WikiJournal of Humanities

In the section on excluded content, should we mention that original academic papers may be submitted to Wikiversity:WikiJournal of Humanities? Pinging @Bluerasberry for his thoughts. - Jmabel ! talk 02:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Probably not. Judging by v:WikiJournal Preprints#Articles currently in review (which includes some unacknowledged submissions as much as five or six years old), the project is largely inactive, and directing users there would not be helpful. Omphalographer (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Omphalographer and Jmabel: Despite the unprocessed older submissions the project is active and considering incoming submissions.

@Marshallsumter and OhanaUnited: can you speak more about WikiJournal? How much capacity is there to review incoming preprint submissions? Bluerasberry (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding specifically the WikiJournal of Science, the capacity is small but close to the submission rate. For example, the latest is Diffeology and I am currently looking for reviewers. --Marshallsumter (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

should we mention that original academic papers may be submitted to Wikiversity:WikiJournal of Humanities? No, I don't think so. Those are just very few files and this makes this page unnecessarily long and more complicated. It doesn't matter if users submit say 5 such PDF files per year to Commons or not and even not if they also submitted it to or were better to submit it to the WikiJournal of Humanities. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I would say it's not necessary at the current stage to explicitly state it in the Commons scope. Our current preprint processing instructs authors of original academic papers to create preprint page directly on the wiki or submit by email. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Certain content is excluded from Commons

This is confusing: "Certain content is excluded from Commons … Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text. Purely textual material such as plain-text versions of recipes, lists of instructions, poetry, fiction, quotations, dictionary definitions, lesson plans or classroom material, and the like are better hosted elsewhere, for example at Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikiversity or Wikisource." We are required to host the original document at Commons to be used in the other projects, so why are we saying they must be deleted? It sounds like newspaper articles, books without illustrations, must be deleted, because they are raw text. RAN (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how to word it better, and it might be made clearer that there are certain exceptions (copies of legitimately published books or peer-reviewed academic papers, for example). It's basically meant to say, "No, you don't get to use Commons as a way to publish your original writing just because it is arguably educational," and "No, you don't get to write your own divergent version of a Wikipedia article and publish it here," etc. - Jmabel ! talk 04:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Source documents may be in scope; content created by Wikimedia users is generally not. The overall intent is that Commons uploads shouldn't be used to bypass the wiki editing process (e.g. writing an encyclopedia article and publishing it to Commons as a PDF), or as a back-door way means publishing content which would otherwise not be in scope on any Wikimedia project (like works of fiction). We adjusted this wording a few years ago at /Archive 2#Proposed change in wording.; if you can come up with a better way to explain the distinction, we'd be interested to hear it. Omphalographer (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)