Wikis and Science 2.0: Difference between revisions

From SklogWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Added link to NewScientist article)
mNo edit summary
Line 24: Line 24:


*[http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19726473.300-physicists-slam-publishers-over-wikipedia-ban.html?feedId=online-news_rss20 Physicists slam publishers over Wikipedia ban]  NewScientist.com news service 16th March (2008)
*[http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19726473.300-physicists-slam-publishers-over-wikipedia-ban.html?feedId=online-news_rss20 Physicists slam publishers over Wikipedia ban]  NewScientist.com news service 16th March (2008)
*[http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jono/item/toc.html Traditional journals and copyright transfer] by Jonathan Oppenheim 16th March (2008)

Revision as of 13:41, 17 March 2008

Here is some interesting reading pertaining to wiki, with particular emphasis on their relation to science:

"Yet scientists are largely being left behind in this second revolution, as they are proving slow to adopt many of the latest technologies that could help them communicate online more rapidly and collaboratively than they do now."

"Uneasy with information websites policed by people with little expertise, scientists are creating their own online encyclopedias"

"...the same technological and demographic forces that are turning the Web into a massive collaborative work space are helping to transform the realm of science into an increasingly open and collaborative endeavor. Yes, the Web was, in fact, invented as a way for scientists to share information. But advances in storage, bandwidth, software, and computing power are pushing collaboration to the next level. Call it Science 2.0."

and

"Leading scientific observers already expect more change in the next 50 years of science than in the last 400 years of inquiry combined. As the pace of science quickens, there will be less value in stashing new scientific ideas, methods, and results in subscription-only journals and databases, and more value in wide-open collaborative-knowledge platforms that are refreshed with each new discovery. These changes will enhance the ability of scientists to find, retrieve, sort, evaluate, and filter the wealth of human knowledge, and, of course, to continue to enlarge and improve it."

"Science publishers' efforts to have the research community sup the Web 2.0 Kool-Aid have failed, and scientists have given a resounding thumbs down to a gamut of crowd-tapping initiatives, showgoers at SXSW heard on Saturday.


A panel of science web publishers said scientists had consistently shunned wikis, tagging, and social networks, and have even proven reticent to leave comments on web pages."

"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."