Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/When the Wikimedia movement challenges how to do science

Copy edit questions
Some questions: Thanks, --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 21:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I may be too used to enwiki, but should references go before or after punctuation? I didn't want to mass-change something without being sure
 * 2) Links in the form of   only need the "w" prefix to link to enwiki - is keeping "en" intentional?
 * 3) Once the layout and images are finalized, this should be converted to use Fig
 * Hi DannyS712, thanks to you for your great help ! Here are my answers to yours questions :
 * Unfortunetly, I don't know this kind of rules in English, only in French, but you can use here the same rules as en.wikipedia. That's OK for me.
 * You right about  w: could be enough in this case. I've used   without knowing what will happen after a copy past in Meta-Wiki where I was planing to use the translation tool. And finally, It's the w: that's the problem. So finally, we have to adapt the code case by case.
 * I never use Fig before, but it looks greet and I've finished switching figures from French to English, so you have the green light.
 * Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 13:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand for number 2 - should I change w:en to just w ? --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 01:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Opting for a science away from corporatism

 * I was then redirected to another project called Wikiversity, that I didn't know at the time, although it was part of more than a dozen other collaborative projects called "Wikipedia sister projects"[W 4] (see figure 1 opposite). (emphasis mine)

This may have been true in the past, but it is no longer so. Furthermore, the figure doesn't support this.


 * In the course of this search, Crochet.david[W 7], a teacher in electrical engineering[W 8] administrator[W 9] [N 10] of the Wikiversity project who had already responded sympathetically to my arrival message[W 6], proposed to me on his user discussion space[N 11], to place my work among the "research works in sociology"[W 10].

Suggestion:
 * In the course of this search, David Crochet[W 7], a teacher in electrical engineering[W 8] and an administrator[W 9] [N 10] on the Wikiversity project, who had already responded sympathetically to my arrival message[W 6], proposed to me on his discussion page[N 11] that I place my work among the "research works in sociology"[W 10]. (changes emphasized)

Also:
 * But then David Crochet, his real name, came back to me and told me that "projects are associated with faculties, not departments."[W 12] [N 12]. (text to be removed struck out)

Hope this helps. —guywan (talk • contribs) 13:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot guywan ! That's fixed. I give you the green light to fix everything concerning English formulation directly on the text as long as it doesn't change the meaning of it. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 13:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Video
How should the "Video 1" be formatted? Using fig ? --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 01:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a translation?
Question: when citing, eg, a French source that also has a corresponding english page, or a French version of a policy that enwiki also has, should be update it to use the English version directly, or should this just be a translation of the French article? --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 02:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi DannyS712, usually, policiy are not a simple translation. That's why I prefere keep the original text in French. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 17:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

A re-working of style and format
I have collated a few comments together from the editorial boards regarding the article's current overall format. The recommendation would be to re-work the article into a more focused and scholarly format (conceivably with this as an open notebook appendix). Useful examples may include, , , ,. Hopefully these feedback items can be useful in restructuring the next iteration of the article. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 10:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As currently formulated, it is not really a literature review, nor is it an empirical study
 * The tone is currently autobiographical / personal. Such personal reflections & in-depth analysis of experience are certainly included in many scholarly works in the social science & humanities. However, it is typically situated within broader scholarly discourse, which is currently underdeveloped in this article.
 * The article's purpose and main conclusions need to be clearly laid out at the start
 * Additional types of inquiry may be applicable, e.g. Lewin's Action research, Heron and Reason's Cooperative inquiry, which there are non-statistical methodologies for conducting and describing inquiries where the observer is not necessarily privileged over the people and techniques being observed. Similar ideas occurred to explorers and anthropologists, leading to Malinowski and Boas's Participant Observation.


 * Wow. That is a superb analysis Thomas (T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)). You clearly devoted a substantial amount of time and energy to researching and writing your feedback. We are very fortunate to have you. ¶ Regarding the article: (1) Although it's not in my field, and I don't know much about ethnography, I still found the article to be intriguing. I bet that with the changes Thomas suggests it could be an excellent contribution. (2) I had trouble understanding a good portion of the article. My brother is a professional translator (German --> English) and I've learned a fair amount about translation from him. He tells me that "good translation is really hard work, even for experienced translators" and "online translation engines do a decent job of translating common phrases and relatively simple construction, but from there they deteriorate in quality. One day they'll translate as well as a human, but we're a long way from that goal." So, professional translation might be our best bet. Perhaps we should include it as a budget item?  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  14:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo) there are many ways to do science and even more to make an anthropological study. This study is a chapter of my PhD thesis. That's probably an explanation for a part of your reaction. If the editorial board don't have anthropologist in board, I think It will be difficult to be in the same wave. Each discipline have his own specificities. And anthropology is really more specific than the other.
 * I went along with your idea, but I'm already regretting it. I'm not capable of writing something to meet standards that are not in my discipline. And certainly on another language than French. I was expecting, help and I receive more work to do...
 * The reflection of my text is precisely on this subject and on the fact that it would be time to change the way of doing science. But I can see in the end that within WikiJournal we want to change things, but we are still stuck in the old format and old expectations. For example, we advocate open science, but we use proprietary software and GAFA services. We allow plagiarism of Wikipedia, but not very original works that are original in form and content. We start in Wikiversity a collaborative and inclusive project, but we finally want our specific place. There is a lot of cognitive dissonance within the WikiJournal for me... I'm starting to think that the term "Wiki" is to much in the word WikiJournal.
 * I'm sorry but I don't want to re-work the article into a more focused and scholarly format, I have no time for this because the scholarly format proposed here is not the same of what I have to do in my PhD thesis. Kind regards, Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 18:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. I'll be back this comming week-end to give a better explanation and replay to the T.Shafee's message when my son will be back to his mother's house. Since this time, all the best for everyone. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 11:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)