Andrew Lang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O... - Andrew Lang

Very cool. I added a bunch of open notebook scientists. - Michael Nielsen

@Andrew if you haven't already, make sure you check out all the info on the Open Data page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O... - Richard Akerman

Richard, I used that as a template ;) I was looking for a page on open notebook science in particular and didn't find one, so I created one. Everyone feel free to add their contribution, I am not the expert. - Andrew Lang

Very nice - Deepak

Just added some material :) - Deepak

Be aware that this did exist before and got deleted by the powers that be. I think we've got a much greater case for it now but we need the set of references to the term in the 'real' media to hand when the editors come by... - Cameron Neylon

@Cam: I have been collecting such references here: http://www.simpy.com/user/senn... -- v. small collection so far, perhaps we could use this room to collect more? - Bill Hooker

@Cameron Ah I thought this had existed before, I wasn't sure whether I had imagined that or not. I actually did a few searches to see if I could find a deletion log but nothing showed up. - Richard Akerman

Jean-Claude will know but I think he originally put a page up about 12-18 months ago. Then it go redirected to 'Open Data'. I'm wondering how best to go about writing the article though - as I understand the Wikipedia guidelines both JC and I would be seen non-objective observers - is it better for us not to write any of it? Or restrict ourselves to the discussion page? - Cameron Neylon

@Bill - Jean-Claude also has a google search for 'open notebook science' piped through to an RSS feed I think which should capture a lot of the general media references. - Cameron Neylon

I think if you stick to your guns on the topic, add references, especially anything in mainstream media and/or with a DOI, you have decent start - Deepak

I agree with Deepak that referencing the hell out of a new Wikipedia page is a good way to manage the inevitable assault from the Notability Police. - Richard Akerman

Thanks Andy and everyone with helping out with giving this another try! Cameron is right - I tried a while back and it got redirected to Open Data. As Tony reminded me a few months back this is a good time to do it - Jean-Claude Bradley

Richard/Deepak - yes references are crucial - I added one to an early Precedings document. I think the criticisms portion is very important to give a balanced view - based on the meeting in Southampton maybe Jenny could contribute to that - what do you think Cameron? - Jean-Claude Bradley

@Cam: I think it is appropriate for you and I to add the odd link or make a correction but it would certainly be best if the article were built up by true crowdsourcing. We can certainly try to use the discussion more than just direct edits. - Jean-Claude Bradley

@Jean-Claude I hadn't thought about that - probably helps NPOV and any perceptions of boosterism to include critiques or issues. I'm sure there must be a few writers who think open science is total bollocks... :) - Richard Akerman

@Andrew I suggest you use a Wikipedia citation template for your references, it adds some nice features. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... - Richard Akerman

Richard - hopefully we'll get some rational points made - no surprises there: fear of scooping, IP, limitation of publication in some peer-reviewed journals, etc. - Jean-Claude Bradley

Yep, it has to be a well rounded piece, but perhaps with enough material and a list of events where it has been discussed, it will stay there - Deepak

The deletion warning is up on the talk page... - Richard Akerman

In future, perhaps have a more complete article in draft before going live. It seems they're not keen on preliminary articles which sit there a few days without activity - understandable really. - Neil Saunders

I have a list of articles referencing ONS and some of my talks (sorry no hyperlinks yet but I'll add them) - http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=... - Jean-Claude Bradley

Hi Andrew, wikiversity is perhaps a better place to start such things (no deletomanics there), and a scaffold similar to yours is already available at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki... . Besides, there is also Citizendium where stubbyness is no problem, since they basically only care for approved articles, quality-wise. - Daniel Mietchen

Wikipedia guidelines are that new articles get 7-10 days to be filled out. This article was created 3 days ago, so the request for deletion is premature. On the other hand, more content and references do need to be added with some haste. - Michael Nielsen

Our deletionist appears not to care what the Wikipedia guidelines say. Charming. - Michael Nielsen

What about starting out with a section at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... that could later be turned into an extra article? - Daniel Mietchen

I just added an "open" paragraph to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... . - Daniel Mietchen

Daniel, great and I just linked it to the Open Notebook Science page. If everyone could take five minutes RIGHT NOW to add a sentence or two to the open notebook science page I think it would stick because they look at how many people edit it and where they edit it from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O... - Andrew Lang

Just got this from the discussion page, thanks to Michael for spotting that: "We have experts in our group who could write an introduction but we have been worried that that may appear self serving and wanted the article to be created exclusively in a crowd-sorcing type manner. Would you mind if the intro was written by an expert in the field rather than someone who is let's say more objective? Romney (talk • contribs) 17:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC) I understand what you mean. This isn't the same thing as someone who founded a company or other organization posting information about his own operation. There is no reason why experts can't write an article, and in fact I think that's ideal. There's no policy preventing you from writing what you already know. The important thing is that it all be verifiable from neutral third-party sources. I do understand that it can be tedious to identify arms-length resources to cite for material you're able to write out of your own head. But that's the nature of the beast. Yo - Andrew Lang

I'm not good at editing Wikipedia, and no time to figure it out right now, but here's a link from Scientific American that you can use as reference. http://www.sciam.com/article.c... (Also, I *kind of* agree with the Wikipedia editor that there has to be at least *something* on the page before making it public. In other words, start with just an intro, and don't add headers like "Criticism of Open Notebook Science" until you actually *have* something for that section. - Eva

thanks Andy - based on that I've continued to directly edit the wiki - thanks to everyone contributing - this thing is taking shape - Jean-Claude Bradley

Eva - that sciam article is part of my list - we'll just keep adding them in appropriate places http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=... - Jean-Claude Bradley

In the process of editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O... , I moved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... , arguing that this kind of transparency applies equally well to the sciences. This received opposition. Please join the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... . - Daniel Mietchen

The discussion is now dead-locked. Can any of you help out? - Daniel Mietchen