> I see a number of issues holding professionals back from contributing: > > 1) Some do not realize that it is possible to edit Wikipedia ( I hear > this > at work when people ask me how I became an editor ). Maybe we should > advertise the fact that yes you too can edit Wikipedia.
This, I think, probably accounts for most who might participate but don't. Senior academics write books and journal articles. They don't fool around on the internet for hours like we do. > > 2) Many are just not interested. In medicine we have had issues with > getting physicians to do continuing medical education. A high percentage of practicing physicians, about 50%, regularly consult Wikipedia and many do contribute. Which is not a surprising reaction to discovery of minor or major errors and omissions. I suspect it is precisely the ones who don't keep up adequately with their continuing education who are most likely to consult Wikipedia. (It is a lazy way of researching anything) > Many just want to > do > their job and that is it. Contributing to Wikipedia is work. However > students are required to do work and I think this is one of the > populations > which would be easiest to attract. McGill University may have started a > Wikipedia club. Promoting these may be useful. Students are our core constituency. > > 3) A great deal of competition to Wikipedia has sprung up such as > Radiopeadia ( which does not allow commercial use of images ), Medpedia ( > which only allow professionals to contribute ), and Wikidocs ( which has > more technical content ). Each addressing some perceived drawback in > Wikipedia. None however has received the viewership of Wikipedia but of > course cuts into the pool of available volunteers. Nearly all of us who have created alternative sites continue to participate on Wikipedia to some extent. > Medpedia has > partnered > with a number of very respected Universities. I think we could learn > something for each of these formats such as clarification around image > copyright and that CC does not mean you lose the rights to it, greater > exposure of the professionals who already contribute, etc. > > 4) Wikipedia has received negative press in professional publications. > We > need to address these negativities most of which are false. Currently a > number of us at WikiProject Med are writing a paper for publication > promoting Wikipedia as a health care information resource. Other subject > areas should do the same. Yes, nearly always issues are raised which are off-point or ancient history. Just as a political campaign has a "war room" to respond to such press we should make a point of responding. David Gerard has done a great deal of this, particularly in the U.K. > > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc. Fred Bauder _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
