It did, yes, but that wasn't it's primary focus - AFT is an example of expert engagement in the same way it's an example of PHP: sure it uses it but that's not necessarily what comes to mind when you think of it.
(I appreciate I've left myself open to quite a lot of comments about precisely what does come to mind for people when they think of AFT. Mostly obscenities, I suspect.) I quite like the GLAM+STEM idea - is it being discussed on a list somewhere? (Absent here, which may not be the right location.) On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > AFT did try to engage readers, but if I recall correctly it had a checkbox > saying something like "I am an expert on this subject and I want to provide > feedback." This is reaching far back in my hazy memory, but I think that > similar features were present in both AFT3 and AFT5. > > That's an interesting idea about getting GLAM to focus on review in addition > to content creation. FloNight and I have also been talking about expanding > the GLAM concept to what I'm calling GLAM+STEM, meaning that we're > interested in engaging STEM institutions as well as GLAM institutions in > content creation (and potentially content quality review.) > > Pine > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:17 AM, WereSpielChequers > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I thought AFT was an attempt to engage readers not Subject Matter Experts. >> >> In my experience two of our most effective ways to outreach to those >> experts who are not already in the community are the GLAM program and >> potentially the education program. >> >> This was one of the areas that Johnbod explored in his time as Wikimedians >> in Residence at Cancer Research UK. You might want to talk to him as to how >> that went and the extent to which it could be replicated. The focus of a lot >> of residents has been more on getting openly licensed digital material, but >> I don't see why we couldn't have more residencies focussed on expert review, >> providing of course that the articles in that area are already at a stage >> worthy of review. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 23 May 2016 at 18:34, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Another article on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [1] I wonder, >>> could any of the practices described here be implemented on Wikipedia in a >>> way that would be helpful? WMF tried to engage SMEs through the now >>> mothballed AFT, and I believe that there is an ongoing effort to get SME >>> comments with the assistance of a bot facilitating communications from SMEs >>> to article talk pages (Aaron, do you remember the name of that project, and >>> if so could we get an update about it?) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Pine >>> >>> [1] >>> http://qz.com/480741/this-free-online-encyclopedia-has-achieved-what-wikipedia-can-only-dream-of/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
