User talk:Mikael Häggström/2007-2018

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello Mortsggah! Welcome to Wikiversity! If you decide that you need help, check out Wikiversity:Help desk, ask the support staff, or ask me on my talk page. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- JWSchmidt 19:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikiversity rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical
Getting social


Thanks for the welcome message! I moved it to archive Mortsggah 11:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Points of interest

Hi there! Thought you might be interested in this on Wikiversity. See you around! --HappyCamper 11:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look! Mortsggah 17:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It's nice to see you attempt to improve Wikiversity's processes. - Sidelight12 Talk 15:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to know my efforts can be noticed Face-smile.svg
Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I added includeonly to the Template:To be peer reviewed. The idea is that works tagged with the template are to be peer reviewed, but the template itself should not be part of that category. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help Face-smile.svg
I hadn't thought about that effect. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 18:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikiversity Journal of Medicine

I have created this category for your project, if there are any pages related to the wikiversity journal of medicine, please take care that there is a category to categorize your pages. Thank you for your recent contributions also. --~~Goldenburg111 20:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Face-smile.svg
Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journal article

I would like to offer something, if it is desirable. Trying to think of something that would be useful to most readers. Perhaps something like Oral examination. I could make it v general for family practitioners. How to quickly screen any patient for oral cancer etc etc. Thoughts? Lesion (discusscontribs) 17:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a potential journal article, and I think it would be of benefit to the Wikipedia:HEENT examination article. The involved steps in such a screening would need some kind of evidence though, either by citing another article or by deduction such as "checking for erythema, as this is a sign of inflammation". After all, Wikiversity Journal should basically function as a repository of evidence, similarly to the way Wikidata functions as a repository of data for Wikimedia projects. So, feel free to start such an article, an either upload it to Wikiversity or email me at to show the results. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking. What about (eventually) splitting the journal into its own wikimedia project, changing the name to "Wikijournal of" (science or medicine) or similar. Select articles could possibly make it to pubmed, or another resource. There could be a choice to keep it as medicine or add other sciences or even social studies. (like plos one, but easier to publish and on a wiki model) It'd pick up more steam by including other sciences, and reduce the need for starting new wikimedia projects. Its just a dream for now. Sooner or later, there will be a need for a wikijournal. At one time, wikiversity was part of wikibooks. What do you think? - Sidelight12 Talk 03:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope too to eventually split the project into its own domain. However, if it doesn't work as part of Wikiversity, I doubt it will last as a separate webpage. I'm currently working on finding authors willing to publish any work in the journal. Once it becomes apparent that anyone can get published in this journal I believe it will draw further authors and readers. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 14:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can see wikinew's model. What are typical guidelines and processes for writing a journal article? What else than studies and reviews can be added? - Sidelight12 Talk 01:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, I'm open for suggestions of basically any kind of work containing media such as images or videos, since for now I find the main purpose of the project to amend the lack of such files across Wikipedia. I've made an example at Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Curette of a work that, if done by anybody else, I would have personally peer reviewed and included in Wikiversity Journal of Medicine to enrich the w:Curette article. Perhaps e.g. interview works would work as well. I think it will be easier to make more strict criteria for inclusion once there are more examples to look at. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a discussion of yours in Wikipedia. They said you could use OR for images there. If the Journal works out, it could have a vanguard category, with those works possibly entering Medline. Can a library be used in a journal (like an updated page with the latest information on a topic, or the page for curette)? Other than studies, and reviews, what's typical or allowed in a journal? I like the idea of updates, topic overviews using up-to-date information, and library entries like "curette". Wikijournal can be big, imagine the barrier coming down allowing free access, translations and spread of information. I worry if someone tries to control a journal for their own opinions, and hinder progress in new areas. Or bite newcomers who have knowledge to offer. With Wikinews model, I was referring to their peer review process, and protecting articles. Since it was brought up, are scientific interviews also allowed in a science journal? Then a journal would be more like a magazine. Aside from Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Publishing, what's a typical process for what's accepted for how would anyone contribute to the journal? - Sidelight12 Talk 02:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the Medline criteria, and the only showstopper for the moment is in reaching at least 40 articles, which I have great hopes we'll reach in time. Thus, it seems we have everything except the critical mass to attract more authors. Regarding scientific interviews, I see no problem in having them go through the peer review process just like any other article. It can (but does not have to) include the phrases "Method: Interview with... Result: (The dialogue) Discussion: (Author's thoughts about the dialogue). An article based on an interview generally has difficulty in getting included in scientific journals, but if it contains any image that is of benefit to Wikipedia (such as a photo of a notable person being interviewed or an object being discussed) I would most probably still have it accepted for inclusion in Wikiversity Journal. Feel free to come up with ideas of how the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Publishing process can be improved to allow for additional types of work. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 18:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about summaries of articles and topics? Similar to how science news articles are about a medical journal article. It would be different than wikinews, because they don't allow news that is over 3 days old (unless the author is doing primary reporting), and they neither would allow anything with a source that is behind a paywall. A lot of medical journal articles have background information (similar to, but not considered a review), then move on to their study. A wiki journal can differ, in that various background pages can be made, then linked to by studies.
Another idea is to allow updates, by updated pages linked back to and based on the original page. Updates could also be done by another standardized way.
There needs to be a way for many to collaborate on an article, as wiki users. Reviewers and writers can coordinate what they want to write about and what subjects the reviewers want to see. This is considering how writers who provide open access work pay a lot of money for their contributions to be freely accessed, then how reviewers want to be paid for their work. Considering that many writers do work for free and pay for their work to be published, the reviewers can do the same contribution as the writers and choose which subject of article they want to see. There needs to be a way to spare the reviewers' time, from reviewing repeat entries, but still allowing improvements to those articles. A journal would take off better at Mediawiki, and more subjects can be made available as more reviewers appear. Quality is more important than quantity when trying to go for 40 articles. If you haven't already, take a look at how Wikinews works, and how they lock articles once they are accepted. The world is itching for a wiki-journal covering all subjects. - - Sidelight12 Talk 03:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! I made an addition in the publishing-page that welcomes summaries or updates of other articles [1].
Edits made after a review can easily be tracked in the history tab, and because of that possibility, I believe that article authors and subsequent readers will give a notification if they intend to edit an article in a way that a new review may be needed, and otherwise keep to edits such as spelling, grammar and layout changes. If that turns out to not work, it is possible to add additional restraints later.
As for now, I focus on the factor that I truly regard as limiting the process of the project - the lack of submission of any work. I would personally review basically any incoming work now. I've shown the Curette-work to a couple of colleagues at my work, but none of them seemed interested in participating. So if you have any idea of your own of any work, even if it is just to try the system, feel free to submit it. I will have to add that you are a fellow Wikimedian in "Potential conflicts of interest", but it's not a showstopper. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I'd like to do a project on organ-on-a-chip for pharmacological testing, or a project on using host cells to regrow organs. Unfortunately,I think I'm under-qualified to do that, and there isn't much solid information out there on it. All I can really do is look over published information, provide reasoning and also speculate.

