Will Wikipedia Replace Science Journals? - Jimmy Wales

[AnonymouslyElected]

There might be fallacies with the usual peer-review process, but its surely more likely to be wrong when anyone can edit.

[KingCast65]

Wiki: Hey King go get a newspaper account.

KingCast: OK here's the Nashua Telegraph, Wiki says it's the second-largest paper in NH (27,000 daily, and 34,000 on Sunday)

Wiki: Hey King you misquoted the account.

KingCast: OK, here's direct quotes showing that I spoke to Kelly Ayotte and the Police had me escorted out after she refused to acknowledge my presence.

Wiki: Hey King that's not good enough either, you have no proof she knew about the litigation.

KingCast: You guys are scum

[Neanderthalcouzin]

I've been thinking about this topic for a while. The issue is having more of a permeable interface between the research and reviewers, as well as the fact that a wiki-like format would dramatically speed up the process, and perhaps most importantly allow the base of knowledge to evolve quicker.

Academics often put their unpublished work online before it goes through peer review, which can take over a year. There are pro's and con's to both approaches. We'll see, but an interesting topic no doubt

[IWillRushYou]

throw a tomato at this guy!

Boycott wikipedia.

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@IWillRushYou why?

[gaiatechnician]

Things ARE changing in the way science is been done.

Students at Queens university in Ontario are researching my pulser pump idea (20 years late) The preliminary results are good! Now how come it wasn't researched somewhere in the world in the early 1990's? Wikipedia will not be publishing the results of course. It is too "Novel" for them to do so. (Which is absolute rubbish)

But the results are being published in appropedia!

Brian

[gaiatechnician]

Things ARE changing in the way science is been done.

Students at Queens university in Ontario are researching my pulser pump idea (20 years late) The preliminary results are good! Now how come it wasn't researched somewhere in the world in the early 1990's? Wikipedia will not be publishing the results of course. It is too "Novel" for them to do so. (Which is absolute rubbish)

Brian

But the results are being published in appropedia!

[gaiatechnician]

A poster said peer review is expensive. And Whale noted that it is an old boys network. I agree. I found the work of Ambjörn Naeve recently and it is a breath of fresh air. Bend 2 pieces of flat reflective material = magnifying glass! He published results and proof in the mid 1970's. But "science" is not interested. It is almost totally unknown!

He had video proof! My Pulser pump has worked 20 years. A river driven pump with no moving parts AND video. Science ignores it! Wikipedia too!

[Redfingers]

Otherwise we'd all believe in the cosmological constant and special creationism because of all the chirpy biased fucktards screaming down anyone who disagrees with their preconceived ideas.

The only reason Wikipedia functions is because of editors, and he's trying to tell us that's not top-down? GTFO, Jimmy Wales, you bloated moron.

The scientific peer-reviewed journal is the best thing to happen to the west ever.

[Redfingers]

Oh yeah, and that includes Greek philosophy, considering they had so much "conversation" they had guys believing that the universe was made of water and words were the perfect manifestation of all physical things.

[Redfingers]

How exactly does one transmit findings of a prolonged scientific study onto a Wikipedia page, which is basically a brief?

It's just a totally fucktarded idea.

And for the record, science is not a fucking conversation. Science is a prolonged investigation. No faggot can write science. You have to use tools and human fallibility is the same reason we have such a rigorous peer review process ingrained into the institution.

[Redfingers]

As much as I would love for scientists and professionals and other knowledgeable individuals post on Wikipedia and edit it to the best of their ability, Wiki authors are not scientific peers or scientific experts. Any old schmoe is just as capable of fudging superb scientific findings written by a professional as that very professional.

It is not even remotely peer review, we're LUCKY, and we should be APPRECIATIVE to have the truth dictated to us from experts on a Wiki.

[Mrmoc7]

The cool thing about Wikipedia is it's *accessibility* to most folks. Science journals aren't tasked with living to this responsibility.

[merdufer]

how hard is it to see this is completely BS?

wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a secondary resource. you can't post your own research and opinions onto wikipedia.

wikipedia needs to be completely revamped in order to do a tiny fraction of what peer reviewed journals do. maybe that's what they'll do, i don't know. as it is right now that's deluded talk.

[wimscheers]

And thats just an outsiders first idea, I think the world brightest might come up with something more efficient and sophisticated to help the most important thing in the world to improve. After all, what are we but hairless apes without science? Without knowledge?

[wimscheers]

Wikipedia? My ass. But yes, it's time the scientific journals stopped their BS paperwork and start using cutting edge technology. Hell, they produced it. Slam it online. One big forum. Main article, post reviews, post replies, ask question. Post revised/countering article and repeat process until something solid comes out and make it a sticky. Fast, smart and easy to use.

[TurboDally]

er....journals ARE accessible online :O I use sciencedirect to scour through various scientific journals.

[TheJawsusNSexmanShow]

why are 90% of the related videos about ufos and crazy people?

[CivilHuman]

Because there real.. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh

[merdufer]

maybe because youtube somehow knows that this speech is about as crazy as those...

[Chrisnoscrub047]

I've been waiting for a foratv update.

[ForaTv]

What kind of update?

[Chrisnoscrub047]

lol. This kind of update. A new video.  I feel like I haven't seen one in a while.

[ForaTv]

Ok, well, we usually upload 3 - 5 a day. Should we do more than that? Thanks for watching, btw. :)

[Chrisnoscrub047]

hmm, maybe I haven't seen them because I've subscribed to so many more channels since I've subscribed to foratv, and when my newerly subscribed to channels post a new vid they take priority to your vids. I guess I'll just have to check your channel itself for updates and not rely so much on my homepage.

[fielsjd]

He never suggested that Wikipedia would replace anything.

[WhyNotTruth]

Fuck wiki editors. They are punk bitches who remove any changes they dont like.

[Aaberg123]

To be honest, I don't think the somewhat laymen peer-review we see on Wikipedia is sufficient to supply us with credible, reliable studies. If that was the case, we'd end up with all sorts of untested nonsense.

We are where we are now in science, due, in large parts, to well-working, ever critical peer-review.

I know this sounds elitist, but the pursuit of knowledge is just that!

[anubis2814]

However it could filter out a lot of the bad ideas, since you must have references these days, on wikipedia it will limit the amount of entries. Also if a scientist wants to use the knowlege, he or she will find out and edit the information. Peer review is expensive and getting at information if pricy and restrictive to persons who may have great ideas. Your idea could run a gambit online and then waste less time during peer review because it has been held to the highest scrutiny.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

this guys ego is obviously not any part of why he is advocating. Wiki may provide peer review for burgeoning science geeks but I agree with you, Peer review must be the standard.

[Mastikator]

Out with the old and in with the new :P

[1RadicalOne]

I sure hope not.