Dear all, thanks to Anthony for the detailed report and for Lane's thoughts on the matter.
To expand on me being "sort of umm aah", I am * very interested in getting experts to review our content * aware that giving credit to external reviewers is not popular in the community * aware that banners are an issue too * supportive of Magnus' suggestion to just introduce the "banner" as another one of those maintenance templates (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Article_message_templates ) * aware that the existing article message templates are (almost?) exclusively about issues with the article in question - I haven't found any yet that would say anything positive about the article * supportive of using the PLOS CB Topic Pages as a testing ground (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:PLoS_Computational_Biology_articles ) * involved in other expert review initiatives (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computational_Biology/ISCB_competition_announcement_2015 ) that may provide further testing ground * suspecting that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_open_access_publications may contain some pages for which a version has also passed peer review * exploring Hypothes.is as a reviewing tool (e.g. https://via.hypothes.is/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholinergic_neuron ) * wondering whether and how the signalling of "peer-reviewedness" could be integrated with the signalling of source metadata, as per https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Source_MetaData/Bibliographic_metadata_for_scholarly_articles_in_Wikidata and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access/Signalling_OA-ness * interested in a solution that would be applicable beyond WP:MED or enwp or perhaps even Wikipedia - what about testing the waters via a similar "banner" on Wikisource first? Cheers, d. On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Lane Rasberry <l...@bluerasberry.com> wrote: > Hello, > > About the banner - I would want to see a copy of it. I concur that "I really > don't want to mess this up by having to battle for the banner or by > introducing it to WT:MED clumsily". A proposal type that seems similar to me > is attribution. > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikicredit> > If we gave credit for reviewing an article then that seems comparable to > credit for doing anything else. While I think the Wikimedia community would > support the idea, I do not think there would be enough support for anything > less than a well made proposal. If this were to happen, then either it would > need to be defined as definitely happening on a limited scale for a stated > amount of time as a pilot (one year, max ten articles, perhaps) or be very > documented if there is a desire to have potential to grow. > > An alternative to having the banner is getting the same review but not > advertising it so publicly. This might be desirable because I would rather > develop the review process first before building infrastructure to make > promises of quality as a result of the review process. Currently, > Wikipedia's best content (FAs) are only advertised with a discreet star. > Having a banner would be a break from tradition to make a much bolder > quality claim with content much lower in quality than the articles which get > that star. I have not seen Daniel's PLOS Biology rating system or its > documentation but if it makes sense, I might prefer to build from that > rather than found something new right away, especially considering the risk. > It is just the way that Wikipedia works that if a policy change is > overextended and it gets a consensus of complaints, then the issue is closed > for 6-12 months. I would prefer low-risk policy changes throughout the > process until and unless there is certainty to expect community support. > > If I were to talk to Magnus about something, it would be applying quality > and review labels somehow to medical data displayed in infoboxes. That is > his space already, and I anticipate that this is going to be a place in > Wikipedia targeted by external investment and review to get medical data > into Wikipedia. When it does come to Wikipedia by way of Wikidata, we have > no plans (so far as I know) to make it obvious how data in Wikipedia is > sourced when it comes from Wikidata. Some kind of external review of > infoboxes may be easier to get, easier to advertise in Wikipedia articles, > and the basis for lots of other kinds of in-wiki affirmations of quality. > > Very interesting ideas - all of it, Anthony. I am suggesting other things > but everything as you proposed is reasonable as it stands and more likely in > some ways than some of the ideas that I shared here. > > yours, > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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 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 >> >> >> 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 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, at the top of >>>> the cancer articles that CRUK reviewed 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> > > > > -- > Lane Rasberry > user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia > 206.801.0814 > l...@bluerasberry.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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
