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)

So add a paragraph about the origin of the phrase. Don't just duplicate the Science 2.0 (website) article. If researchers use the phrase in a generic sense, apart from the website itself, then there's no reason there can't be an article on that use. Whether it's "incorrect" or not doesn't change the fact that it's used that way. ... discospinster _talk 02:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There was no Science 2.0 (website) article until someone changed this one to be meaningless and created that other one so why keep this mess? Science 2.0 is not and has never been some vague mumbo-jumbo about network theory or some subset of these other categories. That was wholly invented here on Wikipedia by people who spent no time learning about it. Saying 'that is how a few people now use it' is like saying the Evolution page should be changed to mean that as cars change each year, they have evolved and evolution is not actual biology, it should be on an Evolution (biology) page and Evolution should mean whatever people want. Terms have meaning and if Wikipedia promotes changing meanings to be incorrect, that isn't good for anyone. I recommended someone create a Science 2.0 (concept) site if there was really some movement for that - this new content should be on another page, not the other way around. Insisting on wiping out the history of Science 2.0 to promote this - what exactly, no one knows - makes no sense. If people would go back and read the somewhat flawed version and fix it, fine. Instead there are now two, both of which are junk. The (website) version is now about Science 2.0 apps that are not even part of the Science 2.0 set and this site doesn't even mention the actual Science 2.0 feature set or the origin. It would be funny if it weren't so embarrassing for crowdsourcing. Science 2.0 (talk) 02:56, 5 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)

And Science 2.0's response leaves me none the wiser. Unless he is saying that a trademarked phrase can't be considered to be a concept. Which doesn't make much sense to me. Our articles on Microsoft, etc don't mention a trademark, but what Science 2.0 has according to its website (and note that the links are not reliable sources as they are not to an official site) is not a trademark but a Service mark. Science 2.0 is clearly a concept as shown in a number of the sources. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a service mark, it is a registered trademark but the US Patent and Trademark Office does not allow direct linking to search results so the editor that added that in used a screenshot. The other sources are not authoritative regarding its conceptual nature, they are instead colloquializing the term to match their beliefs. That was the problem with the edits the other two editors did, there is basically no Science 2.0 when actual Science 2.0 is removed, it is instead vague philosophy about computer science or sharing data. Science 2.0 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I had trouble trying to understand what was the problem here, but after working on a revamp, and re-reading the talk page, I am getting a sense of what user Science 2.0 is talking about. And it gets to the whole idea of trademarks and names and common usage. And for the moment let us suppose that "Science 2.0" was first a trademarked name referencing a website (?), and then scientists and journalists and others began using the term "Science 2.0" for other purposes. I do not know if this was indeed the case; but, for now, let us suppose this is what happened.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

And perhaps I might illustrate a similar issue by using an example. Years back, the Xerox Corporation invented the word xerox as well as an electrostatic copier. The term was the brand name for the copier, it was the firm's name, and it was what the copier did: that is, the sentence "Xerox corporation invented the Xerox machine which made Xerox copies" could be said and would have been correct. While the machine became increasingly popular, Xerox (the company) found that people were more and more using the term "xerox" to mean "copying something", such as "Hey, could you please xerox this document" etc, and not necessarily referring to a Xerox machine or a Xerox-company inspired activity. Management realized it had a problem -- if enough people began using the term "xerox" as a verb unrelated to its business, it risked losing its control over this word and the brand name itself.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So the company embarked on a rather expensive and anticipatory defensive legal strategy: it took out advertisements with the heading "Xerox" versus "xerox" and asking people to respect that it was a trademarked term; if any prominent person such as a newspaper reporter or politician used the term "xerox" in print or in a book, the company would proactively send out letters asking them not to do so in the future. and it kept records of these letters (for possible later use if there was a courtcase involving the name). And, over time, the strategy worked (apparently). If you type "Xerox" or "xerox" in Wikipedia, the Xerox corporation appears.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Now, take the case with "Science 2.0". If this term was a trademark name, or a brand name for a website, then the company had a duty to protect it -- to inform people that it was a distinct brand name with special import, and to take aggressive action to remind people in public opinion that it was a distinct name. My sense is the term was not unique enough initially to enable solid protection -- it sounds like a course offering in college or high school. The term science is hard to "own"; the idea of "2.0" comes from many places; so merely linking the two terms, and then trying to say that this is somehow a unique term -- well it sure does not sound like a unique term (contrast with "Xerox" -- it was fresh, new, unlike anything in the past).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose what happened over the past seven years or so was that many writers (referenced in the current Science 2.0 article), used the term with a different sensibility, to suggest that Science 2.0 was a concept, a new more collaborative scientific approach using the web, similar to the Web 2.0 stuff. Back then, it was the duty of "Science 2.0" (the website) and its management to protect the term -- if it had reasoned that it was worth protecting -- and to have been responsible for teaching the public about its uniqueness. And, for whatever reasons, it does not seem to have accomplished that goal. When various writers in the web began using the term "Science 2.0" to describe many different aspects of science, then Science 2.0-the-website had a duty to try to stop them, or inform them -- at the source -- the primary source. Wikipedia, in contrast, is a secondary or tertiary source; it only picks up what is out there already in the web.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

When I came upon this topic a few days ago, I did numerous media sweeps for the term "Science 2.0". I did not find much information relating to it being a specific trademarked company. I did find a few mentions to the website which I listed and used as references. But, overall, my sense that the term "Science 2.0" is much wider than indicating a specific firm or website, rather, it is an umbrella term, similar in many respects to the term "Open science", referring to a broad range of approaches towards collaborative science. That is what the term means. Wikipedia is simply relating what is already out there from reliable sources. If, over time, the sense of the term "Science 2.0" goes back to referring to a specific website or firm, then Wikipedia will reflect that. Wikipedia does not invent new knowledge, or coin phrases; rather, it reflects what is understood in the world.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Good insight. I assume we don't want to encourage large companies that don't like science 2.0 or open science (open access is already companies generating 10s of millions annually so they are over the tipping point) to just colloquialize a term and then when they can't mount the legal defense of a company like xerox. Wikipedia does have search authority, it is number 3 in listings for the term, so there should be some effort at accuracy beyond skimming. As I noted, the earliest reference in this new article is 2008, 2 years after the site and the movement had become popular. Science 2.0 (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Still, and I think we agree, I don't think the case here was that Wikipedia was colloquializing the term. There are policies in effect which require contributors to this online encyclopedia to report what reliable secondary sources say -- newspapers, magazines, books, documentaries, as people know. The idea of Wikipedia is simply to reflect what the sources say.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Original research

I've removed bits of the article where the sources didn't mention Science 2.0, see WP:NOR. It's always been obvious that this was more of an essay than a Wikipedia article. Removed the paragraph of questions also as essay-like. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Website article taken to AfD

Not a bad idea, but I am not convinced the website is notable enough, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science 2.0 (website). Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Revamp

Given the tags, I revamped the article, working from references. My sense is the topic is notable, but that there is considerable discussion within the scientific community about how science should evolve, given Internet technologies, and my sense is there will still be considerable back-and-forth on this topic. I am not sure whether Science 2.0 (website) should have its own article, but I did come across many indications that it is being held in importance by established publications. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You're using a Science 1.0 print magazine article commissioned by a guy who wanted his name in a 'pioneers' list (along with Science and other print magazines that are clearly not Science 2.0) as an authority near the top and ignored the actual Science 2.0 because you seem to believe Science 2.0 existed before Science 2.0. It just didn't. As noted in the revision, the only controversy is you and one other editor on Wikipedia. The previous revision is not perfect but it does not begin with undocumented claims about a controversy and then Science 1.0 print publications re-framing it to be what they want.

How does it not meet the criteria at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS? This business about Science 1.0 print publications seems pretty irrelevant to our policies and guidelines and not something we should be taking into account here without reliable sources (which would probably be what you call 1.0, but that's life here on Wikipedia). Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The defense for rampant inaccuracy is policies and guidelines? There is almost nothing in this that is correct. Science 2.0 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you are saying? What specific lines do you feel are incorrect, and why?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a well written article, as I said before, but it is wrong. 'open science' didn't even exist when Science 2.0 originated. The four precepts do match up to open access, etc., but this stuff about making it a subset of open access was done by someone last November, without any discussion. The FAQ outlines the 4 aspects of the movement - communicating, collaborating,publishing and participating. So if you use that, it makes more sense. It also isn't controversial, outside this Wikipedia discussion. Your oldest source is 2008, after it had already become popular. The top two listings in a Google search are the actual Science 2.0 and why those were left out to use articles by Science 1.0 magazines two years later is unclear, so it makes the History section wrong. What I would do, since like I said the article is good except for three spots, is change that first paragraph a little, fix the history, and then under Proliferation use two examples of each of the 4 concepts in Science 2.0. Science 2.0 and Opennetware for communication, mendeley and researchgate for collaboration, BMC is much bigger in open access than PLoS but if Wikipedia is more American than international you could use PLoS and arXiv for publication and then GalaxyZoo and Foldit for participation. The pluses and drawbacks are good. Science 2.0 (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a well written article...Science 2.0 (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway: hey tom, you wrote a "well written article". Keep working on your metaphors. Go for a bare bones style. But you'll need to drink MUCH more beer and go to many more bullfights before you can write like moi. And catch real fish. And grow a mustache. -- Ernest

