Talk:Science 2.0

Concerns about this article

I have some serious issues with this article at the moment, and I would invite interested editors to spend some time reviewing WP:NEU and other core Wikipedia policies. Currently, the article reads as a vague yet enthusiastic description of "Science 2.0", combined with a number of links to academic, non-profit, and commercial websites which are basically social networks for scientists. The Web 2.0 article shows what can be done with some more care and attention, but I do feel that "Web 2.0", for all its own issues, is much more tangible and has delivered more than "Science 2.0" which remains as far as I can tell, a buzzword. I'll take one of the sections here as a specific example, my comments in parentheses:

Open publishing

Peer review (needs internal linking) of scientific publications helps (is intended to?) to filter out bad science or to correct errors. Unfortunately (the author's POV) this is a slow process (citation?) and the actual publication is often months after its submission (POV that this is a bad thing).

By taking the papers themselves to the cloud (very difficult for a non-specialist to understand this phrase), they become much more accessible (no evidence to confirm that this is the case). More peers will have a chance to read and review the paper, which could potentially lead to higher quality and faster publication (but again, there is no evidence that this is happening and in fact trials of systems by the BMJ found that peer reviewers were NOT wiling to comment online).

In closing, I hope that authors who have contributed to this article will take this statement as encouragement to improve the article rather than as mean-spirited or harsh. I will post a link on the talk page of interested authors and check in; without dramatic improvement I think the article should be considered for deletion. It would a shame, and ironic, if an article about the improvement of publishing through open access could not be improved on wikipedia! --PaulWicks (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

we are a group of student that are maken a new entry for Science 2.0 for a course called "User Interfaces". each of the student that follow this course must help to improve the entry by adding information of by editing it. therefore i would like to ask you, to give us some time before you take a decision. User:Gutiz01

Ah, I see, that makes sense. Well, I'm happy that your coursework has brought you to Wikipedia, it's great to see new technologies deployed in the classroom. A strong recommendation I will make is that the article must be *a wikipedia article first* and *your coursework project second*. That means that regardless of who is editing the article, it should conform to the policies of Wikipedia. There are extensive guidelines available at the Community Portal on the left hand side of the page. I hope that learning these and putting them into practice will help give us all a better article, and I hope many of the students in your class go on to become editors of wikipedia for the future too! All the best --PaulWicks (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to edit. Hipocrite (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, it'd be great if you could register for an account so we could discuss things on your talk page. Even if this page is being completed by a class, shared IP's make it difficult to know exactly who one is talking to. I see a lot of work has gone into improving the article and adding citations. I still have concerns however, which are reflected in the "essay-like" tag I've added to the page:

• This reads like a school essay. e.g. "However, skeptics have raised some valuable questions: How will authorship be granted? How is data protected? How will quality be assured?"

I agree, and have tried to clean up this aspect of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.227.217.102 (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Other parts are not neutral, they express opinion, e.g. "This should accelerate the growth of knowledge. The availability of the information is supposed to increase and so is its quality."

This, and below can be improved, but it is difficult, because this is in part at least an emerging concept, with a lot of theory, and limited hard fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.227.217.102 (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Many phrases are journalistic, not encyclopedia, e.g. "Sharing is at the heart of science 2.0.", "Open data may sound idyllic, but there are some real, practical challenges to getting it done. For one thing, as most people who have ever published a blog realizes, not everything posted on the Internet gets noticed and utilized. Eisen puts it this way:"

I'm hoping that raising the profile of this article to other editors will get some additional pairs of eyes on the page. All the best, --PaulWicks (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of view and usages of "web 2.0" in science is not covered properly

I am clearly a strong believer in "web 2.0" technology in the context of supporting science and communication. Still, the article is not providing a broad overview on the topic and it is too focussed on "open" science topics rather than more neutral overviews of "web 2.0" in science. So, here a few suggestions on improving the article

