Off-list please. Sent from my iPad
> On 10 Jul 2014, at 20:52, Wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote: > > In regard to your below sentence > <<It is especially confusing when I see people referencing their own > websites!>> > > Jennifer I am one of those, who follow links and remove citations to > self-published material, not vetted by other experts. > I wouldn't say there are many of us doing this task, but it's really annoying > to me, to find people and websites trying to "make" themselves into experts > simply by spewing links to their own undocumented articles, all over the > project. > > > I also remove links to anonymous material, by the way, since there is no way > to vet the author as an expert if who don't even know who they are. > > And I'm highly suspect even of websites claiming or appearing to be "expert" > if they are unknown if their own field. > There are simply far too many sites and authors speaking in authoritative > tones, and trying to add their weight to articles that are supposed to be > balanced and non-controversial. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jennifer Gristock <[email protected]> > To: Wikimedia Education <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, Jul 10, 2014 12:38 pm > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Education] Overcoming a roadblock to engagement > > > I thank you all for your guidance and I see that whilst having students in > teaching classes editing multiple subjects is ok, asking students to edit > multiple topics about research in the same institution, topic etc is unlikely > to be OK because they will be too close to the people involved and I agree > this is A Bad Idea. > > However just in the interest of being clear, with respect to the other things > mentioned here, I was not talking about original research - only peer > reviewed published papers - and never mentioned articles about > "yourself/biography". > > I certainly wouldn't want anyone to even imagine I would consider such > practices. > > On a more personal note I am a writer who was last employed as an academic > many years ago. > > I take these issues seriously, which is why I came here to ask questions in > the first place. I do believe the issues are not yet clear and need to be so. > > It is especially confusing when I see people referencing their own websites! > > With thanks > > Jen / Open Research > > > > Sent from my mobile > > On 10 Jul 2014, at 20:05, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In general: >> >> 1. Citing your own academic work and/or adding an article on Wikipedia about >> your work would be to introduce original research AND potentially COI, and >> both of those are not ok. You could propose an edit on an article talk page >> with an explanation that you are the researcher. >> >> 2. Editing an article about yourself would be COI. You could propose an edit >> on the article talk page with the explanation that you are the subject of >> the article. >> >> 3. Encouraging your students to add your or their research on Wikipedia >> would be meatpuppetry, original research, and/or potentially COI, and any of >> those is not OK. >> >> 4. Encouraging your students to edit your biography on Wikipedia would be >> meatpuppetry and potentially COI, and both of those are not OK. A professor >> did this in the past and was caught. >> >> When in doubt, I recommend writing on an article talk page, explaining your >> relationship to the content that you are proposing to add, and writing a >> draft of your proposed change for other editors to review. >> >> Pine >> >> >>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Jon Beasley-Murray >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi: >>> >>> Your question was: "is there a way to count the contributions that a user >>> has made *on behalf of* another particular user?" (my emphasis) >>> >>> And: "It seems to me that the way to overcome this roadblock is to >>> introduce a way of counting the contributions made by a person (say, a >>> research student, or a colleague) *on behalf of* a Professor." (again, my >>> emphasis) >>> >>> Which rather sounds like a proxy, by any definition of that term. >>> >>> I would be strongly against encouraging such practices. >>> >>> Take care >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> On Jul 10, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Jennifer Gristock <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > I too believe that the ideal approach is for academics to write about >>> > other people's work: that is why my original question was about ways of >>> > tracing/counting this. >>> > >>> > But if you're saying that a research student writing about other people >>> > 'a work (plural, not singular ) is not advisable because they are somehow >>> > a 'proxy', I must say I don't quite see it that way, but thank you for >>> > helping me to see the multiple ways in which this could be construed. >>> > >>> > >>> > Sent from my mobile >>> > >>> >> On 10 Jul 2014, at 18:21, Jon Beasley-Murray <[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Jennifer: >>> >> >>> >> I would be very wary indeed of the model you're proposing, in which >>> >> either individual researchers or their proxies insert their work into >>> >> Wikipedia. We