Let the articles be updated, only if its information is obsolete by newer information. The accepted reviewed and the original versions can be linked back to. Also, to allow continuation of a previous review, where it doesn't rewrite, but instead adds to it. We need a tertiary library, that gathers information from many sources, and puts it in one place, which can be updated on a separate basis. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I've now added in the preferences to give me an email alert whenever I get a new entry in my talk page here, so it won't take as long to respond as last time Face-smile.svg
Those subjects you mentioned are a bit too avant-garde to appear in my everyday at work so I don't know where to start either, but you're welcome to submit such an article if you get some results or sources. And yes, there should always be a good reason for any updates to an already reviewed article. Still, I believe that minor edits such as spelling errors can be amended without a whole new review, perhaps with a hatnote saying "This article has undergone minor edits since the last review", and linking to the differences as seen in the history tab.
I was thinking yesterday that many images at wp:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology belong to the field of medicine, and have already undergone peer review to establish accuracy and notability at the nomination discussions. Including them in Wikiversity Journal thus gives them the ability to be easily referenced when used in external sources when citing Wikipedia. I'll start including some om them now. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 14:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. I don't think updating minor errors needs much disclaimer. It looks like you're trying to make the images, that have been peer-reviewed, more reliable as sources, since Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source? In a way, it looks like duplicating what has been done, but in another way, it does organize for easy use and give more credibility to the images. What about a media library, with descriptions? I have to find a way that what I want to do isn't like a magazine article, which would allow flexibility but would undercut the project. An easy way to do it would be, waiting for primary sources to appear so a topic can be reviewed. Also, I could try to make a review on something well documented by primary sources. but I have no ideas on what topic to write about. Motivation comes and goes for me. The idea and motivation might come to be sooner than later. I'm sure to try submitting before I get active on Wikipedia. - Sidelight12 Talk 07:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Wikipedia nor Wikiversity are regarded as reliable sources according to the Wikimedia community, but they are nevertheless used in external sources. I've seen my images used in at least 4 scientific journals out there, and the Featured Pictures are definitely used more so. In this way, the images get a standard citation format and a doi that always links to them, making them easier to use in external sources.
I'd say Wikimedia Commons already functions as a media library, but Wikiversity Journal can function as a "point of entry" of new images. I think many people are more willing to contribute to a scientific journal and get intellectual credit for it, and the images are subsequently available in Wikimedia Commons to be used in Wikipedia articles as well.
Still, works without associated media are also welcome in the journal, so if you put something together let me know. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 11:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Newsy and other news outlets use Wiki Commons all the time. Science news uses Commons a lot. It's common, because permission is not needed to use it. I see that you are looking for a peer review of a different caliber and of a different need than featured articles in commons. - Sidelight12 Talk 03:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


