This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I have some serious issues with this article at the moment, and I would invite interested editors to spend some time reviewing WP:NEU and other core Wikipedia policies. Currently, the article reads as a vague yet enthusiastic description of "Science 2.0", combined with a number of links to academic, non-profit, and commercial websites which are basically social networks for scientists. The Web 2.0 article shows what can be done with some more care and attention, but I do feel that "Web 2.0", for all its own issues, is much more tangible and has delivered more than "Science 2.0" which remains as far as I can tell, a buzzword. I'll take one of the sections here as a specific example, my comments in parentheses:
Peer review (needs internal linking) of scientific publications helps (is intended to?) to filter out bad science or to correct errors. Unfortunately (the author's POV) this is a slow process (citation?) and the actual publication is often months after its submission (POV that this is a bad thing).
By taking the papers themselves to the cloud (very difficult for a non-specialist to understand this phrase), they become much more accessible (no evidence to confirm that this is the case). More peers will have a chance to read and review the paper, which could potentially lead to higher quality and faster publication (but again, there is no evidence that this is happening and in fact trials of systems by the BMJ found that peer reviewers were NOT wiling to comment online).
In closing, I hope that authors who have contributed to this article will take this statement as encouragement to improve the article rather than as mean-spirited or harsh. I will post a link on the talk page of interested authors and check in; without dramatic improvement I think the article should be considered for deletion. It would a shame, and ironic, if an article about the improvement of publishing through open access could not be improved on wikipedia! -- PaulWicks ( talk) 09:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
we are a group of student that are maken a new entry for Science 2.0 for a course called "User Interfaces". each of the student that follow this course must help to improve the entry by adding information of by editing it. therefore i would like to ask you, to give us some time before you take a decision. User:Gutiz01
Removed. Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to edit. Hipocrite ( talk) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and have tried to clean up this aspect of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.227.217.102 ( talk) 21:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
This, and below can be improved, but it is difficult, because this is in part at least an emerging concept, with a lot of theory, and limited hard fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.227.217.102 ( talk) 21:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm hoping that raising the profile of this article to other editors will get some additional pairs of eyes on the page. All the best, -- PaulWicks ( talk) 12:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I am clearly a strong believer in "web 2.0" technology in the context of supporting science and communication. Still, the article is not providing a broad overview on the topic and it is too focussed on "open" science topics rather than more neutral overviews of "web 2.0" in science. So, here a few suggestions on improving the article
edit: we tried to involve this in our iteration of the wiki page, we added the Rabbit hole risk and the spigot risk, and involved the snowflake effect as part of a solution. - Group10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pega88 ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course, there is much more to discuss and to add, and that is exactly the reason why this articles needs improvement from a broader audience! Best, science 2.0 regards, Dr. Joerg Kurt Wegner -- JKW ( talk) 21:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Removed. Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to edit. Hipocrite ( talk) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I replaced the list of examples I found in the history for these dates. Dualus ( talk) 05:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I am not a Wikipedia contributor but I was first to coin the term Science 2.0 and made it a registered trademark after people started using it in bad ways, like charging money for conferences or Old Media publishing articles saying Science 2.0 is open access, which is just a way for them to control the issue by controlling copyright - like using House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr.,Democrat from Michigan, to kill open access for NIH studies.
I know Berci, of course, and have been a fan of his writing, but I'd like to talk with people here about helping to get an accurate entry together.
At some point if the definition is not right, the wrong one becomes so prevalent that accuracy does not matter and I'd like to avoid that. Please write hank@ionpublicationsdotcom and let me know how I can help. I'm tickled you all went to this much work!
(I added in the USPTO entry as a reference but did not have access to the reference list so it is 'outside' the numbers and I moved SB to the top of the sources, because I don't think it's right for companies to be ahead of me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.216.188 ( talk) 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Removed. Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to edit. Hipocrite ( talk) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
http://www.scientificblogging.com/science_20/what_science_20_no_one_else_seems_know http://www.scientificblogging.com/sites/all/modules/author_gallery/uploads/1378387531-science%202.0%20trademark%20copy%20small.jpg
There are legal issues involved here about ownership and usage of trademarks.The legal issue is that the internal standards that Wikipedia has established have not being followed on this page and the owner's legal rights are not acknowledged as the rules require.
