iMechanica - iMechanica - Comments

I've used drupal along with

miket — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:11:53 -0400

I've used drupal along with other CMS over the years and since i've found ready made joomla sites with preconfigured modules it's really helped speed up development for customer sites.

I think it is not unsolvable problem.

Roozbeh Sanaei — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:39:00 -0400

This problem can be solved by giving some sort of credit to people who contribute to Science 2.0 mostly those who contribute to "WIKI-STYLE PAPERS".

Re: Science 2.0 or The Future of SCience

Biswajit Banerjee — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:30:00 -0400

Backreaction pointed me an excellent article by Michael Nielsen called The Future of Science.

I think it's worth a read.

Some quotes:

"The Newton-Leibniz controversy over who invented calculus occurred because Newton claimed to have invented calculus in the 1660s and 1670s, but didn’t publish until 1693. In the meantime, Leibniz developed and published his own version of calculus. Imagine modern biology if the human genome had been announced as an anagram, or if
publication had been delayed thirty years."

"The adoption and growth of the scientific journal system has created a body of shared knowledge for our civilization, a collective long-term memory which is the basis for much of human progress. This system has changed surprisingly little in the last 300 years. The internet offers us the first major opportunity to improve this collective long-term
memory, and to create a collective short-term working memory, a conversational commons for the rapid collaborative development of ideas. The process of scientific discovery - how we do science - will change more over the next 20 years than in the past 300 years."

"Science is an example par excellence of creative collaboration, yet scientific collaboration still takes place mainly via face-to-face meetings. With the exception of email, few of the new social tools have been broadly adopted by scientists, even though it is these tools which have the greatest potential to improve how science is done.

Why have scientists been so slow to adopt these remarkable tools? Is
it simply that they are too conservative in their habits, or that the new tools are no better than what we already have? Both these glib answers are wrong. We’ll resolve this puzzle by looking in detail at two examples where excellent online tools have failed to be
adopted by scientists. What we’ll find is that there are major cultural barriers which are preventing scientists from getting involved, and so slowing down the progress of science."

And of particular interest to iMechanica

"The problem all these sites have is that while thoughtful commentary on scientific papers is certainly useful for other scientists, there are few incentives for people to write such comments. Why write a comment when you could be doing something more “useful”, like writing a paper or a grant? Furthermore, if you publicly criticize someone’s paper, there’s a chance that that person may be an anonymous referee in a
position to scuttle your next paper or grant application.

To grasp the mindset here, you need to understand the monklike intensity that ambitious young scientists bring to the pursuit of scientific publications and grants. To get a position at a major University the most important thing is an impressive record of scientific papers. These papers will bring in the research grants and letters of recommendation necessary to be hired. Competition for positions is so fierce that 80 hour plus work weeks are common. The pace relaxes after tenure, but continued grant support still requires a strong work ethic. It’s no wonder people have little inclination to contribute to the online comment sites."

-- Biswajit

That I could do even before, so please see the change first !

Mike Ciavarella — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:31:13 -0400

michele ciavarella
www.micheleciavarella.it

You can start a wiki-review on contact mechanics.

Roozbeh Sanaei — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:50:23 -0400

You can start a Wiki-review on contact mechanics, I am going to
do similar in "protein engineering", Fortunately OpenWetWare is exactly related
to my subject!

Some news from WIKIMANIA / change in the system!

Mike Ciavarella — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:15:13 -0400

Wikimania 2008: Flagged Revisions with Philipp Birken

From “Flagged Revisions,” a presentation at Wikimania 2008 by Philip
Birken. In my opinion, flagged revisions realize the concept of stable
versions without making the article actually stable. We can get rid of
protecting articles that are experiencing heavy vandalism if we do
this, because an edit only updates to the public when it is flagged as
not-vandalism by a trusted user. However, vandals immediately see the
results of their edit for an hour, which is just ingenious.

Everyone meant something different by stable versions, so we called it
flagged revisions. This gives reader feedback on the quality of the
articles. Currently, you can make users by default see the most recent
flagged revision of an article. It enforces the four-eye principle.

Development of Stable Versions: It is the idea that the article is
finished. The concept is in printed encyclopedias and Nupedia. Ideas
early in Meta. Discussed since the beginning. Magnus Manski wrote a
tool to rate articles - FA, Good, A, B, Start, Stub. We now have
patrolled edits, active on Wikipedia.

In June 2006, we started. We asked Jimbo: “What’s up with stable
versions?” Jimbo said: “You’re right, let’s just do it.” We agreed on
basic parameters: No voting and 2. Keep it simple. He asked the board
if they would object. They said they wouldn’t. We hired a contractor to
implement stable versions. Erik Moeller had become a board member and
quality was one of his topics. We found Jorg Baach, he did the coding.
It was put on the SVN under flagged revisions, which stuck. Wikimedia
France gave 1,000 euro – the first international wiki. People started
working on it – mailing list wikiquality. Open beta in Feb 2008. Found
bugs. Now it is stable and on the German Wikipedia.

People flag and edit or they don’t. You don’t vote on it, you just
make sure the people who flag are trustworthy. One flag is enough to
get it approved.