see enough of that already, and I would be concerned if >>> >> there were any official (or even semi-official) encouragement of the >>> >> practice. >>> >> >>> >> The issue is less conflict of interest (though that's true, too) as >>> >> (self)promotion (which you seem to be actively encouraging) and undue >>> >> weight. >>> >> >>> >> This is not to say that professors (academics, researchers) should not >>> >> be writing in their areas of expertise. Of course they should! But >>> >> perhaps a rule of thumb is that they should be writing about *other* >>> >> people's work in that area, rather than their own. >>> >> >>> >> Take care >>> >> >>> >> Jon >>> >> >>> >>> On Jul 10, 2014, at 7:43 AM, Jennifer Gristock <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Greetings everyone. I'm still working on that system to encourage >>> >>> university professors to contribute to Wikipedia, a system that is >>> >>> concerned not through teaching, like the Education Programme, but >>> >>> through research. >>> >>> >>> >>> I need some help. Can you tell me, in the Wikipedia API, is there a way >>> >>> to count the contributions that a user has made on behalf of another >>> >>> particular user? For example, a professor might ask a group of PhD >>> >>> students to make contributions involving his/her research on various >>> >>> Wikipedia pages, on his/her behalf. >>> >>> >>> >>> I have been frequently told (at the Teahouse and elsewhere) that >>> >>> Professors are not allowed to contribute information about their own >>> >>> published research papers on Wikipedia pages, because this would be >>> >>> biased. (Which is rather a downer for the professor, because this means >>> >>> they are forbidden to write about the things they are most passionate >>> >>> and knowledgeable about.) >>> >>> >>> >>> If this is rule is true, then it must certainly be seen as a roadblock >>> >>> to academic engagement with Wikipedia. If it isn't, then it is editors' >>> >>> perception of the rule as true (as I have experienced) that is the >>> >>> roadblock. >>> >>> >>> >>> It seems to me that the way to overcome this roadblock is to introduce >>> >>> a way of counting the contributions made by a person (say, a research >>> >>> student, or a colleague) on behalf of a Professor. So at the end of the >>> >>> year, the Professor can say 'my research contributed to X edits on >>> >>> Wikipedia' as easily as each individual student (who might contribute >>> >>> on behalf of many academic researchers) can count their individual >>> >>> edits. >>> >>> >>> >>> Can the API accommodate this in some way? Perhaps through some sort of >>> >>> 'project' code or something? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Yours hopefully, >>> >>> >>> >>> Jenny Gristock (Open_Research) >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 9 Jul 2014, at 22:40, LiAnna Davis <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Hi all! >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I wanted to draw your attention to the Educator Training we'll be >>> >>>> having as part of the Wikimania Pre-conference on August 7: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education_Pre-Conference/Educator_training >>> >>>> >>> >>>> The Educator Training is designed to give educators of all levels the >>> >>>> knowledge they need to use Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects as a >>> >>>> teaching tool in their classrooms. The training is open to educators >>> >>>> from any country, and Wikipedia editing experience is not required. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> If you're interested in attending or you know someone who is, please >>> >>>> see the page for more information. I especially encourage anyone who's >>> >>>> thought about getting a Wikipedia Education Program going in your >>> >>>> country to attend, as you'll learn a lot about the different kinds of >>> >>>> assignments students could do. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> LiAnna >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -- >>> >>>> LiAnna Davis >>> >>>> Head of Communications and External Relations >>> >>>> Wiki Education Foundation >>> >>>> +1-415-770-1061 >>> >>>> www.wikiedu.org >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Please note my new email address and update your contacts accordingly: >>> >>>> [email protected] >>> >>>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> Education mailing list >>> >>>> [email protected] >>> >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> Education mailing list >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Education mailing list >>> >> [email protected] >>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Education mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Education mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Education mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education > > _______________________________________________ > Education mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education > > _______________________________________________ > Education mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
_______________________________________________ Education mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