meta:Proposals for new projects is good to look at. I think the journal has a better chance of gaining a foothold there, as I've described earlier. I can't think of anything to contribute to the journal at the time, I hope to contribute at least one article, sometime. I have one comment/question: Does the "Privacy Policy" statement contradict the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Publishing submission publishing statement? - Sidelight12 Talk 22:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link Face-smile.svg
I've been considering proposing this Wikiversity Journal as a completely new project. Still, I'd like to see the current version growing a bit more before again considering it. If it doesn't grow in Wikiversity I don't think it will grow significantly faster as a separate project either. I don't see any definite contradiction between the Privacy Policy and the publishing procedure of Wikiversity Journal, but I agree it demands more sharing of identity information than what is usually required among the projects. Still, the standard submission email is largely inspired by the Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for permitting usage of copyrighted images, and as such it it is not the first instance where that level of identification is demanded. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. I was thinking. It was a good feat to add an isbn and peer review to the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. It looks like there were goals to use it as a review for inclusion to Wikipedia. How about instead, on Wikipedia to have space for reviews using peer review, for cutting edge discoveries? It could however cause POV problems by different editors. It's just a preliminary idea. What do you think? - Sidelight12 Talk 01:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, that would be an OR problem for Wikipedia. - Sidelight12 Talk 01:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I don't think the Wikipedia community would approve to such a system there. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy from Wikipedia

Hi! I noticed your recent edit on the No spam template. Whenever you need something copied from Wikipedia, just post at Wikiversity:Import. We can import both the content and the history, preserving the CC-BY-SA licensing. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for advise Face-smile.svg
I hadn't noticed there was such a page. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 06:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

23:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:PDF version

The name PDF version is generic, but it's implementation is specific to Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. Please either rename the template or add functionality so that it may be used by a variety of learning projects. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I renamed it to include a "Wijoumed". Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviewed?

