Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimania-l] [Covid-19] Postponing Wikimania Bangkok until 2021

2020-03-18 Thread Thomas Shafee
Regarding remote participation Wikimania 2020:

The *Research Data Alliance* has moved it's current conference that was
meant to be over the next five days to in stead be online across 18 march -
10 Apr (several sessions of high interest to wikimedians):

   - *https://www.rd-alliance.org/rda-virtual-plenary-programme
    *

What was previously $700 is now free and was re-organised with only 1
week's notice. Possible learning items for a remote Wikimania? It's a mixed
working-group and plenary session based format that is highly relevant to
wikimedia movement.

All the best,
Thomas

On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 at 13:33, Roman Bustria Jr.  wrote:

> Thank you Katherine for this update.
>
> We at ESEAP confirm that Wikimania will not happen this year. We appreciate
> your support and understanding on this recent development.
>
> We will continue to collaborate with the Wikimania Steering Committee and
> the Wikimedia Foundation with the remaining tasks to be done and plan
> accordingly for next year.
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Butch Bustria
> Head of Communications
> ESEAP Wikimania Organizing Team
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 4:57 AM Katherine Maher 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear everyone,
> >
> > As a part of the Wikimedia movement’s ongoing response to the COVID-19
> > pandemic, we are postponing Wikimania Bangkok 2020. This decision was
> made
> > with the full support of the ESEAP host team and Wikimania Committee.
> > Together, we will hold Wikimania in Bangkok in 2021.
> >
> > We are filled with sadness to not see you all in Bangkok in August.
> > However, we are confident that this is the best possible decision for the
> > well-being of our global community and public health overall. This
> decision
> > was proposed by the ESEAP organizers in line with their countries’
> response
> > to the COVID-19 pandemic and is in line with recommendations from the
> World
> > Health Organization (WHO).
> >
> > You are certain to have many questions. We hope to answer some of your
> > questions below. We will continue to answer questions on the Wikimania
> > Meta-Wiki page and on the Wikimania Telegram group chat (more information
> > below).
> >
> >
> > *== What does “postponing” Wikimania mean? ==*
> > We will not host an in-person Wikimania in 2020. We are rescheduling
> > Wikimania Bangkok until 2021. The ESEAP organizing team[2] will continue
> > their work as a regional collaborative between affiliates in the East,
> > South East, and Pacific regions to host us in Thailand next year.
> >
> > The hotel and venue[3] in Bangkok will remain the same. We have not yet
> > finalized dates for 2021. We will work with the ESEAP team and Wikimania
> > Steering Committee to confirm new dates. We will let you know these dates
> > by the end of 2020.
> >
> > The good news is that Wikimania 2021 will coincide with Wikipedia’s 20th
> > birthday year. We expect this to be a truly memorable Wikimania -- an
> > opportunity to celebrate reconnection after a year apart, along with the
> > remarkable accomplishment of two decades of free knowledge.
> >
> > *== Will there be an alternative to the in-person event? ==*
> >
> > There are no plans by the 2020 Wikimania hosts to organize a virtual,
> > online event. Hosting Wikimania is a lot of work. The ESEAP team is
> > committed to hosting the best possible in-person event in Bangkok in
> 2021.
> > Therefore, they will not have the capacity to organize a virtual
> Wikimania
> > this year.
> >
> > However, the Wikimania committee, the ESEAP host team, and the Wikimedia
> > Foundation all recognize that other members of the community may be
> > interested in organizing a remote, global Wikimedia event for 2020.
> > Although the Wikimedia Foundation does not have the capacity at this time
> > to lead the organizing of a virtual online conference, we recognize
> others
> > may have the desire to do so.
> >
> > We welcome discussion about online events. Interested parties are welcome
> > to contact the Wikimania Steering Committee and Wikimania Foundation
> staff
> > for advice on the Wikimania Meta-Wiki page[1].
> >
> > We are also considering proposals for improving the capacity of
> > communities to organize local virtual convenings, and for how we can
> > support communities in organizing impromptu local and regional Wikimedia
> > events once the pandemic passes. As the situation has been changing
> rapidly
> > we are still working on specifics and will share more information in the
> > coming weeks.
> >
> > *== What does this mean for scholarship applications? ==*
> >
> > We are working on a plan for how to process Wikimania 2020 scholarship
> > applications.[4] We will share more information in the coming weeks.
> >
> > *== How was this decision made? ==*
> >
> > This recommendation was made by the ESEAP organizers based on what we
> know
> > about the current COVID-19 global health pandemic and current WHO
> > guidelines. The decision was 

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

2019-06-27 Thread Thomas Shafee
Hi Amirouche,

It's definitely possible to write articles in WikiJournals without a PhD (
example ). External peer reviewers
are invited in the same way whether the author is some top prof or an
undergrad.

