Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Evolution and evolvability

Evolution and evolvability (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

My main activity on Wikiversity in is the WikiJournals (in particular, the WikiJournal of Medicine). I'm an research academic, and particularly interested in ways to create compatible interfaces between the academic world and the Wikimedia world. Academia is highly dependent on the scholarly journal publishing system, so WikiJournals act to bridge the gap by allowing experts to contribute content in a format that is more familiar, and aligns with their professional priorities.

I've created essentially all of the formatting and organisation templates that:
- allow articles to be presented in a journal style
- automatically move articles through a series of categories as they're externally peer reviewed
I've created the article submission system that (hopefully) is as easy as possible for non-wikimedians to use
I was also recently helped to configure the citoid function for auto-formatting references from URLs, ISBNs, PMIDs and DOIs

I hope that I'll be able to help build useful systems on the site, and I think that curatorship contains some useful tools (especially import functions). Page protections may also be useful for some WikiJournal articles (though we've experienced zero vandalism so far). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 10:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What is your vision for Wikiversity and the WikiJournals? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dave Braunschweig: I see two main links between WikiJournals and Wikiversity: 1) material from the journals can be integrated into various Wikiversity projects (e.g. teaching case studies), and 2) the journals are hosted here. I envisage that the first point will continue to strengthen over time, as we gain more experience in what formats work best. I support WikiJournal's application to be a full sister project, since I think that more dedicated content on the left hand bar, as well as possible specialist functions would greatly benefit it. Nevertheless, that is a long term goal, and hosting here has proven viable so far, and indeed new journals are currently starting up here (e.g. Wiki.J.Hum). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thomas, if scientists publish in a team, you might experience the fact that only one of the authors is driving the main work on the paper, while others contribute with a minor workload. Some do change the wording in the conclusions. I like the idea, that the versioning system in MediaWiki shows "Who did when what!". Do you think that most of the scientists will like that idea and how can we improve the current status? I appreciate your work for Green Open Access with the WikiJournal. Did you get feedback from authors that could help to make the wiki approach for publications more attractive for authors in comparision to journal with a high impact factor? --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bert Niehaus: I think the full edit history is an extremely useful tool absent from most scientific publishing. Even just having the versions as reviewed and as published to see what the response to peer reviewer comments is pretty uncommon! It's also been useful for highly multi-author submissions adapted fro Wikipedia articles (e.g. The Cerebellum) where we can put the full et. al. link in the author list. For author contributions, I actually hope that we may eventually implement something like the excellent, but slow, WHOcolour tool. The main feedback that we've had so far has been people wanting an official impact factor as calculated by SCOPUS and indexing by web of science. These mostly require increased professionalism (formal ethics statement, more publications, associate editor application system). I think that these have guided us to improve the project without losing its unique features. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 00:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Custodians willing to mentor

I am willing to mentor. Evolution and evolvability (T.Shafee) has been doing impressive work on behalf of the various WikiJournals. Additional tools would benefit this effort and the community overall. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

I am willing to vote in favor.

RAYLEIGH22 (discuss • contribs) 21:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thomas will be a capable curator! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been working with Thomas in the WikiJournal projects where he has done tremendous contributions already. Custodianship tools will allow him new ways to build the technical foundations for publishing, reviewing, distributing and displaying knowledge in new ways. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 08:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support To bring the Journal workflow into a Wiki environment is a great way to generate transparency in the paper development and there is one major benefit of the proposed concept: The reviewer is at the same time an author that contributes to the quality of the paper. A collegue of mine mentioned to me, that a reviewer comment provided a major contribution to the quality of the paper and would like to offer to reviewer to mentioned as author on the paper (blind reviewing). Wiki approach could provide community appreciation of reviewing comments, if the reviews are open, transparent and scientifically sound. Thank you very much to you Thomas and your whole team making the WikiJournal real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Niehaus (talk • contribs) 13:32, 26 October 2017, Forgot to sign, as a Prof. I have only two neurons, and one is permanent on leave ;-) --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 05:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support surely would benefit from them -Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Boris Tsirelson (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thomas has a proven track record and the additional tools will be useful. Ear-phone (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wholeheartedly--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as mentor. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status

Done. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]