https://wikiconference.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=FriendlyFred&feedformat=atomWikiConference North America - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T16:42:56ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.13https://wikiconference.org/index.php?title=Submissions:2015/Reimagining_the_article_submission_process&diff=2757Submissions:2015/Reimagining the article submission process2015-10-09T14:38:09Z<p>FriendlyFred: /* Interested attendees */</p>
<hr />
<div><!-- Simply provide information about your submission below and save the page. --><br />
;Title: <br />
<br />
;[[Submissions#Proposal Themes|Outreach]]: <!-- community, tech, outreach, GLAM, or education --><br />
<br />
;[[Submissions#Presentation Types|Workshop]]: <!-- panel, workshop, or presentation --><br />
<br />
;Author:<br />
<br />
;wikipedia2015@idea.org: <!-- this field must be entered, otherwise, submission will not be checked --><br />
<br />
;idea:<br />
<br />
;IDEA.org: <!-- organization, company, etc. --><br />
<br />
;Abstract: <!-- at least 300 words to describe your proposal --><br />
<br />
The current process of creating articles suffers from historical, procedural and usability problems. <br />
<br />
Notability: The way that people define and imagine worthiness of a topic, and the kinds of primary sources which they think would would justify it, differ from the secondary and tertiary sources which are the bread and butter of Wikipedia notability and citations. In an encyclopedia with nearly 5 million articles in English, and most traditional encyclopedic topics already covered, most new article proposals are about people, companies, and less-notable topics. <br />
<br />
Process: The process of using Wiki syntax is confusing and should not be the barrier to entry for introducing short, legitimate topics. The typical formula for various article types is elusive. The process of creating an AfC, or making a new page that could quickly enter deletion proceedings is mired in obtuse and user interface, overwhelming bureaucracy, excessive, often-contradictory regulations, and inconsistent application of rules depending on the whims and biases of the editors reviewing AfC or pursuing deletion, and a feedback style that would seem harsh and arrogant to most outsiders. It's much easier for an editor with AFCH to click a few buttons to decline a new article (~10 seconds) than it is for a new user to laboriously attempt to create an articles (hours). Review and re-review tends to involve different editors, confusing new authors with mixed messages. <br />
<br />
COI vs. NPOV: Editors are trigger-happy to throw indefensible COI claims, so editors go underground, and a disproportionate number of new articles are submitted by single-use accounts which attempt to cloak the association of the author. Moreover, the bureaucracy is to dense that many resort to hiring marketing firms, and a cottage industry of sycophantic marketing freelancers who ghostwrite or post. The reality is that for most new topics, which are not nobel prize winners, fortune 500 companies, or incredible famous topics, the only (and often the the best champion) to create those new articles is affiliated with the topic. Instead useful feedback could lessen the need for hiring consultants, and focusing on NPOV would be more productive than focus on COI. <br />
<br />
Copyrights: It is difficult and confusing for authors to know how to turn over their text content or images for CC Attribution-ShareAlike use. A good example might be repurposing part of a scholarly article (which the author owns) or thesis. <br />
<br />
This workshop would try to re-envision a new-article process as more of a multistep process, rather than cycles of submission/rejection. The interface would better matches the expectations, needs and circumstance of new authors, encourage transparency and honesty, acknowledge the de-centralized nature of AfC/AfD review, and the fact that most articles are rejected the first time. The process could be more iterative by design, starting with a notability claim/test (e.g., a 1 paragraph application which attempts to establish notability with 1-5 key citations), clear and simple tutorials which meet 90% of the common mistakes, and 90% of needs, and an iterative process that reviews the idea and coaches the author over a period of days or 1-2 weeks (which would actually be faster in the end), also triaging inappropriate topics a lot earlier in the process. The goal would be to get good-enough, short Class-C articles into the system, with less frustration and disillusionment from new authors, and less burden on editors. While at the same time, discouraging inappropriate submissions earlier in the cycle. <br />
<br />
There is no long-term implementation plan at this time. The output would mostly likely be a series of wireframes, workflow descriptions, or key points for a tutorial. <br />
<br />
;Length of presentation: <!-- 30-45 min. for panels, 30-75 min. for workshops, 15-30 min. for presentations --><br />
<br />
75 min. <br />
<br />
;Special schedule requests: <!-- (for example - can not present on Saturday) --><br />
<br />
;Will you attend WikiConference USA if your submission is not accepted?:<br />
<br />
Maybe. <br />
<br />
<!-- Do not edit the section below. --><br />
== Interested attendees ==<br />
<br />
'''If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with four tildes. (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).'''<br />
<br />
# [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]] ([[User talk:Tokyogirl79|talk]]) 04:58, 20 August 2015 (EDT) (Definitely a good topic and I agree about the COI process: I just started editing under a COI recently and it's made me far more sympathetic to some of the COI editors. [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]] ([[User talk:Tokyogirl79|talk]]) 04:59, 20 August 2015 (EDT))<br />
# [[User:Soupvector|Soupvector]] [[User:Soupvector|Stuart Ray]] ([[User talk:Soupvector|talk]]) 22:06, 25 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:DocTree|DocTree]] ([[User talk:DocTree|talk]]) 09:27, 7 September 2015 (EDT) Most new editors begin as SPAs with a goal of creating or changing one article where they have a COI. Our goal--grow a Wikipedian.<br />
# [[User:DGG|DGG]] ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 20:26, 8 October 2015 (EDT) Suggested reading: [[WP:Article Wizard]]<br />
#[[User:FriendlyFred|FriendlyFred]] ([[User talk:FriendlyFred|talk]]) 10:38, 9 October 2015 (EDT)<br />
[[Category:Submissions/2015]]<br />
[[Category:Submissions in 2015, in-wiki policy]]</div>FriendlyFredhttps://wikiconference.org/index.php?title=User_talk:FriendlyFred&diff=2751User talk:FriendlyFred2015-10-09T13:52:23Z<p>FriendlyFred: Created page with "<!--This is a test-->"</p>
<hr />
<div><!--This is a test--></div>FriendlyFredhttps://wikiconference.org/index.php?title=Submissions:2015/Women..._it_takes_a_village&diff=2664Submissions:2015/Women... it takes a village2015-10-07T02:19:06Z<p>FriendlyFred: /* Interested attendees */</p>
<hr />
<div><!-- Simply provide information about your submission below and save the page. --><br />
;Title: Women... it takes a village<br />
<br />
;[[Submissions#Proposal Themes|Theme]]: Advocacy & Outreach<br />
<br />
;[[Submissions#Presentation Types|Type of submission]]: Presentation<br />
<br />
;Author: Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight<br />
<br />
;E-mail address: rosiestep.wiki@gmail.com<br />
<br />
;Username: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rosiestep Rosiestep]<br />
<br />
;Affiliation: Wikipedia; WikiWomen's User Group<br />
<br />
;Abstract: <br />
[[File:Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG|thumb|[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women/Women_in_Red Women in Red]]]<br />
An international movement has begun to ensure that notable women are recognized for their achievements. The issue is defined as content gender gap, and the movement that addresses it is named, "Women in Red". Wikipedia is ideally situated to take a leadership role in this campaign due to its diverse array of editors, languages, and readership. This presentation raises awareness about content gender gap, and outlines a call for action for the global Wikimedia village. What we accomplish through Women in Red will inspire future generations of women and men to stand on their shoulders and reach for the stars. <br />
<br />
INTRODUCTION:<br />
<br />
According to WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/Media_and_research approximately 15%] of the biographies on the en-Wikipedia are about women. WikiProject Women in Red (WiR) was created to address content gender gap... a form of systemic bias. It was launched in July at Wikimania 2015 in Mexico City, Mexico by two seasoned editors: Roger Bamkin (user:Victuallers) and me. WiR maintains lists of crowd-sourced redlinks organized by occupation, nationality, and such. It provides curated groups of redlinked articles to work on through a collaboration with other women's WikiProjects, such as Women artists, Women scientists, and Women writers. It encourages translation from other language Wikipedias through a collaboration with WikiProject Intertranswiki. It streams a Wikidata feed of articles (Wikidata entries with no en-Wikipedia article) through a collaboration with WikiProject X. WiR's members update a list of newly created articles. WiR tracks events and published articles related to the project's scope. WiR is young and strong. In its first 24 hours, it dealt with a rename (from WikiProject XX). In its first 2 weeks, the project created almost 500 new articles. In its first month, it encountered a formal merge proposal to become a subgroup of the newly-established, WikiProject Women; with consensus, the merge occurred at Week 5. <br />
<br />
PRESENTATION OBJECTIVES:<br />
*Review WiR's scope: women's biographies and women's works.<br />
*Review lessons learned during the project's first 90 days to include, project design, branding, organization, talkpage issues, collaboration with other WikiProjects, and membership<br />
*Provide an outcomes projection for WiR's one year mark<br />
*Request the community's support in developing a campaign to further our work. We are hopeful that a village-wide campaign, addressing strategy, developing best practices, and amplifying communication, will catapult the work of WiR.<br />
<br />
IT TAKES A VILLAGE:<br />
[[File:Wigi map.png|thumb|Female ratio of biographies by place of birth and citizenship in Wikidata]]<br />
* GLOBAL FOCUS: In order to reach its goal of increasing the percentage of women's biographies, the Wikimedia village -- all language Wikipedias, as well as WikiData -- must embark on a global campaign.<br />
* PROMOTION: WiR needs local and global advocacy, branding, and promotion. It needs internal and external marketing coordination. It needs press coverage and social media expertise. This campaign needs to be not only informational but inspirational as today's readers are tomorrow's editors. This campaign needs the amalgamation of global Wikimedia campaigns, such as Wiki Loves Monuments, which has a presence on the Wikimedia movement calendar, with the woman-minded focus of the ArtAndFeminism initiative during WikiWomen's History Month, which does not. Major local and international-level initiatives which rely significantly on site advertising/banners/messaging for their success already bump up against each with competing priorities. We need a strategy as, if editors don't know about a particular initiative, or don't understand that Wikipedia considers it to be a high priority, they won't give it significant attention. <br />
* GLAM, EDUCATION, CHAPTERS, USER GROUPS: WiR would benefit from the ideas, the connections, and the support of these communities. How can we partner with you?<br />
* TECH SUPPORT: WiR's talkpage abounds with discussions centered on tech issues. The WiR tech wish list is long. WiR's articles are generated by humans. Let's address bots before someone starts using one indiscriminately to create thousands of sub-stubs.<br />
* WIKIDATA: We have been told that WIGI [[:m:Grants:IdeaLab/WIGI: Wikipedia Gender Index|Wikipedia Gender Index]] will be able to provide statistics on a weekly basis, but only for the biographies in WikiData. How do we account for every Wikipedia article on WikiData? Who is creating the WikiData entry for the newly-created Wikipedia article? <br />
* QUALITY: WiR focuses on converting redlinks into blue. How do we build in quality measures for a project which concentrates on new article creation (Stub-class/Start-class articles)?<br />
<br />
CONCLUSION:<br />
<br />
