Talk:WikiJournal User Group

From Wikiversity
(Redirected from Talk:Wikiversity Journal)
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussions may also take place at the public mailing list at

Membership in the WikiJournal Council[edit]

I am interested in being a member of the WikiJournal Council! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Marshallsumter: You can introduce yourself (real identity) with details of your education, profession, passion, wiki-experience as well as why you want to be a part of the WikiJournal Council. Diptanshu💬 13:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
At present, until the matter on Wikipedia has been resolved, I prefer to remain Marshallsumter. I have a pdf I submit with proposals which can meet your request, but I must ask you respect my request to remain Marshallsumter. If you agree to this and each other committee member agrees, respectively, send me an email from here and I'll send you an email from my official email account. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear your interest in joining, Marshallsumter! Displaying your real identity is not a requirement to join WikiJournal Council (although this can be discussed, and it's a requirement to join the editorial board of WikiJournal of Medicine). The bylaws relating to WikiJournal Council were ratified just a couple of days ago, so this discussion will likely involve possible amendments thereof as well. I now therefore split this section into "Membership of Marshallsumter" and "General requirements". Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 08:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear Marshallsumter, we respect your wish not to reveal your real name and the same can definitely be maintained. However, in contrast to Wikipedia where anyone with unverified credentials can edit, at WikiJournal credentials need to be produced. This is important for members of WikiJournal Council in order to ensure that apart from the willingness to contribute they have a sound understanding of scientific thought and how a journal works. Although your edits reveal your calibre it is still important to formally reveal the details of your education, profession, passion, wiki-experience as well as why you want to be a part of the WikiJournal Council. If you do not wish to do it publicly you can send an email to Mikael and we can discuss internally thereafter. We assure you that confidentiality would be maintained and your identity would not be made public. All this is important because we want to maintain the standards and the same would also be essential when we seek formal membership of suitable international bodies. I hope you understand. Diptanshu💬 13:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Marshallsumter for sending your CV. It is being reviewed internally. However, we would request you to write a short intro on a) your specific on-wiki experience and priorities, and b) relevant off-wiki experience. Diptanshu💬 14:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


Hopefully the following will be helpful:

On-wiki experiences: I have edited Wikipedia since 8 October 2008, WikiDoc since 19 February 2009 and Wikiversity since 5 September 2009, but primarily since August 2011.

Priorities: as it states on my user page - X-ray astronomy and the human genome. But I have extensive experience in materials chemistry and physics as well as advanced mathematics and theory. On Wikipedia I was endeavoring to bring articles including those I created to the state of the art or science so that I could conduct original research & product development offline. On Wikidoc I have contributed basic science and human genetics to help understand illnesses. On Wikiversity I continue to do what I've mentioned on Wikipedia and conduct original research when it belongs available to the public. I continue to submit proposals for grants and perform research that may be publishable as I have done since I was in graduate school (1973-4), for the University of Chicago (ANL), the Office of Naval Research (NRL), and others such as NASA (last year). I perform Custodial duties here and review for WikiJournal of Science, as I have refereed for the Journal of Applied Physics, Applied Physics Letters, Journal of Materials Research, and the Journal of Electronic Materials. I'm not a lawyer or an attorney, but I can read successfully the legal journals and have more than 3 years of active court room experience on both sides of the bench at the federal level (patent interferences, administrative proceedings, hearings in district courts). Here fair use of images and text is a priority. I hope this helps. If you want to see most of my publications, perform an advanced Google scholar search using my initials and last name in quotes. The biology and psychology articles are not mine. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Generally, my interests in joining the Council are focused on the common interests of the journals at Wikiversity and involvement with the creation and/or acceptance of additional journals in this group. Primary concern is getting the Wikijournal of Science on its way to publishing high quality, open access, peer-reviewed articles. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 05:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Membership of Marshallsumter[edit]

