Editing Wikis and Science 2.0
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
*[http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2008/01/wikipedia-community-publishing.html Tim O’Reilly "Wikipedia: A community of editors or a community of authors?", January 3 (2008)] | *[http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2008/01/wikipedia-community-publishing.html Tim O’Reilly "Wikipedia: A community of editors or a community of authors?", January 3 (2008)] | ||
<blockquote>"This is why publishers should be studying Wikipedia (and YouTube, and Google) -- because they are all showing us the new face of publishing. At their heart, they involve new means of content creation yes, but more profoundly, they involve new means of curation. Wikipedia creates a context within which authors can exercise their skills, displaying their knowledge and their passion. Yes, it allows for collaborative creation, and that's good."</blockquote> | <blockquote>"This is why publishers should be studying Wikipedia (and YouTube, and Google) -- because they are all showing us the new face of publishing. At their heart, they involve new means of content creation yes, but more profoundly, they involve new means of curation. Wikipedia creates a context within which authors can exercise their skills, displaying their knowledge and their passion. Yes, it allows for collaborative creation, and that's good."</blockquote> | ||
*[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-new-tool-or-great-risk&page=1 M. Mitchell Waldrop "Science 2.0: Great New Tool, or Great Risk?", Scientific American January 9 (2008)] (see also: Scientific American May Vol. 298 Issue 5 pp. 68-73 (2008 | *[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-new-tool-or-great-risk&page=1 M. Mitchell Waldrop "Science 2.0: Great New Tool, or Great Risk?", Scientific American January 9 (2008)] (see also: Scientific American May Vol. 298 Issue 5 pp. 68-73 (2008) | ||
<blockquote>"...Web-based "Science 2.0" is not only more collegial than the traditional variety, but considerably more productive."</blockquote> | <blockquote>"...Web-based "Science 2.0" is not only more collegial than the traditional variety, but considerably more productive."</blockquote> | ||
<blockquote>"Web 2.0 fits so perfectly with the way science works, it's not whether the transition will happen but how fast".</blockquote> | <blockquote>"Web 2.0 fits so perfectly with the way science works, it's not whether the transition will happen but how fast".</blockquote> |