Difference between revisions of "Archaeopedia:About"
(New page: == About Archaeopedia == What is the role of a Wiki in science? Some are advocating the science communication move on-line - see [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0 S...) |
(→About Archaeopedia) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
== About Archaeopedia == | == About Archaeopedia == | ||
What is the role of a Wiki in science? | What is the role of a Wiki in science? | ||
| − | Some are advocating | + | Some are advocating that science communication move on-line - see: [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-new-tool-or-great-risk - Is Open Access Science the Future?] by M. Mitchell Waldrop in ''Scientific American''. In that concept, scientific results would be available in a form where a community of insiders would be able to contribute criticisim / corrections / additions. |
| − | A commentor on that article said "Blogs and | + | A commentor on that article said "Blogs and wikis are the digital equivalents of hallway conversations at a conference or a lab meeting, but you are a long way from replacing journals. You don't get points for making a statement in science unless you can prove that statement." |
We do aim to be more than a hallway conversation. But what in particular - some direction or just where contributors take it? | We do aim to be more than a hallway conversation. But what in particular - some direction or just where contributors take it? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Any comments? | ||
| + | |||
| + | <html><a href="mailto://webmaster@archaeopedia.com">webmaster@archaeopedia.com</a></html> | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Archaeopedia]] | ||
Latest revision as of 16:55, 14 July 2010
About Archaeopedia
What is the role of a Wiki in science?
Some are advocating that science communication move on-line - see: - Is Open Access Science the Future? by M. Mitchell Waldrop in Scientific American. In that concept, scientific results would be available in a form where a community of insiders would be able to contribute criticisim / corrections / additions.
A commentor on that article said "Blogs and wikis are the digital equivalents of hallway conversations at a conference or a lab meeting, but you are a long way from replacing journals. You don't get points for making a statement in science unless you can prove that statement."
We do aim to be more than a hallway conversation. But what in particular - some direction or just where contributors take it?
Any comments?