In July 2015, the en-Wikipedia started a global conversation at the international conference, Wikimania, addressing content gender gap. Women in Red's work depends upon editor engagement, that is, creating new articles about notable women and their works, "moving the needle" from 15% of en-Wikipedia's biographies to some larger number. The movement's success hinges upon strategy, coordination, promotion, and buy-in from the Wikimedia village as there are other competing movements vying for the same editor's and reader's attention. Join in the conversation at WikiConference USA and/or at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women/Women_in_Red Women in Red].<br />
<br />
;Length of presentation: 15 or 30 minutes (30 minutes will allow for interaction with the attendees).<br />
<br />
;Special schedule requests: None<br />
<br />
;Will you attend WikiConference USA if your submission is not accepted?: Yes<br />
<br />
<!-- Do not edit the section below. --><br />
== Interested attendees ==<br />
<br />
'''If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with four tildes. (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).'''<br />
<br />
# [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]] ([[User talk:Tokyogirl79|talk]]) 05:03, 20 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] ([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]]) 19:53, 21 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Ipigott|Ipigott]] ([[User talk:Ipigott|talk]]) 08:30, 22 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Gobonobo|Gobonobo]] ([[User talk:Gobonobo|talk]]) 05:31, 24 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:SusunW|SusunW]] ([[User talk:SusunW|talk]]) 23:23, 24 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]] ([[User talk:Smallbones|talk]]) 22:47, 25 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Doncram|Doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 09:46, 26 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]] ([[User talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]) 14:06, 26 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Mozucat|Mozucat]] ([[User talk:Mozucat|talk]]) 15:50, 26 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# --[[User:Sphilbrick|Sphilbrick]] ([[User talk:Sphilbrick|talk]]) 21:45, 26 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Jami (Wiki Ed)|Jami (Wiki Ed)]] ([[User talk:Jami (Wiki Ed)|talk]]) 14:18, 28 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Theredproject|Theredproject]] ([[User talk:Theredproject|talk]]) 13:25, 30 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:AKolbe|AKolbe]] ([[User talk:AKolbe|talk]]) 17:17, 31 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emitraka emitraka aka lv_ra] 10:01, 1 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Eryk (Wiki Ed)|Eryk (Wiki Ed)]] ([[User talk:Eryk (Wiki Ed)|talk]]) 13:30, 1 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Samantha (Wiki Ed)|Samantha (Wiki Ed)]] ([[User talk:Samantha (Wiki Ed)|talk]]) 14:06, 3 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Helaine (Wiki Ed)|Helaine (Wiki Ed)]] ([[User talk:Helaine (Wiki Ed)|talk]]) 17:22, 3 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:DocTree|DocTree]] ([[User talk:DocTree|talk]]) 23:13, 3 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Mvetter|Mvetter]] ([[User talk:Mvetter|talk]]) 12:21, 14 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# -[[User:Another Believer|Another Believer]] ([[User talk:Another Believer|talk]]) 10:12, 17 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Hildabast|Hildabast]] ([[User talk:Hildabast|talk]]) 14:06, 6 October 2015 (EDT)<br />
#[[User:FriendlyFred|FriendlyFred]] ([[User talk:FriendlyFred|talk]]) 22:19, 6 October 2015 (EDT)<br />
# ''Add your username here.''<br />
<br />
[[Category:Submissions/2015]]<br />
[[Category:Submissions in 2015, gender]]</div>FriendlyFredhttps://wikiconference.org/index.php?title=Submissions:2015/Teaching_Research_%26_Critical_Thinking_Skills_Through_Wikipedia&diff=2663Submissions:2015/Teaching Research & Critical Thinking Skills Through Wikipedia2015-10-07T02:16:28Z<p>FriendlyFred: /* Interested attendees */</p>
<hr />
<div><!-- Simply provide information about your submission below and save the page. --><br />
;Title: <br />
Teaching Research & Critical Thinking Skills Through Wikipedia<br />
;[[Submissions#Proposal Themes|Theme]]: <!-- community, tech, outreach, GLAM, or education --><br />
Education<br />
;[[Submissions#Presentation Types|Type of submission]]: <!-- panel, workshop, or presentation --><br />
Presentation<br />
;Author:<br />
Chanitra Bishop<br />
;E-mail address: <!-- this field must be entered, otherwise, submission will not be checked --><br />
chabis10@gmail.com<br />
;Username:<br />
[[User:Etlib|Etlib]] ([[User talk:Etlib|talk]]) 17:55, 31 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
;Affiliation: <!-- organization, company, etc. --><br />
Hunter College, New York, NY 10065<br />
;Abstract: <!-- at least 300 words to describe your proposal --><br />
Many instructors in academia approach using Wikipedia in the classroom with apprehension or completely ban its use due to the fact that "anyone can edit Wikipedia". However, students as well as faculty often find themselves using Wikipedia to do basic research and learn more about a given topic. Instead of discouraging students from using Wikipedia, it is important to teach students how to best incorporate Wikipedia into their research. Learning how Wikipedia works and how to effectively use Wikipedia is a skill that students will be able to use outside of the classroom and take into the workplace. <br />
This session will discuss how Wikipedia can be used to teach research and critical thinking skills by providing students will the tools necessary to evaluate Wikipedia articles. There are a variety of assignments, some of which only require part of a class session that can be used to teach students about Wikipedia. This includes designing assignments to assist students in understanding what makes a "good" Wikipedia article by having students review references listed and asking them to determine the creditability of sources used. It can also include asking students to review an article and discuss how well the topic is covered and if there are gaps, asking students to edit the article and thereby improve the quality of Wikipedia. Assignments can also take the form of looking at how information is presented in an online community driven website. Students can be tasked with reviewing the talk page and the history of the article to determine how the article was developed over time. By discussing what information was included in the first iteration of the article, students are able to see how an article can improve over time and see how edits from an active online community can result in a robust article on a given subject.<br />
<br />
;Length of presentation: <!-- 30-45 min. for panels, 30-75 min. for workshops, 15-30 min. for presentations --><br />
20-30 minute presentation<br />
;Special schedule requests: <!-- (for example - can not present on Saturday) --><br />
<br />
;Will you attend WikiConference USA if your submission is not accepted?:<br />
Yes<br />
<!-- Do not edit the section below. --><br />
== Interested attendees ==<br />
<br />
'''If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with four tildes. (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).'''<br />
<br />
# [[User:Gaurav|Gaurav]] ([[User talk:Gaurav|talk]]) 22:14, 31 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# --[[User:Frank Schulenburg|Frank Schulenburg]] ([[User talk:Frank Schulenburg|talk]]) 22:20, 31 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Jami (Wiki Ed)|Jami (Wiki Ed)]] ([[User talk:Jami (Wiki Ed)|talk]]) 13:15, 1 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Eryk (Wiki Ed)|Eryk (Wiki Ed)]] ([[User talk:Eryk (Wiki Ed)|talk]]) 13:24, 1 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Megs|Megs]] ([[User talk:Megs|talk]]) 13:30, 1 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Samantha (Wiki Ed)|Samantha (Wiki Ed)]] ([[User talk:Samantha (Wiki Ed)|talk]]) 14:00, 3 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Helaine (Wiki Ed)|Helaine (Wiki Ed)]] ([[User talk:Helaine (Wiki Ed)|talk]]) 17:06, 3 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:DocTree|DocTree]] ([[User talk:DocTree|talk]]) 09:15, 7 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]] ([[User talk:Tokyogirl79|talk]]) 05:51, 9 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Mvetter|Mvetter]] ([[User talk:Mvetter|talk]]) 10:04, 10 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Zmcdowell|Zmcdowell]] ([[User talk:Zmcdowell|talk]]) 14:11, 21 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Librarygurl|Librarygurl]] ([[User talk:Librarygurl|talk]]) 14:59, 25 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
#[[User:FriendlyFred|FriendlyFred]] ([[User talk:FriendlyFred|talk]]) 22:16, 6 October 2015 (EDT)<br />
# ''Add your username here.''<br />
<br />
[[Category:Submissions/2015]]<br />
[[Category:Submissions in 2015, education]]</div>FriendlyFredhttps://wikiconference.org/index.php?title=Submissions:2015/Cochrane-Wikipedia_Initiative&diff=2662Submissions:2015/Cochrane-Wikipedia Initiative2015-10-07T02:14:42Z<p>FriendlyFred: /* Interested attendees */</p>
<hr />
<div><!-- Simply provide information about your submission below and save the page. --><br />
;Title: Cochrane-Wikipedia Initiative<br />
<br />
;[[Submissions#Proposal Themes|Theme]]: GLAM<br />
<br />
;[[Submissions#Presentation Types|Type of submission]]: presentation<br />
<br />
;Author: FloNight/Sydney Poore<br />
<br />
;E-mail address: sydney.poore@gmail.com<br />
<br />
;Username: FloNight<br />
<br />
;Affiliation: Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane<br />
<br />
;Abstract: Wikipedia has become one of the most important place on the internet to find health information for patients, health professionals, students, and the general public. Research shows that the majority of health care professionals have used Wikipedia for quick reference, and most medical students use Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia medical articles are heavily read, there is a relatively small group of people who are creating these medical articles.<br />
<br />
:Cochrane, a global medical research organization, is partnering with Wikipedians to improve the content of medical articles by working with people in the Cochrane network. Cochrane contributors who are researchers, and professionals, and consumers from more than 130 countries that produce credible, accessible health information that is free from conflicts of interest. <br />
<br />
:The presentation will: <br />
<br />
::-give a brief overview of Cochrane-Wikipedia initiative including The Wikipedia Library Cochrane accounts, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Cochrane_update Cochrane Upate bot on Wikipedia English], and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cochrane_Collaboration/Cochrane_UK/Cochrane_Reviews Cochrane UK Review table]<br />
::-discuss the different models for healthcare organizations to partner with Wikipedians. <br />
::-highlight the challenges and benefits of doing an collaboration with healthcare professionals<br />
::-introduce two upcoming collaborations related to the 1) Women's Health and 2) Disasters and other humanitarian emergencies<br />
<br />
<br />
;Length of presentation: 15-30 min.<br />
<br />
;Special schedule requests: also hope to do session on WikiWomens User Group<br />
<br />
;Will you attend WikiConference USA if your submission is not accepted?: yes<br />
<br />
<!-- Do not edit the section below. --><br />
== Interested attendees ==<br />
<br />
'''If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with four tildes. (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).'''<br />
# [[User:Jami (Wiki Ed)|Jami (Wiki Ed)]] ([[User talk:Jami (Wiki Ed)|talk]]) 19:28, 31 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Samantha (Wiki Ed)|Samantha (Wiki Ed)]] ([[User talk:Samantha (Wiki Ed)|talk]]) 13:49, 3 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# --[[User:Sphilbrick|Sphilbrick]] ([[User talk:Sphilbrick|talk]]) 14:14, 3 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Rosiestep|Rosiestep]] ([[User talk:Rosiestep|talk]]) 01:41, 6 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Librarygurl|Librarygurl]] ([[User talk:Librarygurl|talk]]) 14:53, 25 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:अभय नातू|अभय नातू]] ([[User talk:अभय नातू|talk]]) 23:43, 1 October 2015 (EDT)<br />
#[[User:FriendlyFred|FriendlyFred]] ([[User talk:FriendlyFred|talk]]) 22:14, 6 October 2015 (EDT)<br />
[[Category:Submissions/2015]]<br />
[[Category:Submissions in 2015, medicine]]</div>FriendlyFredhttps://wikiconference.org/index.php?title=Submissions:2015/Journalism_and_the_online_information_community&diff=2661Submissions:2015/Journalism and the online information community2015-10-07T02:06:28Z<p>FriendlyFred: /* Interested attendees */</p>
<hr />
<div><!-- Simply provide information about your submission below and save the page. --><br />
;Title: Journalism and the online information community: How Wikimedians cover Wikimedia<br />
<br />
;[[Submissions#Proposal Themes|Theme]]: Community <br />
