Jump to content


Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Similar to other resources?[edit]

I am wondering if this would be a wiki version of Google Scholar/Academia.edu or similar sites (except focused on abstracts only). I'm not saying that's not necessarily a bad mission - but it would be nice to clarify how this compares to other resources beyond the wiki-ness/free-ness Jztinfinity (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good to me , but[edit]

  • as there are so many different branches of science involved, there is a infinite number of requirements one needs to take care of. But I'd like to see it happen. Fisch21 (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I came here to propose essentially this[edit]

To Jztinfinity's question, I imagined it a bit different than Google Scholar, which is just a search aggregator. Something like a wiki version of academia.edu. Finding papers on a subject is a nightmare. Everything is behind a paywall, and even though I get access through my university I have to log in through the proxy, search that journal, and do this separately for each journal I want to check. Many websites have many different journals, but the organization is terrible. You can generally only search one journal at a time, or all at once.

What I think this project should be is a wiki that's navigable by the subject matter of the research. Rather than searching by title, you can see research that's been done on a specific topic. Potentially could organize it using the structure of topics on Wikipedia. If you go to psychology, it has links to different subfields in psychology, each of which has links to particular topics that pertain to the field. It would be fantastic to have a version of this that gives relevant research to a topic, as well as some sort of info about what the paper adds to the topic.

In addition, I think having an option to view by researcher, or by the method that was used in the research. From there, it could be extended to include related authors: collaborators, refutations, etc. Not to mention having links to any other studies cited by each one. And potentially have a short description of the section of the study that it was cited for in particular (i.e. some experiment they performed where the data is used, or if the conclusion of the study is expanded upon, and so on). Broswald ([User talk:Broswald|talk]])

Hi, I wonder if there is a possibility for collaboration between this and the wikisummary proposal?[edit]

- see [Wikisummary] for more details of that proposal. Basically my idea for proposing that was a way of having summarised versions of texts etc. available, to make information more accessible. And then people can go after the original text if they like. I guess the idea behind that was longer summaries; but pages could start with an 'abstract' (limited to a certain number of signs as suggested) and then could go into a more lengthy version of that. Either way, if these proposals were to happen, it would make sense at the least for there to be links between them. Iamsorandom (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

( [Wikireference] also looks like there might be a little bit of overlap?)