[DoctorBeaver (OP)]

I don't know why I haven't found this site earlier. It's like Wikipedia but all the entries are written by experts and it's peer-reviewed. I've had a quick look at it seems like a very good resource.

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Main_Page

[neilep]

Kewl...but how do ewe search ?

I can't see a ' search ' box !!

[DoctorBeaver (OP)]

Have you looked on the left under the logo? It says "search scholarpedia". Bit of a giveaway, that.

[DrN]

Thats brilliant, it even looks like wikipedia too! But is it only for physics and astronomy and computing etc?

[neilep]

Have you looked on the left under the logo? It says "search scholarpedia". Bit of a giveaway, that.

Nope !

Can't see it...this is where your link takes me


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[neilep]

OK..I got it now !!..the left panel did not download !!

[DoctorBeaver (OP)]

Ah, you've got it. I just took this screenshot to show what I get when I click that link.

[LeeE]

Never heard of it - sounds good though.

[Ethos]

Cool site, adding it to my favorites without delay..............Ethos

[Chemistry4me]

Does it have other languages too?

[Don_1]

Looks like it will be a very useful and reliable resource.

[blakestyger]

I was using it a year ago when I had a paper to do on Dark Matter. It was fairly new then and it didn't have anything I could use, but what was there was v. good - and it allowed me in despite not belonging to an organisation.

[DoctorBeaver (OP)]

Does it have other languages too?

No, everything is in Standard American so you won't learn Bulgarian from it.

[Variola]

I don't know why I haven't found this site earlier. It's like Wikipedia but all the entries are written by experts and it's peer-reviewed. I've had a quick look at it seems like a very good resource.



http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Main_Page

I've just had a mooch too, what a good idea. Lots of references at the bottom too which is a real help when trying to write something. I have had the misfortune of having to edit a Wiki page before as part of an assignment, and it was not the easiest of tasks.
I hope it keeps growing, lots of really good, well written articles amd the curator idea is genius.

[JimBob]

NOT FAIR !!! - The search for "geology" comes up with this:

[Chemistry4me]

Same for "Organic Chemistry'!

[Chemistry4me]

Need to click this:

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[wolfekeeper]

These kinds of 'alternatives' to the wikipedia usually sound much better than they actually are.

The problems include:

a) experts aren't necessarily that good at explaining stuff to mere mortals (they're too good- everything for them is too obvious)

b) they have few contributors because there's lots of hoops to jump through, and true experts usually have better things to do

c) the wikipedia is based on experts anyway, it's just based on stuff they wrote down and got through peer review

d) some subjects like homeopathy, the credentialled 'experts' are very biased.

e) at the end of the day, experts are just people, giving them an unreviewed publishing medium isn't necessarily as good idea as it sounds

f) the wikipedia scales much better; the wikipedia gains about a thousand new articles per day, most of the other pedias only have a few thousand articles tops.

[Chemistry4me]

Well, the individual can decide whether it is reliable or not.

[Variola]

a) experts aren't necessarily that good at explaining stuff to mere mortals (they're too good- everything for them is too obvious)

Thats true, but Scholarpedia is aimed at undergraduate students or higher, which means they already have a knowledge base on whatever they are looking up. Wiki is designed to be approachable to the average Joe, I had to keep that in mind when editing an article for my assignment.

b) they have few contributors because there's lots of hoops to jump through, and true experts usually have better things to do

Agreed. But Its still a novel way of sharing information, that might well appeal to some.

c) the wikipedia is based on experts anyway, it's just based on stuff they wrote down and got through peer review

I'm afraid not, Wiki can be edited by anyone, and you don't even have to provide references at the bottom. You can say whatever you like, and you are not accountable. Its a blessing and a curse. Thats why much of wiki is innaccurate, misleading, biased or just plain plagiarised.

d) some subjects like homeopathy, the credentialled 'experts' are very biased.

Totally! But then any good curator should be able to put some balance on it.

e) at the end of the day, experts are just people, giving them an unreviewed publishing medium isn't necessarily as good idea as it sounds

True, but from what I understand it is peer-reviewed, the curator mus approve of anything submitted and other expert in the field have access to it, meaning they can contribute or make complaint.

) the wikipedia scales much better; the wikipedia gains about a thousand new articles per day, most of the other pedias only have a few thousand articles tops.

But the scholarpedia is more specialised, its unlikely to have articles of Brad Pitt or a popular TV show! So naturally it will gain less in terms of amount of articvles, but hopefully the articles will be of better quality and more importantly they are cited and referenced.