Wikis and Science 2.0

Here is some interesting reading pertaining to wiki, with particular emphasis on their relation to science (in chronological order):

2005

• Declan Butler "Science in the web age: Joint efforts", Nature 438 pp. 548-549 1 December (2005)

"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."

2007

• Martin Griffiths "Talking physics in the social Web", Physics World 20 January pp. 24-28 (2007)
• Dennis M. Wilkinson, Bernardo A. Huberman "Assessing the Value of Coooperation in Wikipedia", arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0702140
• Philip Ball "The more, the wikier", Nature news 27 February 2007
• Brandon Keim "WikiMedia", Nature Medicine 13 pp. 231-233 (2007)

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

• Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams "The New Science of Sharing", BusinessWeek March 2 (2007)

"...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."

• Chris Williams "Scientists shun Web 2.0", The Register 11th March (2007)

"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."

• Timo Hannay "Web 2.0 in Science", CTWatch Quarterly, Volume 3, Number 3, August (2007)

2008

• Tim O’Reilly "Wikipedia: A community of editors or a community of authors?", January 3 2008

"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."

• M. Mitchell Waldrop "Science 2.0: Great New Tool, or Great Risk?", Scientific American January 9 (2008)

"...Web-based "Science 2.0" is not only more collegial than the traditional variety, but considerably more productive."

"Web 2.0 fits so perfectly with the way science works, it's not whether the transition will happen but how fast".

• "Los hijos de la Wikipedia", ABC Periódico Electrónico S.A. / notiweb madri+d 28th January (2008)
• "Physicists slam publishers over Wikipedia ban", NewScientist.com news service 16th March (2008)
• Jonathan Oppenheim "Traditional journals and copyright transfer", 16th March (2008)
• "Wikimedia Foundation Supports Efforts By Scientists to Use Free Licenses", 15 May (2008)
  • APS "Replies": (link)

As the author of an APS-published article, can I post my article or a portion of my article on a web resource like wikipedia or quantiki?

Sites like wikipedia and quantiki are strict about permissions and require that authors hold copyright to articles that they post there. In order to allow authors to comply with this requirement, APS permits authors to hold copyright to a "derived work" based on an article published in an APS journal as long as the work contains at least 10% new material not covered by APS's copyright and does not contain more than 50% of the text (including equations) of the original article.

• "El auge de Internet impulsa la nueva Ciencia 2.0", Publico.es 1 July (2008)
• "Data on display", Nature News 15 September (2008)
• Bernardo A. Huberman, Daniel M. Romero, Fang Wu "Crowdsourcing, Attention and Productivity", arXiv:0809.3030v1 17 September (2008)
• Declan Butler "Publish in Wikipedia or perish", Nature News 16 December (2008)

"Anyone submitting to a section of the journal RNA Biology will, in the future, be required to also submit a Wikipedia page that summarizes the work. The journal will then peer review the page before publishing it in Wikipedia."