From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Structure of Wikipolis[edit]

How will Wikipolis be structured? By user/contributer? By subject? I would prefer "by subject" myself for easier viewing and browsing. Ideas?--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 09:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, isn't "Wikipolis" sound a little too much like "Wikicities" (like it's just another general purpose "Wiki community")? I think a better name would be something like "Wikiscovery" or "Wikijournal". Even more important, what is the liklihood of this project actually getting up and working and—more importantly—succeeding? There is already something in place, similar to what you're proposing: Academic Publishing Wiki. True, this isn't a bona fide Wikimedia site, but it is something up and running—and pretty much ignored. P=| Maybe a more practical approach would be to start a journal on APW (e.g., "Journal of Personal Research")—then, if it takes off, consider turning it into its own Wiki site: See Current journals...Just an idea. P=) ~Kaimbridge~ 20:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the info.--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 02:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Problems with current wiki-based machanisms[edit]

What problems will be encountered if Wikipolis is going to be implemented?

Linas has stated: "1) the Wikipedia:Stable versions process has not yet been defined, (and once it is, it might still not be suitable), (2) we need a place that would allow OR, and that place is not WP, (3) software enhancements to the mediawiki software to support this new usage"

Comments?--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 09:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ideas for content of Wikipolis[edit]

Math and science or just math? If science, "hard" sciences are all sciences? Please give ideas.--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 09:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ideas for article ownership and peer-review[edit]

Ok here is what I'm thinking;

  • Each article can be owned by whoever wants to own it, and only the owners of the article could edit it. This would be similar to "watching" an article in wikipedia, but with more gravity. The owners have to be users. Non-users or annonymous people could still suggest things to be added on the discussion page.

For example if you created a new function, Linas[x,y], you would automatically have owned the article and could do what ever you want with the article. Lets say then, that Linas[x,y] becomes the function that proves the irrationality of the Euler-Macheroni constant. All of the sudden, everyone is owning your article and doing research on it. In this case, it would become pluralistically owned that it would be like wikipedia in a sense.

This system would allow a form of check and peer review for the most important of articles. Pages like Pi, E, the unit circle, and other extemely popular articles would be owned by many people so that new research on these established topics would be checked for relavance and importance before being slapped on there. Conversely, on cutting-edge topics or personal research, probably only you or a couple of supporters would own it, giving way toward more drastic changes.

It would be assumed that only people interested in the subject of the article would own the article, like wikipedia sort of. However there is no guarantee that there would be people owning every single article. Perhaps there should be a limit?

Please post ideas! Once we have a complete discription I will update the main wikipolis page.--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 06:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I posted some comments on my talk page on WP. I gather from your comments that you've never actually published an article in a peer-reviewed journal, as the process of peer review doesn't work this way. Note also that the route to a "featured article" FA on WP doesn't work like this either. The social mechanisms of authoring, intellectual property ownership and publication in the sciences are considerably more subtle than what you seem to be describing. Linas 06:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
By the term peer-review I didn't mean actual PEER REVIEW, as per esteemed science and math journals! I know how proper sci and math journals work, THIS ISNT THAT. This is a new system which is more simple, similar to PlanetMath, which would be more accomadating, and would encourage more peer-review than wikipedia currently has by establishing limits on who can watch and edit an article. Please stop patronizing me and tell me if this idea is BOGUS or what is wrong with it.
As to your idea, do you want me to comment on it at your talk page or here? I dont want to clutter up your talk page really, but I can if you prefer. --Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 06:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the idea has merit, however I think that it should include emprical results of scientific experiements. One of the problems that I think Linas is talking about is that people like myself who are unpublished in peer-review math journals can propose theorems that clearly are not useful. But there are also well-respected peer review science, logic and math journals that have published articles that were wrong. Needs to be some way to ensure that the math is right, but also that we have a record of the user. Why are we wanting such a medium? 08:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
"but also that we have a record of the user"
  • Under my idea, the user that made the discovery will be the first owner of the article. For example, Linas would be the first owner of his article "Linas[x,y]." If this article becomes important and draws attention there will be many owners (allowing greater peer-review on any addendums), but Linas would still be the first.
"Needs to be some way to ensure that the math is right"
  • Under my idea, the articles with the greatest interest say, "proof of twin prime conjecture", would immediately by owned by a great number of people. This would then create a form of peer-review promoting correctness, since all the owners would then be allowed to edit the article. "Crank" articles would therefore disappear under this system. Conversely, cutting edge articles about less wellknown topics would be owned by less people, creating less peer-review, but more flexability. The math in these pioneering articles would be less reliable, but we would all figure that they are unreliable because of the sparse ownership. In other words, a low ownership would be a sort of "danger will robinson: unknown territory" sign. This is not a bad thing really in my mind; it allows for a more dynamically evolving atmosphere and won't get stuck in a rut like nupedia did.
I don't understand what the word "own" means. Typically, ownership is something controlled by the few, not the many. I suggest you want to use a different word for this idea.
There is also a technical problem with the example: the proof of the twin prime conjecture will probably be understood by almost nobody, as it will require intimate knowledge of arcane fields of math that very very few people know. To be concrete: Between the years of 1915-1930, there were maybe a half-dozen, or maybe dozen people in the world who understood Einstein's theory of general relativity. Today, there are maybe a few thousand, maybe even ten thousand, that understand this theory. Similarly, when the proof of Fermat's last theorem was announced, the proof took almost 10 years to validate, primarily because there were less than half-a-dozen people who'd even had familiarity with the type of mathematics required in that proof. It took many years for people (i.e. math professors) to learn the required math, and it took a many more for them to read through the proof, and understand it well enough to conclude that it was right. Never mind that about three years into the process, errors were found, which then took another year to fix. Linas 23:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
"Why are we wanting such a medium?"
  • I'm not sure what you mean by this...could you rephrase it perhaps?

--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 09:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Related projects[edit]

The scope and definition of this project might be clearer if the following efforts are reviewed:

This is a great article. I agree with him almost completely (with a few differences in philosophy). Under his terminology, what are creating in effect, is a "math club" reviewing its own articles. What you and I are differing on is how you get IN to the math club. I take it you want more stringent requirements to get in the club? Great article though thanks for the link.--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 05:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The above links deal with the questions of how to validate the content of an article.

As to the aspects of creating original research, I've barely started up a draft as en:User:Linas/Original research, peer review and reputation on Wikipedia. Linas 23:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look.--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)