6

The site should soon be coming into a Public Beta period where anyone can sign up and use the site.

How can we spread awareness to experts, researchers and practitioners in the cognitive science fields?

5
4

Besides standard tools as Facebook, Google+, Twitter and the f2f it is good to spread the word in places people may be really interested, e.g.:

  • on a cognitive science-related blog if someone has one,
  • on a webpage of a research group in cognitive science (or even better: on that of the faculty),
  • through academic mailing lists.
2

For a lot of people, Wikipedia is the first place to start their searching. We might want to increase our exposure, by acting as sources for wikipedia to cite. If there is some wikipedia article that is missing important information (or citations) and we have a definitive answer on our site providing such information, it might be good to add a reference (with appropriate links) from wikipedia to the answers on this site.

  • 1
    Would the wikipedians consider a Q&A site a reliable source? I would doubt that... – H.Muster May 12 '12 at 14:42
  • cstheory.SE is referenced on wikipedia. I think it just depends on the quality of content. – Artem Kaznatcheev May 12 '12 at 16:11
  • 1
    Wikipedia would probably want the primary source, wouldn't they? Our answers are generally the secondary source, citing primary material – Ben Brocka May 12 '12 at 17:12
  • @BenBrocka usually a good answer (to a good question) combines many different primary sources that are tangentially related into a sort of mini-survey that answers the question. But I agree, most of the 'single source' answers are no good. – Artem Kaznatcheev May 12 '12 at 17:14
  • For instance, if there is a probabilistic (or bayesian) models of cognition article on wikipedia, this question would be good to cite in the "shortcomings and criticism" section. – Artem Kaznatcheev May 12 '12 at 17:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .