维基学院讨论:研究范围

页面内容不支持其他语言。
来自维基学院

维基学院社群需要决定出政策和指引 以定义在维基学院之内容许之研究活动. 维基学院应否容许所有类型研究? 或应只容许某些研究?

研究之类型[编辑源代码]

  1. 集中于文献回顾, 而不产生新知识、资料或理论的研究计划。此等项目符合维基媒体基金会的一般规则 NPOV 及NOR。
  2. 集中于文献回顾, 而且产生(未正式发表的)新知识的文献回顾。 Such projects would be excluded from the conventional Wikimedia Foundation NPOV and NOR rules.
  3. research projects that use research methods in addition to literature review and which produce results that have not been previously published by a reliable source. For example, a research project of this type might involve design of a questionnaire and the collection of data from wiki participants (another example).
  4. collaborative research projects involving researchers at scholarly institutions outside of Wikiversity. A research project of this type might involve data collected by an observatory and analysis of the data by Wikiversity participants (example).

讨论总结[编辑源代码]

See: Wikiversity:Scope of research/Zh

1 英文总结[编辑源代码]

Slightly shortened version of the first section of this page.

2 德文[编辑源代码]

  • 指出文学回顾不是真正地研究。
  • 建议各语言的维基学院选择它自己的研究方法, 而非所有维基学院共用一套研究政策。

3 英文[编辑源代码]

  • Pointed to Wikiversity:Research/En for instructions from the Board of Trustees about how the entire Wikiversity community needs to develop a unified research policy.
  • Stressed the distinction between forms of literature review as practiced at Wikipedia under the policy of No Original Research and other forms of research that would not be possible if Wikiversity also adopted the No Original Research policy.

4 德文[编辑源代码]

  • Discussion at IRC #wikiversity-en came to the conclusion that there are two research categories: "comparative research" and (single-focus?)/"active research"
    • I suggest the term advanced research, d'apres Institute for Advanced Study. The word advanced invites the connection advancing.--Hillgentleman 11:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

5 德文[编辑源代码]

  • 德文中"原始研究" 和 "次生研究" 各为 empirische Forschung及 Literaturstudium und Dokumentation (即 empirical Research 及 Literature study and Documentation).
    • The term empirical does not quite include such things as logical deductions.--Hillgentleman 11:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 建议如果维基学院采取禁止原始研究之政策, 则其名应被改为 维基书院.

新讨论[编辑源代码]

If we adopt the German suggestion (see #2 German) that each Wikiversity research project be allowed to adopt its own optimal research methods then all types of original research methods would be allowed at Wikiversity. We would then need to define Wikiversity policies that will protect Wikiversity from all of the potential problems that would arise from allowing original research in a Wikimedia Foundation project. In particular, how do we prevent cranks from adding bogus research to Wikiversity and, in general, how does the Wikiversity community assure high-quality research? Does Wikiversity need a formal peer review system for original research? --JWSchmidt 11:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

But what is bogus research? Who decides? Also, Germany has different classifications in the kinds of research - things like "Grundlagenforschung", basic research that doesn't have to pay for itself and "angewandte Forschung", applied research which often is just a name for research done for a company that is paying handsomely for a professor to say what they want.

Literature surveys can very well be research, as can putting together thoughts on any particular subject. For example, next year I am co-chairing a conference on computing and soceity. We want to have people put position papers in a wiki, change them if necessary before the conference, take notes during the conference, just in general produce a pile of interlinked text, then define a selection of pages and an order on the pages and automatically produce a book and a pdf to be offered for sale and for free online. That would be the production of knowledge, i.e. collecting ideas on topic X in one place. We are installing our own version of MediaWiki because I am a bit leery of using the Wikiversity for this, but I do believe that this would be a great place to do this kind of research. --WiseWoman 20:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

in 2 -- german, I'm not clear on what is meant by literature "reviews." There's a tremendous amount of work done in what used to be callled Literaturwissenschaft in the German-speaking countries, and so I can't imagine that this discussion is saying that literary scholarship isn't scholarship... can this be clarified? --70.32.180.118 01:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is "Literature science" a good translation of "Literaturwissenschaft"? What do you think about moving ahead with an attempt to figure out new policy for how Wikiversity could be open to essentially all types of research activities? I do not see that anyone has yet suggested that Wikiversity should prevent any particular type of research. --JWSchmidt 03:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"But what is bogus research? Who decides?" <-- A traditional method to decide on the quality of research is to make use of a peer review system. Every wiki automatically employs an informal type of peer review. However, the informal Wikimedia peer review process relies on citation of published sources. This traditional Wikimedia peer review process does not work for original research. I think peer review of research should involve a "formal" peer review system because the informal method that is typical of wiki-based peer review is not adequate for dealing with original research. In my opinion, devising a system for formal peer review of original research is what we need to do if we expect the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to ever allow original research at Wikiversity. Also, I think we do need to think carefully about different types of research. The use of some research methods is simply not possible for Wikiversity participants. We should identify the types of research activities that make sense for Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 21:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Research versus Publishing-- Research and publishing are two different processes. Research is acquiring knowledge in any way one can find. Publishing is communicating the new knowledge to the public. I discuss them seperately.

  • Research -- I do not see much harm in total freedom, apart from wasting computer memory. Even if a completely bogus group writes up some bogus material, they still need to pass the test of publishing.
  • Publishing -- In the beginning, scholars in the wikiversity should publish their results in established scholarly journals. That establishes the credibility of wikiversity. After a long time - probably years - the scholars in wikiversity can have enough credibility to establish their own journals or pre-print archives or any publishing device.

o If some established scholars join the wikiversity and become active, they can accelerate the above process. --Hillgentleman 19:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

参见[编辑源代码]

Reading[编辑源代码]

Talk page?[编辑源代码]

Um, is this the talk page or an article?--Rayc 13:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This "talk page" is part of a multlingual discussion. We do the English language discussion on this page and we are supposed to post summaries of the discussions from this page on the main English page. We can create additional pages to facilitate our discussions if needed. --JWSchmidt 16:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, it just looked like this had been pasted over with a non-talk page, since none of the stuff is signed.--Rayc 05:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
"pasted over with a non-talk page" <-- yes, that was the origin of this page. --JWSchmidt 19:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Academic journal entries?[编辑源代码]

Hello. A while back I founded a wikia for the purpose of writing academic journals (http://academia.wikia.com). My impression is that merging that project with this one would benefit both by expanding the scope of the Wikiversity project and generating significantly more attention to the wiki-based academic journals. It would also help to ensure that original research developed on Wikiversity would undergo a thorough peer-review process before being validated. I'm interested in people's opinions regarding such a proposal. Owen 19:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dnwk: why review is not a research?[编辑源代码]

  • #2 德文:指出文学回顾不是真正地研究。

    why review is not a research? 那么文学评论有什么用处呢？--Dnwk 06:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    1. Dnwk, We may try to find the original speaker to ask (but it may not be easy).
    2. 文献回顾当然有用。据我理解，此处要指出的是德文 forschung与英文research 在理解、应用甚或概念上有别。--Hillgentleman|书 11:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
取自“https://zh.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity_talk:研究范围&oldid=54811”