Talk:SklogWiki
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Cleanup message
Bot identified the article as needed cleanup and put the relevant maintenance tags. Please fix the identified problems. If you think the maintenance tags were put in error then just revert the bot's edits. If you have any questions please contact the bot owner.
Yours truly AlexNewArtBot 00:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Proposed deletion
"It is proposed that this article be deleted, because of the following concern: No claims of notability, no independent sources, Special:Statistics page not impressive either."
Dear Wickethewok,
with respect to your 'proposed deletion notice' I should like to address your concerns;
No claims of notability
I am not sure how one defines notability, but the fact that SklogWiki is one of the few scientific wiki in existence is somewhat notable in itself. The scientific community is very reluctant to partake in wiki projects. Quoting from an article in 'The Register' (Scientists shun Web 2.0):
"Science publishers' efforts to have the research community sup the Web 2.0 Kool-Aid have failed, and scientists have given a resounding thumbs down to a gamut of crowd-tapping initiatives, showgoers at SXSW heard on Saturday. A panel of science web publishers said scientists had consistently shunned wikis, tagging, and social networks, and have even proven reticent to leave comments on web pages."...
No independent sources
See: MOSSNOHO.
Statistics page not impressive either
I suspect that the statistics page will never be impressive, especially if one is accustomed to the Wikipedia environment. Given that SklogWiki is of a specific nature, directed towards a specialised branch pf physics/chemistry, it will never attract an impressive number of edits, users, or pages. However, this should not be taken as a benchmark of its appeal, usefulness or importance within the appropriate context. The number of persons that are able to contribute usefully to SklogWiki are few. This will always be a limiting factor in its growth (see the computer science article 'Assessing the Value of Coooperation in Wikipedia').
With respect to the quality of SklogWiki, this is of prime importance; SklogWiki is part of an overall project funded partly by the European Commision, and partly by the local government. It is maintained by a team of professional scientists. Such criteria are important, although it will naturally result in a culling of unimportant material.
So, if it is felt that the inclusion of the SklogWiki entry in Wikipedia is unwanted/unwarranted, then please feel free to delete it. However, given the sparse number of scientific wiki projects in existence, I do feel that SklogWiki's modest contribution is indeed important and noteworthy.
All the best
Carl McBride.
PS: categories have now been added.
- Notability is more or less defined at the essay found here: WP:N. I've nominated this for deletion, feel free to discuss it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SklogWiki. Wickethewok 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