Hey thanks. You have excellent taste in literary style.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

as I said before, but it is wrong.Science 2.0 (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing??? :( --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"open science" didn't even exist when Science 2.0 originated.Science 2.0 (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That may have been true several years ago, but why is that relevant today?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The four precepts do match up to open access, etc., but this stuff about making it a subset of open access was done by someone last November, without any discussion.Science 2.0 (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Several sources use the term in ways to suggest that Science 2.0 (the concept) and Open access or Open Science are almost synonymous. See the 2012 NY Times article by Thomas Lin. One article is entitled "Science 2.0 -- Is Open Access Science the Future?" -- that is, both terms are used in the same headline. The article is listed in the category "Open access (publishing)". From another source: "Varmus is among a cadre of iconoclasts calling for immediate open access to scientific papers." In the article, clearly there are many areas in which Science 2.0 and "open access" and "open science" are highly similar. The sense is the terms are close to being interchangeable; if you're talking Science 2.0, you're talking Open Science, Open access. Doesn't matter which came first. It is what the sources say.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The FAQ outlines the 4 aspects of the movement - communicating, collaborating, publishing and participating. So if you use that, it makes more sense.Science 2.0 (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The FAQ -- what is that? A primary source? Then I can't use it. Please see WP:RS.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It also isn't controversial, outside this Wikipedia discussion.Science 2.0 (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The scientific controversy is: should science move in the direction of more open access, shared data, networking digitally among scientists? Or should science stick to the model of doing research in private, submitting it for publication, having a gatekeeper at a major journal screen submissions, and then publishing? There is serious disagreement within the scientific community about how to go about doing things. It is a major change in doing things. There is reluctance to switch. There are benefits from openness. Many of the articles about Science 2.0 had headlines with question marks in them. Trust me. It's controversial.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your oldest source is 2008, after it had already become popular.Science 2.0 (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

My sense is you're focused on what happened five years ago. What's important is: what is Science 2.0 today? These terms are rapidly evolving.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The top two listings in a Google search are the actual Science 2.0 and why those were left out to use articles by Science 1.0 magazines two years later is unclear, so it makes the History section wrong.Science 2.0 (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I remain unclear what you are getting at here or why results from a Google search are important.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What I would do, since like I said the article is good except for three spots,Science 2.0 (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So the article is no longer entirely wrong??? We're down to three spots? Okay, hey we're coming to a consensus perhaps??--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

...is change that first paragraph a little, fix the history, and then under Proliferation use two examples of each of the 4 concepts in Science 2.0. Science 2.0 and Opennetware for communication, mendeley and researchgate for collaboration, BMC is much bigger in open access than PLoS but if Wikipedia is more American than international you could use PLoS and arXiv for publication and then GalaxyZoo and Foldit for participation.Science 2.0 (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what this is about. Any specific statements such as those need specific sources. My problem with the article: needs more pictures or diagrams. I hate text-only articles. My pet peeve btw.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You said Google searches are not important above so how did you find your sources? You did not use a search engine? If you did, then Science 2.0 is at the top and their FAQ has the 4 categories so Science 2.0 was "precisely defined" but you insist it is not. It also isn't controversial, the only one denying the history of Science 2.0 seems to be you. On the Proliferation, like I said, they line up to some of the examples you used, but the way they are is a jumble and doesn't tell people about how they relate. But if it is shown that PLoS and BMC are open access, part of publication, etc. then it all makes more sense. I'm going to put the POV back in, I think it is a mistake that you keep removing it, since you wrote the article. And why use a picture of Ben Schneiderman, who dislikes Science 2.0, instead of the creator of Science 2.0, in an article about Science 2.0? Science 2.0 (talk)

I am still not clear what you are trying to say here. If somebody does a search on Google, and if an entry comes up second or seventh or twenty first or whatever position on the SERP page, then its position, by itself, is not really relevant here as I think everybody agrees. But of course people find things by using online searches. Again, perhaps you are not understanding this, but this article is not about the Science 2.0 website. It's about Science 2.0 -- an approach towards science which is indeed controversial (many sources indicating this). If your concern is about Science 2.0 (website), then you should be concerned with that article which is up for deletion. I do not think that anybody writing under the username "Science 2.0" should be writing on this article, or attaching or removing tags, until they disclose their relation with Science 2.0 (website). Ben Shneiderman wrote an important essay on the topic about Science 2.0 -- that is why his picture is there -- it is not a place to only include pictures of people who support or don't support a given approach.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have an account there, along with 5,000 other people. I also have one on Menedeley and ResearchGate. You are contending that transparency (like picking an obvious username) in science or in Science 2.0 is bad, which is further evidence you do not understand what Science 2.0 is. I started removing spam links a year ago but I didn't write anything there. The version edited by Doug is just better because it is cleaned up yet still neutral, it had links to actual Science 2.0 tools. This is not, you seem to be promoting journals and vague philosophy. You are going out of your way to deny the actual history and tenets of Science 2.0, this why this POV tag should stay. If there is conflict of interest, it seems to be you.Science 2.0 (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The pluses and drawbacks are good.(talk) 17:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Science 2.0 the concept and Science 2.0 the website are not the same

We really must stop confusing this. We can't use the website as the definition of the concept, and as the editor with the same name has some sort of relationship with the website which xhe still hasn't disclosed, until that is clearer they should not be doing any major editing here. And can we have proper threaded discussions please? Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)