Ongoing problems:
• Too few developers
• No process for giving useful input
• Developers not present in content creation
• Not enough competence in design/usability
• Not enough leadership structure in local projects

Flagged Revisions
Two flags: sighed and quality. Editors can flag something as sighed,
reviewers can flag as quality. If desired, IPs see by default the last
sighted version instead of the current version. Can do it per wiki or
per page. Templates and Images are in this. If you flag an article, the
stable revision incorporates the template and images as they were then.
If an IP changes a template, that change will not be visible until
someone flags the template. How to incorporate comments in this system?
We were told not to think about it.

Sighed Versions: These are versions that are checked by an editor
for vandalism. Basic trust – automatic procedure for granting rights,
and any admin can give it. Misconception is that they are only about
vandalism. They are about forcing the four-eye principle. An edit has
to be checked. You guarantee a basic quality for readers: someone
trustable looked at it. Any edit that is done is logged in the system.
If an IP corrects a spelling a mistake, hordes of vandal fighters will
look at it now, but all that needs to look at it is one trusted vandal
fighter. Now, people concentrate on IPs, but what if you just created
an account? They won’t have the sighted privilege.

You can use a box to check the article. Can search for pages without
any sighted version, or pages where newer unsighted revisions are
waiting. You see the results of your change, but if you come back an
hour later, you will see the sighted version. Other people will see the
sighted version. The vandal sees the results of his vandalism, but no
one else will. Other people will see that there are new unsighted
versions and can see them, but will not see it on the main article.
With Magnus’s tool, you can get intersections with categories. These
are all the unsighted edits waiting in mathematics. It would take me
half an hour to look through all the math unsighted revisions.

Thanks mike but my problem is different

RoozbehSanaei — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:12:47 -0400

there are many forums in biochemistry (and in any other
topic)

http://www.scienceforums.net/

http://biowww.net/

http://www.molecularstation.com

... and many others that i dont know!!! i have to send my question to all of them.

QUAD-FORUM may be a good solution.

The problem is GOOGLE! (not intentionally)

RoozbehSanaei — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:10:58 -0400

It may be funny if I say MOST OF OUR PROBLEM IS FROM OUR SEARCH MOTORS and Indexing System. but it is!.

putting material in wikisource.

RoozbehSanaei — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:10:28 -0400

Putting shareworks in wiki-source is beneficial for those who dont know imechanica.

our problem is integration!!

RoozbehSanaei — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:04:55 -0400

Having a general index system for web 2.0 is very beneficial.

Science 1.0 vs. Science 2.0

RoozbehSanaei — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:02:59 -0400

In fact Science 1.0 and Science 2.0 can live toghether, both of them have advantages and disadvantages.

link between imechanica and wikipedia may be a better solution.

RoozbehSanaei — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:56:29 -0400

Advantages and diadvantages.

RoozbehSanaei — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:54:09 -0400

Athough i had not a positve attitute about it at first, i found it very useful and interesting in many aspects, but forum of imechanica is much nicer.

Wikimania: Maybe we should all go to this conference in Egypt!

Mike Ciavarella — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:13:28 -0400

Main Page
Wikimania 2008 Alexandria :: Change the shape of wisdom

Jump to: navigation, search

العربية Беларуская (тарашкевіца) Česky Dansk Deutsch English Español فارسی Suomi Français Italiano 日本語 한국어 Latviešu ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ Occitan Polski Português Русский Türkçe Tiếng Việt ‪中文(简体)‬ ‪中文(繁體)‬ Add translation

Alexandria, Egypt • July 17–19

Welcome to the official website for Wikimania 2008! Alexandria will be hosting Wikimania 2008 this Summer in the prestigious new Library of Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina).

What is Wikimania?

Wikimania is a regular conference for all Wikimedians who contribute to one of the many Wikimedia Foundation projects. Past conferences have been held in popular cities around the world such as Frankfurt, Germany (Wikimania 2005 website), Boston, USA (Wikimania 2006 website) and Taipei, Taiwan (Wikimania 2007 website). (more...)

Wikimania 2008 planning

General details

Registration is now open!
Sign up now for Transportation assistance from the airport!
The schedule of the conference is being planned
Team
Contact us
Preliminary program is available. Please leave comments here.

Pictures

Want to help us?

List of advertisements that you can place on your website or personal blog!
If you blog about Wikimania, tag with "wikimania2008".
You can talk with other people about Wikimania on IRC.

Coordination

Wikimania Committees structure
Preparation Meetings on IRC
- Next meeting: June 15, 1800 UTC – Program committee
- Last meeting: 2008-05-17 13:00 UTC – Program committee

From Previous Wikimanias

Taipei, Taiwan (2007) • Boston, USA (2006) • Frankfurt, Germany (2005)

Alex Schenck: "Raise your hand here if you have edited Wikipedia"
Larry Pieniazek: "Does that include vandalizing?"

(See another)

Retrieved from "http://wikimania2008.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page"

Category: Main Page

Roozbeh, I am glad you appreciate I found that, and I can tell..

Mike Ciavarella — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 06:03:29 -0400

.. you my system to find out things is certainly NOT google search.

I use google search very seldom these days.

I read widely in the good literature, nature, newspaper, general topics in economics not only in my specialized field. I have "google reader" and "google alert" to many topics of interest. These are much more powerful than simple Google

For example, this OpenWetWare I found in a reference to a Scientific American article, which I also posted, Science2.0.

So I suggest you do the same, keep reading broadly.