WikiOpen: Encyclopedia, health, research, education, & community


Published on

5 areas where Wikipedia can change the world

Published in: Internet
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

WikiOpen: Encyclopedia, health, research, education, & community

  1. 1. WikiOpen Encyclopedia, health, research, education, & community @JakeOrlowitz
  2. 2. Wikipedia’s mission Imagine a world in which every person on the planet shares in the sum of all human knowledge. (for free, in the language of their choice)
  3. 3. Wikipedia’s scale 30m articles, 4m English 16 million images 8000 views per second 500 million unique visitors per month 2 billion edits, 700 million English edits
  4. 4. Wikimedia’s scope 286 languages 18 projects ...images, data, dictionary, travel guide, species, quotes, books, source material, wiki software
  5. 5. Wikipedia’s volunteers 20 million registered users 80,000 active users 1,400 administrators … working for free, with no central control
  6. 6. Wikipedia’s Foundation San Francisco 200 employees Donor funded Non-profit No-ads!
  7. 7. Wikipedia’s pillars Neutral point of view Verifiability Consensus Civility Open copyright
  8. 8. Wikipedia’s reliability As good as Britannica Errors fixed quickly over time Virtual filter Many eyeballs make all bugs shallow
  9. 9. An early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[2] Between 2008 and 2012, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[5] toxicology,[6] oncology,[7] pharmaceuticals,[8] and psychiatry[9] comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard.
  10. 10. 180,000 articles globally 30,000 English 5 billion pageviews per year > WHO, NIH, WebMD, or UpToDate Wikipedia in Medicine
  11. 11. 50% to 90% of physicians use Wikipedia 35 to 70% of pharmacists use Wikipedia Most frequently used source by junior MDs 94% of medical students use Wikipedia Clinical usage
  12. 12. Wikipedia use [high] amongst medical students Wikipedia is increasingly being used by medical students and physicians when actively searching for health information (Judd & Kennedy 2010). There is increasing evidence about its reliability and potential use (Rajagopalan et al. 2011). Wikipedia was used by 341 students (94%) while studying medicine. The most common reasons reported for using Wikipedia were ease of access (98%) and ease of understanding (95%). there was a significant correlation between the year of medical school and the use of Wikipedia as the first resource (R2  =  0.81, p < 0.02) The use of Wikipedia is almost ubiquitous throughout medical school for medical education. Medical school administrators would benefit from embracing and developing web2.0 resources and include their use in ongoing dynamic medical education.
  13. 13. Doctors use, but don’t rely totally on, Wikipedia Use of Wikipedia for medical information is almost universal among a sample of doctors. Many of them praise its accuracy, but they are aware of its faults and that it needs to be read critically. Ninety percent said they look up medical information on Wikipedia, citing its ease of access and clear, concise layout among its advantages. Among those who denied using it, some commented that they only used Wikipedia for background knowledge: in other words, they were using it. Stressed that they never base clinical decisions on Wikipedia alone. They saw it as a starting point, to be read critically and consulted alongside other sources. “I use Wikipedia to gain a quick overview of a subject/topic that I am unfamiliar with or to jolt my memory of a subject. I would never base management or treatment of a patient I find there – for that I use my own knowledge, hospital protocols/guidelines, textbooks and advice from colleagues.”
  14. 14. Is Wikipedia... Peer Reviewed?
  15. 15. 1. Edit Filter automatically rejects known vandalism patterns 2. ClueBot reverts and flags suspicious edits with a machine-learning bot 3. Humans review malicious changes tagged with language recognition tools 4. Vandalism patterns are checked against metadata and historical trends 5. Recent changes patrollers scroll through new edits 6. Editors alerted to each change on all pages in their article watchlist 7. Specialists and experts report and fix mistakes when they see them 8. Millions of readers identify and correct errors when they come upon them 9. Link blacklists lock out known spam sites and unreliable sources 10. Detection mechanisms to determine conflict of interest 11. Administrators to block disruptive editors and protect pages Multiple safeguards
  16. 16. References... References...
  17. 17. WP:MEDRS
  18. 18. Featured / Good articles Post-publication informal crowdsourced peer review Semi-formal peer review Total: 4000 FAs and 18,000 GAs Medicine: 58 FAs and 145 GAs (<1% ) Frequently written by experts Primarily by one or by a few people More formal peer review and author credit?
  19. 19. Who Are We Writing For?
  20. 20. The General Population Both academics and the lay public Simple language where possible, no jargon Main articles are an overview  Sub articles can contain detail (nesting) General public doesn’t care about Conf. Interval
  21. 21. Health Information for All
  22. 22. Translation needed Problem Little health content exists in many languages Factor Majority of research written in English Solution Translate from English to other languages
  23. 23. Translation goals 80-100 key health care articles > 2,000 pages of text Improve to a professional standard in English Translate into as many other languages as possible, including simple English Integrate the translations into Wikipedia Give easy and free access via collaborations with cell phone companies (Wikipedia Zero)
  24. 24. Translation partners Translators Without Borders NGO founded in 1993 for Humanitarian translation WikiProject Medicine Wikipedians interested in improving medical content Wiki Project Med
  25. 25. Global impact Tens of thousands die for lack of low cost interventions Access to information is a major factor (HIFA2015) 8 of 10 caregivers do not know the key symptoms of pneumonia 4 of 10 mothers in India believe fluids should be withheld if their child has diarrhea 60% of Africans said a life close to them could have been saved with information in their language
  26. 26. The Library Connection WP Only as good as our sources Libraries have the best sources Wikipedia has the most eyeballs Connect a circle of research and dissemination
  27. 27. The Wikipedia Library Gain access to paywalled sources Facilitate research for editors Connect with libraries Lead to free and local sources Promote open access
  28. 28. Access donations Credo Reference HighBeam Research Questia Online Library JSTOR The Cochrane Library ...NYT, Oxford, Wiley, LexisNexis?
  29. 29. Thinking big What if every publisher donated free access to the 1000 most active Wikipedians in that subject area?
  30. 30. Wikipedia Visiting Scholars Academic tradition Research affiliates Unpaid, remote positions Full access to collections Liason to Wikipedia’s community
  31. 31. Thinking big What if every library or research institution had one Wikipedia on staff to access their collections and build the encyclopedia?
  32. 32. University partnership Institutional donation 5 -10 thousand editors Subscription license High cost Technical implementation (OAuth)
  33. 33. Thinking big The Wikipedia Library Powered by Stanford??
  34. 34. Fulfillment tool OCLC Pilot IP affiliation Proxy Resolver Open URL University initiative
  35. 35. Thinking big What if every reference in a Wikipedia article had the link to the full text source next to it?
  36. 36. Resource exchange WP:RX Fair use Academic sharing Global OA Button
  37. 37. Thinking big What if any editor anywhere in the world could be given a fair-use, full-text copy of the source they need?
  38. 38. OA signalling
  39. 39. