] (see also: Scientific American May Vol. 298 Issue 5 pp. 68-73 (2008))
<blockquote>"...Web-based "Science 2.0" is not only more collegial than the traditional variety, but considerably more productive."</blockquote>
<blockquote>"Web 2.0 fits so perfectly with the way science works, it's not whether the transition will happen but how fast".</blockquote>
*[http://www.madrimasd.org/informacionidi/noticias/noticia.asp?id=33045 "Los hijos de la Wikipedia", ABC Periódico Electrónico S.A. / notiweb madri+d 28th January (2008)]
*[http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19726473.300-physicists-slam-publishers-over-wikipedia-ban.html?feedId=online-news_rss20 "Physicists slam publishers over Wikipedia ban", NewScientist.com news service 16th March (2008)]
*[http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jono/item/toc.html Jonathan Oppenheim "Traditional journals and copyright transfer", 16th March (2008)]
*[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_press_releases/Wikimedia_Foundation_Supports_Efforts_By_Scientists_to_Use_Free_Licenses "Wikimedia Foundation Supports Efforts By Scientists to Use Free Licenses", 15 May (2008)]
**'''APS "Replies": ([http://publish.aps.org/copyrightFAQ.html#wiki link])
:As the author of an APS-published article, can I post my article or a portion of my article on a web resource like wikipedia or quantiki?
:Sites like wikipedia and quantiki are strict about permissions and require that authors hold copyright to articles that they post there. In order to allow authors to comply with this requirement, APS permits authors to hold copyright to a "derived work" based on an article published in an APS journal as long as the work contains at least 10% new material not covered by APS's copyright and does not contain more than 50% of the text (including equations) of the original article.
*[http://www.publico.es/ciencias/investigacion/131032/auge/internet/impulsa/nueva/ciencia/20 "El auge de Internet impulsa la nueva Ciencia 2.0", Publico.es 1 July (2008)]
*[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/455273a "Data on display", Nature News 15 September (2008)]
*[http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3030v1 Bernardo A. Huberman, Daniel M. Romero, Fang Wu "Crowdsourcing, Attention and Productivity", arXiv:0809.3030v1 17 September (2008)]
*[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/news.2008.1312 Declan Butler "Publish in Wikipedia or perish", Nature News 16 December (2008)]
:"Anyone submitting to a section of the journal RNA Biology will, in the future, be required to also submit a Wikipedia page that summarizes the work. The journal will then peer review the page before publishing it in Wikipedia."
*[http://ways.org/en/blogs/2008/dec/28/the_journal_scope_in_focus_putting_scholarly_communication_in_context Daniel Mietchen "The journal scope in focus -- putting scholarly communication in context", daniel's blog 28th December (2008)]

==2009==
*[http://seedmagazine.com/content/print/scientific_truth_in_the_age_of_wikipedia/ T. J. Kelleher "Does the radical egalitarianism of the wiki undermine traditional notions of scientific authority and consensus?", SEEDMAGAZINE.COM February 9 (2009)]
<blockquote>"...authority and peer review are concepts built into the core of science wikis."</blockquote>
*[http://arXiv.org/abs/0902.3439 Carl McBride "wikiFactor: a measure of the importance of a wiki site", arXiv:0902.3439 19 Feb (2009)]
*[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys1238 Michael Nielsen "Information awakening", Nature Physics '''5''' pp. 238-240 (2009)]
<blockquote>"Blogs, wikis, open notebooks, InnoCentive and the like are just the beginning of online innovation."</blockquote>
*[http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/38904 Michael Nielsen "Doing science in the open", physicsworld.com May 1, (2009)]
<blockquote>"Online networking tools are pervasive, but why have scientists been so slow to adopt many of them? Michael Nielsen explains how we can build a better culture of online collaboration"</blockquote>
*[http://libresoft.es/Members/jfelipe/phd-thesis Felipe Ortega "Wikipedia: A Quantiative Analysis", PhD Thesis, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (2009).]
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8325875.stm Jason Palmer "Science enters the age of Web 2.0", BBC News 26 October (2009)]
<blockquote>"The problem has always been that those research papers are on paper."</blockquote>
*[http://www.researchinformation.info/features/feature.php?feature_id=236 David Stuart "Web 2.0 fails to excite today's researchers", Research Information October/November (2009)]
<blockquote>"...there are few signs that academics are really embracing the new opportunities offered by Web 2.0. Many academics’ idea of online collaboration is still emailing the findings they have arrived at independently to one another, while their notion of an innovative method of promoting research results is the obligatory ‘project web site’. Such sites usually offer little more than a description of the project..."</blockquote>
<blockquote>"Much of the blame for the slow adoption of the Web 2.0 technologies seemingly lies with an over-emphasis on the traditional research paper."</blockquote>
[[category: miscellaneous]]

