Talk:Scholarpedia

Scholarpedia
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)


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

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

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


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

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

 * 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)
 * It seems to depend on the article see for example 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)
 * The article I'm interested in says "contact Scholarpedia for copyright details". D'oh.. --CopperKettle (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 "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)

Notability
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)

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)

Copyright
According to Scholarpedia, some of its article content is licensed under the GFDL and Creative Commons. 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)
 * 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)

Public Election
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)


 * "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)

Section update
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. – P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX !  20:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Stats
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)


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

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

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

The site is, for all intents and purposes, defunct.
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)
 * I agree. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)