As far as I've sen here, Marshallsumter has a good track record in Wikiversity. The identity issue needs to be discussed further in the separate section I now start below. I did, however, have to lookup Wikipedia history as well, where there's an indefinite ban secondary to this discussion: Administrators' noticeboard - User:Marshallsumter disrupting Wikipedia for "research" purposes. That was back in 2011, and I haven't read the discussion in detail. In any case, I agree with Diptanshu that it's appropriate that you write a bit about your education, profession, passion, wiki-experience as well as why you want to be a part of the WikiJournal Council. Just a short description would be very useful. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 08:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm on ResearchGate and LinkedIn but could not find how to connect to Mikael Häggström on LinkedIn. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

My LinkedIn profile is located at [1]. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 18:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


  • I Symbol support vote.svg Support Marshallsumter for membership in the WikiJournal Council. I think his research and editorial experience will really help this project grow. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Diptanshu💬 21:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I read and scanned through the ban discussion on Wikipedia. It's quite a serious issue, I recommend you all take a closer look. However, I believe in second chances, and the main problem that lead to the ban was that Marshallsumter published tons of original research on Wikipedia, which is unacceptable there but ok here, and especially on the WikiJournals. Furthermore, his work on the WJS has been positive so far. But Marshallsumter, please consider using the Template:Research and other relevant project boxes on your work. ;-) --Felipe (discusscontribs) 15:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your support! Regarding using the Template:Research, please see Research namespace. I removed the template when it appeared this would pass for the reasons indicated there. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Since we have unanimous support, I've now added you to the WikiJournal Council, Marshallsumter. Welcome! I recommend that we all make a short presentation about ourselves there, as I've done for myself [2]. Also, please keep yourself updated about what is happening by adding this page to your watchlist if you haven't done so already, and subscribe to the public mailing list at Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

General requirements[edit]

Regarding identity, I'm not sure a publicly displayed identity would be necessary. I do think, however, candidates for WikiJournal Council must have her/his identity verified in order to avoid the risk of sock puppetry. The easiest way would be to have a private email list for council members, to which prospective candidates simply send an email about who they really are. It should also point to a personal webpage, which should not be easy to make a mock-up of. This requirement would in turn require all council members to comply with a confidentiality rule, such as "WikiJournal Council members should not disclose the identities of pseudonymous participants of WikiJournal". Still, the identities of project participants may incidentally be revealed to the council, so I think all council members should agree to such a confidentially rule anyways. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 08:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal Council email[edit]

We currently have an email list for WikiJournal where everyone may subscribe. I think we should have a separate confidential email for the WikiJournal Council, similarly to what is used by the editorial board of WikiJournal of Medicine in addition to its open-for-everyone email list. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 08:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Need to encourage scholars to cite a particular revision of a WikiJournal article[edit]

I just discovered the WikiJournal project, and I find it very interesting. I do have at least one concern that I would like to share, and I have not been able to find a discussion of this concern in the archives of this talk page. (By the way, if it is possible to add a search box to search the archives of this talk page, please add one.)

The concern is that there may be a need to encourage scholars to cite a particular revision of a WikiJournal article. I have noticed that when scholars cite Wikipedia articles, they often cite the basic URL of an article (e.g., and not a permanent link to the particular revision of the article that they are referencing (e.g., is the current revision of Cerebellum as I am writing this). This is a major problem, because when a reader of a scholarly work visits the cited basic URL (e.g.,, the reader is likely not viewing the revision that the scholar cited. Would not the same problem occur if a scholar were to cite the following WikiJournal article in the following way?

