Ah. Sorry Hilda, wrong term. I mean we should offer the reader a really
nice-looking presentation of the reviewed version of the article, rather
than something pulled up from the article's history. This
<http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/viewFile/562/564> rather than this

But the more I think about this, the less important I think it is. The main
thing to achieve is *a really prominent link at the top of the current
version of a reviewed article linking the reader to the reviewed version*.

There should be such a link at the top of the current version of any
article reviewed by BMJ, but also at the top of Dengue fever
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengue_fever>, at the top of the cancer
articles that CRUK reviewed
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_CRUK> for us and at
the top of all the articles
Daniel Mietchen managed to get reviewed by *Computational Biology* if those
involved want it*.*

Whether they link to a nicely-presented, journal style edition or just the
plain old Wikipedia history page is fairly trivial.

Apart from a really prominent link to the reviewed version at the top of
the current page, there should also be *a prominent link to a nice,
readable diff between the reviewed and current versions* - so the reader
can see how the topic/article has evolved since the last review.

These are the things I'm hoping to get support for, if there is any
opposition to them on en.Wikipedia.

Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole>

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Bastian, Hilda (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] <
hilda.bast...@nih.gov> wrote:

> G'day!
> I'm happy to support this - but can't come to London. Hoping to be at the
> USA meeting though.
> Not sure what you mean by a fair copy.
> Hilda
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Anthony Cole [ahcole...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2015 9:48 PM
> *To:* Wiki Medicine discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-Medicine] BMJ Wikipedia reviews
> Lodewijk, Sydney, Hilda, I think I'm going to need lots of support to pull
> this off. BMJ are not publishing the reviewed version - we are, by pointing
> to the relevant diff in the article's history. I'd like us to offer the
> reader a much nicer presentation of the reviewed article than that, which
> means Wikimedia hosting a "fair copy" (like normal articles published on
> publishers' websites).
> I'd also like us to point the reader to a diff between the reviewed
> version and the current version that doesn't have all the wiki markup -
> basically a diff that the average reader will easily parse.
> This will only happen if we can demonstrate solid support from the
> Wikipedia med community.
> I intend outlining this at the conference, if I get a slot in the Sunday
> afternoon unconference. I don't suppose you guys might be able to drop
> everything and turn up at the inaugural Wikipedia Science Conference in
> London on 2-3 September, is there? :o)
> On 15 Aug 2015 1:05 am, "Anthony Cole" <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've just come out of the second teleconference with fellow WPMEDF board
>> member Jake Orlowitz, and Fiona Godlee and Peter Ashman of BMJ.
>> BMJ has offered to provide expert peer-review of up to 10 of our medical
>> articles. We can choose the articles and can submit them at our own pace.
>> I'll post the details at English Wikipedia's Wikiproject Medicine talk page
>> on Monday or Tuesday - I'm very busy the next 48 hours. Have a great
>> weekend everyone.
>> --
>> Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-Medicine mailing list
> Wikimedia-Medicine@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine
Wikimedia-Medicine mailing list

Reply via email to