Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-30/Recent research

Discuss this story

Samoilenko and Yasseri

"...a subjective element might have been introduced into the hitherto structured system of academic evaluation."

Oh heavens no, the structured system of academic evaluation may be subjective? Someone call the mean opinion score police and ask them what to do.

But seriously, adding fields for the h-index and number of academic publications in academics' biography infoboxes would be great. Even better for the newer academic impact measures which take open access for readers and libre code publications into account. 180.166.28.68 (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably also go through the Highly Cited Index and make articles on the people we're missing, since it does seem to be quite a few. Silver seren^C 19:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of them in fact. Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Thompson-Reuters most cited scientists has been started with a small sample. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VIAFbot tripled traffic of VIAF.org

I remember back when Wikipedia first got slashdotted. Positions are reversed nowadays. I hope we warned Viaf.org that we were coming! Rmhermen (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Congress

How does Wikipedia disambiguation use brackets?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See John Smith. Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the authors should have written "parentheses" rather than "brackets." GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]