[2]. The peer review is negative,[3], i.e., "the methodology of the study needs revision." I was not under the impression that "peer review" merely meant that a paper was reviewed, but that the reviewer(s) approved of publication, i.e., that the paper is ready. I'm accustomed to seeing a back and forth between author(s) and reviewer(s) until there is consensus. The editor of a journal may override the recommendation of a reviewer, but, if the process is to be open, that should not be done without clear explanation. My concern is purely about process, it is not a claim of deficiency of the paper (though I did note some problems, as did you.) Those problems have not been remedied, but the paper is shown as "peer reviewed." What's going on? -- Abd (discusscontribs) 05:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is peer reviewed, but it hasn't formally been put to the editorial board yet for decision whether to include it in the journal. As outlined in Wikipedia:Scholarly peer review#Procedure, possible outcomes are:
  • to unconditionally accept it
  • to accept it in the event that its authors improve it in certain ways,
  • to reject it, but encourage revision and invite resubmission,
  • to reject it outright.
If the decision is to reject it but encourage revision, it seems appropriate to arrange for another peer review upon resubmission. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There are a series of process issues here. It violates wiki traditions if content is controlled by an external board. However, there is a compromise: an external board can make recommendations. Actual approval of wiki content is then determined by community consensus. In practice, this may simply mean that there is no objection, but, then, objection may appear at any time. As you may recall, I've raised these issues before, I don't know that they were resolved. So to some specifics.
Yes, the board has many options as to the recommendation it makes. However, the process here is that a paper is submitted to peer review. Until a competent reviewer has reviewed the paper (positively or negatively), the paper will not be submitted to the board. The issue here is what happens if the reviewer does not approve the paper for publication.
First of all, I would think it premature to submit the paper to the board until the peer review process is recognized as complete. At this point, there are disagreements on the talk page about content. The discussion is in process, not completed. Until it is complete, this is not ready for board review. As editor, which I take meaning overall coordinator, you could decide that the review process is not going to produce any further changes. That would be an amazing conclusion, given the elapsed time. Even under some level of time pressure, I never consider a wiki process as having produced enough opportunity for comment with less than a week, and 10 days is better.
This morning, you renamed the page. There was no consensus on the new name, there was an agreement that the original name was to be improved, but no consensus yet on the new name. A proposal and acceptance within one day, in the presence of disagreement, is not consensus. Page moves create complications, so premature page moves are a real wiki problem.
Ideally, consensus is developed on the talk page, but at some point, the question is ripe for decision. If possible, again, there should be consensus that the question is ripe. Right now, there are three users discussing the paper. The author, you, and me. If any two agree that there is no more discussion to be undertaken, they can take the paper to the board, my opinion. As the matter stands right now, if the board is functional, and if it reviews the discussion (which could be refactored to clarify the issues), it would expect it to send the paper back for further work.
I do not see how the editorial board could approve this paper without an external reviewer approving of it as is. In normal peer review process, there will be a back and forth that continues until the reviewer and the author agree, or agree to disagree, or editorial supervision intervenes. The reviewer commented, and the author responded. The reviewer did not then agree. Lack of comment is not agreement. If the reviewer disappears, there is no peer review acceptance, so approval of publication in a peer-reviewed journal would be done only through the exception, the bypass.
That is, the editors of the journal agree that it should be published. I've seen that happen. They will disclose that the paper was not approved by peer review, and will explain the decision.
Bypass is risky. It can be done, but if it can be avoided, it should. Rather, one step at a time. Complete the wiki review process. If the author says, "I'm done, I will not change the paper further," ask the peer reviewer to go over the changes and the new paper. If the reviewer approves it, then if there is no sustained objection on the talk page, take it to the board. If the wiki process is bypassed, you could have a problem. After all, anyone could edit the page, and unless on-wiki consensus is shown, those edits could be difficult to ignore.
If the reviewer does not approve it, and unless on-wiki consensus is that the paper is ready for approval/rejection, the author or editors may seek another peer reviewer. But the preceding process should be transparent to any new peer-reviewer, and prior process should actively be disclosed (unless that process is determined by editors to be severely prejudicial).
Wiki discussions can get long, they can become walls of text. They can be refactored, and a consensus-approved refactoring is superior to an original discussion. Wikipedia never figured this out.... Wikipedia settled for "rough consensus," and tromped all over dissent, thus damaging the only reliable standard of neutrality: high consensus agreeing on neutrality, the higher it is, the more reliable it is.
There should be no rush.
At any point, the author may decide that the paper is ready for approval/rejection, because the author may say that "I am not making any more changes." While discussion may continue -- discussion cannot be stopped on a wiki -- this is a sign that it is ready for the board, discussion is done. This has not happened with the paper under consideration. It's not ready.
Suppose the paper is important. Suppose lives are at risk if this information is not published, so delay can cost lives? It could be published, then, as an editorial, which may use peer review, but which may also bypass it, and the paper is then presented as an issue to be aired. The editorial decision, then, is not that the paper is "scientific proof," but that the issue is of such importance that encouraging discussion and consideration is important. And then one would publish responses, if any.
If the paper is "scientific proof," -- or scientific evidence toward that -- peer reviewers will agree on publication. That's the point of peer review! --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's reason enough to have the article included in the journal even if there are remaining issues as mentioned at the article's talk page. It's ultimately a decision by me as editor-in-chief since the journal abides by ICMJE recommendations. Still, the article is open for post-publication discussion, and the its status may change in the future if there is consensus for it. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of WJM papers