<br />
;[[Submissions#Presentation Types|Type of submission]]: Panel<br />
;Author: Robert Fernandez<br />
<br />
;E-mail address: wikigamaliel@gmail.com<br />
<br />
;Username: Gamaliel<br />
<br />
;Affiliation: ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost Wikipedia Signpost]''<br />
<br />
;Abstract: Wikipedia makes a massive contribution to the world's knowledge and information accessibility. By many metrics, the hundreds of language-Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects comprise one of the world's largest institutions; yet it is relatively unnoticed by journalists, except when major controversies arise. Mainstream journalism has only scratched the surface of this complex web of websites, projects, and the volunteers and paid staff who run the Wikimedia movement, leaving the job of documenting and explaining its workings to the movement itself. A number of institutions and solo projects devoted to Wikimedia journalism are attempting to fill this gap, raising many interesting questions: such as:<br />
<br />
:* How does community journalism differ from professional media coverage of Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects? <br />
:* How does the nature of the community institution affect the coverage it creates? <br />
:* How does the lack of professional journalism training, expertise, and resources affect community journalism? <br />
<br />
:The panel will discuss approaches to Wikimedia community journalism and the advantages, challenges, and biases of each.<br />
<br />
Panelists:<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WWB William Beutler], ''[http://thewikipedian.net/ The Wikipedian]''<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Resident_Mario Aleksey Bilogur], associate editor, ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost Wikipedia Signpost]''<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ed_Erhart_%28WMF%29 Ed Erhart], WMF Communications; former editor-in-chief, ''Wikipedia Signpost''<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gamaliel Robert Fernandez], co-editor-in-chief, ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost Wikipedia Signpost]''<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466 Andreas Kolbe], ''[http://wikipediocracy.com/ Wikipediocracy]''; ''Wikipedia Signpost''<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fuzheado Andrew Lih], Professor of journalism at American University; ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly Wikipedia Weekly]'' podcast<br />
<br />
;Length of presentation: 45-60 min. (60 would be preferred given the size of the panel, but we can work with 45.) <br />
<br />
;Special schedule requests: <!-- (for example - can not present on Saturday) --><br />
<br />
:We'd like to display PowerPoint slides, but it's not absolutely essential.<br />
<br />
;Will you attend WikiConference USA if your submission is not accepted?: Other panelists yes, submitter tentative. <br />
<br />
<!-- Do not edit the section below. --><br />
== Interested attendees ==<br />
<br />
'''If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with four tildes. (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).'''<br />
<br />
#[[User:Slowking4|Slowking4]] ([[User talk:Slowking4|talk]])<br />
#[[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]] ([[User talk:Smallbones|talk]])<br />
# [[User:Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]] ([[User talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]) 13:39, 26 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# --[[User:Sphilbrick|Sphilbrick]] ([[User talk:Sphilbrick|talk]]) 21:35, 26 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]] ([[User talk:Tokyogirl79|talk]]) 05:43, 9 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# -[[User:Another Believer|Another Believer]] ([[User talk:Another Believer|talk]]) 11:27, 6 October 2015 (EDT)<br />
#[[User:FriendlyFred|FriendlyFred]] ([[User talk:FriendlyFred|talk]]) 22:06, 6 October 2015 (EDT)<br />
# ''Add your username here.''<br />
<br />
[[Category:Submissions/2015]]<br />
[[Category:Submissions in 2015, journalism]]</div>FriendlyFredhttps://wikiconference.org/index.php?title=User:FriendlyFred&diff=2563User:FriendlyFred2015-09-23T13:11:42Z<p>FriendlyFred: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
My editing of Wikipedia is entirely pragmatic. I agree with much of the criticism of Wikipedia, but think it is worthwhile improving articles that are within my areas of interest rather than to ignore the spread of misinformation. I do not believe that a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) can be achieved through the wisdom of crowds, since I do not encounter crowds of editors, a perception supported by the studies that show a steep decline in the number of active contributors.<ref name="SimoniteT.20131022">[http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ The Decline of Wikipedia]</ref><br />
<ref name="Halfaker.20121228">[http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0002764212469365 The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia's Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline]</ref> Instead, articles on many topics have only a small group of contributors. Without a crowd, the quality of an article is dependent upon old-fashioned expertise whether gained though formal education or otherwise.<ref>For example, in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution WP article on Evolution] the PhD biochemist Tim Vickers has more edits than any other contributor by a wide margin, and only 10% are minor.</ref> <br />
<br />
My application of expertise in editing articles is in accordance with my reading of the WP NPOV guideline that the '''scholarly''' point of view is the '''neutral''' point of view. Rather than original research I use my expertise as a social scientist to do the scholarly research needed to find and summarize reliable sources. When a topic warrants it, and other points of view are noteworthy because of their popularity, they are mentioned but not in a way as to imply they are equally valid. When the topic of any article falls within the domain of an academic discipline which has a clear consensus, then the article must take that as its point of view. I have a BA in psychology and an MA in Urban Studies/Community Development. I can read a wide range of social science journal articles with some expert understanding.<br />
<br />
My current focus are a number of articles related to '''indigenous cultural appropriation in sports''', including [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy one on the Washington NFL team's name and logo]. I have no personal interest in the topics being neither indigenous American nor a sports fan. My only connection is having been born about four miles from where FedEx Field is now located. I read the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_mascot_controversy main article] entirely be accident. Having access to a university library, I began to do research and found many journal articles and books written by social scientists. These sources all define the topic as an example of ethnic stereotyping that is at best prejudicial and possibly discriminatory. As I began adding content using these references, there was some resistance to change but I soon found that I was essentially the only contributing editor. Edits by others are mainly grammar and spelling correction, and minor rewording that does not alter the meaning of the content. Lacking substantial feedback, I can only assume that since my edits remain, they meet with general approval.<br />
<br />
At the conference, I would like to discuss:<br />
<br />
*I have had little collaboration/discussion with other editors, and would like to know how to generate more.<br />
*After more than two years of editing a topic with significant media coverage, I am now routinely finding new journalistic sources that obviously have used the WP article as a reference in their writing for publication. I would think that this would be a common occurrence, and an interesting topic for discussion.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>FriendlyFredhttps://wikiconference.org/index.php?title=User:FriendlyFred&diff=2562User:FriendlyFred2015-09-23T12:30:36Z<p>FriendlyFred: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
My editing of Wikipedia is entirely pragmatic. I agree with much of the criticism of Wikipedia, but think it is worthwhile improving articles that are within my areas of interest rather than to ignore the spread of misinformation. I do not believe that a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) can be achieved through the wisdom of crowds, since I do not encounter crowds of editors, a perception supported by the studies that show a steep decline in the number of active contributors.<ref name="SimoniteT.20131022">[http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ The Decline of Wikipedia]</ref><br />
<ref name="Halfaker.20121228">[http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0002764212469365 The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia's Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline]</ref> Instead, articles on many topics have only a small group of contributors. Without a crowd, the quality of an article is dependent upon old-fashioned expertise whether gained though formal education or otherwise.<ref>For example, in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution WP article on Evolution] the PhD biochemist Tim Vickers has more edits than any other contributor by a wide margin, and only 10% are minor.</ref> <br />
<br />
My application of expertise in editing articles is in accordance with my reading of the WP NPOV guideline that the '''scholarly''' point of view is the '''neutral''' point of view. Rather than original research I use my expertise as a social scientist to do the scholarly research needed to find and summarize reliable sources. When a topic warrants it, and other points of view are noteworthy because of their popularity, they are mentioned but not in a way as to imply they are equally valid. When the topic of any article falls within the domain of an academic discipline which has a clear consensus, then the article must take that as its point of view.<br />
<br />
My current focus are a number of articles related to '''indigenous cultural appropriation in sports''', including [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy one on the Washington NFL team's name and logo]. I have no personal interest in the topics being neither indigenous American nor a sports fan. My only connection is having been born about four miles from where FedEx Field is now located. I read the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_mascot_controversy main article] entirely be accident. Having access to a university library, I began to do research and found many journal articles and books written by social scientists. These sources all define the topic as an example of ethnic stereotyping that is at best prejudicial and possibly discriminatory. As I began adding content using these references, there was some resistance to change but I soon found that I was essentially the only contributing editor. Edits by others are mainly grammar and spelling correction, and minor rewording that does not alter the meaning of the content. Lacking substantial feedback, I can only assume that since my edits remain, they meet with general approval.<br />
<br />
At the conference, I would like to discuss:<br />
<br />
*I have had little collaboration/discussion with other editors, and would like to know how to generate more.<br />
*After more than two years of editing a topic with significant media coverage, I am now routinely finding new journalistic sources that obviously have used the WP article as a reference in their writing for publication. I would think that this would be a common occurrence, and an interesting topic for discussion.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>FriendlyFredhttps://wikiconference.org/index.php?title=User:FriendlyFred&diff=2561User:FriendlyFred2015-09-23T12:29:47Z<p>FriendlyFred: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
My editing of Wikipedia is entirely pragmatic. I agree with much of the criticism of Wikipedia, but think it is worthwhile improving articles that are within my areas of interest rather than to ignore the spread of misinformation. I do not believe that a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) can be achieved through the wisdom of crowds, since I do not encounter crowds of editors, a perception supported by the studies that show a steep decline in the number of active contributors.<ref name="SimoniteT.20131022">[http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ The Decline of Wikipedia]</ref><br />
