Talk:Mechademia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reception: Anti-POV addition

The article quoted only a negative comment by Sizemore about the Review and Commentary section, so I added a positive comment about the section, by Raiteri from Library Journal, to balance the otherwise POV tone. Now the Reception section records both pro and con viewpoints, which is what NPOV is all about. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Full Title of Journal

I included the full title in the first sentence, since that is the official name on the masthead and on the website. After that, I left all the shortened versions, that is, "Mechademia". I also corrected the infobox so it matches the masthead and website. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tim! I think the wrong name was my fault when I used Hairston's article for Marimite, sorry - I've gone through all the mainspace pages which used to refer to it by the wrong name and corrected them to the proper name. I hope this makes some small amends. --Malkinann (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Malkinann! No problemo! Slowly but surely we fix the problems... Timothy Perper (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Reception section

• This section is overly long, it is not necessary to quote something from each review. Something like "The journal was well received", with perhaps a few words on some criticisms, seems sufficient. --Crusio (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, and I am to mine. I see no consensus on this particular issue, and I know that I as a user prefer to read the more detailed quotes, especially when opinions are both positive and negative, as they have been for Mechademia. Otherwise, your suggestion -- "The journal was well received" -- is POV. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think you understand POV. It would be supported by sources and therefore not my POV, but that of the reviewers (which we are supposed to present in a neutral manner). Cherry-picking some bits of phrases from much-larger reviews is something else altogether. --Crusio (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish you were right. But review and receptions sections do that kind of cherry-picking all the time, opening the floodgates of POV selection of only certain kinds of material. I personally don't like it, but remember tilting at windmills. It's not something that any of us are going to change soon, at least I don't think we will. The factual -- that means reliably sourced -- basis is that Mechademia has had mixed reviews, and I don't think we have the right to erase these divergent opinions using Crusio's expression "The journal was well received." So how about we just leave it as is. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

External Links

Two external links are to Project Muse, one for access and one for archives. When I visited those sites, I got only a brief excerpt of an opening paragraph plus a for-pay sign-in link. I don't know if that's OK; I personally think that for-pay sites come under the heading of advertising and we shouldn't use them except in rare occasions when we absolutely must cite a specific paper for specific reasons. Otherwise, I am reluctant to include free advertising for Project Muse. What are other opinions? Timothy Perper (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the links are not directly related to the journal or its publisher, I've went ahead and remove them. —Farix (t | c) 03:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• These links are standard and added to thousands of academic journal articles. Being a subscription-only link does not mean that it is spam. On the other hand, the (rather superfluous) list of volumes links to amazon.com and that is spam. I won't remove the list of volumes, but I will restore the infobox links and remove the amazon ones. --Crusio (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing the amazon links jeopardises the text-source integrity of the article, as the official Mechademia website only cites the release dates to the year, and in some cases, the northern hemisphere season. I've restored them. For further details on whether it is indeed spam, it is seen as a source of last resort. If fidelity is desired (accuracy down to the day of release), Amazon seems to be the only source, and sufficiently reliable as such.--Malkinann (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Isn't it enough to state that volumes are typically released in November/December and then just list the release year? That way the "last resort" Amazon links can be safely removed. Surely it's not crucial to know whether an issue appeared on the 13th or the 31st? --Crusio (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• PS: By the way, the link you provide about Amazon hardly constitutes a consensus that this is an allowable reliable source... --Crusio (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the links again as they violate WP:LINKSTOAVOID. "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation." Since the links are not used to cite material on the article and require payment to view much of the content, they simply do not belong on the article. —Farix (t | c) 10:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Let me try to get this right: a link to a site that tries to sell you this journal (Amazon) is OK, but a link to a non-profit academic site is out because it requires a subscription to view all content (even though abstracts are free)? And concerning the links to avoid quote, the important part here is "unless the site itself is the subject of the article". Project Muse is the only site that gives direct access to this journal, so this is an important part of the journal and I don't see why this information should be removed. I repeat that there is complete consensus in WP Journals that it is not only appropriate, but absolutely necessary to provide this type of links. --Crusio (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Amazon links are being used as sources, but the Project Muse are not. That's the difference. If the Amazon links where in the infobox or external links section, then they would be just as inappropriate. —Farix (t | c) 21:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Farix here. It's unfair to a visitor to send them to a site that asks them to pay to see an article that WE have said is at the link we sent them to. If it were a free site, that might well be different, but Project Muse costs money from the viewer. So Farix is right to remove those links. On the other hand, amazon.com is a bookseller, and just about everyone who is web-literate knows that their books aren't free. So it's the lesser of two evils. I opt for removing the for-pay Project Muse links -- and BTW, I don't think Project Muse is "an important part of the journal" as Crusio said it was. Mechademia is published by the University of Minnesota Press, and as far as I know has nothing at all to do with Project Muse, which is only a jobber or vendor of articles.Timothy Perper (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• If you take three seconds to read Project MUSE, you'll know better. --Crusio (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't useful for some purposes, but they're still a for-pay-only vendor, and they don't have anything to do with the journals whose papers they supply. In specific, they have nothing integral to do with Mechademia, which I think is the only point of interest here. Project Muse is associated with Johns Hopkins University, but they're still only a secondary vendor of articles. I personally never use them; I go to the library instead and copy stuff myself if I want it. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Everybody his preferences. the last time I was in a library, was about 6 years ago and then only because I was a member of the library committee... About MUSE: each major commercial publisher (Springer, Elsevier, etc) has its own online portal for their journals (ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, etc). Even some non-profits (like the Cambridge and Oxford University presses) have such portals. Some of the smaller ones often cannot afford this and have banded together to form portals (HighWire and MUSE are examples). MUSE was started by Johns Hopkins, but by now has been joined by almost 100 other not-for-profit publishers (see here). UMP is one of those and all UMP's journals (and many books, I think) are available only through MUSE. In the case of Mechademia that is the same: it's the only way to access the journal online. Which should be linked. --Crusio (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

All very useful to people who (a) can afford it or (b) whose institutions subscribe to these vendors. But Wikipedia reaches a far wider readership than academics or professionals affiliated with institutions that subscribe to Project Muse or to the other for-pay information and/or document vendors. So Wikipedia does have the policy that Farix cited. You're describing the kind of detail that, properly referenced, belongs in an article on Project Muse -- right now, that article is very short. But I think it's merely advertising to mention Project Muse in every Wikipedia article about a journal available through Project Muse (or any other commercial, for-pay-only vendor). In part, the reason is that doing so won't help people who can't afford it or who are not affiliated with wealthy organizations subscribing to Project Muse. My wife is a librarian, and I'm all in favor of making information available as widely as possible, but I also don't think that Wikipedia should direct readers to for-pay sites. Wikipedia is not free advertisement for such services, even if they may provide a valuable -- although expensive -- social service. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• The question is not whether it is affordable or not. The point is that MUSE is the only place where this journal is accessible online and that MUSE is a joint venture of about 100 not-for-profit publishers, including Mechademia's publisher. --Crusio (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is the only way to access the journal online is irrelevant. There are plenty of ways to access the journal and we should not be predisposing readers between one method over another. Even when referencing articles from the journal in other Wikipedia articles, it should not be convenience linked to Project MUSE any more then it should be convenience linked to any other online retailer. —Farix (t | c) 21:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Mechademia table of contents

Have started an annotated bibliography / table of contents for Mechademia here, to help people to locate Mechademia articles that are relevant to use as citations. Please feel free to add page numbers, annotations, anything you'd find useful as a researcher, to that page. --Malkinann (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

general comments

Guillaume asked me to comment on several points.

1. The list of issues would be better sourced to their own web site, which is likely to be more reliable.
2. The specific contents of each issue do not belong on Wikipedia, but their own eweb site, unless there is some particularly famous article.
3. I am very pleased that we do have a section giving sourced reviews, which is rare for journals and very important. Normally, the way of presenting the quotes from them is in footnotes, especially if there are many of them. The general import can be given in the text.
4. Project MUSE is the site for the electronic version of this and many other humanity journals. If you are going to cite the journals contents, it's the place that must be cited. As for linking, we need to say where the material is available--it's basic content for a journal article. It falls under the same exception as giving the publisher's home page, which we do for all companies and organizations. That the content is paid is unfortunate, but we cannot help that.
5. There are two ways of accessing the journal, print and online. Accessing it in print requires either going physically to a library that has it, or paying for a personal subscription. Accessing it online requires going to a library that subscribes to it online, or being a member of an institution that subscribes and makes it available throughout the institution (or a patron of a public library that does), or paying for an electronic subscription. There is no way of accessing this journal without somebody paying for the access. Such is the case for almost all journals in the humanities. That one person prefers it in print, does not mean that we should not give information about the access otherwise also. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC) .

Mechademia is available free online and for download at http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mechademia/. This website also has a complete list of all tables of contents. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not free, only volume 4 is. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. All the ToCs are available. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Guillaume2303

Recent edits by Guillaume2303 (talk · contribs) cited this talk page as the reason for them. Unless you can point out where in this page such edits can be supported you should not cite it as the reason for them. – Allen4names 18:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want us to do or not to do. I didn't make any edits to the article itself, but added some additional information here. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• The edits were made in response to DGG's comments in the foregoing section. DGG is a librarian with a large experience in anything concerning (academic) journals. Please restore the edits, as it is clear that references to Amazon.com are not really called for here (and consolidating the other references into one single one seems just good practice to me). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with me, so I will leave it up to you two. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If any references are needed in that section I feel that they should be secondary sources whereas, in the context of this article, the source you would use is a primary one. That said if you feel that those references are unnecessary (because of the ISBN links perhaps) then I will not revert your removal of them. – Allen4names 16:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Amazon is not really a very reliable source. And primary sources can be used to source non-controversial stuff. I don't think that an issue listing is controversial... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If that is what you think about Amazon.com being a reliable source you should read Special:BookSources/9780816677344#Online text one line below the Google Book Search link. I still prefer the direct links to Amazon (or another secondary source) but unless the ISBN links are also removed there is no real harm in removing the Amazon references. – Allen4names 06:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• What it says there is that you can use amazon to verify citations within books (because they often who -partial- book content), not that amazon itself can be used as a bibliographic source. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If Amazon.com is not WP:RS then it should be removed from Special:BookSources regardless of any extra information provided and relegated to the external links section if used at all. Do not expect me to respond if you are just going to go over this over and over again. – Allen4names 18:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• It's simple: amazon gives access to scans of books, which is why it is linked at "booksources", because sourced to the books, this provides a mean to verify book content. You only need to browse Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard a bit to see several instances where people are being told that amazon is not a reliable source. The confusion is perhaps because booksources talks about "citations" here, whereas "quotations" is perhaps more appropriate. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)