Talk:WikiJournal of Humanities

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

/2017

Discussions may also take place at the
public mailing list

Adding "psychology" to main topics[edit]

As per Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#WikiJournal_of_Psychology, I think we can add "psychology" after "the humanities, arts, and social sciences" at this page. Anyone disagrees? Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I had originally envisage it as a part of the social sciences remit of WikiJHum, but it might be good to be explicit. It would also be good to approach some active psychology Wikipedians and open access journal editors. For example, w:User:Markworthen, w:User:Famousdog, and w:User:Cathrotterdam. I'll hold off contacting until others have given opinions. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 20:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree as well. By being inclusive with more subject-areas will only increase the articles we receive. If that particular area really is successful, we can all discuss about the subject taking on its own Wiki Journal later. Jackiekoerner (discusscontribs) 13:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I just had the point made to me that members of the psychology community can often view their field as a science rather than a social science. I think in the end, the authors can submit to whichever of the journals that feel best fits their topic, and the editors can recommend the submission be moved to one of the other journals in the unlikely case that there's a clash of opinions. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I concur with the freedom to choose journal, e.g., social psychology at one extreme and psychometrics at the other! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 06:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I added psychology to the official subjects of the journal now. Still, I agree authors may choose to submit to whichever journal they feel is most fitting. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Publishing workflow[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to imagine how an author goes about submitting their article to the journal if it's a rewrite of a Wikipedia page. Would they first edit the Wikipedia page and then submit the page? thanks, Rachel Helps (BYU) (discusscontribs) 16:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): They have the option of either updating on Wikipedia then copying across to the submission page, or submitting fully new version on the the WikiJournal. We've seen people do both versions (e.g. this lysine article is a complete rewrite that was directly submitted to WikiJSci, whereas Cerebellum was updated on Wikipedia before submission). The ideal is probably rewrite on Wikipedia so that other wikipedia editors get a heads up that it's being updated (especially if the Wikipedia page is class C or above), but I think that either is acceptable. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 17:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I have a clearer picture of how submissions work now. Rachel Helps (BYU) (discusscontribs) 16:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Email address[edit]

Are we really using Submissions@WikiJMed.org for WikiJHum, as specified on this page? I can understand if a new email account/domain was felt to be unnecessary but also thought this might be a mistake. --2A00:23C4:C184:6700:81EA:6176:9EE0:A9BA (discuss) 11:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You raise a good point. We don't have an email set up yet for WikiJHum. I'll try to get that organised asap. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
This is indeed an important issue. I'll look into it tomorrow (it's starting to get late in Sweden now!) Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
A contact email is now working, see WikiJournal of Humanities/Contact. I've emailed the board to discuss which people should have access and be responsible for checking emails to this address. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 12:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Humanities has an ISSN![edit]

At 3:56am Sydney time today, the Library of Congress issued an ISSN for the WikiJournal of Humanities, meaning we can now publish our first issue. --Fransplace (discusscontribs) 22:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Analysis & Policy Observatory[edit]

At the Analysis & Policy Observatory Forum on "Redesigning the Public Knowledge System" there was great interest in WikiJournals, particularly WikiJHum, that I thought I'd summarise here.

The Campbell Collaboration does amazing metaanalyses of policy interventions to inform evidence-based politics and are a sister organisation the the medical Cochrane collaboration. Their CEO (Howard White) gave a great talk but sadly had to leave straight after. Several people mentioned that Wiki?JHum could be an ideal way to engage them on ensuring articles are up to date (e.g. Mandatory arrest for domestic violence).

There was interest in updating a set of properties on WikiData then publishing a WikiJournal article to describe the changes (e.g. on concept hierarchies in political theory).

At the APO forum a few additional missing topics were pointed out that might make good WikiJHum articles:

The session was recorded and I believe that the videos will eventually be uploaded here. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Advertising template for posting to talk pages[edit]

I've put together a short template that can be used to advertise WikiJHum on WikiProject, or user talk pages: w:Template:WJH_advert_2018_Dec. Feel free to directly edit to improve it! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

question about editorial board process[edit]

I just noticed that the header at Talk:WikiJournal of Humanities/Editorial board states that "Editors with at least 30 edits to WikiJournal of Humanities pages." is a requirement to participate in elections. Is that current and enforced? --mikeu talk 03:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mu301: Currently only loosely. Most votes are cast by editorial board members, so the remainder can still be checked individually. I'd be interested on your thoughts on how to robustly define an electorate that avoids gaming. Checking voters manually is currently still possible, but will become less viable as the project expands. Also, see this recent discussion on Affcom feedback on defining the electorate in the bylaws. I'll also post something to the Talk:WikiJournal User Group page about it once I've drafted some proposed wording. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