I definitely think that WikiJournal articles can be useful for Wikiversity
courses (example , example
). Bu I think that the two projects
have different technical needs.

As far as I know, Wikiversity is currently not accredited in any country -
a process usually tightly regulated by governments (Australia example
). Wikiversity is therefore more like P2PU
 than Open University
, in that it can offer courses and
provide completion badges, but not yet award formal PhDs. I don't now
whether there are any users working on it, but accreditation for
Wikiversity courses would probably be most easily achieved by partnering
with established accredited universities, a bit like coursera
, but that would still be a pretty major
project.

Hope that is useful info!
All the best,
Thomas

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 15:39, Amirouche Boubekki <
amirouche.boube...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
> I am new to the mailing list and more generaly on wikipedia as contributor
> and as student in wikiversity.
>
> I did not know about WikiJournals as part of Wikiversity. My only remark
> will be that the wikiveristy
> PhD program is in poor shape. I was lost in the various tools I had to use
> and broken links.
> Most if not all conversation are old-ish and doesn't say the PhD program is
> active or working
> at all. (French wikiveristy is in much better shape).
>
> I am certain that the implementation of wikijournal as sister project will
> have more impact for WikiJournal.
> My point is with a better english wikiversity, both could have more impact.
>
>
> I think, forking wikijournals outside wikiverity will have a bad impact on
> wikiversity.
>
> Also, is it possible to write a publication in the journal without prior
> PhD?
> Can publication in the wikijournal help obtain the wikiveristy PhD?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Amirouche ~ amz3
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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
(*10.15347/wjs/2019.004
*).

*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.

*Indexing*
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
tension

includes
"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,
Thomas

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:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2019-06-04 Thread Thomas Shafee
Such translation of CC content is pretty much unpreventable and can be a
benefit or a drawback depending on the author's own opinion.

From the point of view of an official 'version of record' (i.e. what the
doi points to) the authors would be named along with attribution of all
contributors. If there are translations, they'd likely be marked as
somethign like "adapted by translators XYZ from article XYZ by original
authors XYZ under a CC-BY license", though details would need to be decided
if it came up. See this 2008 article
 for some ideas
floated previously floated. I'll admit I've limited knowledge of
translation practices though, so the project would need advice!

For some existing Wikipedia-based examples:

   - PLOS article
   

and
   uk.wp page
   

   - PLOS article
   

and es.wp page
   



Thomas

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 12:48, James Heilman  wrote:

> When we publish CC BY SA on Wikipedia, we allow translation into other
> languages without having any control over the translations (but we require
> our name to be attached in some fashion). So right now we do all the time.
> Most of my academic publications are CC BY which is even more permissive.
>
> James
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:27 PM Thomas Townsend 
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 18:46, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that
> > > would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree
> > with
> > > Plan S's move to allow ND.
> > >
> >
> > So part of the offer is that an author's article may be translated into
> > other languages without the original author having any say in the
> process?
> >  Surely you would not permit your own articles to be republished in
> another
> > language with your name still on them and your having no control over
> what
> > the translation says in your name?
> >
> > The Turnip
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2019-06-03 Thread Thomas Shafee
, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:08 AM Vi to  wrote:
> >
> > > En.wikiversity user I'm dealing with was a custodian (in other words a
> well
> > > established user within the community).
> > >
> > > Keeping it short my main concern is: we are a naturally democratic
> > > community, while the science cannot be. Also, we've been attracting low
> > > quality "research" for years.
> > >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 16:36 James Heilman <
> jmh...@gmail.com>
> > > ha
> > > scritto:
> > >
> > > > The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question.
> This
> > > > is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all
> peer
> > > > reviewed literature.
> > > >
> > > > J
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our
> projects
> > > > > which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"
> > > principle.
> > > > > Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his
> > > > > friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion,
> > > paranormal
> > > > > and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this
> kind of
> > > > > gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order
> to
> > > > > define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious"
> > > research
> > > > > group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA
> journals
> > > or
> > > > > classical PR journals?
> > > > >
> > > > > Vito
> > > > >
> > > > > Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee <
> > > > > thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> > > > > > <
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved
> > > (e.g.
> > > > > > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced
> > > > stringency
> > > > > > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That
> being
> > > > > said,
> > > > > > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be
> > > valuable
> > > > to
> > > > > > implement anyway for machine readability.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thomas
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman 
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > James
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thomas
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
> > > > > thomas.sha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > > > > > > > <htt

