Wikiversity talk:Scope of research/Zh
Add topic
維基學院社群需要決定出政策和指引 以定義在維基學院之內容許之研究活動. 維基學院應否容許所有類型研究? 或應只容許某些研究?
研究之類型
[edit]- 集中於文獻回顧, 而不產生新知識、資料或理論的研究計劃。此等項目符合維基媒體基金會的一般規則 NPOV 及NOR。
- 集中於文獻回顧, 而且產生(未正式發表的)新知識的文獻回顧。 Such projects would be excluded from the conventional Wikimedia Foundation NPOV and NOR rules.
- 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).
- 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).
討論總結
[edit]See: Wikiversity:Scope of research/Zh
1 英文總結
[edit]Slightly shortened version of the first section of this page.
2 德文
[edit]- 指出文學回顧不是真正地研究。
- 建議各語言的維基學院選擇它自己的研究方法, 而非所有維基學院共用一套研究政策。
3 英文
[edit]- 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
[edit]- 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
[edit]- 德文中"原始研究" 和 "次生研究" 各為 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)
- 建議如果維基學院採取禁止原始研究之政策, 則其名應被改為 維基書院.
新討論
[edit]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)
參見
[edit]- Research - Source documents concerning research within Wikiversity
- Secondary research - research into a topic using the method of literature review
- Original research - unpublished research into a topic using literature review and/or methods in addition to literature review
- Wikiversity translations - project to support translations of policy discussions.
- Research guidelines - Main page; what rules are needed to assure that only high quality, scholarly research activities take place?
- Research guidelines - English language page; Wikiversity policy to replace No original research (NOR).
Reading
[edit]- The Literature Review by Dr. Thomas Budd
- Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources by Gary Wiggins
- Primary and Secondary research - in the context of social science research
- The invisible hand of peer review by Steven Harnad
- Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial by Elizabeth Walsh, et al
- Wiki Journal - Peer-reviewed publishing in a wiki environment.
- Original research - article at Wikipedia
- Review board - ideas for formal peer review at the English language Wikiversity.
Talk page?
[edit]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)
- 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)
Academic journal entries?
[edit]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?
[edit]
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)#2 德文:指出文學回顧不是真正地研究。
- Dnwk, We may try to find the original speaker to ask (but it may not be easy).
- 文獻回顧當然有用。據我理解，此處要指出的是德文 forschung與英文research 在理解、應用甚或概念上有別。--Hillgentleman|書 11:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)