Hello everyone, I think Wikimedia UK has an example project, related to medical articles, that may be of interest. John Byrne is the Wikimedian in Residence at Cancer Research UK, one of the UK's largest charities. He's put together the below message but isn't subscribed to this list so can't post. I am posting on his behalf. I'm happy to answer any questions about this and those I can't, I shall pass on to John.
Thanks and regards, Stevie John's message: Cancer Research UK (CRUK), the world’s largest cancer research charity, have just taken me on as Wikipedian in Residence until mid-December 2014 (4/5 part time). Parts of the plan for the role are very relevant to this thread. We are aiming to improve WP articles on cancer to ensure they are accurate, up-to-date and accessible to the full range of WP’s readership, working closely with the existing English WP medical editing community, many of whom have already been supportive of the project. With the medical translation project also underway, this is great timing for us to improve important content across large numbers of language versions. We will be able to draw upon the expertise of both the medical research staff funded by CRUK (over 4000 in the UK) and the various kinds of staff they have with professional expertise in writing for a range of audiences, from patients to scientists ( their editorial policy<http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/utilities/about-cancerhelp-uk/cancerhelp-uk-policies/editorial-policy/> ). We are also planning to do research with the public into what they think of specific WP articles, perhaps before and after improvement, and into how they use WP and other sites at the top of search pages when looking for medical information on the internet. There has been little research into this area, and the results should be very useful in focusing the ways medical content generally can be improved. The CRUK position is funded by the Wellcome Trust and supported by Wikimedia UK, and the budget includes an element for this research. I will be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiki_CRUK_John in this role (Usually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnbod. Until early July I will also continue my role (1/5) as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the UK’s National Academy for the Sciences) John Byrne On 8 May 2014 22:43, edward <edw...@logicmuseum.com> wrote: > On 08/05/2014 22:29, Andrew Gray wrote: > >> Section 3.3 of the report covers article selection. They went about it >>> >> backwards (at least, backwards to the way you might expect) - > recruiting reviewers and then manually identifying relevant articles, > as the original goal was to use relevant topics for individual > specialists. > > Even this selective method didn't work as well as might be hoped, >>> >> because the mechanism of the study required a minimum level of content > - the articles had to be substantial enough to be useful for a > comparison, and of sufficient length and comparable scope in both sets > of sources - which ruled out many of the initial selections. > > > After it was published I emailed both the epic and the Oxford team to > understand why they chose the articles they did. I was unable to get a > satisfactory answer. > > The method of selecting the most notable philosopher-theologians from a > certain period is a good one. There is no reason it has to be random, so > long as there is a clearly defined selection method. However, they were > unable to explain why of the most notable subjects, they chose Aquinas and > Anselm. I suspect there was a selection bias, as those were the articles > which 'looked' the best. (The ones on Ockham and Scotus were so obviously > vandalised that even a novice would have spotted the problem). > > Even then, as I have already pointed out above, they missed the fact that > the Anselm article was plagiarised from Britannica 1911, so that instead of > comparing Britannica to Wikiepedia, they were comparing Britannica 2011 > with Britannica 1911. And they missed some bad errors that had been > introduced by Wikipedia editors when they attempted to modernise the old > Britannica prose. > > To give a simple example that even Geni will have to concede is not > 'subjectively wrong', the Wikipedia article on Anselm said > > "Anselm wrote many proofs within Monologion and Proslogion. In the first > proof, Anselm relies on the ordinary grounds of realism, which coincide to > some extent with the theory of Augustine." > > This is a mangled version of the B1911 which reads > > "This demonstration is the substance of the Monologion and Proslogion. In > the first of these the proof rests on the ordinary grounds of realism" > > You see what went wrong? 'first of these' should refer to the first book, > namely Monologion. But one editor removed ""This demonstration is the > substance of the Monologion and Proslogion" as being too difficult for > ordinary readers, leaving 'first of these'. Another editor came along and > thought it referred to the first proof. This is quite incorrect. > > I am still amazed the Oxford team didn't spot this. Even if you don't know > the article was lifted from B1911, the oddity of the assertion should have > rung alarm bells. There are about 9 other mistakes of differing severity. > > > > On 08/05/2014 22:29, Andrew Gray wrote: > >> On 8 May 2014 01:56, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> (However, this study does not seem to have been based on a random sample >>> – >>> at least I cannot find any mention of the sample selection method in the >>> study's write-up. The selection of a random sample is key to any such >>> effort, and the method used to select the sample should be described in >>> detail in any resulting report.) >>> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EPIC_Oxford_report.pdf >> >> Section 3.3 of the report covers article selection. They went about it >> backwards (at least, backwards to the way you might expect) - >> recruiting reviewers and then manually identifying relevant articles, >> as the original goal was to use relevant topics for individual >> specialists. >> >> Even this selective method didn't work as well as might be hoped, >> because the mechanism of the study required a minimum level of content >> - the articles had to be substantial enough to be useful for a >> comparison, and of sufficient length and comparable scope in both sets >> of sources - which ruled out many of the initial selections. >> >> (This is a key point to remember: the study effectively assesses the >> quality of a subset of "developed" articles in Wikipedia, rather than >> the presumably less-good fragmentary ones. It's a valid question to >> ask, but not always the one people think it's answering...) >> >> "Thus the selection of articles was constrained by two important >> factors: one, the need to find topics appropriate for the academics >> whom we were able to recruit to the project; secondly, that articles >> from different online encyclopaedias were of comparable substance and >> focus. (Such factors would need to be taken carefully into account >> when embarking on a future large-scale study, where the demands of >> finding large numbers of comparable articles are likely to be >> considerable.)" >> >> You'd need to adopt a fairly different methodology if you wanted a >> random sampling; I suppose you could prefilter a sample by "likely to >> be suitable" metrics (eg minimum size, article title matching a title >> list from the other reference works) and randomly select from within >> *those*, but of course you would still have the fundamental issue that >> you're essentially reviewing a selected portion of the project. >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
