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.