Could we have some type of report that lists the other silos (like plos)as seen from San Fran? The problem, we all seem to have, is some agreed way to break outside of domainal walls & COLLABORATE on a global peer basis.

Every ‘brand’ wants outsiders to “participate” – in their domain of course. The thing i see is wikipedia as the top (content) layer from which a learner might be directed to deeper layers. Reading the survey overview, that’s what the more serious scientists (peer reviewers) appears to think as well; they don’t mind linking (referencing) out, but they certainly wouldn’t link inwards.(unless they have contributed to the WP article of course)and it’s “clearly separated from the main content area”. (whatever that means = wikiversity?)

That said, as long as you get the strategy right, it sounds like you’ve got over two thirds on side. Oh, and if you want to know where the pennies are, ask any uni librarian how much they pay for publishers like http://www.elsevier.com to repackage their authors’ (peer reviewed) papers.

The only way we’re going to get this is to improve on the way communication is handled round our silos, especially the foundation email list. I mean its great to see sue trying to get the strategy discussion happening ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-May/051636.html) but you can’t possibly expect quiet and reflective minds to work their way through such a large noise to signal ratio (as entertaining as it is). You’ve got to have moderators to keep the cats on track.

Could we have some type of report that lists the other silos (as I affectionally call them)as seen from San Fran? The problem, we all seem to have, is some agreed way to break outside of domainal walls & COLLABORATE.

Everyone wants outsiders to “participate”, in their domain of course. The thing i see is wikipedia as the top (content) layer from which a learner might be directed to deeper layers. Reading the survey overview, that’s what the more serious scientists (peer reviewers) appears to think as well; they don’t mind linking (referencing) out, but they certainly wouldn’t link inwards.(unless they have contributed to the WP article of course)and it’s “clearly separated from the main content area”. (whatever that means = wikiversity?)

That said, as long as you get the strategy right, it sounds like you’ve got over two thirds on side. Oh, and if you want to know where the pennies are, ask any uni librarian how much they pay for publishers like http://www.elsevier.com to repackage their authors papers.

The only way we’re going to get this is to improve on the way communication is handled round our silos, especially the foundation email list. I mean its great to see sue trying to get the strategy discussion happening ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-May/051636.html) but you can’t possibly expect quiet and reflective minds to work their way through such a large noise to signal ratio (as entertaining as it is). You’ve got to have moderators to keep the cats on track.

‘PEER REVIEW’ WIKI’S – THE NEXT REVOLUTION

The revolution of Wikipedia is one of the hallmark achievements of the Internet; yet the journey is far from over.

A child in Brazil, with access to a computer, can read about the theory of relativity with but a few clicks of a button. Yet, what this child cannot do, is be assured that the things he or she reads on Wikipedia, is the same that they’re teaching at the expensive universities.

I propose that Wikimedia foundation should pay academics to ‘peer review’ scholarly wikis (starting with: science, mathematics, politics, arts etc); then, differentiate these wiki pages with a particular colour, or border etc. There are, of course, substantive benefits for society with the outcome of peer-reviewed wikis, however, there are obvious financial considerations which are problematic.

On the issue of funding: peer reviewed wikis are something that the organisation should be commencing with now anyway. Having even one peer reviewed wiki available freely online, would be an achievement in itself (‘news worthy’). News is good news for donations.

Secondly, I’m not a lawyer, but I understand (from your Wiki), that Wikimedia is a ‘501(c)(3)’ type charity organisation. Perhaps a fund for ‘Peer Wiki’, could become a further charitable and seperate legal entity; encouraging donations. As I said, I’m not a lawyer, just a poor man’s philanthropist (graduate).

I have other ideas concerning some opportunities for growth in your organization, hiring, internship? In any event, keep up the good work.

Sincerely,

Jarrod Fitch