Proposal talk:Get more serious about promoting research on Wikiversity

I think this is a good idea, and propose an extension. If researchers were given the ability to manipulate aspects of Wikipedia, it would be a good avenue for research that could benefit Wikipedia. For example, it's just not easy to know if one method of editing is better than another unless some users are randomly assigned to different conditions. If researchers were allowed finer grained control, I think that some good scientific research could result. Furthermore, I'd think that researchers would be intrigued by such a potential real-world experimental test-bed, which could result in a high caliber of research. Twocs 16:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is not clear at all: what kind of peer review are you suggesting? Is this the only proposal? I can only understand the problem you feel, not your proposed solution. Please improve the proposal. Nemo 09:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is completely unclear. - Brya 13:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would say Graham E. Green sugested research pear review.--Juan de Vojníkov 17:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

further info: wikiversity:Wikiversity:Peer review + wikiversity:Wikiversity:Review board, --Erkan Yilmaz 16:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impact?

Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are two impacts, 1. the promotion of research, will create the opportunity for community members to promote their own ideas, and thus will allow WV to present more current information in their courses. and 2. The links with Academia required to do review on novel projects will increase the perception that WV is a good location to go for educational content.--Graeme E. Smith 18:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

peer review

"encourage .... peer review" <-- There is some related discussion at Proposal talk:Improve interfacing with academia. See these comments. --JWSchmidt 16:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this page, I didn't have it bookmarked and couldn't find a link back to it.

Peer Review is only one of the aspects of this proposal, but since it is the one that has garnered the most interest, we have to consider what we want in the way of an outcome when we propose peer review. In Wikiversity, what we want is to build a global educational resource. Unlike other projects we want to promote original content.

As a non-academic researcher, my own particular problem is that when I prepare a paper, there is no one to submit it to, for review. While it is part of wikiversities mandate to have peer review, there doesn't seem to be much community involvement in the process of review. There have been suggestions of preparing a page for submitting articles, but no consensus on what to do with the articles after they are submitted.

Ideally, I would submit a page for review by putting its link onto the submission page, then, in the talk page associated to my article, a number of reviewers who understood the nature of my work, would comment on it, make suggestions about how it could be improved, comment on the quality of the science involved, and generally help me whip it into shape, or convince me to go back and do some more research, and rewrite it to include the new research. In a sense this is a little like the review process for a thesis, in that the thesis advisor recruits people he feels can help the student refine the thesis, and they kibitz the thesis before it's final stage.

Now we get into a problem area, in that there may not be all that many scientists that can actually review my work, the problem becomes who to recruit for reviews, and how to recruit them. Since there is no mechanism yet created for a research mentor to take on the role of a thesis advisor, who is recruited, and who recruits them. Are we limited to the voluntary rating system where people who don't understand the paper, are the deciders of whether it passes review or not, such as found in researchGATE and scientific solutions, or can we recruit actual academics from other varsity sources, to do a review, and how long should we expect it to take? Without recruitment review might take months or years.

I am not trying so much to promote a specific type of review, as to request that we put more emphasis on solving the problems of review.--Graeme E. Smith 18:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack in personnel

Well, I think that we can have research at this time. But the major problem is, there are not enough participants. In Wikipedie it doesnt matter the delay between editing one page, but in Wikiversity so.--Juan de Vojníkov 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, perhaps there can be more outreach done? I mean depending who does the outreach (WMF, ...) there could be attracted knowledgable people (besides also editors from non-Wikiversity projects could gain interest), --Erkan Yilmaz 16:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]