• Please list reasons why people are using "science 2.0", which is IMHO not a buzz-word, but indeed a combination of "web 2.0" in the context of science.
  • Motivation for scientists? see e.g. here
  • Information explosion as mentioned here, and why web 2.0 is able helping in filtering and please note controversy

edit: we tried to involve this in our iteration of the wiki page, we added the Rabbit hole risk and the spigot risk, and involved the snowflake effect as part of a solution. - Group10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pega88 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Curation services, especially Distributed Annotation System and co, nothing a single person, or institute can handle, but the crowd can
  • Curation of data, check simply Wiki PubMed:Query:Wiki. Please note that there is also a controversy, especially in the contribution of scientists to such media (ping me if you need more references).
  • Integration and Annotation, e.g. Reflect and OnTheFly
• Please mention usage of web 2.0 in commercial settings and in industry.
  • What kind of consortia or collaborations exist? E.g., though not strictly web 2.0 itself, but working towards web integration, aka allowing web 2.0 inchi trust or see also FF discussion
  • Challenges from a legal and reimbursement aspect?
  • Data privacy issues for "Health 2.0" topics? E.g. PrivateAccess

Of course, there is much more to discuss and to add, and that is exactly the reason why this articles needs improvement from a broader audience! Best, science 2.0 regards, Dr. Joerg Kurt Wegner --JKW (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to edit. Hipocrite (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the list of examples I found in the history for these dates. Dualus (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Science 2.0 is more than open access publishing

Hi there, I am not a Wikipedia contributor but I was first to coin the term Science 2.0 and made it a registered trademark after people started using it in bad ways, like charging money for conferences or Old Media publishing articles saying Science 2.0 is open access, which is just a way for them to control the issue by controlling copyright - like using House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr.,Democrat from Michigan, to kill open access for NIH studies.

I know Berci, of course, and have been a fan of his writing, but I'd like to talk with people here about helping to get an accurate entry together.

At some point if the definition is not right, the wrong one becomes so prevalent that accuracy does not matter and I'd like to avoid that. Please write hank@ionpublicationsdotcom and let me know how I can help. I'm tickled you all went to this much work!

(I added in the USPTO entry as a reference but did not have access to the reference list so it is 'outside' the numbers and I moved SB to the top of the sources, because I don't think it's right for companies to be ahead of me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.216.188 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to edit. Hipocrite (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Link to Trademark Owner Of "Science 2.0" And Photo Of Registration Certificate

http://www.scientificblogging.com/science_20/what_science_20_no_one_else_seems_know http://www.scientificblogging.com/sites/all/modules/author_gallery/uploads/1378387531-science%202.0%20trademark%20copy%20small.jpg

There are legal issues involved here about ownership and usage of trademarks.The legal issue is that the internal standards that Wikipedia has established have not being followed on this page and the owner's legal rights are not acknowledged as the rules require.

Science 2.0 is a registered Trade Mark Of ION PUBLICATIONS LLC

Astrojed (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Astrojed (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be okay now. Dualus (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The newest editors have now determined that Wikipedia does not accept legal rights and are claiming Science 2.0 is a 'concept' and not a trademark. The creator and registered owner of Science 2.0 are no longer even acknowledged on this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Science 2.0 (talk • contribs) 01:52, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

Let's stop jargonizing this and hacking it up

There are things Science 2.0 is and is not - what it is not, is basically a Web version of 'Smurf' where it can change into anything anyone wants. It will be meaningless. It was, in its original form, four concepts for enhancing communication, collaboration, publication and participation but every time we try to bring it back to that some kook goes through and erases anything actually related to Science 2.0 and leaves some fuzzy conceptual nonsense that reads like a homework project.

The power of Wikipedia is that it is public but its greatest weakness is that anyone, even people who know nothing at all about Science 2.0, can hack up pages and leave them looking silly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Science 2.0 (talk • contribs) 17:44, June 30, 2011 (UTC)‎

I added some "Further reading" to make it less like a personal essay, but I'm not sure that section is supposed to come after References. Does anyone know whether the Manual of Style says before or after References for Further reading? I can't find any actual complaints of weasel words, so I'll remove that too. Dualus (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The title is appropriate?

Science 2.0 means science using web 2.0 technology. We will change its name when we have a new web technology? e.g. Web 2.1 ?

I suggest we use one of the following:

1. Open science 2. Content-based science (see http://content-based-science.org/)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.223.40.1 (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and major change in this article since February

See WP:COIN#Science 2.0 - the change in the lead is a major change in the content of the article by an editor with an obvious conflict of interest. The article's lead should summarise the article's content, and this article is not about Ion Publications. Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverted to previous paragraph here. I suspect this article needs much more work but I am only borderline interested in this subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The very first version of this article said (little more than) "Science 2.0 or Research 2.0 refers to the practice of using Web 2.0 techniques in science." The edit summary "this page is about a trademark and related commercial product" today is simply wrong. Note this is not the editor Science 2.0 that made this edit. Dougweller (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, not sure how I got dragged into a conflict of interest part since I basically try to keep it clean and not overrun with spam links - but it is also not a subset of Open Access and that was done by someone much higher at Wikipedia. I let the brand edit remain because it was done by someone with a lot more Wikipedia cred, it didn't read very well, though. Science 2.0 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Propose article move

There are two concepts being conflated here. One is the identify of a set of websites by a particular company, and together they are a product or service suite branded with the trademark "Science 2.0". Other sources talk about a concept called "science 2.0", which is a specific idea wherein the web 2.0 concept is applied to science, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the trademarked product or service. I propose that all information about the Science 2.0 product line be moved to Science 2.0 (website) and all information about the general concept stay here at Science 2.0. Some relevant policies are at WP:Disambiguation. One might notice that many of the discussions on this page raise issues which would be resolved by putting everything about the product on its own page. Does anyone have any objections to my making this move? Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Idea about two separate articles seems reasonable. Is Science 2.0 a type of collaboration between researchers? Or a product/service with a registered trademark? I'm still not clear about this. If the latter, in order for it to qualify as an article, it needs to pass all the usual Wikipedia tests: WP:NOTE, WP:GNG, WP:VERIFY and the whole kit and kaboodle, and can not be an advertising page. Please explain the thinking about this. I will try to research this subject more fully in the next few days.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Science 2.0 as a concept is notable. I am not sure about science 2.0 as a product, but I think that it might be easier to sort out if first the two articles were separated so that the sources for each can stand alone. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me. I also am not sure about the product. The problem for me is who would want to create an article about the product? I don't want to as I'm not convinced it's notable enough. Dougweller (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The stable version of the article since at least July 2011 has been an article talking about the product - see here. I do not want to participate in any discussion about the notability of the article's subject until the article only has one subject.

I would be happy to create the article about the product by moving all of the information about the product to Science 2.0 (website) and then if you like you can check that article for WP:N. Cool? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure there is any Wikipedia article truly "stable" (which is perhaps a good thing overall?). Yes please feel free to create the article you wish and we can take it from there.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense. The Science 2.0 broader concept came about well after the site, and its outline of the Science 2.0 concepts, existed. Since Wikipedia does not allow self-promotion, the Wikipedia page was created by someone interested in a broader concept and promoting something they created called Research 2.0. By ghetto-izing the real Science 2.0 to a different page, you are basically saying things only exist once they get a Wikipedia page. What should happen is creation of a Science 2.0 (concept) page rather than moving the real one. Anything else would be like forcing Wikipedia's entry on Wikipedia to Wikipedia (website) and the Wikipedia page on Wikipedia to be about the benefits of crowdsourcing information and links to a bunch of other sites that do it. If you read that original Science 2.0 concept page in the archive here, it is pretty bad, just promotional links and jargon, as the previous entries on the talk page discuss. Science 2.0 (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever happens -- one article, two articles -- it's on my to-do list to revamp one or both. Wikipedia's rules apply. If you need my help, please ask. Good luck.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I wrote a new lede for the science 2.0 concept article and I expanded some references, but I think other than that I did not make any big changes to either article. The content which was about the science 2.0 concept is now in the science 2.0 article, and content about the science 2.0 website or which sources do not connect to the term "science 2.0" is in Science 2.0 (website). I do not think I deleted any content and that all content is now in one of these two articles.

User:Science 2.0 - I read your concern and do not understand it. Could you please restate your reason for why the broad concept should not occupy this space?

Any other thoughts from anyone? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose this is the downside to Wikipedia. People looking here for Science 2.0 are going to think it was invented in 2008 by a computer scientist who talked about network theory, instead of in 2006 as a framework for collaboration, communication, publication and participation. This was a rather bad article that just got a lot worse because it wiped out the entire history of Science 2.0 - including the FAQ that outlined the entire history of Science 2.0. Again, this version is like writing a Wikipedia entry about Google and then claiming Google is about search engine theory. Science 2.0 (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I do not see either article -- Science 2.0, or Science 2.0 (website) -- getting much attention in terms of pageviews per day. For most people, this is a non-subject. I am not clear about what either article is about. I am not clear why the subject is notable -- so talking about the "entire history of Science 2.0" is rather vague to me. So I think we have a writing problem for both articles, and some kind of effort needs to be made to explain what these articles are about, if anything. Further, the article about the website has few references. Referencing, and sticking to sources, is the way to deal with these issues.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that if the rationalization to intentionally be wrong is 'the article won't get much traffic anyway' it isn't really serving the public. Someone with admin capability felt strongly enough to completely undo the facts on a topic, it's now somehow a subset of 'open access' and even the 'disputed' nomenclature has been removed to make it look like this article was written by someone who knows what they are talking about. Worse, now the Science 2.0 (website) is also wrong, because it now has links to a bunch of other websites that are not the Science 2.0 website at all, but rather Science 2.0 applications. This article now also violates the legal terms outlined on Wikipedia regarding ownership and registered trademarks because two editors apparently decided it is not a USPTO registered trademark but is instead a 'concept' that anyone Wikipedia editors want to let use can use. Science 2.0 (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a violation of legal terms because the "Science 2.0 as a concept" page is not using the trademark in a trade-related capacity. Like if you search for apple, the article that comes up is about the fruit, and there's a note at the top alerting readers to the company Apple Inc. This article is a description of the wider concept that researchers use the phrase to refer to. If there is a likelihood of confusion that affects the commerce of the Science 2.0 website or its organization, that's something that would be taken up with the researchers who use the phrase in the other context. ... discospinster _talk 21:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Apples existed before Apple, Inc. There was no Science 2.0 before Science 2.0. Again, it is like saying Google is a concept if people say 'I Googled it' and then taking over the Google page to be about search engines and eliminating any reference to Google. And then telling people they should take it up with the public who use the term incorrectly. This was clearly not a quality change. Wikipedia entries, for better or worse, are part of the public record and going out of the way to make one incorrect is not the quality standard editors should have.Science 2.0 (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

More references

Here is some more content about the concept of science 2.0 which could be incorporated into this article.

• Lin, Thomas (16 January 2012). "'Open Science' Challenges Journal Tradition With Web Collaboration". The New York Times. New York: NYTC. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 4 June 2012.
• Burke, Adrienne J. (20 May 2010). "Science 2.0 Pioneers". Seed (magazine). Retrieved 4 June 2012.
• Buckler, Grant (13 January 2009). "Science 2.0: New online tools may revolutionize research". CBC.ca. Retrieved 4 June 2012.
• Codina, Lluís (2009). "Science 2.0: Social networks and online applications for scholars". Hipertext.net (7). Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Retrieved 4 June 2012.

I hope that these help develop the article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Trademark

What's the point being made here? What Wikipedia policies or guidelines are being, if they are, ignored? Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Good question. Just because there is a trademark on a phrase it doesn't mean that it's not also used in other, non-trade-related contexts. ... discospinster _talk 21:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft is not used as a 'concept' nor is Google or Wikipedia. I am not saying that the editors behind this are Science 1.0 corporate media marketing people, but they are doing the work of Science 1.0 corporate media by making it look like Science 2.0 does not exist at all, it is just a vague concept. Even Web 2.0, which has been jargon-ized, has a link to the registered trademark and some effort to recount its actual history. The edits that have been done here were not due to a conflict of interest, they have reinvented history. Science 2.0 (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller. This looks totally confusing. Whether "Science 2.0" is a "registered trademark" is really not important about whether it can be included here in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)