<ref name="Halfaker.20121228">[http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0002764212469365 The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia's Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline]</ref> Instead, articles on many topics have only a small group of contributors. Without a crowd, the quality of an article is dependent upon old-fashioned expertise whether gained though formal education or otherwise.<ref>For example, in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution WP article on Evolution] the PhD biochemist Tim Vickers has more edits than any other contributor by a wide margin, and only 10% are minor.</ref> <br />
<br />
My application of expertise in editing articles is in accordance with my reading of the WP NPOV guideline that the '''scholarly''' point of view is the '''neutral''' point of view. Rather than original research I use my expertise as a social scientist to do the scholarly research needed to find and summarize reliable sources. When a topic warrants it, and other points of view are noteworthy because of their popularity, they are mentioned but not in a way as to imply they are equally valid. When the topic of any article falls within the domain of an academic discipline which has a clear consensus, then the article must take that as its point of view.<br />
<br />
My current focus are a number of articles related to '''indigenous cultural appropriation in sports''', including [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy one on the Washington NFL team's name and logo]. I have no personal interest in the topics being neither indigenous American nor a sports fan. My only connection is having been born about four miles from where FedEx Field is now located. I read the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_mascot_controversy main article] entirely be accident. Having access to a university library, I began to do research and found many journal articles and books written by social scientists. These sources all define the topic as an example of ethnic stereotyping that is at best prejudicial and possibly discriminatory. As I began adding content using these references, there was some resistance to change but I soon found that I was essentially the only contributing editor. Edits by others are mainly grammar and spelling correction, and minor rewording that does not alter the meaning of the content. Lacking substantial feedback, I can only assume that since my edits remain, they meet with general approval.<br />
<br />
At the conference, I would like to discuss:<br />
<br />
*I have had little collaboration/discussion with other editors, and would like to know how to generate more.<br />
*After more than two years of editing a topic with significant media coverage, I am now routinely finding new journalistic sources that obviously have used the WP article as a reference in the writing for publication. I would think that this would be a common occurrence, and an interesting topic for discussion.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>FriendlyFredhttps://wikiconference.org/index.php?title=Submissions:2015/Thinking_(and_contributing)_outside_the_editing_box:_Alternative_ways_to_engage_subject-matter_experts&diff=2560Submissions:2015/Thinking (and contributing) outside the editing box: Alternative ways to engage subject-matter experts2015-09-23T12:17:41Z<p>FriendlyFred: /* Interested attendees */</p>
<hr />
<div><!-- Simply provide information about your submission below and save the page. --><br />
;Title: Thinking (and contributing) outside the editing box: Alternative ways to engage subject-matter experts<br />
<br />
;[[Submissions#Proposal Themes|Theme]]: Outreach, Community<br />
<br />
;[[Submissions#Presentation Types|Type of submission]]: Workshop<br />
<br />
;Authors: Andrew Lih, Ryan McGrady, Sage Ross<br />
<br />
;E-mail addresses: andrew.lih@gmail.com, ryan@wikiedu.org, sage@wikiedu.org<br />
<br />
;Usernames: [[:en:User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]], [[:en:User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)|Ryan (Wiki Ed)]] <span style="font-size:65%;">([[:en:User:Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]])</span>, [[:en:User:Sage (Wiki Ed)|Sage (Wiki Ed)]] <span style="font-size:65%;">([[:en:User:Ragesoss|Ragesoss]])</span><br />
<br />
;Affiliation: American University, Wiki Education Foundation<br />
<br />
;Abstract:<br />
<br />
''SUMMARY'' - How can we engage academics and other knowledge professionals in alternative ways to contribute expertise without requiring them to edit Wikipedia directly?<br />
<br />
''BACKGROUND'' - Wikipedia has a complicated relationship with subject-matter experts. As "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and one which operates by policies of "verifiability" and "no original research", its model precludes appeals to editors' personal epistemic authority. When people who have dedicated significant parts of their lives to the study of a particular topic try to contribute what they know to a Wikipedia article, it's easy to understand their confusion and/or frustration when their work is undone or criticized by pseudonymous or anonymous others -- editors who, we may assume, are not likely to have the same level of experience or credentials. It's a phenomenon that happens on a daily basis on Wikipedia and which aggrieved parties have even written about several times in popular publications.<br />
<br />
Many academics, journalists, historians, GLAM professionals, and other subject-matter experts do contribute productively to Wikipedia, of course, but it requires a particular kind of patience beyond that demanded of most other editors simply because the social and professional structures they're socialized in weigh thoughts and opinions according to expertise and specialization. Furthermore, since many experts are unprepared for the kinds of challenges and interactions Wikipedia has in store for them, they may use their real name and worry that reverts and disagreements could have a negative impact on their professional reputation. Still, many Wikipedians and groups within the community routinely express that they wish more experts would contribute. Most would agree that expertise does have value on Wikipedia -- just not in some of the most obvious ways.<br />
<br />
Since the beginning of the project, the way we have tried to engage new Wikipedians has been to encourage them to edit articles directly. The question we seek to address in this workshop is: How can we engage academics and other knowledge professionals in ways that allow them to contribute expertise without requiring them to edit articles directly?<br />
<br />
