Hi Sydney.

Thanks for asking.

I think it went well.

I got to talk one-on-one with Jacob de Wolff, chair of WikiProject Med
Foundation, and Daniel Mietchen (on that board and presently contracted to
NIH). I also met Magnus Manske, an early MediaWiki developer, currently
with Wellcome's Sanger Institute, and Geoffrey Bilder of CrossReff. Jacob
and Daniel will, I think, be reliable supporters on-wiki. I managed to
prise a commitment out of Magnus to help with any MediaWiki changes that
might be needed, and Geoffrey offered to help with attaching a doi (digital
object identifier) to the peer-reviewed version of an article. I had dinner
with John Byrne - WiR for the CRUK project.

All of them gave me very useful feedback specific to the BMJ project, and I
was able to give them a bit of the history and a description of how this is
likely to go.

I gave a brief presentation during the unconference which was attended by
about 15 people - but the real engagement in that session came from the
above-mentioned.

I asked Daniel if he'd plop a banner (like the article improvement banners
you see at the top of lots of articles) at the top of the seven Wikipedia
computational biology articles that were peer reviewed by PLOS
Computational Biology, pointing the reader to the reviewed version hosted
at PLOS. (He presently has a miniscule, unfindable link at the bottom of
each article.) He was sort of umm aah, but I think he'll do it if I present
him with the banner.

Now I've got to get the banner. I guess I'll ask Magnus for that - though I
think it's way below his pay grade ... I don't know who else to ask.

Once Daniel's done that, I'll make the announcement at en.Wikipedia
talk:WikiProject Medicine. I want Daniel to break the ice on the banner
because he's far less likely to trigger an MOS revolt over in Comp. Biol.
than us at medicine on what I expect to be high-visibility articles - and
if I wait for that I can point the WT:MED denizens to Daniel's articles so
they can see how it'll look, or at least how it will work.

So that's where I am.

The foundation released the results of its community/reader consultation
process
<http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/27/strategy-potential-mobile-multimedia-translation>
last week.

The biggest thing on the minds of our readers (as opposed to the editor
community) is accuracy/reliability. This - or something like this - has to
happen, and soon, and on a grand scale. So I really don't want to mess this
up by having to battle for the banner or by introducing it to WT:MED
clumsily.

You don't know Magnus do you Sydney? It's just that I think he thought I
was a bit of an idiot, so if someone who's clearly not an idiot were to
tell him how awesome it is that he offered to help, it might oil the wheels
a bit here.







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


On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Sydney Poore <sydney.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Anthony,
>
> I would appreciate an update from the wikipedia science conference about
> if you had an opportunity to present about the BMJ collaboration.
>
> And any other updates and plans.
>
> Sydney
> On Aug 25, 2015 4:08 AM, "Anthony Cole" <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dengue_fever&oldid=629402504>.
>>
>>
>> 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
>> <http://www.ploscollections.org/article/browse/issue/info:doi/10.1371/issue.pcol.v03.i14>
>> 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
>> Wikimedia-Medicine@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-Medicine mailing list
> Wikimedia-Medicine@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Medicine mailing list
Wikimedia-Medicine@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine

Reply via email to