The above citation follows the "suggested citation format" in the WikiJournal of Medicine, but it appears to be just as problematic as the links to basic URLs on Wikipedia that I described above: when a reader visits this DOI or URL, the reader is likely not viewing the revision that the scholar cited. The "suggested citation format" is not encouraging scholars to cite a particular revision of a WikiJournal article. Is there not a need to encourage scholars to cite a particular revision of a WikiJournal article? Biogeographist (discusscontribs) 17:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest! Here's one possible approach: "The ionosphere is a shell of electrons and electrically charged atoms and molecules that surrounds the Earth, stretching from a height of about 50 km to more than 1000 km. It owes its existence primarily to ultraviolet radiation from the Sun."[1] What do you think? The reference states the date of the Wikipedia article and the access date. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 18:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Marshallsumter: Thanks for your response! But you just cited Wikipedia—what does that have to do with WikiJournal? We are discussing the WikiJournal project here. If you were trying to suggest that scholars should include the access date when citing a WikiJournal article, I do not think that is sufficient because it is unlikely that the reader would know the difference between a regular journal and a WikiJournal; the reader would likely not know how to access the correct revision of the article from the article's history page. That is one reason why I am suggesting that there may be a need to encourage scholars to cite a particular revision of a WikiJournal article using a permanent link (e.g., is the current revision of WikiJournal of Medicine/The Cerebellum as I am writing this), and NOT the basic URL and DOI in the "suggested citation format" in the WikiJournal of Medicine. Merely using the basic URL and DOI in the "suggested citation format" in the WikiJournal of Medicine treats a WikiJournal article as if it were a traditional journal article; but unlike a traditional journal article, WikiJournal articles can change over time, which would cause the problem that I mentioned above if a scholar cites only the basic URL or DOI. Biogeographist (discusscontribs) 19:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Biogeographist. The worst way is to cite the Wikipedia page, since that is unstable. The best would be to cite a version of the journal that was "checked" by referees of known credentials, essentially elevating the Wikipedia article to that which has passed peer review. I agree that a poor second choice is to reference it to a version that has been upgraded after it has passed peer review. When you reference something you need the analogy of an art Povenance. To summarize all this: the worst way is this: wikipedia:Provenance; slightly better is: w:Special:Permalink/771759278. But even the permalink is flawed because I myself don't really know the definition (I was just trusting that the Wikipedia article was correct).--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 21:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Guy vandegrift: Thanks for the comment! It could be a poor choice to cite (as you said) "a version that has been upgraded after it has passed peer review", or a scholar may have a good reason for citing a later version, but in any case it seems important that the WikiJournal project encourage scholars to cite a particular revision of a WikiJournal article. You have used wiki markup in your example (e.g., [[Special:Permalink/1636733]]), but, of course, if a scholar were citing a WikiJournal article outside of the Wikimedia platform, the scholar would have to use a full permalink URL, e.g., for WikiJournal of Medicine/The Cerebellum. Many scholars may not know that they need to cite a WikiJournal article this way, so I suggest that it be highlighted in the "suggested citation format" of a WikiJournal article. Biogeographist (discusscontribs) 21:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The DOI is a pretty sensible way to cite WikiJournal article. If any changes are made to a WikiJournal article (other than cosmetic formatting or uncontroversial typos) it should be re-peer-reviewed and assigned a new DOI (as is done in other academic journals). A DOI. We can also implement CrossMark verification for minor changes (example in PLOS). If in 2 years time there have been sufficient new discoveries to publish a new version of Cerebellum, it would be re-reviewed and re-published with a new DOI. The optimal formatting is DOI.[2] However, the left hand side or Wikipedia also offers a "cite this page" option to get the paermalink.[3] Of course, Wikipedia articles that have not been peer reviewed should not be cited. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, the DOI codes makes it easier. Once the meaning of an article has been enough changed, we can create a new DOI code for the article (such as the old code with the addition of .2) to be the standard one used in citations. We can then redirect the old DOI code (which would still appear in many external sources) to a separate page that begins with a message saying something like "This article has been significantly updated since its first publication." preferably followed with a summary of the main changes, a link to the latest version, as well as to the History page so that readers may find the particular version at the time of the citation that brought them to the article.
Creation of a new DOI code is quite easy, but I still think we only need to do it to when there are significant changes in the meaning of the article main text, and not for every spelling error or technical edit.
Crossref membership costs WikiJournal of Medicine $275 per year, but there's essentially no fee for each assigned DOI code. I've therefore now sent a message to Crossref, asking whether it's possible to expand our membership to WikiJournal as a whole, just theoretically. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the responses. I didn't know that DOIs could and would be updated—that mostly addresses my concern. Biogeographist (discusscontribs) 03:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: You said: "Of course, Wikipedia articles that have not been peer reviewed should not be cited", and you cited as support an editorial by Lane Rasberry. However, as I read Rasberry's editorial, which contends that "Wikipedia should not be cited as a source of information", I found a telling contradiction and a crucial flaw in his argument. The telling contradiction is that the single study that he cites categorizes some citations of Wikipedia as "appropriate—in other words, categorized as 'citations about Wikipedia' or 'Wikipedia used in methods.'" The idea that some citations of Wikipedia are "appropriate" contradicts his contention that "Wikipedia should not be cited as a source of information" in any scholarly text on any subject. The crucial flaw in his argument can be seen in his final sentence: "Everyone should try to have research practices at least as good as those of the Wikipedians, and they would never cite Wikipedia." But the reason Wikipedians do not cite Wikipedia is because such citation would be a forbidden circular self-reference, and this reason is not relevant to scholars who are citing Wikipedia in their published texts outside of Wikipedia. I agree that Rasberry's message about scientific peer review is important for scientists who are writing for health science journals, but his argument is flawed and moreover, I would argue, his contention that "Wikipedia should not be cited" is not relevant to the wider range of scholars: for example, scholars who write about Wikipedia will certainly have to cite Wikipedia, and since Wikipedia is an increasingly important cultural phenomenon it is likely that more and more historians and other scholars in the social sciences and humanities will have to cite Wikipedia whenever their subject matter involves Wikipedia. Here are some examples of scholarship where citing Wikipedia is certainly appropriate:

