Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

2019-06-06 Thread Thomas Shafee
Some more notes, responses and thoughts on the topics raised above!

*Impact and reach*
I fully agree that impact factor is of primary importance to many
researchers. However, many grants that fund research also have started
looking for evidence that researchers are making genuine efforts in public
outreach. Example: A researcher spends 30 years on one of the most
important livestock parasites, publishing review articles read by 100-1000
people, yet the Wikipedia page is only 2 sentences long
Their grant reviewers, potential students, farmers, politicians, and
journalists read the WP page which gives a false impression of obscurity to
the topic. Then they publish a review article with a WikiJournal which is
dual-published as a citable version for their cv and copied into WP to show
they they are trying hard to keep the general public informed

*Citing WikiJournals in Wikipedia*
I see the COI point of view. On the other hand, the best cure for coi is
transparency and I think the publishing of peer reviews that go along with
papers. Overall, I think WP use of WikiJournals articles as sources
(e.g. *10.15347/wjm/2017.005
*) would remain independent and a
matter for WP:RS discussion once the journals are accredited. However, one
perennial problem in WP has notable topics lacking citable sources (e.g.
first nations history / neglected tropical diseases / women historical
figures). If a wikipedian were able to do the research into an aspect of
that topic to a level that it meets rigorous scholarly standards and passes
external peer review, then that may a be a reasonable way of minting a
valuable new citable source. Again, that'd be up for the community to
decide as the project progresses.

We have started the practice of drafting indexing applications publicly

for greater transparency (unique as far as I know).

*Comparison to peer review within Wikipedia*
WP essentially does post-publication editorial review (rather than peer
review). External peer review by WikiJournals and internal PR/GA/FA review
by wp editors perform complementary (not competing) roles. Many FA articles
are definitely up to academic standards - and indeed their performance
through peer review proves just that as an additional quality-assurance
mechanism. That is not universally true (e.g. the review of GA article Surface

"in some instances the ideas are incorrect ... It will confuse rather then
enlighten readers new to the field"). FA has unique aspects that external
academic peer review lacks (e.g. a sharper focus on readability, and
formatting, spot-chacking of references).

All the best,

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 23:37, Vi to  wrote:

> Il giorno mer 5 giu 2019 alle ore 12:00 John Erling Blad  >
> ha scritto:
> > > > One reason; reach.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is.
> >
> > Reach leads to impact. You can't get impact without reach, but reach
> > in non-scientific communities does not necessarily turn into reach in
> > scientific communities.
> >
> Apart from the hype I wouldn't releate reach and scientific impact. Most of
> research community is forced to seek for impact, bibliometric indicators
> and abiding by the publish or perish principle.
> > There are nothing that blocks Wikipedia from doing peer review. (It
> > has implicit peer review.) What you propose for WikiJournal is to make
> > peer review a policy. That does not in itself turn articles into good
> > research.
> I disagree with this, Wikipedia doesn't make original research by
> definition.
> I concur we have something similar to peer review, though ours is less
> "autorithy-centered".
> Vito
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

[Wikimedia-l] New tutorial video on submitting media via OTRS + request for help

2019-06-06 Thread Asaf Bartov

We have released a comprehensive tutorial video -- as one medium-length
video and as several shorter clips -- aimed at helping non-Wikimedians
submit media to Wikimedia Commons via OTRS.

This video is the result of a pilot project within the framework of
the Community
Capacity Development [1] program at
the Wikimedia Foundation. It was led by Asaf Bartov
[2], from the Community
Development team, with the active involvement of an advisory committee made
up of experienced OTRS and Commons volunteers. The script development and
video production were done by contractor Victor Grigas
[3], and reviewed by
the advisory committee.

The video is intended to be useful to OTRS agents, Commons volunteers, and
Wikipedia volunteers in various languages, for helping *non-Wikimedians*
submit media via OTRS. It is hoped that being able to refer people to the
video, in whole or in part (to the introduction plus a specific scenario,
perhaps), would save at least some of the *very common* back-and-forth
correspondence many OTRS agents have to conduct with non-Wikimedian
contributors struggling to understand copyright and Commons norms.

The video is designed to be easy to translate and localize, with no speech,
and a lot of interstitials, which should facilitate preparing localized
versions of the video(s).

The page describing the video, including links to the various versions, the
script, and even B-roll material, is here:


I request your help in three ways:

1. Spread the news in your communities, and ensure your fellow volunteers
are aware of the availability of this resource.

2. Translate the video (the page itself is much less important) into your
language, if not English.

3. Provide feedback on the video, or on your use of it, ideally on-wiki, in
the talk page of the page linked above.




Asaf Bartov
Community Development
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to: