User talk:Goofypanda
Welcome[edit]
G'day Goofypanda, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; they have helped improve Wikipedia and made it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions.
As a contributor to Australian articles, you may like to connect with other Australian Wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects. Wikimedia Australia your local chapter organises editor training workshops, meetups and other events. If you would like to know more, email help@wikimedia.org.au.
If you are living in Australia and want to subscribe to location based notices, you can add location userboxes to your userpage.
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically produce your name and the date.
If you have any questions, please see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, try the Wikipedia:Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Some other resources to help new Wikipedians include:
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Article titles
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up! Kerry (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
META[edit]
Please stop. You may think that inclusion in META is a big deal, but for academic journals it is still more important to be included in, say, the Science Citation Index or Scopus. And we don't include phrases like "In 20xx it was announced that the journal will be included in the Science Citation Index, a scientific database documenting which articles are cited by other articles that is produced by Clarivate Analytics, formerly Thomson Reuters." Instead, we just list which databases include a certain journal and add an appropriate reference. All the info about what the particular database is or does belongs in the article on that database. Normally, we don't include databases that have been announced but are not functional yet. WP is not a crystal ball and who knows what problems such a project may still encounter. Until it is actually functional and we can see whether it gains any acceptance by its intended public (academics), inclusion is, in fact, trivial. --Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
--> Thank you for the note and the advice. I respect your opinion and I can see where you are coming from, but I disagree! Meta is not like Science Citation Index or Scopus. It is a different kind of service and it should not be compared to those types of services. Meta differs in that it is meant to be a discovery tool. It is backed by over $45billion in support from the Zuckerberg Initiative. It is the future and we need to start accepting that! I do see where you are coming from though and so I will tone down how I write my future edits. Goofypanda (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- "It is the future and we need to start accepting that!" That is opinion, unless supported by independent sources. Wikipedia is not a trailblazer, it follows what others say. As long as nobody has published anything independently about why inclusion in database XYZ is important for a particular journal, the best we can do is list it neutrally... Also, when reverting someone's edits, make sure you only revert the part you don't agree with, that saves everybody's time. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice, I appreciate it. I will say, however, that the statement that Meta first needs to first gain acceptance by academics before being mentioned on Wikipedia is subjective, and is also an opinion. I am an academic myself and many academics younger than me are excited at the prospect of using artificial intelligence to discover cures for diseases. There is a great deal of conversation today about Meta and what these types of initiatives are doing for research. It has been discussed in the media, in academia, and in business circles as well. I think the technology - and the company - have built enough of a foothold to merit recognition in the annals of history. There are more than enough sources on the Internet & otherwise to prove this. Thanks again for the help - I appreciate being able to discuss this with someone who has a lot more seniority on Wikipedia than I do Goofypanda (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- "It is the future and we need to start accepting that!" That is opinion, unless supported by independent sources. Wikipedia is not a trailblazer, it follows what others say. As long as nobody has published anything independently about why inclusion in database XYZ is important for a particular journal, the best we can do is list it neutrally... Also, when reverting someone's edits, make sure you only revert the part you don't agree with, that saves everybody's time. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- You're welcome, glad to help a "newbie". And, no, it is not subjective to say that something first needs to be covered by independent reliable sources before it can get included in WP. That's the basis of WP:N and WP:V. We're not a newspaper and we don't do our own research. We simply report what's out there. Nothing less, but also nothing more. That does indeed from time to time clash with our personal preferences. I'm often irked by the fact that any minor football player qualifies for a biography here, but most academics, however meritorious, don't. But the reality in the real world is that many sources (newspapers, radio, TV, websites) report on the antics of actors and sports people, but they only report on academics in egregious fraud cases or when they get a Nobel or so... So to get back to META, that company (and probably also the AI database) has received enough coverage to be notable. So I agree that we can include in journal articles the fact that a journal is indexed in it. However, it does not contribute to the notability of the journal itself, because it doesn't seem that META is selective. So while Google Scholar is rapidly becoming the search machine of choice for many academics, we don't even list inclusion in GScholar in articles on academic journals because inclusion is basically automatic because GS aims to include everything. It's like claiming that the fact that somebody pops up in a Google search proves that they are notable. OK, need to do some other stuff now, hope this helps explain some things. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)