  • Elder-Vass, Dave (2016). Profit and gift in the digital economy. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316536421. ISBN 9781107146143. OCLC 946254852. 
  • Safner, Ryan (December 2016). "Institutional entrepreneurship, Wikipedia, and the opportunity of the commons". Journal of Institutional Economics 12 (4): 743–771. doi:10.1017/S1744137416000096. 
  • Edwards, John S., ed (2015). The essentials of knowledge management. OR essentials series. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137552105. ISBN 9781137552082. OCLC 908913998. 
  • Tkacz, Nathaniel (2015). Wikipedia and the politics of openness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226192277. OCLC 881386686. 
  • Vandendorpe, Christian (October 2015). "Wikipedia and the ecosystem of knowledge". Scholarly and Research Communication 6 (3): 1–10. 
  • Fichman, Pnina; Hara, Noriko, eds (2014). Global Wikipedia: international and cross-cultural issues in online collaboration. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780810891012. OCLC 861955584. 
  • Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014). Common knowledge?: an ethnography of Wikipedia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ISBN 9780804789448. OCLC 865452353. 
  • Leitch, Thomas M. (2014). Wikipedia U: knowledge, authority, and liberal education in the digital age. a Hopkins series on education and technology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 9781421415352. OCLC 879584159. 
  • Cunningham, Ward; Mehaffy, Michael W. (2013). "Wiki as pattern language". Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs, October 23–26, 2013, Monticello, Illinois. PLoP '13. Corryton, TN: The Hillside Group. pp. 32:1–32:14. ISBN 9781941652008. 
  • Hoffart, Johannes; Suchanek, Fabian M.; Berberich, Klaus; Weikum, Gerhard (January 2013). "YAGO2: a spatially and temporally enhanced knowledge base from Wikipedia". Artificial Intelligence 194: 28–61. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2012.06.001. 
  • Sui, Daniel Z.; Elwood, Sarah; Goodchild, Michael F., eds (2013). Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge: volunteered geographic information (VGI) in theory and practice. Dordrecht; New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4587-2. ISBN 9789400745865. OCLC 810987841. 
  • Hardy, Darren; Frew, James; Goodchild, Michael F. (July 2012). "Volunteered geographic information production as a spatial process". International Journal of Geographical Information Science 26 (7): 1191–1212. doi:10.1080/13658816.2011.629618. 
  • Doan, Anhai; Ramakrishnan, Raghu; Halevy, Alon Y. (April 2011). "Crowdsourcing systems on the World-Wide Web". Communications of the ACM 54 (4): 86–96. doi:10.1145/1924421.1924442. 
  • Geertman, Stan; Reinhardt, William P.; Toppen, Fred J., eds (2011). Advancing geoinformation science for a changing world. Lecture notes in geoinformation and cartography. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19789-5. ISBN 3642197884. OCLC 719363243. 
  • Lima, Manuel (2011). Visual complexity: mapping patterns of information. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. ISBN 9781568989365. OCLC 664674853. 
  • Börner, Katy (2010). Atlas of science: visualizing what we know. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262014458. OCLC 476360071. 

As this list demonstrates, there are indeed legitimate reasons for many scholars to cite Wikipedia. Thanks, Biogeographist (discusscontribs) 03:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: Really good distinction! I think the difference is that citing a Wikipedia permalink is appropriate to make a point about the information as stated in Wikipedia, but not to use as a general reference for the fact itself.
  • Appropriate- In 2017, Wikipedia's example article identified France as the largest EU country.[4]
  • Inappropriate - France as the largest EU country.[5] (correct reference should be this.[6])
  • Appropriate - The hippocampus was named after its resemblance to the seahorse.[7]
  • Inappropriate - The hippocampus was named after its resemblance to the seahorse.[8]
This is probably perticularly relevent for legal papers using the definition on a Wikipedia page to set a legal precedent.[9] T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Example references[edit]

  1. "Ionosphere, In: Wikipedia". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. August 29, 2012. Retrieved 2012-08-31. 
  2. Wright, Marion; Skaggs, William; Nielsen, Finn Årup. "The Cerebellum". WikiJournal of Medicine 3 (1). doi:10.15347/wjm/2016.001. 
  3. Cerebellum. (2017, May 23). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 06:30, May 25, 2017, from
  4. France. (2017, May 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 12:51, May 28, 2017, from
  5. France. (2017, May 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 12:51, May 28, 2017, from
  6. "Europa Official Site – France". EU. Retrieved 28 October 2014. 
  7. Wright, M; et al. (2017). "The Hippocampus". WikiJournal of Medicine 4 (1): 3.
  8. Hippocampus. (2017, May 23). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 12:59, May 28, 2017, from
  9. Peoples, Lee F. "The citation of Wikipedia in judicial opinions." Yale JL & Tech. 12 (2009): 1.

Possible next steps?[edit]

What are possible next steps for this project? Timboliu (discusscontribs) 18:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal..try to achieve this...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 11:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Timboliu: In addition to agreeing with Ozzie, here are some additional suggestions of sensible next steps:
  • Get approved as a full sister project. Not a huge rush, but it would allow a lot more control over e.g. the left-hand menu, the url, perhaps some locking features for published works. Eventually I hope a landing page would be something like this draft, loosely inspired by PLOS's current landing page.
  • Keep Wiki.J.Med growing. Get indexed in Scopus and Pubmed.
  • Build the next core journals. In my opinion, the priorities should be to add two broad journals in order to be sustainable initially: WikiJournal of Science and WikiJournal of Humanities. This requires inviting high-quality submissions. As the journals slowly gain reputation, more and more submissions will come unsolicited. A main hurdle remains the limited number of editors for these new journals. An editorial board of 6-12 for each journal would help spread the labour of inviting articles and organising peer reviews from external experts.
  • Unify the journal preprints systems so that the initial writing stages are as similar as possible for the journals (will reduce admin later on).
These are only my opinions. I think we've recently done well at improving the pitch for becoming a sister project, and developing the overall structure, pillars and bylaws that all the WikiJournals would function under. In many ways, one of the hardest things in the points above is making sure we have enough core editors for each journal to make them sustainable. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the above. I've lately been busy with getting the latest Wiki J Med publication done, and I still need to add some material to its ethics draft. After that, I can work further on the overall WikiJournal organization. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)