Mikael, colleagues
The discussion seems clearly against accepting WJ as a 'reliable source'
at the moment. It is unclear to me whether joining the discussion to argue
about reviewers' anonymity and the academic status of the board would
improve matters.
I have 3 observations:
1) We may hope that in a few years' time, WJ has enough reputation that
Wikipedia will be willing to treat it as a reliable journal.
2) We are free to cut-and-paste to Wikipedia any WJ material which is
sufficiently well cited to reliable sources, which would include
peer-reviewed papers already published elsewhere by WJ authors. I note
that mathematics articles seem to require fewer citations both on
Wikipedia and in WJScience.
3) We could, I think, use material on WJ that isn't covered by citations
in the same way as material on a known scientist's blog: Wikipedia allows
'blog' postings to be cited provided it can be shown that the person
posting it is a recognised authority.
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#User-g…
"Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an
established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by
reliable third-party publications.") Mikael might or might not wish to try
to confirm that on the discussion group.
Ian
Hi all,
WikiJournal content can be used in Wikipedia as per
Editorial_guidelines#Wikipedia_inclusion
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Editorial_guidelines#Wikipedia_inclusion>,
such as reviews based on other reliable sources.
There is currently an online discussion whether content from WikiJournal of
Science can be a reliable source in Wikipedia, which would allow original
research from WikiJournal to be added to Wikipedia as well. I'd appreciate
additional input to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliab…
If the consensus is to deny this usage in Wikipedia, we could either settle
for adding only content such as material from reviews, as well as images.
Alternatively, we could make a better case by not allowing peer reviewers
to process articles anonymously, and thereby base reliability on their
credentials, in addition to the judgement of the boards. But first we'll
see how this discussion goes.
Best regards,
Mikael