Science 2.0 is a registered Trade Mark Of ION PUBLICATIONS LLC
Astrojed ( talk) 22:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Astrojed ( talk) 20:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
There are things Science 2.0 is and is not - what it is not, is basically a Web version of 'Smurf' where it can change into anything anyone wants. It will be meaningless. It was, in its original form, four concepts for enhancing communication, collaboration, publication and participation but every time we try to bring it back to that some kook goes through and erases anything actually related to Science 2.0 and leaves some fuzzy conceptual nonsense that reads like a homework project.
The power of Wikipedia is that it is public but its greatest weakness is that anyone, even people who know nothing at all about Science 2.0, can hack up pages and leave them looking silly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Science 2.0 ( talk • contribs) 17:44, June 30, 2011
Science 2.0 means science using web 2.0 technology. We will change its name when we have a new web technology? e.g. Web 2.1 ?
I suggest we use one of the following:
1. Open science 2. Content-based science (see http://content-based-science.org/)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.223.40.1 ( talk) 14:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
See WP:COIN#Science 2.0 - the change in the lead is a major change in the content of the article by an editor with an obvious conflict of interest. The article's lead should summarise the article's content, and this article is not about Ion Publications. Dougweller ( talk) 11:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Right, not sure how I got dragged into a conflict of interest part since I basically try to keep it clean and not overrun with spam links - but it is also not a subset of Open Access and that was done by someone much higher at Wikipedia. I let the brand edit remain because it was done by someone with a lot more Wikipedia cred, it didn't read very well, though. Science 2.0 ( talk) 22:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There are two concepts being conflated here. One is the identify of a set of websites by a particular company, and together they are a product or service suite branded with the trademark "Science 2.0". Other sources talk about a concept called "science 2.0", which is a specific idea wherein the web 2.0 concept is applied to science, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the trademarked product or service. I propose that all information about the Science 2.0 product line be moved to Science 2.0 (website) and all information about the general concept stay here at Science 2.0. Some relevant policies are at WP:Disambiguation. One might notice that many of the discussions on this page raise issues which would be resolved by putting everything about the product on its own page. Does anyone have any objections to my making this move? Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
That makes no sense. The Science 2.0 broader concept came about well after the site, and its outline of the Science 2.0 concepts, existed. Since Wikipedia does not allow self-promotion, the Wikipedia page was created by someone interested in a broader concept and promoting something they created called Research 2.0. By ghetto-izing the real Science 2.0 to a different page, you are basically saying things only exist once they get a Wikipedia page. What should happen is creation of a Science 2.0 (concept) page rather than moving the real one. Anything else would be like forcing Wikipedia's entry on Wikipedia to Wikipedia (website) and the Wikipedia page on Wikipedia to be about the benefits of crowdsourcing information and links to a bunch of other sites that do it. If you read that original Science 2.0 concept page in the archive here, it is pretty bad, just promotional links and jargon, as the previous entries on the talk page discuss. Science 2.0 ( talk) 19:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I suppose this is the downside to Wikipedia. People looking here for Science 2.0 are going to think it was invented in 2008 by a computer scientist who talked about network theory, instead of in 2006 as a framework for collaboration, communication, publication and participation. This was a rather bad article that just got a lot worse because it wiped out the entire history of Science 2.0 - including the FAQ that outlined the entire history of Science 2.0. Again, this version is like writing a Wikipedia entry about Google and then claiming Google is about search engine theory. Science 2.0 ( talk) 01:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that if the rationalization to intentionally be wrong is 'the article won't get much traffic anyway' it isn't really serving the public. Someone with admin capability felt strongly enough to completely undo the facts on a topic, it's now somehow a subset of 'open access' and even the 'disputed' nomenclature has been removed to make it look like this article was written by someone who knows what they are talking about. Worse, now the Science 2.0 (website) is also wrong, because it now has links to a bunch of other websites that are not the Science 2.0 website at all, but rather Science 2.0 applications. This article now also violates the legal terms outlined on Wikipedia regarding ownership and registered trademarks because two editors apparently decided it is not a USPTO registered trademark but is instead a 'concept' that anyone Wikipedia editors want to let use can use. Science 2.0 ( talk) 15:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Apples existed before Apple, Inc. There was no Science 2.0 before Science 2.0. Again, it is like saying Google is a concept if people say 'I Googled it' and then taking over the Google page to be about search engines and eliminating any reference to Google. And then telling people they should take it up with the public who use the term incorrectly. This was clearly not a quality change. Wikipedia entries, for better or worse, are part of the public record and going out of the way to make one incorrect is not the quality standard editors should have. Science 2.0 ( talk) 22:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
There was no Science 2.0 (website) article until someone changed this one to be meaningless and created that other one so why keep this mess? Science 2.0 is not and has never been some vague mumbo-jumbo about network theory or some subset of these other categories. That was wholly invented here on Wikipedia by people who spent no time learning about it. Saying 'that is how a few people now use it' is like saying the Evolution page should be changed to mean that as cars change each year, they have evolved and evolution is not actual biology, it should be on an Evolution (biology) page and Evolution should mean whatever people want. Terms have meaning and if Wikipedia promotes changing meanings to be incorrect, that isn't good for anyone. I recommended someone create a Science 2.0 (concept) site if there was really some movement for that - this new content should be on another page, not the other way around. Insisting on wiping out the history of Science 2.0 to promote this - what exactly, no one knows - makes no sense. If people would go back and read the somewhat flawed version and fix it, fine. Instead there are now two, both of which are junk. The (website) version is now about Science 2.0 apps that are not even part of the Science 2.0 set and this site doesn't even mention the actual Science 2.0 feature set or the origin. It would be funny if it weren't so embarrassing for crowdsourcing. Science 2.0 ( talk) 02:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is some more content about the concept of science 2.0 which could be incorporated into this article.
I hope that these help develop the article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
What's the point being made here? What Wikipedia policies or guidelines are being, if they are, ignored? Dougweller ( talk) 16:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Microsoft is not used as a 'concept' nor is Google or Wikipedia. I am not saying that the editors behind this are Science 1.0 corporate media marketing people, but they are doing the work of Science 1.0 corporate media by making it look like Science 2.0 does not exist at all, it is just a vague concept. Even Web 2.0, which has been jargon-ized, has a link to the registered trademark and some effort to recount its actual history. The edits that have been done here were not due to a conflict of interest, they have reinvented history. Science 2.0 ( talk) 21:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I've removed bits of the article where the sources didn't mention Science 2.0, see WP:NOR. It's always been obvious that this was more of an essay than a Wikipedia article. Removed the paragraph of questions also as essay-like. Dougweller ( talk) 13:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, but I am not convinced the website is notable enough, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science 2.0 (website). Dougweller ( talk) 13:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Given the tags, I revamped the article, working from references. My sense is the topic is notable, but that there is considerable discussion within the scientific community about how science should evolve, given Internet technologies, and my sense is there will still be considerable back-and-forth on this topic. I am not sure whether Science 2.0 (website) should have its own article, but I did come across many indications that it is being held in importance by established publications. -- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 04:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
We really must stop confusing this. We can't use the website as the definition of the concept, and as the editor with the same name has some sort of relationship with the website which xhe still hasn't disclosed, until that is clearer they should not be doing any major editing here. And can we have proper threaded discussions please? Dougweller ( talk) 17:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
May I ask that the person who put the "neutrality tag" on the article to please give specific lines which are viewed as not being neutral; please state why they are viewed as not being neutral with specific reasons citing sources; otherwise the tag will be removed.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 11:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The article has been edited to remove the history of Science 2.0 before 2008. It was created in 2006. It looks suspicious that the first link is now to a magazine article in 2012 rather than any links to the Science 2.0 FAQ. As others have said on the talk page, the changes also removed its copyright status, which is against Wikipedia policies. The NPOV tag is accurate until the violations and bias issues are resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.214.153 ( talk) 14:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The WP page for Hank Campbell says he is the founder of the Science 2.0 movement, but this page does not mention him. Anyone know what is up with this? Delta13C ( talk) 18:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I have some serious issues with this article at the moment, and I would invite interested editors to spend some time reviewing WP:NEU and other core Wikipedia policies. Currently, the article reads as a vague yet enthusiastic description of "Science 2.0", combined with a number of links to academic, non-profit, and commercial websites which are basically social networks for scientists. The Web 2.0 article shows what can be done with some more care and attention, but I do feel that "Web 2.0", for all its own issues, is much more tangible and has delivered more than "Science 2.0" which remains as far as I can tell, a buzzword. I'll take one of the sections here as a specific example, my comments in parentheses:
Peer review (needs internal linking) of scientific publications helps (is intended to?) to filter out bad science or to correct errors. Unfortunately (the author's POV) this is a slow process (citation?) and the actual publication is often months after its submission (POV that this is a bad thing).
By taking the papers themselves to the cloud (very difficult for a non-specialist to understand this phrase), they become much more accessible (no evidence to confirm that this is the case). More peers will have a chance to read and review the paper, which could potentially lead to higher quality and faster publication (but again, there is no evidence that this is happening and in fact trials of systems by the BMJ found that peer reviewers were NOT wiling to comment online).
In closing, I hope that authors who have contributed to this article will take this statement as encouragement to improve the article rather than as mean-spirited or harsh. I will post a link on the talk page of interested authors and check in; without dramatic improvement I think the article should be considered for deletion. It would a shame, and ironic, if an article about the improvement of publishing through open access could not be improved on wikipedia! -- PaulWicks ( talk) 09:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
we are a group of student that are maken a new entry for Science 2.0 for a course called "User Interfaces". each of the student that follow this course must help to improve the entry by adding information of by editing it. therefore i would like to ask you, to give us some time before you take a decision. User:Gutiz01
Removed. Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to edit. Hipocrite ( talk) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and have tried to clean up this aspect of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.227.217.102 ( talk) 21:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
This, and below can be improved, but it is difficult, because this is in part at least an emerging concept, with a lot of theory, and limited hard fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.227.217.102 ( talk) 21:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm hoping that raising the profile of this article to other editors will get some additional pairs of eyes on the page. All the best, -- PaulWicks ( talk) 12:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I am clearly a strong believer in "web 2.0" technology in the context of supporting science and communication. Still, the article is not providing a broad overview on the topic and it is too focussed on "open" science topics rather than more neutral overviews of "web 2.0" in science. So, here a few suggestions on improving the article
edit: we tried to involve this in our iteration of the wiki page, we added the Rabbit hole risk and the spigot risk, and involved the snowflake effect as part of a solution. - Group10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pega88 ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course, there is much more to discuss and to add, and that is exactly the reason why this articles needs improvement from a broader audience! Best, science 2.0 regards, Dr. Joerg Kurt Wegner -- JKW ( talk) 21:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Removed. Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to edit. Hipocrite ( talk) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I replaced the list of examples I found in the history for these dates. Dualus ( talk) 05:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I am not a Wikipedia contributor but I was first to coin the term Science 2.0 and made it a registered trademark after people started using it in bad ways, like charging money for conferences or Old Media publishing articles saying Science 2.0 is open access, which is just a way for them to control the issue by controlling copyright - like using House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr.,Democrat from Michigan, to kill open access for NIH studies.
I know Berci, of course, and have been a fan of his writing, but I'd like to talk with people here about helping to get an accurate entry together.
At some point if the definition is not right, the wrong one becomes so prevalent that accuracy does not matter and I'd like to avoid that. Please write hank@ionpublicationsdotcom and let me know how I can help. I'm tickled you all went to this much work!
(I added in the USPTO entry as a reference but did not have access to the reference list so it is 'outside' the numbers and I moved SB to the top of the sources, because I don't think it's right for companies to be ahead of me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.216.188 ( talk) 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Removed. Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to edit. Hipocrite ( talk) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
http://www.scientificblogging.com/science_20/what_science_20_no_one_else_seems_know http://www.scientificblogging.com/sites/all/modules/author_gallery/uploads/1378387531-science%202.0%20trademark%20copy%20small.jpg
There are legal issues involved here about ownership and usage of trademarks.The legal issue is that the internal standards that Wikipedia has established have not being followed on this page and the owner's legal rights are not acknowledged as the rules require.
Science 2.0 is a registered Trade Mark Of ION PUBLICATIONS LLC
Astrojed ( talk) 22:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Astrojed ( talk) 20:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
There are things Science 2.0 is and is not - what it is not, is basically a Web version of 'Smurf' where it can change into anything anyone wants. It will be meaningless. It was, in its original form, four concepts for enhancing communication, collaboration, publication and participation but every time we try to bring it back to that some kook goes through and erases anything actually related to Science 2.0 and leaves some fuzzy conceptual nonsense that reads like a homework project.
The power of Wikipedia is that it is public but its greatest weakness is that anyone, even people who know nothing at all about Science 2.0, can hack up pages and leave them looking silly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Science 2.0 ( talk • contribs) 17:44, June 30, 2011
Science 2.0 means science using web 2.0 technology. We will change its name when we have a new web technology? e.g. Web 2.1 ?
I suggest we use one of the following:
1. Open science 2. Content-based science (see http://content-based-science.org/)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.223.40.1 ( talk) 14:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
See WP:COIN#Science 2.0 - the change in the lead is a major change in the content of the article by an editor with an obvious conflict of interest. The article's lead should summarise the article's content, and this article is not about Ion Publications. Dougweller ( talk) 11:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Right, not sure how I got dragged into a conflict of interest part since I basically try to keep it clean and not overrun with spam links - but it is also not a subset of Open Access and that was done by someone much higher at Wikipedia. I let the brand edit remain because it was done by someone with a lot more Wikipedia cred, it didn't read very well, though. Science 2.0 ( talk) 22:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There are two concepts being conflated here. One is the identify of a set of websites by a particular company, and together they are a product or service suite branded with the trademark "Science 2.0". Other sources talk about a concept called "science 2.0", which is a specific idea wherein the web 2.0 concept is applied to science, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the trademarked product or service. I propose that all information about the Science 2.0 product line be moved to Science 2.0 (website) and all information about the general concept stay here at Science 2.0. Some relevant policies are at WP:Disambiguation. One might notice that many of the discussions on this page raise issues which would be resolved by putting everything about the product on its own page. Does anyone have any objections to my making this move? Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
That makes no sense. The Science 2.0 broader concept came about well after the site, and its outline of the Science 2.0 concepts, existed. Since Wikipedia does not allow self-promotion, the Wikipedia page was created by someone interested in a broader concept and promoting something they created called Research 2.0. By ghetto-izing the real Science 2.0 to a different page, you are basically saying things only exist once they get a Wikipedia page. What should happen is creation of a Science 2.0 (concept) page rather than moving the real one. Anything else would be like forcing Wikipedia's entry on Wikipedia to Wikipedia (website) and the Wikipedia page on Wikipedia to be about the benefits of crowdsourcing information and links to a bunch of other sites that do it. If you read that original Science 2.0 concept page in the archive here, it is pretty bad, just promotional links and jargon, as the previous entries on the talk page discuss. Science 2.0 ( talk) 19:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I suppose this is the downside to Wikipedia. People looking here for Science 2.0 are going to think it was invented in 2008 by a computer scientist who talked about network theory, instead of in 2006 as a framework for collaboration, communication, publication and participation. This was a rather bad article that just got a lot worse because it wiped out the entire history of Science 2.0 - including the FAQ that outlined the entire history of Science 2.0. Again, this version is like writing a Wikipedia entry about Google and then claiming Google is about search engine theory. Science 2.0 ( talk) 01:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that if the rationalization to intentionally be wrong is 'the article won't get much traffic anyway' it isn't really serving the public. Someone with admin capability felt strongly enough to completely undo the facts on a topic, it's now somehow a subset of 'open access' and even the 'disputed' nomenclature has been removed to make it look like this article was written by someone who knows what they are talking about. Worse, now the Science 2.0 (website) is also wrong, because it now has links to a bunch of other websites that are not the Science 2.0 website at all, but rather Science 2.0 applications. This article now also violates the legal terms outlined on Wikipedia regarding ownership and registered trademarks because two editors apparently decided it is not a USPTO registered trademark but is instead a 'concept' that anyone Wikipedia editors want to let use can use. Science 2.0 ( talk) 15:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Apples existed before Apple, Inc. There was no Science 2.0 before Science 2.0. Again, it is like saying Google is a concept if people say 'I Googled it' and then taking over the Google page to be about search engines and eliminating any reference to Google. And then telling people they should take it up with the public who use the term incorrectly. This was clearly not a quality change. Wikipedia entries, for better or worse, are part of the public record and going out of the way to make one incorrect is not the quality standard editors should have. Science 2.0 ( talk) 22:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