SHERPA/RoMEO[edit]

I've submitted to the details for WikiJHum to SHERPA/RoMEO via the journal submission form. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Learning and/or education related writing?[edit]

Hello folks, first up let me say how fantastic it is to see the journals developing and holding on Wikiversity. It is a significant and long needed development. I've been very absent from WV over the years the journals have been developing, mostly because my day job has taken me away from it :(

I'm looking for a place to submit my writings on learning and education. It might not be up to journal standard most of the time, but I'd like to get into the workflow toward that goal. I'm just not sure if there is a place in the journals for it yet.. I hope it might be Humanities...?

A sample of finished works that could easily be shaped into the journal's format:

  1. Humanist technology - A presentation to eLearning Korea, arguing for the humanities taking a much stronger role in the consideration of technology. This project relates to the An ethical framework for ubiquitous learning.
  2. Badges: identify talent and brand by association - A research and development project at RMIT, looking at how badges could be used to improve the employment prospects of graduates in the Advertising degree.
  3. An ethical framework for ubiquitous learning - Presented as work in progress to the IEEE Conference 2014
  4. Data and Power - A presentation to the Melbourne University Analytics Forum 2014
  5. Open Online Courses and Massively untold stories - A critical history of Massive Open Online Courses, published by Ascilite2014
  6. Journalism studies and Wikinews - A collaborative paper published in the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association conference: Communicating Change and Changing Communication in the 21st Century. 2013
  7. Open Education Practices: A User Guide for Organisations - A manual for the New Zealand Ministry of Education 2009
  8. Sustainability considerations relating to the use of Second Life for education - A critical review for the New Zealand Ministry of Education 2009
  9. Socially constructed media and communications - A presentation to Ascilite 2007

Other works in progress are listed on my Userpage.

Looking forward to hearing from you folks --Leighblackall (discusscontribs) 05:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

jibberish[edit]

I can't find the right place to edit the text. Can someone familiar with the transuded templates fix "be ofssrnsddsdkljnfa;sdfjgnlksadjfghbn an appropriate open license"? Argento Surfer (discusscontribs) 14:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks! —Collin (Bobamnertiopsis)t c 15:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both for catching that. The edit history indicates that it was me who introduced the error. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

WJH and Wikipedia[edit]

