Talk:WikiJournal User Group/Archive 2016 naming vote

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I made a Journal using the templates I found at Wikiversity Journal of Medicine

Completely unaware of this page, of of the discussion at [ Wikimedia's Proposal:Journal...) I created First Science Journal. I decided to keep within the Wikimedia tradition of not using real names. As you can see from the "zeroth" (unrefereed) edition, the Journal easily works across the wikis, and also allows the Journal to "force" an article, without the permission or knowledge of the article's editors, as I did in two different ways on Wikipedia articles. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 09:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've now added this one at the Wikiversity Journal page. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

On the complexity of this proposal

The following is an edited version of an email I sent to some colleagues:

I am not an expert on this subject. But there are over 10,000 open access journals, and that many if not most of them might want to migrate over to this Wikimedia journal sister wiki. With each decision to accept or reject a submission, the journal expresses a "Point of View" (POV) . Of all the Wikimedia sister-wikis, the most tolerant regarding POV is Wikiversity, and I do know something about that. I can tell you that managing POV on Wikiversity is time consuming and frustrating.

Also, we need to evaluate each journal at a much deeper level: Does the editorial board have the professional and educational credentials that they claim to have? Are the articles really being refereed? Is referee confidentiality being protected? Is the journal a front for some fund-raising activity? Does the board have control over the editor, and if so, how is this control exerted?

Finally, there is the issue of this "guild" I keep talking about. Will this new journal-wiki be governed top-down like the other wikis? Or could we permit the journals to self-organize into their own units that I call "guilds". For example, suppose a new medical journal arises on "therauputic touch" or other alternative medicine that is marginally scientific. Does the Wikimedia foundation want to get into that fray? I propose that the scientific journals self-create "guilds" that could endorse or refuse to endorse journals without exerting any power beyond what they state in their editorials. These guilds could serve a role analogous to the national science academies, and you certainly need more than one of them.

If each guild had a unique logo, it would not be so difficult for Wikimedia to grant or deny exclusive use of that logo on the wikis.

For more discussion of the "guild" idea: See Special:Permalink/1512509 and Special:Permalink/1510958 --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The idea hasn't met any opposition in the editorial board of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, so I will now proceed to add a guild sign at its About-page. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 09:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Name election

The name voting is now over. The online count gives 20 for Wikijournal and 14 for all other candidates combined, which I regard as a win for the name Wikijournal. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 12:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikiversity Journal (unchanged)

Votes in name election


  • Until this project can actually be moved from, it would be confusing to have a project name different from the domain name.
  • Wikiversity is already trademarked by Wikimedia Foundation [1]
  • It also alludes to diversity, which is a desired feature of both articles and contributors.
  • Changing the name would cause some loss of the familiarity and reputation that the Wikiversity Journal name has already achieved through mentions in articles and presentations.


  • It would be confusing if the project was moved to another domain than
  • Not many people are familiar with the word (but may be if the journal becomes more well known)
  • May be a bit clunky
  • Journal not particularly university-affiliated

Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 14:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

My first preference was Wikimedia Journal of Medicine. But the media part can indeed be confusing for people not familiar with the term. In that case Wikiversity is a better option. A -versity in the name and academic association it draws, increases the weightage and that is in fact positive and not a source of clunkiness. The lack of familiarity can in fact be an advantage, not to say the familiarity it will draw towards Wikiversity in the subsequent times. Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 14:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
I've added an extra disadvantage to the list - that the journal is equally relevant to authors from non-university backgrounds (hospitals, medical institutes, research centres, NGOs etc.) T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
The advantage is that it is simple and that it yields much needed support for a currently weak Wikiveristy. The disadvantage is that if a separate Wikimedia entity is ever to be created, these journals need to be named appropriately.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 18:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia Journal

