Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM pics - and Swine Flu
> From: "Steve Bowbrick" > Unrelated question: on Twitter, Chris Vallance, a producer on iPM, > wonders: > > "Wikipedia received most UK traffic from searches for "Swine Flu" - > Should Directgov, NHS, collaborate with the site?" > > And links to these numbers from traffic stats house Hitwise: > http://weblogs.hitwise.com/robin-goad/2009/05/swine_flu_searches_increas > e_58.html > > Should we encourage UK public health agencies to expand the Swine Flu > article? To treat Wikipedia as part of the public health communications > effort? If such a large number of UK searches are hitting the Swine Flu > entry, is there a public health argument for branching the entry to > provide nationally-specific material? > > Is there a Wikipedia response to crises of this kind? I'd absolutely encourage UK health agencies to become more involved with Wikipedia content. The biggest start I can see is releasing under a Creative Commons license these leaflets to be posted through doors. I saw photos of them being delivered on TV today, there isn't one here yet. It could be on Commons, and it would then end up in the Wikipedia article. They will have to consider potential conflict of interest issues. Where that might come up is integrating their own studies or reports into the article (or articles if it goes that way). I'd guess the biggest issue at the moment is WMUK is so young, and this is something that needs organised at flashmob speeds. Basically, an ad-hoc Wikipedia workshop to bring them up to speed on this. Interesting vaguely related AP report... http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ghB7kaUC_cbUE_Y2y7WrZfrjTcQQD97SCO683 Brian McNeil ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM pics - and Swine Flu
2009/5/6 Steve Bowbrick : > Should we encourage UK public health agencies to expand the Swine Flu > article? To treat Wikipedia as part of the public health communications > effort? If such a large number of UK searches are hitting the Swine Flu > entry, is there a public health argument for branching the entry to > provide nationally-specific material? I'm not sure we should be looking at public health arguments, we just want to get as much encyclopaedic information as possible of as high a quality as possible to as many people as possible. If we try and broaden our remit I suspect it will all go horribly wrong. If there are reliable sources providing sufficient information for an article on Swine Flu in the UK, we should write one. I think the big thing the UK public agencies could do is make sure all the information is freely available (and, if possible, under a free license, although I'm not sure there is much we would want to directly quote). In particular, it would be good if we could access the advice of key scientists directly and not have to wade through politicised versions. (I haven't looked at what information is available, so they may already be doing all this.) I'm not sure about them editing our articles directly. If they want to do so and they follow all our rules and policies, then no-one is going to stop them, but I suspect they may struggle with concepts like No Original Research and Reliable Sources (and maybe even Neutral Point of View - Wikipedia shouldn't be advising people to keep calm, or anything like that, it should be neutrally reporting advice that other people have given). I think them providing us with all the information we need would be better. > Is there a Wikipedia response to crises of this kind? There is always a massive response to things like this, but nothing coordinated. Somehow, it seems to work, though. Within hours we generally have by far the most detailed articles on a subject of all the mass media. The closest we get to coordination is usually someone posting on the Admin Noticeboard, "You should keep an eye on this page, it is likely to be very heavily edited over the next few days." PS I've just looked, and we have branched the entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_outbreak_in_the_United_Kingdom ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] AGM pics - and Swine Flu
Hi all, After a bit of prodding from various wikipedians I think I've got the licence right on this set of pics taken at the the AGM 26 April: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bowbrick/sets/72157617359600152/ Unrelated question: on Twitter, Chris Vallance, a producer on iPM, wonders: "Wikipedia received most UK traffic from searches for "Swine Flu" - Should Directgov, NHS, collaborate with the site?" And links to these numbers from traffic stats house Hitwise: http://weblogs.hitwise.com/robin-goad/2009/05/swine_flu_searches_increas e_58.html Should we encourage UK public health agencies to expand the Swine Flu article? To treat Wikipedia as part of the public health communications effort? If such a large number of UK searches are hitting the Swine Flu entry, is there a public health argument for branching the entry to provide nationally-specific material? Is there a Wikipedia response to crises of this kind? s -- Editor, BBC Radio 4 Blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio4 07768 257 570 http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
