Difference between revisions of "Submissions:2019/Fringe theories and edit histories: Six tips for critical information literacy on health topics with Wikipedia"

From WikiConference North America
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(another brief clarifying edit)
m (more small edits)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
|theme=Reliability of Information<br />+ Relationship Building & Support<br />+ Inclusion and Diversity<br />
  
|theme=Reliability of Information<br />+ Relationship Building & Support<br />+ Inclusion and Diversity<br />
 
|type=Presentation
  
|type=Presentation
−
|abstract=Searching for information on health or medical topics is the third most popular online activity (Pew Research, 2014). People often seek supplemental or easy-to-read information as well as affective communities to help them cope with anxieties, questions, or concerns about their health, or the health of people they know (Neal and McKenzie 2011). The open web is a powerful resource, and as the free encyclopedia, Wikipedia (and associated metadata) frequently top search results for health information seekers. While the collaborative encyclopedia is not meant to provide medical advice, editors know Wikipedia entries are popular. Wikipedians have devoted attention to developing and monitoring robust guidelines (WP:MEDRS) to aid collaborative editing on biomedical topics, including entries on alternative medicine. These guidelines help ensure available information accurately reflect consensus in the medical and scientific community by using verifiable third-party secondary sources. While this is important for the Wikipedia community, fringe or alternative theories about health and wellness persist in the public at large. The recent measles outbreak is evidence of a breakdown in public trust in the vaccine schedule and herd immunity, which raises more general questions about how expanded access to information on-and off-line can aid health literacies.
+
|abstract=Searching for information on health or medical topics is the third most popular online activity (Pew Research, 2014). People often seek supplemental or easy-to-read information as well as affective communities to help them cope with anxieties, questions, or concerns about their health, or the health of people they know (Neal and McKenzie 2011). Though it is commercial, and frequently excludes paywalled and offline resources, the open web is nevertheless a powerful resource because it is accessible. And as a free and open encyclopedia, Wikipedia (and associated metadata) frequently top search results for health information seekers. While the collaborative encyclopedia is not meant to provide medical advice, editors know Wikipedia entries are popular. Wikipedians have devoted attention to developing and monitoring robust guidelines (WP:MEDRS) to aid collaborative editing on biomedical topics, including entries on alternative medicine. These guidelines help ensure available information accurately reflect consensus in the medical and scientific community by using verifiable third-party secondary sources. While this is important for the Wikipedia community, fringe or alternative theories about health and wellness persist in the public at large. The recent measles outbreak is evidence of a breakdown in public trust in the vaccine schedule and herd immunity, which raises more general questions about how expanded access to information on-and off-line can aid health literacies.
   
−
This talk offers a pedagogy for critical information literacy for skeptical information seekers by fully embracing how Wikipedia is a complex participatory community embedded in a commercial internet ecosystem. I'll explain the meaning of critical information literacy and summarize research on affective, aesthetic, and social ways that internet users accept as reliable the information they encounter on Wikipedia (see Rowley and Johnson, 2013); then I'll present six specific techniques and case studies (about topics such as vaccines, pseudoscience/fringe theories, supplements, and articles in women’s health) that can foster critical information literacy about health and medical topics in educational settings, such as library training programs. In giving this talk, I will also present an overview of the OCLC Wikipedia + Libraries: Health and Medical Information course delivered in fall 2019, which is an NNLM-sponsored OCLC WebJunction course for public library staff. I developed this curriculum as a Wikipedia consultant in Spring/Fall 2019, a subsection of the course is the basis of this talk. I wish to note my viewpoints are my own and do not represent OCLC or NNLM. This talk should be of interest to all of us in the Wikimedia community concerned about the greater social processes that impact the circulation of information and ways that knowledge of Wikipedia's inner workings can be marshaled to deepen critical literacies for editors and non-editors alike.
+
This talk offers a pedagogy for critical information literacy for skeptical information seekers by fully embracing how Wikipedia is a complex participatory community embedded in a commercial internet ecosystem. I'll explain the meaning of critical information literacy and summarize research on affective, aesthetic, and social ways that internet users accept as reliable the information they encounter on Wikipedia (see Rowley and Johnson, 2013); then I'll present six specific techniques and case studies (about topics such as vaccines, pseudoscience/fringe theories, supplements, and articles in women’s health) that can foster critical information literacy about health and medical topics in educational settings, such as library training programs. In giving this talk, I will also describe the OCLC Wikipedia + Libraries: Health and Medical Information course delivered in fall 2019, which is an NNLM-sponsored OCLC WebJunction course for public library staff. I developed this curriculum as a Wikipedia consultant in Spring/Fall 2019, a subsection of the course is the basis of this talk. I wish to note my viewpoints are my own and do not represent OCLC or NNLM. This talk may be of interest to all of us in the Wikimedia movement concerned about the ways that social and psychological processes impact the circulation, credibility and authority of information, and also curious about possible ways that literacies in Wikipedia's inner workings can be marshaled to deepen critical literacies for editors and non-editors alike.
   
