This is an example of a semantically tagged paper: Distributed Joint Source and Channel Coding with Low-Density Parity-Check Codes. On arXiv, it looks like this:

enter image description here

In the PDF (with Chrome as PDF viewer), it looks like this:

enter image description here

What is the point of this? Why should I, as an author, add this to any publication?

Shouldn't I, if I want a link to Wikipedia, just add it by myself without the usertracking (respecting the privacy of the reader) to my article? And shouldn't I be able to find content of much higher quality and explicitly name it in my paper if it is necessary or otherwise, if it is not necessary because it is quite basic knowledge in the domain I write about just assume that the reader will know what I mean / know the textbooks where he /she can look up the definitions?

See also

  • Could the person who downvoted the question please add an explanation? – Martin Thoma Dec 1 '15 at 10:34
  • 2
    I didn't downvote it, but I'd guess the issue is that this looks like a rhetorical question. (Specifically like you are more interested in criticizing ScienceWISE than learning about it.) I can sympathize, since I think ScienceWISE looks ridiculous myself. Some of the tags in the paper you linked to fail to meet even minimal standards (for example, there are irrelevant/misleading definitions for "intensively" and "mass function"), and none of them seems remotely useful to me. However, rhetorical questions often get a poor reception, since they aren't really intended to be answered. – Anonymous Mathematician Dec 1 '15 at 13:54
  • @AnonymousMathematician I doubt that ScienceWISE is worth using, right. However, obviously there is at least one paper which uses it. I've asked this questions because I can see the downsides, but no upside. If this looks as if I only wanted to criticize it, I'm sorry. (It might be a language problem, as English is not my mother tongue. In English, I tend to express myself simpler than I would do in German.) How could I phrase the question differently to get people write the advantage(s) of ScienceWISE? – Martin Thoma Dec 1 '15 at 18:50

From ScienceWISE FAQ:

Why do you need all this if there is Wikipedia?

The main difference of our Ontology from most existing online resources is in a possibility to have several single-authored definitions of the same concept. Unlike Wikipedia, ScienceWISE provides a mechanism for scientific community ranking (by linking against the best definitions) and provides a peer-run quality assurance system.

You may have read that already, but unless you explain what is not clear your question is either impossible to further answer or a disguised criticism.

  • To cite my question: "Shouldn't I, if I want a link to Wikipedia, just add it by myself without the usertracking (respecting the privacy of the reader) to my article?" – Martin Thoma Dec 1 '15 at 11:32
  • 3
    That does not say what in the citation you think unclear or beside the point. ScienceWISE explicitly say what they add to wikipedia ("a mechanism for scientific community ranking" and "a peer-run quality assurance system"), you have to explain better why this does not answer your question, at least I don't get it. – Benoît Kloeckner Dec 1 '15 at 11:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.