Votes in name election
  • This was proposed already for the Journal proposal back in 2009. It emphasizes the aim of this journal to provide material such as images or referenced texts from submitted reviews to be added to Wikipedia (but perhaps to the cost of ignoring the fact that other Wikimedia projects may benefit as well). Wikipedia is also the name that most people will recognize, much more so than Wikimedia, but with a risk that people may mix them up. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 18:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I think this name has a lot going for it. Doc James (discusscontribs) 06:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Needs further discussion and opinion. The name Wikipedia has associated taboos regarding the inherent lack of standardization and dependability. So 'Wikipedia Journal of Medicine' would be just another Wikipedia bearing no additional credibility to many people; at least that is what I feel. Moreover, as already mentioned by Mikael, the fact that other Wikimedia projects can draw its benefits, gets ignored if this name is opted for. Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 15:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Academic researchers (especially biomedical researchers like me) already view WP with some suspicion - because the rigor of content is uneven. I defend WP publicly, making it clear that MEDRS and other standards provide a basis for solid sourcing, if only we could get engagement from a large population of editors - including experts. My fear is that the Journal under discussion here might degrade confidence, rather than fostering it. I would be loathe to attach Wikipedia's name to this journal until it's clearly proven itself to be a respected asset (by people outside the WP clique). Soupvector (discusscontribs) 18:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
That is a good point. There has been discussing to re brand all the sister sites with the wording WP. So it would be "Wikipedia Commons" "Wikipedia Source". Doc James (discusscontribs) 00:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply


Votes in name election
  • This would be the best name, simple and clear. If the proposed domain is not available, there are a couple of other options that could be utilised:
Alternatively, as an intermediate measure we could have a Journal: namespace? Green Giant (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Good idea; That would work for the title Wikimedia Journal as well. I'm not sure whether Journal namespace would help that much, since the articles are already under the Wikiversity Journal/ or Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/ category, but it could be an alternative to that sub-categorization. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 10:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
I would prefer this subdomain system:
Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 10:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
The medical journal may still be located under (or perhaps another similar short form), so the lack of the domain may not be that serious. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've also gotten Wikijournals as a suggested alternative. This reflects the fact that the goal is to have multiple journals in the group. However, is also already taken. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Weak support. It's a name format that's expandable. It would be good to some day see "Wikijournal Medicine", "WikiJournal Chemistry", "Wikijournal Physics" etc. in the same way that other publishing formats like PLoS or PeerJ have several related journals. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Wonderful idea! I also thought of this before. This way we can have multiple journals under the same group. I suggest Wiki Journal of Medicine (Wiki J Med), and Wiki Journal of Science (Wiki J Sci) --Athikhun.suw (discusscontribs) 01:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. Wiki and Wikimedia are not the same. Wiki bears the stigma of being unregulated. Wikis other than wikimedia projects are often more disorganized and lack quality control aspects. Quality control is in fact the most essential part of being a journal. So the terms are in a sense self-contradictory. That the domain may not be available, is an additional factor warranting its rejection. Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 15:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Although I see what you are saying, Diptanshu.D, I actually suspect that the general population see every wiki other than wikipedia in the same light (i.e. only Wikipedia has the benefit of a trustworthy reputation). Most academics and doctors I've spoken to haven't heard to Wikiversity, so in many ways, it's effect on reputation is similar whether it's Wikimedia, Wikiversity or WikiJournal. My take is that the main benefit of Wikijournal is that it is short and does't refer to a university in the title. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thomas you have a point. Before participating in this project, I myself had the vaguest idea about Wikiversity; I still do; I am yet to explore the rest of Wikiversity to find what it actually deals with. I have been aware of Wikipedia (of course), Wikibooks, Wikimedia and possibly a few others. If my awareness if of this level, I can guess about others.
On the other hand, if I visit w:List of wikis, it describes the focus of w:Wikiversity as General—Self-directed learning. Surely that is not equivalent with the contents of this journal. In that case Wikipedia journal of Medicine is definitely a better fit. But I was trying to do away with the stigma of Wikis and the stereotype of Wikipedia not being academically dependable. and can be a be good options but Wikijournal? - I am still a bit fussy about it despite its being more in the lines of other Wikimedia project names. All I want to do is to find a way around the stigma of Wikis being unregulated. Had the domain been openly available, perhaps we could think of defining WikiJournal as an independent Wikimedia project and that would have made sense. Somehow I feel that more thoughts need to go into it. That is the reason I wanted to make the discussion open to a broader audience. --Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 17:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
I hope that this project will show such stigmatizing people that even wiki-based projects can be trustworthy, thereby helping to break such indiscriminate stigma against wikis. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 12:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Support "Wiki" is the most popular and understandable term. I do not think it is a loss to not use Wikimedia Foundation trademarked terms, like "Wikiversity", when starting projects like this. Having trademarked terms for everything brings obligations. Many scientific journals are closely associated with organizations but do not use the organization's name in their title, so I do not think it would be odd for Wikimedia projects to do this also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Unless you are moving away from Wikimedia (not intending to be a sister project), this name makes the most sense to me. Regarding domain name, there is now a .wiki top-level domain name, and is available. I don't know if that interests anyone, but it is currently an option. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
I also like these formats. However, since I think it will always be a Wikimedia project, it should be lower-case to be consistent with other Wikimedia projects. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 13:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Ozzie10aaaa, now that you are signed up, you get 5 points to allot among the alternatives, so please write in box at the header how much you support this one (and Wikimedia Journal).Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 09:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • My preference would be in favor of Wikijournal located at (similar to Wikispecies being located at It will automatically establish the association with Wikimedia which is important. My support is in line with the condition stated by Guy vandegrift. --Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 19:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia journal

