[Web4lib] Wikipedia

[Chris Tinney]

It may be of interest to all involved in the Wikipedia
discussion, to note the professional journal online 
publication policy of BioPsychoSocial Medicine.
http://www.bpsmedicine.com/home/

"BioPsychoSocial Medicine however, has taken this further
by making all its content Open Access."
http://www.bpsmedicine.com/info/about/
. . .
"Submission of a manuscript to BioPsychoSocial Medicine
implies that readily reproducible materials described in the 
  manuscript, including all relevant raw data, will be freely 
available to any scientist wishing to use them for non-
commercial purposes."
http://www.bpsmedicine.com/info/instructions/default.asp

Respectfully yours, 

Tom Tinney, Sr. 
Who's Who in America, 
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004 
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions] 
Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directory 
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ 
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maryellen O'Brien <OBrien at law.ufl.edu> wrote:
  I thought this might be of interest: web4lib at webjunction.org 



Maryellen O'Brien, J.D., M.L.S.
Electronic Services/Reference Librarian 
Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center
Levin College of Law
University of Florida
P.O. Box 117628
Gainesville, FL 32611
(352) 273-0726


>>> "Alain D. M. G. Vaillancourt" 2/18/2007 12:15 PM >>>

> 
> "I love it how I can use Wikipedia to win just about any argument.. 
> and it only takes a few seconds to make the edit beforehand."
> 

That's really cute, but is it true?

Many of the basic articles are patrolled so tightly at such a high
frequency that such a self centered edit would be reverted in a matter
of seconds. Gotta be fast, real fast in saying and then acting out on
"heylookwikipediasaysImrightandyourewrong".

And then there's the 500 or so articles I've been watching for several
years. I just haven't seen that kind of edit, or what could be that
kind of edit very often.

On the other hand, in the last forty years or so I've seen a lot of
persons interpret a printed source as they wished to "prove" that they
were right and others were wrong. I've seen this in day to day
arguments as well as scholarly writings. 

My best source of fun in the latter comes from a study that came out as
an article titled "'Memex' as an image of potentiality in information
retrieval research and development" by Linda C. Smith. In her study
Linda C. Smith showed, by a thorough analysis of those articles which
cited Vannevar Bush's 1945 "As We May Think" article, that shcolars
quoted what they wanted in order to prove what they wanted regardless
of the original intent of the author, Vannevar Bush and the presence of
contradictory statments in other places in the text. 

Alain Vaillancourt

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Courriel vous offre la meilleure protection possible contre les messages non nollicités 
http://mail.yahoo.ca ( http://mail.yahoo.ca/ ) Yahoo! Courriel 
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib at webjunction.org 
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib at webjunction.org
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/