timtyler comments on Scholarship: How to Do It Efficiently - Less Wrong

113 Post author: lukeprog 09 May 2011 10:05PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (141)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: timtyler 11 May 2011 09:59:42AM *  0 points [-]

It's ridiculous that wikipedia is more structured and useful that most of the academic literature. I would like to start some kind of academic movement, whereby we reject closed journals, embrace the open source mentality, and collaborate on up-to-date and awesome wikis on every modern research area.

That sounds rather like Scholarpedia's plan: http://www.scholarpedia.org/

Comment author: Perplexed 11 May 2011 12:40:23PM *  3 points [-]

... academic movement, whereby we reject closed journals, embrace the open source mentality, and collaborate on up-to-date and awesome wikis on every modern research area.

That sounds rather like Scholarpedia's plan

Not completely. And working through the fine print of my disagreement here helps to show just how rich the field of possibilities is for an alternative to the current system.

In some ways, Scholarpedia is more closed than the current print journal system. After all, anyone can start a journal - there are journals of intelligent design studies, for example. But it probably would not be possible to get Dr. Izhikevich's approval for an encyclopedia of ID under the scholarpedia umbrella, nor to get the curator to allow an ID-promoting article into Scholarpedia's evolution encyclopedia. Scholarpedia promotes open access for readers, but not for authors.

There is also some question of whether Scholarpedia embraces the open source mentality - there is the whole complicated question of derivative works.

Comment author: timtyler 11 May 2011 02:07:00PM *  0 points [-]

Intelligent design seems to have found an online home here.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 May 2011 02:45:49PM *  1 point [-]

One difficulty with having "awesome wikis on every modern research area" (e.g., waffling) is that there just aren't enough people in the intersection of people who are on the frontier of waffling and people who want to contribute to the waffling wiki.

For a more concrete example, the DispersiveWiki basically runs on the fame of Tao alone. In the past thirty days, his was the only non-userpage edit. The Tricki is another example, this time running off of Gowers' fame.