Votes in name election
This was my first preference but if media part is confusing, may be we can give a second thought. We can get a opinion poll from two sections of people, one associated with Wikimedia projects, and the other having no direct association with any Wikimedia project. Need to find out how exactly this survey can be carried out. Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 09:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Peer Journal

Votes in name election
  • As a broad possibility, perhaps the journal doesn't need "Wiki-" in the name. The term "peer" is used almost as a synonym in several other journals. The "Wiki-" prefix can still have some stigma against it in the academic community. Similarly "Open", "Open-access", "Free", "Electronic", "Online" could be useful prefixes. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the suggestions! I added them on this Resource page. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Downsides include the fact that PeerJ is extremely close, even though it doesn't use the word "journal". Similarly, there already exist series of journals called Open journal of X, Electronic Journal of X. However, not yet taken are:
  • "Open-acces Journal of X"
  • "Free Journal of X"
  • "Online Journal of X"
  • "Collaborative Journal of X"
  • "Public Journal of X" (although vaguely close to PLoS)
I therefore retract my suggestion of Peer Journal of X, and replace with the suggestions above. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Collab Journal

Votes in name election

Thanks for the suggestions, T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)! I personally like the "Collaborative Journal" name. I think it may be abbreviated as "Collab Journal", also to avoid confusion between other endings of the word such as "Collaboration Journal" or "Collaborated Journal". The advantage of this name is that it points out a major feature of the journal of being a collaborative project. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Among the others I would favor Collaborative Journal of X. I appreciate the stigma associated with Wiki and would not like Wikijournal but am not sure if the name of Wikimedia or its brand Wikiversity should be left out altogether. Need others' feedback on this. But Collab J has an appeal. I would not like Open Access in the name. It is essentially a feature that can come in the subtitle. Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 10:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Strong supoprt. Just to be explicit - I like this name because it captures one of the key aspects of a wiki - that it is the collaborative and voluntary effort of peers, without using the technical term 'Wiki', which is not necessarily understood by the general population (including doctors and academics) as anything other than Wikipedia. Other important aspects of the format (e.g. open access, free to publish and public peer review) are easily included/clarified in a subtitle. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Commons Journal

Votes in name election

I moved the segment below from Talk:Wikiversity Journal of Medicine#Renaming this journal, since choosing an alternative name for Wikiversity Journal of Medicine is similar in nature to renaming the entire Wikiversity Journal project. I hope you find this all right, Bobamnertiopsis, and thanks for the suggestion! Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I've been exploring this project since I first read about it in the Signpost and I'm fascinated and excited by all the work that's being put into it. Wiki Journal of Medicine or WikiJournal of Medicine are certainly better names than Wikiversity Journal of Medicine but I wonder about the inclusion of Wiki in the title at all. While acknowledging this product is under the Wiki umbrella, if I understand correctly, this journal is not a wiki per se but an especially transparent open-access journal. Perhaps something evoking the Commons, a tentpole Wikimedia project as well as a broader concept of shared space and information, would better convey the reality of what this journal (and any other that are developed under this project's banner) is. Commons Journal of Medicine or some such. This option has the added benefit of not explicitly mentioning wikis in the title which I think still conjures up impressions of untrustworthiness for some people ("You can't use Wikipedia as a source!" etc.) Thanks for all your work on this project! Best, Bobamnertiopsis (discusscontribs) 07:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Overall, I like the name. One downside is the existence of the International Journal of the Commons which holds Care would have to be taken to clearly distinguish. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Had International Journal of the Commons not existed, this would certainly have been my first preference. It has a dual advantage of Wikimedia association as well as the literal meaning portraying wide accessibility. Moreover, the collaborative essence is also included. But the unnecessary confusion needs to be avoided and therefore sadly enough, this name does not seem suitable. Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 10:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Scholarly Commons