Long page titles create some problems. For example, look at this: [4]. The displayed move does not show the target page, because the long title overloaded the space allowed for that display, after the boilerplate was inserted. (That hit me in the middle of an edit to the page, and I had to look at other logs to see where you moved it.) I suggest considering that the journal could adopt an acronym for content pages, so that the prefix that all would have is very brief, allowing more space for content, and for additional subpage names. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have moved the title back? Ah, now I notice author request. It should not have been moved without author approval. Silly or not! I will focus on the title on the talk page, now better informed.

An aside: I think you are in communication with the author. You might let him know that attempting to use Wikipedia history as he did is not considered friendly behavior on Wikiversity. We have had custodians here who are banned on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a tendency to ban experts and users seeking neutrality of articles, if the expertise or asserted sources appear to contradict the POV of dominant factions there, or for other reasons that are totally irrelevant here. You might ask User:Doc James about me, we worked together there, many years ago.

If I have a question about the paper, you can bet that others will have that question. If my question is purely ignorant, there will be other ignorant readers. But as a discussion proceeds, I learn and my questions get less and less ignorant and more useful. I'm in communication with world-class scientists, people covered in Wikipedia articles, and they find what I write useful. So ... go figure. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If long article names prevent you from finding a name, you can see the previous names of articles through the "What links here", since they leave redirects behind. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial review of papers

[5]. It seems to have been assumed that the Talk page of the article is the place to undertake editorial review. I think that's a process error. Editorial review can become complete, and process issues can arise, and then where are process issues discussed? Normally, on the attached talk page, but this is a Talk page. Rather, the review process is like an RfC. I'd make a subpage, call it Review. Then process discussion of the review would be on the attached talk page. I've seen many times that when a talk page is used for review process, there is no obvious place to discuss it, without making the review page more complicated and forbidding.

The sections I'd set up were for summary of the review, not intended to be simply my comments, but to express consensus or summarize remaining issues, hence subsectioning into my personal comment section was inappropriate. That I created those sections does not make them my comments, and what I wrote there was intended to be NPOV. I think I succeeded in that. If my views and reports are incomplete, please complete them. If they are wrong and misleading, they could be removed, but, then, where would this be discussed? That's why the process should have it's own mainspace subpage. It will be there if anyone wants to look at it. The talk page, in Wikiversity, with attributed essays (which is what the papers amount to for our normal process, because we will not allow Randy from Boise to edit them without consensus), is a place to discuss the topic. Perhaps to ask questions of the author, etc. Normally, we don't even discuss edits to the page unless they become controversial.

(You have been making edits to the paper on request of the author. Is there some reason why the author cannot make his own edits, which, then, attributes them to him, with no complications.)

Mikael, I know that I may occur to you as a PITA. However, you have undertaken a difficult project. The normal first reaction of Wikipedians is, "impossible." Consider:


  • The Decline of Wikipedia. Some of the comments there are of high interest, such as [6].
  • [7] doomed project, I'd say. Never heard of the spokesman. However, their sysadmin is a banned editor and prolific sockmaster. That, by the way, doesn't mean he's badly motivated. Rather, he is opinionated, and refused to go away when rejected by the Wikipedia bureaucracy. I first tangled with him where he was supporting a fairly popular cause that I knew was ... an error. He used sock puppets to try to get me blocked. Not nice, eh? However, later, I also saw good editing from his socks. It didn't matter. Good or bad, blocked when recognized. Wikipedia never figured out how to actually find high consensus. Too much work. But it is the only reliable guide to neutrality. Delete and block are crude tools.

I suggest that it will take to make the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine successful is hybrid structure. Off-wiki structure was heavily rejected, with extreme prejudice, on Wikipedia. Having an external board that controls Wikiversity content won't fly, if it's tested. However, having a board that makes recommendations, which the community may then follow, will fly, my opinion. The process that I see developing involves an interaction, a back-and-forth. It fits with Wikiversity.

