Original research as a fertile ground for Citizendium?

[Daniel Mietchen]

Background here. Quote:

Andrew Grove, the computer scientist who brought microprocessors to the masses at Intel Corporation, likens traditional peer-review systems to Middle Ages guilds. He calls for a “cultural revolution” in publishing to reinvent peer review.[5]
That revolution will emerge as a variant of Wikipedia. Medical publishing, peer review, research, patient care, and commerce will be transformed. And for the better.

I concur with this view and think that CZ is currently the "variant of WP" in the best position to help this change get momentum, as it provides the context for many activities, including what came to be known as "original research". We have most of the ingredients, and adding in a separate namespace for original research may go a long way, and integration of this with the main namespace provides for a perspective of long-term growth of expert-created content that may, if it passes some yet undefined thresholds in quality and quantity, itself lure in more experts.

[Daniel Mietchen]

A more elaborate article on the same topic is at http://jopm.org/index.php/jpm/article/view/11/21 - with plenty of overlap to the currently ongoing charter discussion here, including the concept of expertise, or reputation systems.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Background here. Quote:

Andrew Grove, the computer scientist who brought microprocessors to the masses at Intel Corporation, likens traditional peer-review systems to Middle Ages guilds. He calls for a “cultural revolution” in publishing to reinvent peer review.[5]
That revolution will emerge as a variant of Wikipedia. Medical publishing, peer review, research, patient care, and commerce will be transformed. And for the better.

I concur with this view and think that CZ is currently the "variant of WP" in the best position to help this change get momentum, as it provides the context for many activities, including what came to be known as "original research". We have most of the ingredients, and adding in a separate namespace for original research may go a long way, and integration of this with the main namespace provides for a perspective of long-term growth of expert-created content that may, if it passes some yet undefined thresholds in quality and quantity, itself lure in more experts.

We might do well to formalize, as a first step, our ideas of expert synthesis and contextualization, which really are a part of our process today.

[Matt Innis]

A more elaborate article on the same topic is at http://jopm.org/index.php/jpm/article/view/11/21 - with plenty of overlap to the currently ongoing charter discussion here, including the concept of expertise, or reputation systems.

I think the idea of online reputation has merit, especially when in an environment where there are many authors on the same article.   Basically, the author that most people "can't find fault with" will probably have more edits that stick.  It would mean that the author probably sources his/her work well, or is good at compromising.

[Matt Innis]

I suppose the drawback would be that people will not want anyone to edit "their" work, because it will damage their online "reputation."

The collaborative process might take a hit.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

I suppose the drawback would be that people will not want anyone to edit "their" work, because it will damage their online "reputation."

The collaborative process might take a hit.

Collaboration need not be the model for everything -- it could, for some work, be accept/reject, with the equivalent of signed articles.

[Daniel Mietchen]

On a related note - how to deal with all nonsense that people tend to add to open platforms once they pass a certain usability threshold? - John Wilbanks proposes to use "branding" by trusted experts (upon meeting some quality criteria) and to provide means to filter search results on the basis of whether or not they have been branded, or by whom (see ca. 1:12:00 into the video at http://seraph.cchmc.org/mediasiteex/Viewer/?peid=85128801fe794187b024550079a4f10d ).

Combine this (think CZ:Approved_Articles) with some reputation system as discussed above (e.g. WikiTrust) would certainly turn any platform into a valuable knowledge resource once it offers a minimum amount of content (CZ is not there yet).

[Matt Innis]

On a related note - how to deal with all nonsense that people tend to add to open platforms once they pass a certain usability threshold? - John Wilbanks proposes to use "branding" by trusted experts (upon meeting some quality criteria) and to provide means to filter search results on the basis of whether or not they have been branded, or by whom (see ca. 1:12:00 into the video at http://seraph.cchmc.org/mediasiteex/Viewer/?peid=85128801fe794187b024550079a4f10d ).

Combine this (think CZ:Approved_Articles) with some reputation system as discussed above (e.g. WikiTrust) would certainly turn any platform into a valuable knowledge resource once it offers a minimum amount of content (CZ is not there yet).

It also adds a whole new dimension on the concept of using "verified sources."  Imagine levels of quality that reference only sources that have a certain "brand" level.  These are definitely the wave of the future.  It looks like traditional peer review is on its way out, though we're still years away from that.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

On a related note - how to deal with all nonsense that people tend to add to open platforms once they pass a certain usability threshold? - John Wilbanks proposes to use "branding" by trusted experts (upon meeting some quality criteria) and to provide means to filter search results on the basis of whether or not they have been branded, or by whom (see ca. 1:12:00 into the video at http://seraph.cchmc.org/mediasiteex/Viewer/?peid=85128801fe794187b024550079a4f10d ).

Combine this (think CZ:Approved_Articles) with some reputation system as discussed above (e.g. WikiTrust) would certainly turn any platform into a valuable knowledge resource once it offers a minimum amount of content (CZ is not there yet).

Another nonsense-detection mechanism, I believe, lies in the use of non-orphaning and volume-of-article management principles. This is not to say that some truly new concept may not deserve to enter, but I think we've found that some of the fringe advocates avoid linking their articles to and from related and especially parent ones, have minimal internal wikilinks, have questionable references (vanity presses, etc.), and are 'de novo ' articles where (in the traditional wiki) when they would more plausibly be improvements to existing articles. They may come in a large batch.  All these factors tend to overload the checking process.

[Matt Innis]

Another nonsense-detection mechanism, I believe, lies in the use of non-orphaning and volume-of-article management principles. This is not to say that some truly new concept may not deserve to enter, but I think we've found that some of the fringe advocates avoid linking their articles to and from related and especially parent ones, have minimal internal wikilinks, have questionable references (vanity presses, etc.), and are 'de novo ' articles where (in the traditional wiki) when they would more plausibly be improvements to existing articles. They may come in a large batch.  All these factors tend to overload the checking process.

To take that a step further, I think some fringe is perfectly capable of being linked to other articles, but their wiki advocates don't know how.  In contrast, when, after a noble search with an objective eye, it can't be linked to anything, it could be construed to be one step closer to being nonsense.