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-generated_content
"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#Reliability_of_WikiJournal_of_Science
>
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
WikiJournal-en mailing list
WikiJournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikijournal-en