There are many factors that cause projects like this to fail. Among them are inefficiency. It becomes tedious to follow the process, so users stop doing it. However, a very few can do most of the work, and that's the reason for the summary section in the paper approval discussion. That should be rigorously neutral and brief. Where needed, it will refer to deeper discussions. I did this on Wikipedia with success, it involves refactoring, collapsing, summarizing.

Are there enough people willing to work on this for the project to be successful? I suggest taking it slow. Build the journal one article at a time. Submitted articles are still good content for Wikiversity, whether they become official Journal articles or not.

See, of course, [8], a prior discussion. As it is constituted, the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine will not be reliable source for Wikipedia. I think I explained why. An independent publisher is required. It may not be obvious, but this is related to money. There may be independent publishers that are nonprofit, but you can bet they have substantial funding and paid staff. Anyone can set up a nonprofit, but key to "reliable source" is that the publisher has something to lose if they publish fluff or worse. My immediate work on the paper is about improving the editorial review process. That could be damn near perfect and still not solve the reliable source problem. --Abd (discusscontribs) 21:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a separate subsection for the peer review may make it harder for readers to keep track of where to find article comments. Regarding participation, the next work that I intend to do after dealing with out current submissions is to write an article about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine in for example Journal of Medical Internet Research, and I'm certain that it will then bring more attention (and hopefully participation) in the journal. A major goal is to reach 40 articles required for Medline inclusion [9], and after that I think the journal can be more selective in what articles to include or not in order to become more authoritative, and perhaps even be regarded as a reliable source even for Wikipedia. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Journal of Science

Board meeting at First Journal of Science/Editorial board/log. Not urgent -Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 13:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I copied my text about the journal name to there. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 05:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I jotted some ideas you might want to include in Wikiversity Journal at Talk:Wikiversity_Journal/Starting_a_journal#Who_controls_the_journal.3F--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 13:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Given the obvious strong support from the community for your nomination for curatorship I've flipped the bit. Thank you for your contributions to the project, and I look forward to seeing your future work. Please coordinate with Guy and feel free to contact me or other staff if you have any questions or need support. Good luck! --mikeu talk 12:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Face-smile.svg
This permission will definitely make it easier for me to improve Wikiversity projects. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Public and non-public sector nurses and physicians in SA.jpg

Hi Mikael!

This File:Public and non-public sector nurses and physicians in SA.jpg is in the category NowCommons which usually means it can be deleted. Those that I have on Commons if there's even a slim chance Commons will delete I remove from this category. What would you like to do? I can put this file up for deletion and let you decide as a Curator whether to delete or not. If it is deleted here, the Commons file with the identical name will take its place. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marshallsumter (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)!
I definitely think the Wikiversity file can be deleted. Even if it gets deleted from Commons I can re-upload it to Wikiversity. Sure, you can put it up for deletion, and I will then delete it. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 18:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

Mikael, I'm so pleased to see people like you contributing. Tony1 (discusscontribs) 15:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful for your contributions too Face-smile.svg
Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 18:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if u can tell me about wikipedia Javaune Francis (discusscontribs) 17:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can find out more about Wikipedia at: Wikipedia:Introduction, and you can find more about Wikiversity at Wikiversity:Introduction. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviewers

Hi, when I added the suggestion for authors to recommend peer reviewers, I meant that the authors are likely to know reviewers with relevant expertise to assess the work. From what I've experienced, it's common for journals to use the author-recommended reviewers as a starting point for gathering peer reviews. Otherwise the editorial board risks having a piece submitted and not knowing suitable people to peer review it. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Indeed it has its advantages. Yet, with 0 authors and 6 peer reviewers, I still think it's the wrong time to put higher pressure on prospective authors. It may change soon, however, when we get more authors. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 18:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: idea for Wikiversity (Journal) research effort

Dr. Häggström,

Thank you for sharing your excellent Basal ganglia circuits diagram.

Basal ganglia circuits

I would like to build on your idea to produce an abstract brain region network/graph.

Graph/network view of the basal ganglia and other brain regions.