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

2019-06-03 Thread Thomas Shafee
So at the moment, there is no locking of any sort. However, but it's noted
that once an article is assigned a doi, that meaning-changing edits would
be re-reviewed and an updated doi minted by from crossref's crossmark
service <https://www.crossref.org/services/crossmark/> along the lines of this
article <https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.13060.1>. Copyedits and
formatting are always fine though. So far, the vast majority of editing has
occurred before the doi assignment, and articles integrated into Wikipedia
have a note in the top right to let people know that they can more
logically be edited there (example
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/RIG-I_like_receptors>
).

Thomas

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 14:18, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> How do you handle lock down of articles? That is only listed authors should
> write a given article, so you can't allow random user edit access as it is
> today.
>
> Jeblad
>
> man. 3. jun. 2019, 04.16 skrev Thomas Shafee :
>
> > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> > >
> > ).
> >
> > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g.
> > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency
> > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
> said,
> > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to
> > implement anyway for machine readability.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> > >
> > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thomas
> > > >
> > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > > >
> > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
> thomas.sha...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > > >
> > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > > > <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group> has been
> > > > building
> > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > > >
> > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> > > > feedback
> > > > >(example <https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006>)
> > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > (
> > > > >example <https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001>)
> > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> > > > (example
> > > > ><
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > > >
> > > > >)
> > > > >
> > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal>*
> > > > >
> > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> > > > Featured
> > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > > <
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > > >,
> > > > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > > > <
> > >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > > > >,
> > > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > > > <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing
> >.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > > > All the best,
> > > > > Thomas Shafee
> > > > >
>

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

2019-06-02 Thread Thomas Shafee
Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria>
).

Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g.
JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency
and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being said,
things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to
implement anyway for machine readability.

Thomas

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:

> It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
>
> Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
>
> James
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thomas
> >
> > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > >
> > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group> has been
> > building
> > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > >
> > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> > feedback
> > >(example <https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006>)
> > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> Wikipedia
> > (
> > >example <https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001>)
> > >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> > (example
> > ><
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > >
> > >)
> > >
> > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal>*
> > >
> > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> > Featured
> > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> >,
> > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > <
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > >,
> > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing>.
> > >
> > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > All the best,
> > > Thomas Shafee
> > >
> > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> wikimedia
> > > community, so feel free to share with others.
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

2019-06-02 Thread Thomas Shafee
Hello Wikipedians,

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group> has been building
and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
platform. The main types of articles are:

   - Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback
   (example <https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006>)
   - From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (
   example <https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001>)
   - Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example
   
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report>
   )

*Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal>*

From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured
article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers>,
implementing established scholarly practices
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement>,
and generating citable, doi-linked publications
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing>.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
All the best,
Thomas Shafee

ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing wikimedia
community, so feel free to share with others.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Feedback requested for draft code of conduct for user group

2019-05-16 Thread Thomas Shafee
Hello Wikimedia-l,

This is a quick request for comment for those interested in codes of
conduct (relevant to user groups and possibly projects as well).

In collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation’s trust and safety team, a
code of conduct has been drafted over the last few months for the WikiJournal
User Group <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group>. We
have drawn inspiration from CoCs used in different Wikimedia areas and open
projects (listed below the draft).

*Draft code of conduct available here*
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Code_of_conduct/Draft>

Everyone is welcome to provide suggestions over the next week on how to
improve it: please join the discussion here
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group/Code_of_conduct/Draft>
!

It has been written to be adaptable to other user groups, affiliates and
projects if they want to adapt & adopt something (generalised version
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Code_of_conduct/General>
).

The user group was We were initially aiming to vote on it in May, however
in order to give a bit more time for feedback, that's being extended to
early June.

Sincerely,

Thomas Shafee
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>