   

Revision as of 18:37, 23 September 2019

This submission has been noted and is pending review for WikiConference North America 2019.



Etherpad

Title:

Fringe theories and edit histories: Six tips for critical information literacy on health topics with Wikipedia

Theme:

Reliability of Information
+ Relationship Building & Support
+ Inclusion and Diversity

Type of session:

Presentation

Abstract:

Searching for information on health or medical topics is the third most popular online activity (Pew Research, 2014). People often seek supplemental or easy-to-read information as well as affective communities to help them cope with anxieties, questions, or concerns about their health, or the health of people they know (Neal and McKenzie 2011). Though it is commercial, and frequently excludes paywalled and offline resources, the open web is nevertheless a powerful resource because it is accessible. And as a free and open encyclopedia, Wikipedia (and associated metadata) frequently top search results for health information seekers. While the collaborative encyclopedia is not meant to provide medical advice, editors know Wikipedia entries are popular. Wikipedians have devoted attention to developing and monitoring robust guidelines (WP:MEDRS) to aid collaborative editing on biomedical topics, including entries on alternative medicine. These guidelines help ensure available information accurately reflect consensus in the medical and scientific community by using verifiable third-party secondary sources. While this is important for the Wikipedia community, fringe or alternative theories about health and wellness persist in the public at large. The recent measles outbreak is evidence of a breakdown in public trust in the vaccine schedule and herd immunity, which raises more general questions about how expanded access to information on-and off-line can aid health literacies.

This talk offers a pedagogy for critical information literacy for skeptical information seekers by fully embracing how Wikipedia is a complex participatory community embedded in a commercial internet ecosystem. I'll explain the meaning of critical information literacy and summarize research on affective, aesthetic, and social ways that internet users accept as reliable the information they encounter on Wikipedia (see Rowley and Johnson, 2013); then I'll present six specific techniques and case studies (about topics such as vaccines, pseudoscience/fringe theories, supplements, and articles in women’s health) that can foster critical information literacy about health and medical topics in educational settings, such as library training programs. In giving this talk, I will also describe the OCLC Wikipedia + Libraries: Health and Medical Information course delivered in fall 2019, which is an NNLM-sponsored OCLC WebJunction course for public library staff. I developed this curriculum as a Wikipedia consultant in Spring/Fall 2019, a subsection of the course is the basis of this talk. I wish to note my viewpoints are my own and do not represent OCLC or NNLM. This talk may be of interest to all of us in the Wikimedia movement concerned about the ways that social and psychological processes impact the circulation, credibility and authority of information, and also curious about possible ways that literacies in Wikipedia's inner workings can be marshaled to deepen critical literacies for editors and non-editors alike.


Course:

Sources:

Academic Peer Review option:

No

Author name:

Monika M Sengul-Jones

E-mail address:

jones.monika@gmail.com

Wikimedia username:

Shameran81

Affiliated organization(s):

Estimated time:

20

Preferred room size:

30

Special requests:

Presentation projector, screen etc.

Have you presented on this topic previously? If yes, where/when?:

Not yet (will run course on Wikipedia + Libraries: Health and Medical Information in fall 2019)

If your submission is not accepted, would you be open to presenting your topic in another part of the program? (e.g. lightning talk or unconference session)

Perhaps!


Retrieved from "https://wikiconference.org/index.php?title=Submissions:2019/Fringe_theories_and_edit_histories:_Six_tips_for_critical_information_literacy_on_health_topics_with_Wikipedia&oldid=14258"