Wikis and Science 2.0

2010-01-09T21:13:29Z

122.49.210.50: /* 2007 */

Here is some interesting reading pertaining to wiki, with particular emphasis on their relation to science (in chronological order):
==2005==
*[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/438548a Declan Butler "Science in the web age: Joint efforts", Nature '''438''' pp. 548-549 1 December (2005)]
<blockquote>"Yet scientists are largely being left behind in this second revolution, as they are proving slow to adopt many of the latest technologies that could help them communicate online more rapidly and collaboratively than they do now."</blockquote>
==2007==
*[http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/26711 Martin Griffiths "Talking physics in the social Web", Physics World '''20''' January pp. 24-28 (2007)]
*[http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0702140 Dennis M. Wilkinson, Bernardo A. Huberman "Assessing the Value of Coooperation in Wikipedia", arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0702140]
*[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/news070226-6 Philip Ball "The more, the wikier", Nature news 27 February 2007]
*[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nm0307-231 Brandon Keim "WikiMedia", Nature Medicine '''13''' pp. 231-233 (2007)]
<blockquote>"Uneasy with information websites policed by people with little expertise, scientists are creating their own online encyclopedias"</blockquote><br>
*{{SERVER}}[http://www.essaymill.com term paper ideas]
*[http://www.businessweek.com/print/innovate/content/mar2007/id20070302_219704.htm Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams "The New Science of Sharing", BusinessWeek March 2 (2007)]
<blockquote>"...the same technological and demographic forces that are turning the Web into a massive collaborative work space are helping to transform the realm of science into an increasingly open and collaborative endeavor. Yes, the Web was, in fact, invented as a way for scientists to share information. But advances in storage, bandwidth, software, and computing power are pushing collaboration to the next level. Call it Science 2.0."</blockquote>
and
<blockquote>"Leading scientific observers already expect more change in the next 50 years of science than in the last 400 years of inquiry combined. As the pace of science quickens, there will be less value in stashing new scientific ideas, methods, and results in subscription-only journals and databases, and more value in wide-open collaborative-knowledge platforms that are refreshed with each new discovery. These changes will enhance the ability of scientists to find, retrieve, sort, evaluate, and filter the wealth of human knowledge, and, of course, to continue to enlarge and improve it."</blockquote>
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/11/sxsw_science_web_2/ Chris Williams "Scientists shun Web 2.0", The Register 11th March (2007)]
<blockquote>"Science publishers' efforts to have the research community sup the Web 2.0 Kool-Aid have failed, and scientists have given a resounding thumbs down to a gamut of crowd-tapping initiatives, showgoers at SXSW heard on Saturday.
A panel of science web publishers said scientists had consistently shunned wikis, tagging, and social networks, and have even proven reticent to leave comments on web pages."</blockquote>
*[http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/articles/2007/08/web-20-in-science/ Timo Hannay "Web 2.0 in Science", CTWatch Quarterly, Volume 3, Number 3, August (2007)]

==2008==
*[http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2008/01/wikipedia-community-publishing.html Tim O’Reilly "Wikipedia: A community of editors or a community of authors?", January 3 2008]
<blockquote>"This is why publishers should be studying Wikipedia (and YouTube, and Google) -- because they are all showing us the new face of publishing. At their heart, they involve new means of content creation yes, but more profoundly, they involve new means of curation. Wikipedia creates a context within which authors can exercise their skills, displaying their knowledge and their passion. Yes, it allows for collaborative creation, and that's good."</blockquote>
*[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-new-tool-or-great-risk&page=1 M. Mitchell Waldrop "Science 2.0: Great New Tool, or Great Risk?", Scientific American January 9 (2008)] (see also: Scientific American May Vol. 298 Issue 5 pp. 68-73 (2008))
<blockquote>"...Web-based "Science 2.0" is not only more collegial than the traditional variety, but considerably more productive."</blockquote>
<blockquote>"Web 2.0 fits so perfectly with the way science works, it's not whether the transition will happen but how fast".</blockquote>
*[http://www.madrimasd.org/informacionidi/noticias/noticia.asp?id=33045 "Los hijos de la Wikipedia", ABC Periódico Electrónico S.A. / notiweb madri+d 28th January (2008)]
*[http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19726473.300-physicists-slam-publishers-over-wikipedia-ban.html?feedId=online-news_rss20 "Physicists slam publishers over Wikipedia ban", NewScientist.com news service 16th March (2008)]
*[http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jono/item/toc.html Jonathan Oppenheim "Traditional journals and copyright transfer", 16th March (2008)]
*[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_press_releases/Wikimedia_Foundation_Supports_Efforts_By_Scientists_to_Use_Free_Licenses "Wikimedia Foundation Supports Efforts By Scientists to Use Free Licenses", 15 May (2008)]
**'''APS "Replies": ([http://publish.aps.org/copyrightFAQ.html#wiki link])
:As the author of an APS-published article, can I post my article or a portion of my article on a web resource like wikipedia or quantiki?
:Sites like wikipedia and quantiki are strict about permissions and require that authors hold copyright to articles that they post there. In order to allow authors to comply with this requirement, APS permits authors to hold copyright to a "derived work" based on an article published in an APS journal as long as the work contains at least 10% new material not covered by APS's copyright and does not contain more than 50% of the text (including equations) of the original article.
*[http://www.publico.es/ciencias/investigacion/131032/auge/internet/impulsa/nueva/ciencia/20 "El auge de Internet impulsa la nueva Ciencia 2.0", Publico.es 1 July (2008)]
*[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/455273a "Data on display", Nature News 15 September (2008)]
*[http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3030v1 Bernardo A. Huberman, Daniel M. Romero, Fang Wu "Crowdsourcing, Attention and Productivity", arXiv:0809.3030v1 17 September (2008)]
*[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/news.2008.1312 Declan Butler "Publish in Wikipedia or perish", Nature News 16 December (2008)]
:"Anyone submitting to a section of the journal RNA Biology will, in the future, be required to also submit a Wikipedia page that summarizes the work. The journal will then peer review the page before publishing it in Wikipedia."
*[http://ways.org/en/blogs/2008/dec/28/the_journal_scope_in_focus_putting_scholarly_communication_in_context Daniel Mietchen "The journal scope in focus -- putting scholarly communication in context", daniel's blog 28th December (2008)]

==2009==
*[http://seedmagazine.com/content/print/scientific_truth_in_the_age_of_wikipedia/ T. J. Kelleher "Does the radical egalitarianism of the wiki undermine traditional notions of scientific authority and consensus?", SEEDMAGAZINE.COM February 9 (2009)]
<blockquote>"...authority and peer review are concepts built into the core of science wikis."</blockquote>
*[http://arXiv.org/abs/0902.3439 Carl McBride "wikiFactor: a measure of the importance of a wiki site", arXiv:0902.3439 19 Feb (2009)]
*[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys1238 Michael Nielsen "Information awakening", Nature Physics '''5''' pp. 238-240 (2009)]
<blockquote>"Blogs, wikis, open notebooks, InnoCentive and the like are just the beginning of online innovation."</blockquote>
*[http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/38904 Michael Nielsen "Doing science in the open", physicsworld.com May 1, (2009)]
<blockquote>"Online networking tools are pervasive, but why have scientists been so slow to adopt many of them? Michael Nielsen explains how we can build a better culture of online collaboration"</blockquote>
*[http://libresoft.es/Members/jfelipe/phd-thesis Felipe Ortega "Wikipedia: A Quantiative Analysis", PhD Thesis, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (2009).]
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8325875.stm Jason Palmer "Science enters the age of Web 2.0", BBC News 26 October (2009)]
<blockquote>"The problem has always been that those research papers are on paper."</blockquote>

[[category: miscellaneous]]

SklogWiki style guide

2009-09-03T03:21:10Z

122.49.210.50: /* Notability */

==Acronyms==
Try to '''avoid the use of acronyms'''. You yourself may be over-familiar with a particular set of acronyms.
However, SklogWiki is open to all, and acronyms can be confusing and/or off-putting.
SklogWiki pages have no space restrictions, unlike published papers; so always try expand your acronym.
At the very least, any acronym must be defined within the page it is used.

This should also apply to the names of the journals cited in the 'References' section.

==Notation==
Try to use, where possible, the [http://www.iupac.org/ International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry] approved [http://www.iupac.org/general/FAQs/ns.html nomenclature and symbols].
For example, in the [http://goldbook.iupac.org/index.html IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology], popularly known as the ''Gold Book'', the Helmholtz free energy is now known as the [[Helmholtz energy function | Helmholtz energy (function)]] (<math>A</math>).

==Equations==
The equations are formed using [[LaTeX math markup]].
Indent equations by placing a colon before the equation.
==DOI and References==
Link to published papers by using (when possible) its [http://www.doi.org/ Digital Object Identifier]. The Digital Object Identifier
of an on-line paper can almost always be found somewhere in the on-line abstract of an article.
By placing this code after <nowiki>http://dx.doi.org/</nowiki> one is led directly to the on-line version of the paper.

Using the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Cite/Cite.php Cite] extension:

<nowiki><ref>[http://dx.doi.org/---DOI--- Author "Title", Journal '''volume''' pp. firstPage-lastPage (year)]</ref></nowiki>

There is no particular preference in SklogWiki regarding the use of the serial comma in the author list.
===Use of the Cite extension===
The extension [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Cite/Cite.php Cite] allows references to be added in the body of an article in the following manner:
<nowiki><ref> Publication to be referenced </ref></nowiki>
and in the references section place the tag
<nowiki>==Refereces==</nowiki>
<nowiki><references/></nowiki>
See [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Cite/Cite.php Cite] for more details, such as multiple references to the same article.

==Professional==
SklogWiki is a 'professional' Wiki; comments of a personal nature are not permitted.
==Using material from American Physical Society (APS) Journals==
The following statement is quoted from the [http://publish.aps.org/copyrightFAQ.html#wiki APS website]:
:Sites like wikipedia and quantiki are strict about permissions and require that authors hold copyright to articles that they post there. In order to allow authors to comply with this requirement, APS permits authors to hold copyright to a "derived work" based on an article published in an APS journal as long as the work contains at least 10% new material not covered by APS's copyright and does not contain more than 50% of the text (including equations) of the original article.
==Using material from Wikipedia==
See the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights for details.
The following section is adapted from the aforementioned page:

:"The license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Wikipedia] uses grants free access to our content in the same sense as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software free software] is licensed freely. This principle is known as '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft copyleft]'''. That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed ''so long as'' the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom."

==Notability==
One of the important differences between SklogWiki and Wikipedia is that SklogWiki has '''no''' notability criteria. Indeed, this was one of the incentives for the creation of SklogWiki. SklogWiki accepts original work, commentaries, or pages that are dedicated to a single or series of [http://www.superiorpapers.com| custom papers] published in a 'traditional' journal. Material that falls within the scope of SklogWiki is sufficient ''raison d'être'' for its inclusion.

==Copyrights==
SklogWiki adheres to the Creative Commons license [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ "Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported"].
For more details see [[SklogWiki:Copyrights]]
[[category: Miscellaneous]]