There was no Science 2.0 (website) article until someone changed this one to be meaningless and created that other one so why keep this mess? Science 2.0 is not and has never been some vague mumbo-jumbo about network theory or some subset of these other categories. That was wholly invented here on Wikipedia by people who spent no time learning about it. Saying 'that is how a few people now use it' is like saying the Evolution page should be changed to mean that as cars change each year, they have evolved and evolution is not actual biology, it should be on an Evolution (biology) page and Evolution should mean whatever people want. Terms have meaning and if Wikipedia promotes changing meanings to be incorrect, that isn't good for anyone. I recommended someone create a Science 2.0 (concept) site if there was really some movement for that - this new content should be on another page, not the other way around. Insisting on wiping out the history of Science 2.0 to promote this - what exactly, no one knows - makes no sense. If people would go back and read the somewhat flawed version and fix it, fine. Instead there are now two, both of which are junk. The (website) version is now about Science 2.0 apps that are not even part of the Science 2.0 set and this site doesn't even mention the actual Science 2.0 feature set or the origin. It would be funny if it weren't so embarrassing for crowdsourcing. Science 2.0 ( talk) 02:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is some more content about the concept of science 2.0 which could be incorporated into this article.
I hope that these help develop the article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
What's the point being made here? What Wikipedia policies or guidelines are being, if they are, ignored? Dougweller ( talk) 16:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Microsoft is not used as a 'concept' nor is Google or Wikipedia. I am not saying that the editors behind this are Science 1.0 corporate media marketing people, but they are doing the work of Science 1.0 corporate media by making it look like Science 2.0 does not exist at all, it is just a vague concept. Even Web 2.0, which has been jargon-ized, has a link to the registered trademark and some effort to recount its actual history. The edits that have been done here were not due to a conflict of interest, they have reinvented history. Science 2.0 ( talk) 21:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I've removed bits of the article where the sources didn't mention Science 2.0, see WP:NOR. It's always been obvious that this was more of an essay than a Wikipedia article. Removed the paragraph of questions also as essay-like. Dougweller ( talk) 13:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, but I am not convinced the website is notable enough, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science 2.0 (website). Dougweller ( talk) 13:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Given the tags, I revamped the article, working from references. My sense is the topic is notable, but that there is considerable discussion within the scientific community about how science should evolve, given Internet technologies, and my sense is there will still be considerable back-and-forth on this topic. I am not sure whether Science 2.0 (website) should have its own article, but I did come across many indications that it is being held in importance by established publications. -- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 04:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
We really must stop confusing this. We can't use the website as the definition of the concept, and as the editor with the same name has some sort of relationship with the website which xhe still hasn't disclosed, until that is clearer they should not be doing any major editing here. And can we have proper threaded discussions please? Dougweller ( talk) 17:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
May I ask that the person who put the "neutrality tag" on the article to please give specific lines which are viewed as not being neutral; please state why they are viewed as not being neutral with specific reasons citing sources; otherwise the tag will be removed.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 11:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The article has been edited to remove the history of Science 2.0 before 2008. It was created in 2006. It looks suspicious that the first link is now to a magazine article in 2012 rather than any links to the Science 2.0 FAQ. As others have said on the talk page, the changes also removed its copyright status, which is against Wikipedia policies. The NPOV tag is accurate until the violations and bias issues are resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.214.153 ( talk) 14:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The WP page for Hank Campbell says he is the founder of the Science 2.0 movement, but this page does not mention him. Anyone know what is up with this? Delta13C ( talk) 18:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)