Talk:Scholarpedia

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scholarpedia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Open Access Low‑importance

Scholarpedia is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Open Access to-do list:

edit
history
watch
purge

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Creative Commons licensing (to replace Creative Commons license); Creative Commons Attribution License (currently a redirect), reproducible research (currently a redirect), supplementary material. Scholarly Open Access (currently a redirect)
Cleanup : Access2Research
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stub-Class Open access articles.
Other : add {{WikiProject Open Access}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess;
- Check media files uploaded by the Open Access Media Importer for missing or incomplete categorization or lack of descriptions, or put the files into suitable Wikipedia articles. See also recent uploads of open-access files more generally.

Open (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles

Reference works (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles

Scholarpedia[edit]

Comments on looking at Scholarpedia - there is no way of communicating with anyone there (suggestions for atricles, pointing out a couple of very minor typos etc). Jackiespeel 18:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you can write mails to the authors or register and write on the reviews page. --Ben ^T/_C 08:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it disturbing how much more detailed and developed the Japanese version of this page is. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, given that there is no Japanese version of the project. -- Taku 05:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have no humanities articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humanities suck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.193.117.57 (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too find it disappointing that the humanities aren't represented. The name Scholarpedia is misleading—it's actually Sciencepedia as it stands. I'm a science junkie, but the entire range of scholarly endeavor should be included here. Is there a larger forum where this issue could be addressed? Thanks for any suggestions. KC 21:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC) KC 21:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

Translation of Scholarpedia articles[edit]

Could I translate an article from Scholarpedia and put the translation online in a non-commercial blog, citing and linking the original and the authors? Any ideas? --CopperKettle (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to depend on the article see for example [1] if its GNU Free Documentation License then you would be allright. But not for the other two. --Salix alba (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article I'm interested in says "contact Scholarpedia for copyright details". D'oh.. --CopperKettle (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it says that for all articles. The Amygdala article uses a GFDL image from Wikipedia, so it is a derivative work and the whole article must also be licensed under the GFDL, yet if you replace the id= section of your special link with the article id you still get [2] "Article: Amygdala: Contact Scholarpedia for copyright details." So, I think it just says that for everything. 129.215.37.9 (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Maybe Scholarpedia itself is not well known in the public, but the articles are definitely worth reading, since some of them are written by Nobel Prize and Fields Medal winners on those topics. 118.90.109.238 (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the notability request. It's pretty absurd that someone could consider Scholarpedia not notable, given the amount of attention it has been given in academia. If anyone has any protests, I'd be glad to point you in the right direction. 68.88.238.168 (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

According to Scholarpedia, some of its article content is licensed under the GFDL and Creative Commons.[3] This means some of the articles can have content copy/pasted in to Wikipedia. But I am confused as to where this information on copyright is actually published - I can't see anywhere in the standard article format where it indicates whether the article is licensed under GFDL/CC/other. And I note that some articles e.g. amygdala have copied GFDL content from Wikipedia. Anyone? 129.215.37.9 (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright information can be accessed via in link in the lower right corner. Most articles don't have it set specifically, though, and I believe the default is that copyright is retained by the authors. As for GFDL being "inherited" if a GFDL'ed image is used, I don't believe this is correct, because of the "aggregation" clause of the GFDL. Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public Election[edit]

The nomination of authors and voting on authors is not "public" in the traditional sense of the word. You cannot create an account unless you are affiliated with an institution. That excludes 99 percent of the "public" at the get-go. Without an account the only way for the public to "vote" on any selection is by revealing their IP address. That's a significant disadvantage. Wjhonson (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditional sense of the word" may be misunderstood. It is not "private" since you do not have to be a member of a specific institution. It is open to all qualified people, hence it is public. 118.90.48.231 (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section update[edit]

The Authorship section has two inline external links (a no-no) that are deadlinks. The text information does not appear to reflect reality anymore. I tried to do the updates, but the info to do so does not seem to be available to me. Could be due to the fact that I don't have time to dig deeper right now, but I'll try to come back to this soon. – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 20:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stats[edit]

Currentlty the article infobox says: 671 peer-reviewed articles, 1700 in progress (December 2010). I would like to updates this, but at Scholarpedia can only see how to get a raw number of "Content pages". Any idea where to see the full split? Snori (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in finding stats on the number of Scholarpedia articles as well. Does anyone know where to get that info?

UPDATE: I actually found the statistics page (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Special:Statistics) and updated the article. Bzzzing (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated this as of today's numbers. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 22:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dead?[edit]

The site is now down, and DNS isn't responding. Archive.org last crawled Scholarpedia on May 13, 2021.

dig @8.8.8.8 scholarpedia.org

; <<>> DiG 9.10.6 <<>> @8.8.8.8 scholarpedia.org
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 33555
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 512
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;scholarpedia.org.        IN    A

;; Query time: 109 msec
;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8)
;; WHEN: Mon Jun 07 11:02:15 BST 2021
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 45

Their Twitter hasn't been updated since 2017. On the other hand, a Reddit post linked through to SP a week ago. Unless they come back online, we may need to change "is" to "was" soon. 🙁 —Tom Morris (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, seems to be back up again now. Odd. Glitch in the matrix. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The site is, for all intents and purposes, defunct.[edit]

The site is defunct. The most recently updated articles are dated 2017. The site is sometimes unavailable and will soon be inaccessible because it does not provide secure HTTP access. This article needs to reflect this current status. Bpier (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]