As someone who is more of a free rider to the newsletter (*blushes*), I
might not have as much of a say in this, but I agree that a peer review is
different than an encyclopedia article. I'd like to think that a peer
review or editorial doesn't proceed according to the same kind of
more-or-less universal standards and processes that govern encyclopedic
work, and thus make it modular enough to support a collective author
function.
And there are many spaces in Wikipedia (and thanks for the cite, Taha :P)
where individual editors write statements themselves, where it is
incredibly useful to represent the opinion of a single individual. The
Signpost [0] has bylines. Beyond that, Articles for Creation reviews [1]
and Third Opinion [2] are probably the best analogies to research
newsletter reviews, but this also takes place in X for deletion
nominations, Arbitration Committee statements, and more.
I think in the grand scheme of things, it is actually productive to have
somebody be able to say something a bit more opinionated like "it is
disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with
little thought to actually improving Wikipedia", because as we see here,
that leads to fruitful conversations. But I do think that they should be
attributed to the opinion of an individual, who can then further discuss
this opinion publicly.
There is certainly room for collaboration in reviews, and there can be
co-authored reviews. However, if someone is listed as an author, then maybe
they then have a kind of responsibility for the content. If they just
edited it for grammar, etc., then perhaps they can be listed as an editor. Just
some thoughts.
Also, I totally agree with the research awards, perhaps more thoughts on
those later.
Best,
Stuart
[0]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3O
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Maximilian Klein <isalix(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Taha, even though the newsletter sections are a Wiki
written by multiple
people, we could still add multiple names in the "by-line." Do you see a
problem with that?
We are not writing an Enclyclopedia here, but a research newsletter (it
just happens to be hosted on an encyclopedia server). I think that for
"intellectual honesty" it was a good idea of Heather's to add names to
reviews. IMHO, we have an obligation to be even more rigorous in the
newsletter than in writing Wikipedia.
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l