Votes in name election

How about Scholarly Commons, after Creative Commons? Fgnievinski (discusscontribs) 03:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Possibly, but it doesn't convey the feature of being a scientific journal. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 13:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
That's an added benefit, because in English, "science" normally means only hard sciences, and I'm not sure we want to exclude the soft sciences. Fgnievinski (discusscontribs) 15:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
I think for example Wikijournal can be used for soft sciences as well (similarly to for example Journal of Social Sciences). Anyway, I now added a vote box, but unfortunately this alternative won't get much time in the voting period which ends in two days. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Support: I think the inclusion of soft and hard sciences is in line with the trend toward interdisciplinary collaboration. I like this name for that very reason; it establishes this journal as rigorous and open to different scholarly studies. Askahrc (discusscontribs) 20:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Acta Wiki

Votes in name election

How about Acta Wiki or Scripta Wiki? Fgnievinski (discusscontribs) 02:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's nice to have some more alternatives. However, I think far from everyone know the meaning of acta, and as such, the name is rather unintuitive. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 06:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Scripta Wiki

Votes in name election

As suggested above. However, with an English readership, it may be confused with Scripting language. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 06:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Name of the journal of medicine

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine may change its names even before the entire Wikiversity Journal project has split from Wikiversity. In addition to having the "Wikiversity" part switched to any of the above suggestions, the "Medicine" can possibly be changed to another descriptive word.

... Journal of Biomedicine

This is a possibility in order to denote a somewhat wider scope. However, "journal of medicine" is over 100 times more commonly used than "journal of biomedicine". Also for the future, I think there should be a "medicine" journal, and hopefully there will be a separate journal dealing with for example biochemistry. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

When to push for its own sister project?

We should have pubmed indexing (or at least be in PMC), have clearly defined processes, and have expanded to some other topic domains before we put this before the community IMO. Likely this will require a couple of years. Without a core community of 50 members active on a weekly basis I would imagine we would have little support. Doc James (discusscontribs) 06:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. I might be remembering wrong, but I think it took about 2-3 years before Wikiversity separated from Wikibooks, so a two-year target is a reasonable estimate. With Wikiversity I think the breaking point was the sheer amount of material in Wikibooks, so in the same way the journal would need to become more complex. As a start it would be useful to break it into a number of sub-journals, each covering significant areas but perhaps not too narrowly focussed. Initially could see separate journals for perhaps experimental sciences, engineering/technology, and arts/humanities in addition to the existing medical one? I wouldn't be opposed to more sub-journals though. Green Giant (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
It seems we do have one other sub-journal as seen below. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

When to change the name?

Altogether, I'm thinking that the renaming would fit best at the time that the project is moved to its own domain, at which point we would have to move and rename a lot of pages anyway. Surely, the name Wikiversity Journal has disadvantages, but I think the effort and confusion a name change would bring outweighs the advantages of any so far suggested name. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 11:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Mikael. Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 18:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'd favour name-changes in the next 6 month period so that outreach for the journal is linked to it more permanent name/domain. Any promotion before the name/domain change will be diluted in its effect once the change occurs. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Now that we do have a plan for how a name change would practically be carried out, I'm now supporting a name change in a near future. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Studies

Similar name, different scope -- that one is about Wikipedia as object of study: [2]. Fgnievinski (discusscontribs) 19:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikijournal, WikiJournal or Wiki Journal?

There is some disagreement regarding which version of the name to use. I don't think it's a big deal if anyone uses one or the other in individual cases. We should, however, have an official version, especially during the renaming process. I personally think it should be Wikijournal in order to be consistent with other Wikimedia sister projects. I'd be happy to hear further comments. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I agree, 'Wikijournal' seems the most predictable. Mixed-case words are a bit too software-related, I think. It's also better for a future URL (as I think is being proposed?) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
My preference is for WikiJournal for main outward-facing naming (eg website, published pdfs, outreach). It is easier to read, as the ij is tricky to parse in most fonts. It also gives additional weight to the Journal part of the name, particularly important for attracting contribution from the non-wiki community. It is true, however, that there is really no precedent for a publication with a prefix infront of "Journal". eLife, PeerJ and BioEssays are the nearest that I know of. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
should be Wikijournal..IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 10:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
I assume that the full title would ".... of Medicine" especially if intended to eventually be searchable/accessible via PubMed. If that is the case, I concur with T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) that WikiJournal is the most readable and understandable to people using external search engines. N0TABENE (discusscontribs) 22:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
I would go for WikiJournal of .... The name would still be consistent with other Wikimedia projects while the emphasis is also placed on the word journal. --Athikhun.suw (discusscontribs) 23:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
I also prefer WikiJournal, for readability. Fgnievinski (discusscontribs) 13:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Wikijournal This is easiest to write. Wikipedia is not WikiPedia, so not capitalizing the J would make the term match the most familiar established style. I sympathize with Evolution and evolvability's comment above that WikiJournal is the easiest to quickly read at first look but I think adding "wiki" in front of anything is becoming recognizable enough. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Wikijournal, per Bluerasberry and personal preference; the mixed case WikiJournal evokes the kitsch of certain early websites: LexisNexis, AltaVista, GeoCities, MyBlogLog, etc. Bobamnertiopsis (discusscontribs) 20:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • You are going to deal with medical topics in Journal but no hints to that effect is given in the name. People should know the type of journal. You may make it Wikimedijournal or something like that.--Subas Chandra Rout (discusscontribs) 10:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Ah, yes, to clarify, the plan is for either WikiJournal of Medicine / Wikijournal of Medicine. If the project is successful, journals for other topics will hopefully follow a similar format under some sort of unified WikiJounal/Wikijournal banner. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Wiki-Journal of Medicine will be OK. In Wikijournal, a small 'j' is not acceptable. So I think like Meta_Wiki we will name it Wiki-Journal of Medicine.--Subas Chandra Rout (discusscontribs) 14:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
When looking at other journal titles, a hyphen such as in Wiki-Journal of Medicine would make readers interpret the title as Wiki - The journal of Medicine, and we wouldn't want that. For the conclusion below, I therefore count this as favoring WikiJournal, unless you disagree. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for your views! It has been very close, but counting views from a concurrent editorial board discussion and this conversation, I get 8 people favoring WikiJournal and 6 favoring Wikijournal. The medical journal will thus be renamed to WikiJournal of Medicine, and every additional journal should follow a similar structure. Again, I don't think it's a big deal if anyone writes Wikijournal in individual cases, but the strict version thus has a capitalized J. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Future as separate Wikimedia project and name voting results

Merged into archive from WikiJournal User Group/Future as separate Wikimedia project

There have been suggestions for a long time about having a scientific journal (and this medical sub-journal) as a separate Wikimedia project, on a separate Internet domain. This page deals about if and when such a transition would take place, and how it would be structured as its own project. Discussions take place on the talk page, and current status is summarized below.

Previous discussion

  • Proposal:Journal, an outline of the idea at the Wikimedia strategic planning site

Discussion on Meta

See meta:Wikijournal


Wikiversity Journal is about making peer reviewed content freely available online, which is somewhat different in scope than Wikiversity which is primarily focused at teaching and learning.

If and when

Not decided. Very unlikely to happen in 2016.

See talk page:

Name election

Wikijournal was the entry that got the most points during an election lasting from 12 (noon) on August 6, until 12 (noon) August 16 (GMT time) 2016, wherein each voter got 5 points. Those eligible to vote were:

See Talk:WikiJournal/Future as separate Wikimedia_project/Archive 1#Name election for detailed discussions.

Candidate names were:

Name Available domain names Existing project with similar names Discussion Points
Wikiversity Journal (unchanged) Talk page entry 4
+5 from board
Collab Journal
Collaborative Journal
- Talk page entry 6
Wikipedia Journal - Talk page entry 2
Wikijournal or
WikiJournal or
Wiki Journal is taken (but inactive) Talk page entry 20
Wikimedia journal
- Talk page entry 2
Peer Journal Talk page entry 0
Commons Journal Talk page entry 0
Open-access Journal Open Journal Talk page entry 0
Free Journal Talk page entry 0
Online Journal Talk page entry 0
Public Journal Talk page entry 0
Acta Wiki Talk page entry 0
Scripta Wiki Talk page entry 0

Subject-specific journals

Individual journals such as Wikiversity Journal of Medicine may change their names even before the entire Wikiversity Journal project has split from Wikiversity. In addition to having the "Wikiversity" part switched to any of the above suggestions, the "Medicine" can possibly be changed to another word.

Talk page entry for this topic

Wikijournal, WikiJournal or Wiki Journal?

Talk page entry for this matter. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Centralisation for WikiJournal User Group discussion

We currently have discussions about the WikiJoural project across three locations:

Since the 'formal' WikiJournal User Group page is at Meta:Talk:WikiJournal User Group, I think that we should move centralised discussion from here to there to be in line with other user groups. If people agree I'll merge the current talk page contents and archives into Meta:Talk:WikiJournal User Group, redirected from the other pages.
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply