[BNM] Wikipedia versus Google Knol

[Jason Bailey]

Hello,

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR
> "    * Wikipedia is not a publisher of original
> thought, nor a forum

I think this is perfectly reasonable. Most academic
publications (and it's fair to say that some stuff on
t'internet can be covered by this) is peer reviewed.
If you write in a recognised (by those
academics/specialists/experts) journal then any work
is first peer reviewed. It's quite possible that
reviewers may not understand it but at least know that
it's not complete nonsense. Original thought for
whatever reason may not pass the peer review. Quite
often it can be rejected until it is accepted after
many major/minor changes.

The use of citations in wikipedia is at least a nod in
the direction of academic publications where a
literature review (i.e. references to other (peer
reviewed) articles is undertaken). At the very least
you can spot the obvious stuff like someone
accidentally writing Henry 6th has 8 wives. Check the
sources.

> for promoting one's own point of view; all material
> must be verifiable
>     * Facts must be backed by citations to reliable
> sources that
> contain these facts

Well then you'd get people offering opposing views on
say colour, race, everything and it might be hard to
spot the facts from the POV.

>     * Interpretations and syntheses must be
> attributed to reliable
> sources that make these interpretations and
> syntheses"
> 
> And
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT
> 
> So If there is no other referenceable material on
> the web on a
> subject, don't write a wikipedia article to fill the
> gap. You need to
> write something else. Knol appears to be one option
> (as, of course is
> your own wiki or webpage).

I'd suggest finding a journal/publication in your
field and submitting it there and citing that later.
They're not all as strict as Nature; which has gotten
it wrong a few times recently! Original thought it
perhaps best kept out of wikipedia otherwise it may go
unnoticed.


> * Interpretations and syntheses must be
> attributed to reliable
> sources that make these interpretations and
> syntheses

This is academic research; "Standing on the shoulder
of giants" stuff. If you're doing this kind of thing
then something other than wikipedia would probably
suit.

 
> Is it just me who missed this subtlety?

I missed this too and I think it's good that this is
part of their rules. It's all well and good claiming
to be an expert but I think there needs to be some
proof (past publications or similar). Otherwise it
would be too easy (perhaps it is) to write something
about, say:  "experimentally verified fluid loading
models in regular and irregular waves" and just talk
bollox but with a hint of truth.

I think I trust wikipedia a bit more now. Not sure
about the squidoo thing though.

Jason


      __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com