This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Scholarpedia is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Scholarpedia is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
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. --BenT/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)
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)
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. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:20, 7 December 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. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
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? 188.8.131.52 (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)
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. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
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. – PAINE ELLSWORTHCLIMAX! 20:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)