Talk:Philica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class by the project members. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article was nominated for deletion on August 11, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] The next big Wikipedia?

Assuming Academia runs on a meritocracy, this is the next big wikipedia... but then again, there are a lot of orthodox (in the T. Kuhn sense) goonies who'd probably take over on tis eventually. ahh... --Yosofun 06:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep this article

(copied from the afd discussion)

KEEP because Philica is pretty big amongst published scientists, though perhaps, not yet to the general public. Philica is like the Arxiv for academia in general, and if you have used Arxiv, you'd know the significance of what I've just said. Moreover, Philica has been mentioned by Nature, the magazine read or skimmed-through by virtually all scientists, so the Notability complaint doesn't compute. I would say the current stub categorization is not quite accurate, since Philica is not just an WWW-related article.

Yosofun 01:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] eBay?

I don't follow the comparison to eBay (which I understand is a sales and auction service). Should the comparison be to Google (which uses links-to for ratings?) if to an-thing like that? Kdammers 10:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you use eBay, you'd understand that a seller/buyer's credability is judged on-first-glance from his or her star-rating. They're attempting to make peer review more democratic with an analogue of eBay's star-rating system. Links-to wouldn't be the right comparison since we're essentially using human judgment (i.e., the credibility of a user). Yosofun 05:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)