''FORMAT'' - The workshop will begin with short presentations which cover:<br />
*an overview of the challenge<br />
*past failures<br />
*potential strategies (ways of selling the idea of contributing to Wikipedia, addressing concerns about "credit", lessening the time needed to get over the learning curve)<br />
*alternative forms of contribution (article reviews, content gap analyses, expert consultant for a particular WikiProject)<br />
*possibilities for mediated engagement (talk pages, templates, bots, off-wiki tools, audio or video commentary)<br />
<br />
Most of the requested time, however, is for discussion. We would like to learn from and collaborate with the Wikipedians, Wikimedians, librarians, academics, teachers, journalists, curators, and others in attendance in the hope that we can cultivate ideas, develop strategies, and formulate some practicable ways forward.<br />
<br />
;Length of presentation: 60-75 minutes<br />
<br />
;Special schedule requests: <!-- (for example - can not present on Saturday) --><br />
<br />
;Will you attend WikiConference USA if your submission is not accepted?: Yes<br />
<br />
<!-- Do not edit the section below. --><br />
== Interested attendees ==<br />
<br />
'''If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with four tildes. (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).'''<br />
<br />
# Soupvector [[User:Soupvector|Stuart Ray]] ([[User talk:Soupvector|talk]]) 14:52, 26 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# --[[User:Sphilbrick|Sphilbrick]] ([[User talk:Sphilbrick|talk]]) 21:37, 26 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Emw|Emw]] ([[User talk:Emw|talk]]) 18:17, 28 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Gaurav|Gaurav]] ([[User talk:Gaurav|talk]]) 17:46, 29 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Kosboot|Kosboot]] ([[User talk:Kosboot|talk]]) 09:56, 31 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Pharos|Pharos]] ([[User talk:Pharos|talk]]) 17:26, 31 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# --[[User:Frank Schulenburg|Frank Schulenburg]] ([[User talk:Frank Schulenburg|talk]]) 22:22, 31 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emitraka emitraka aka lv_ra] 10:06, 1 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Megs|Megs]] ([[User talk:Megs|talk]]) 13:32, 1 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Samantha (Wiki Ed)|Samantha (Wiki Ed)]] ([[User talk:Samantha (Wiki Ed)|talk]]) 14:01, 3 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Helaine (Wiki Ed)|Helaine (Wiki Ed)]] ([[User talk:Helaine (Wiki Ed)|talk]]) 17:10, 3 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:Mozucat|Mozucat]] ([[User talk:Mozucat|talk]]) 17:03, 5 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
# [[User:EpochFail|EpochFail]] ([[User talk:EpochFail|talk]]) 10:31, 10 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
#[[User:FriendlyFred|FriendlyFred]] ([[User talk:FriendlyFred|talk]]) 08:17, 23 September 2015 (EDT)<br />
[[Category:Submissions/2015]]<br />
[[Category:Submissions in 2015, journalism]]</div>FriendlyFredhttps://wikiconference.org/index.php?title=User:FriendlyFred&diff=2559User:FriendlyFred2015-09-23T12:07:16Z<p>FriendlyFred: A version of the intro to my WP user page</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
My editing of Wikipedia is entirely pragmatic. I agree with much of the criticism of Wikipedia, but think it is worthwhile improving articles that are within my areas of interest rather than to ignore the spread of misinformation. I do not believe that a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) can be achieved through the wisdom of crowds, since I do not encounter crowds of editors, a perception supported by the studies that show a steep decline in the number of active contributors.<ref name="SimoniteT.20131022">[http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ The Decline of Wikipedia]</ref><br />
<ref name="Halfaker.20121228">[http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0002764212469365 The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia's Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline]</ref> Instead, articles on many topics have only a small group of contributors. Without a crowd, the quality of an article is dependent upon old-fashioned expertise whether gained though formal education or otherwise.<ref>For example, in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution WP article on Evolution] the PhD biochemist Tim Vickers has more edits than any other contributor by a wide margin, and only 10% are minor.</ref> <br />
<br />
My application of expertise in editing articles is in accordance with my reading of the WP NPOV guideline that the '''scholarly''' point of view is the '''neutral''' point of view. Rather than original research I use my expertise as a social scientist to do the scholarly research needed to find and summarize reliable sources. When a topic warrants it, and other points of view are noteworthy because of their popularity, they are mentioned but not in a way as to imply they are equally valid. When the topic of any article falls within the domain of an academic discipline which has a clear consensus, then the article must take that as its point of view.<br />
<br />
My current focus are a number of articles related to '''indigenous cultural appropriation in sports''', including [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy one on the Washington NFL team's name and logo]. I have no personal interest in the topics being neither indigenous American nor a sports fan. My only connection is having been born about four miles from where FedEx Field is now located. I read the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_mascot_controversy main article] entirely be accident. Having access to a university library, I began to do research and found many journal articles and books written by social scientists. These sources all define the topic as an example of ethnic stereotyping that is at best prejudicial and possibly discriminatory. As I began adding content using these references, there was some resistance to change but I soon found that I was essentially the only contributing editor. Edits by others are mainly grammar and spelling correction, and minor rewording that does not alter the meaning of the content. Lacking substantial feedback, I can only assume that since my edits remain, they meet with general approval.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>FriendlyFred