The network/graph may be extended with the following information:

  • cognitive (dis)function associated with brain regions of interest
  • embedded citations for all depicted information
    • citations add to the 'strength' of any relationship between graph items

Some high-level goals of the project would be:

  • Produce an open source data set of the brain network
  • Produce several images for use in Wikiversity and other Wikimedia Foundation projects
  • Determine necessary properties to store citations, cognitive function, and other attribute data
    • where possible, use existing attributes (such as those on WikiData)
  • Ultimately store the brain network/graph data in the WikiData project
    • proposing the addition of any relevant properties

There is a basic protype, with sourcecode available on Github:

Are you aware of any people, on Wikiversity or otherwise, who might like to contribute to this idea? What are your thoughts on the overall aims? What would be some reasonable next steps?

Thanks for your time and consideration,

--Brylie Oxley (discusscontribs) 17:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting project. I think it would be great if it could be made in a 3D model, but I don't know how such a model would be set up. You may find people willing to help our at Talk:WikiProject Neuroscience. Also, I know Scholarpedia is focused on neuroscience, so you may find participants there as well: [10]. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 18:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion Depth

See Category:Pages where expansion depth is exceeded. This category now shows up under Category:Wikiversity maintenance. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The description page of the issue (mw:Help:Expansion depth) does not describe what's the issue here. Can you explain, Dave? Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 05:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Avoiding MediaWiki expansion depth limit -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm having a look to see if I can find the template causing this issue. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 14:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find the location where this expansion depth was exceeded. On the other hand, the page looks all right, so I don't see any harm in letting it be. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 05:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit overwhelmed with other projects at the moment, but I'll see if I can find anything the next time I'm looking through the maintenance list. Thanks for checking. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Mike. Thank you for your Christmas Greeting on en.Wikipedia. God Jul!

I'm sorry for my unresponsiveness about your Hippocampus review. When I was enrolled in a university course I was confident enough to tackle any topic, but without ready access to medical textbooks and journals I don't think I can be of much use with something as technical as this. Have you posted a request for help at Wikiproject Medicine? --Anthonyhcole (discusscontribs) 08:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Face-smile.svg

, and yeah, we may use WP:MED for these types of notifications too. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 09:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look

I'm sorry. May you take a look at this: I'm not sure if everything is ok - may you pay more attention at style (I sometimes make mistakes in English) and citation (if all neccecery informations are included). I would be thankful Of course it's not finished Kubaj98 (discusscontribs) 19:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, Kubaj! I think the layout and citations look great for the material added so far. Considering that the Wikipedia article Ductus arteriosus practically contains very little about the physiologic closing mechanism, there is definitely a lot of potential for your article to improve it. It would need to go to external peer reviewers, but I'm pretty sure it will eventually get accepted if you complete the still missing aspects. I recommend using secondary sources whenever possible. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the text carefully? As I have told, sometimes I make mistakes in English. But I'm really thankful for your opinion. I feel motivated and, because of it, I'm going to continue writing. Greetings from Poland. And something I want to ask. I don't have any degree - I'm a student of medicine - 1st year. Is that any problem if I want to publish in Wikijournal of Medicine? Kubaj98 (discusscontribs) 22:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem that you don't have a degree, Kubaj - it's the work that matters. I haven't looked into every word in detail, but spelling and grammar is not a problem since we allow correction of any minor errors directly in the wiki. Also, once you submit, a WikiJournal volunteer can read it through in detail and make changes (which you can choose to approve or revert). However, the images not created by yourself need to be attributed - see Attribution in our Guidelines. Just let me know if you have any other questions, and I wish you all the best with the continued writing of the article! Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Häggström Can you check if illustrations are well-described? I've also changed layout a little. Kubaj98 (discusscontribs) 21:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kubaj, I think the layout and the image descriptions look well. When you feel ready to submit the work, follow the information at WikiJournal of Medicine/Publishing#Submission. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files Missing Information

Thanks for uploading files to Wikiversity. All files must have source and license information to stay at Wikiversity. The following files are missing {{Information}} and/or Wikiversity:License tags, and will be deleted if the missing information is not added. See Wikiversity:Uploading files for more information.

MaintenanceBot (discusscontribs) 12:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files Missing Information

Thanks for uploading files to Wikiversity. All files must have source and license information to stay at Wikiversity. The following files are missing {{Information}} and/or Wikiversity:License tags, and will be deleted if the missing information is not added. See Wikiversity:Uploading files for more information.

MaintenanceBot (discusscontribs) 04:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]