Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 2/WikiJournal

< Strategy | Wikimedia movement | 2017 | Sources

Information

edit
name of group WikiJournal User Group
virtual location Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Cycle 2
Location type local wiki
# of participants in this discussion 3

Summary

edit

The summary is a group of summary sentences and associated keywords that describe the relevant topic(s).

Theme (refer to key) Question (refer to key) Summary Statement Keyword
1 A 1 Improved tutorials and training - well trained newbies remain surprisingly positive despite criticism (73% experienced reversion and 56% experienced correction, yet 95% stated beneficial interactions) [1] Even basic positive feedback and rewards during training make a big difference (doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.888459) Community Health
2 B 4
  • It would be useful implement some easier way to edit existing files within Wikimedia Commons (or possibly outside it?). There's an optional online crop tool, but it would be nice to have further functionality.
  • It would also be useful to be able to see directly in-line (such as by text coloring) what reputation the editor had. Phabricator suggestion
  • It would be great to see the community tech team expanded to double or triple its current size. And maybe part of such a team could specifically work on issues facing the global south?
 Technology
3 E 1 This clearly affects the reputation of the encyclopedia, and how well its regarded as an authoritative and reliable source. Ideally, we can be the integration point between the expert/scholarly/academic/technical communities and the general public. Community
4 E 4
  • Some centralised support for outside contributors (like PLOS's Topic page wiki).
  • Development of academic WikiJournals for publishing (and possible co-publishing) of academic articles
 Community
5 E 5

Editathons and Wikipedians in residence seem to have been quite productive for this. Possibly also support for experiences trainers in editing to train/advise partners. More focussed support may be possible by making hybrid platforms that bridge the gap between Wikipedia projects and possible partners e.g.:

  • Better metrics and measurements of work done for people's CVs and KPIs to 'officially' recognise and reward contribution.
  • Dual publishing as academic articles and Wikipedia pages, e.g. PLOS Topic pages the scholarly WikiJournal publishing model currently being experimented with by Wiki.J.Med.
  • Support systems for easier external peer review (without dual publishing) e.g. by BMJ

Obvious partnership targets include:

  • Open access scholarly publishers (e.g. BMC, expanding collaboration with PLOS)
  • Possible, careful collaboration with non-open-access scholarly publishers that nevertheless care about knowledge disseminatin (e.g Nature education and Scitable, Evolution: Education and Outreach)
  • Other communities of experts (e.g. Cochrane)
  • Academic societies (e.g. The Royal Society, Australian Society for Microbiology)
 Community
Theme key
  1. Healthy, inclusive communities
  2. The augmented age
  3. A truly global movement
  4. The most trusted source of knowledge
  5. Engaging in the knowledge ecosystem
Questions key
  1. What impact would we have on the world if we follow this theme?
  2. How important is this theme relative to the other 4 themes? Why?
  3. Focus requires tradeoffs. If we increase our effort in this area in the next 15 years, is there anything we’re doing today that we would need to stop doing?
  4. What else is important to add to this theme to make it stronger?
  5. Who else will be working in this area and how might we partner with them?
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Cycle_2/WikiJournal&oldid=16918514"