I didn't understand than WJH could be a place to publish encyclopedic article coming from Wikipedia. In my point of view scientific work and encyclopedic one are not really similar in term of target, methodology and epistemology. Also I was looking to WJH as place to complete a gap on scientist publication in term of transparency and free accessibility, not for working in parallel of Wikipedia for enhancing and promoting best articles. In my opinion that should be done directly on Wikipedia for keeping WJH concentrated on the publication of original research and new knowledge in general that cant be produce on wikipedia. Sorry if I came after probably a long creation process where this kind of topics was already discussed. Lionel Scheepmans Contact (French native speaker) 17:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree. I'm not sure what value this adds to the wp work. The only exception that I can think of would be for WJM to review a wp page about alternative medicine with the intent to distribute that version in paper format to the public. I'm a bit disappointed that all four published articles (so far) are wp adaptations but not a single original contribution. I'd also like to point out a glaring omission: the abstracts for 2 of 4 published articles listed at WikiJournal of Humanities omit "et al" implying they are the work of a sole author. (I realilze that the pdf versions includes it.) I'm a strong supporter of the idea of a WikiJournal but I have to ask: why is this so heavely focused on wp? --mikeu talk 21:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The current WikiJHum publication formats list includes both encyclopedic-style reviews as well as original research articles. It seems as though initially most of the articles submitted for review have been from wikipedia (via w:wp:JAN). This is likely a function of who has been informed of the journal's existence (i.e. it's best know of within the wikimedia community). WikiJMed and WikiJSci have tended to get relatively more submissions of research articles, but these have also been more widely advertised at academic conferences and with editors emailing potential authors. If WikiJHum wants to change the focus more towards research articles, one way to boost that side would be to contact potential knowledgeable authors and invite them to submit articles that can be used as exemplar works when showcasing the format to others. It could also be possible to raise changing the article formats listed (which were merely adapted form the existing formats at WikiJMed and WikiJSci) to better fit with humanities, arts and soc sci subjects. ps, It's actually the case that all four of the currently published articles in WikiJHum are adapted from WP so I've fixed the missing et als on the journal main page to match what's on the articles. I think it was an issue from an old template switchover. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment mikeu and for this reply T.Shafee, so the actual question is how to attract researcher to Wikijournal ? I have two plans in mind. The first would be to present a first example of research at the final stage of its publication, the second would perhaps be to produce posters to be placed in universities. For the first one, I could start with a chapter of my thesis that I could translate into English. I guess French-language publications are not accepted, is that right? For the second one, I'm willing to put up posters in my university and discuss them with my dean. Lionel Scheepmans Contact (French native speaker) 23:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC) P.S. But before speaking with my dean, It should be me more comfortable for me to master both processes: first to be peer review coordinator, second to be author of a peer reviewed research or chronologically unversed.
(recovering from edit conflict) Please understand that this is a critique and not a criticism. The intent is to engage in a robust debate which improves the value of this endeavor. I have no problem with following through on wp article reviews that are already in the pipeline. I also recognize that this is good "practice" to refine the procedures and processes for vetting submissions. I would suggest that we reconsider inclusion of wp reviewing within the scope of all journals here. A strong case could be made that this activity is contrary to the WMF accepted project creation proposal which states that wikiversity is not: "A duplication of other Wikimedia projects." (But I won't press that point.) In my opinion this also weakens the case for a dedicated WikiJournal project site. I can't in good conscience support a site creation proposal at this time though I've refrained from expressing a negative opinion at the meta proposal page. I consider that propsal to be premature. There is obviously a need and/or desire for a wiki based journal. I see an over-emphasis on technical minutiae but that lacks a clearly stated justification about who and how this journal serves. --mikeu talk 00:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@Lionel Scheepmans: You might have to email the board re:language, however so far there's only been experience at organising peer review in English (though both language versions could be published afterwards). See the Potential_upcoming_articles of the other journals for an idea on some of the other publication formats being trialled. A the moment, WikiJHum has been focussed on review articles than can be piped into Wikipedia (I suspect as a way to kick-start initial submissions). Re: posters, there are some posters existing for WikiJSci [1] and WikJMed [2] that (also powerpoint link here) that could either be adapted for WikiJHum, or something could be made from scratch (seeing as it's a different audience so likely has different priorities/aesthetic).T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mu301: We could add discussion of the future of the different formats to the agenda of the next meeting. My understanding is that you're more in favour of focussing on original research articles? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I share with @Mu301: this point of view. And I think it's a good idea T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo), to add discussion of the future of the different formats to the agenda of the next meeting. But I've missed the last meeting and I still don't know why... Perhaps a mistake about the gathering time or with the Zoom program. I don't know. Lionel Scheepmans Contact (French native speaker) 10:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
There should definitely be more of a focus on original content. If WJs desire to continue to publish vetted WP articles I think there should be a lengthy discussion about what the justification for this is. Who is the audience that benefits and how? --mikeu talk 14:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Lionel Scheepmans, Mu301: Good idea to discuss the current formats in more detail at the next meeting. I definitely agree that attracting submissions of high-quality original research is useful (indeed, it was part of the feedback from the Free Journal Network) and has started to occur at WikiJMed through concerted efforts. For encyclopedia review articles, there are a couple of additional considerations. A) Some authors will write such articles for a peer reviewed WikiJournal but would not have written directly for Wikipedia (e.g. [3], [4]), benefiting readers of the encyclopedia with new content that has been rigorously vetted and benefiting the authors with a citable version that can help justify the time spent (equivalent to PLOS's Topic Pages format). B) If that Journal→Wiki format is kept by WikiJHum, then there is a benefit to also including a Wiki→Journal format in order to prevent potential contributors being discouraged from editing Wikipedia in order to 'save' their work for submission to a journal (i.e. wp treated as a preprint server), or those who wanted to submit, but initially drafted the content on Wikipedia (e.g. [5]), (equivalent to Open Medicine's Wikipedia clinical review). There was also related discussion on this over at en.wp village pump earlier this year. My opinion is that there is a place for encyclopedic reviews, other review formats, and original research (some editors focus on particular favoured formats). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Ok, let's talk about all of this during the next meeting. I've missed the last meeting on 30/10 when I was connected at 23:00 GMT. Did I have the wrong time or is it the computer program that didn't work? Is there a page that I can put in my follow up list to be kept informed of the exact GMT time of upcoming meetings? Lionel Scheepmans Contact (French native speaker) 13:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem. We've tended to use a link to timeanddate.com, but we could try a calendar link share. I think the time you listed was correct, so it must have been the zoom link. One of the agenda items is to try an open source alternative, so I think Jitsi is the most likely. I've been testing it out and it's mostly very stable (oddly the 'blur background' option causes my computer to crash). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)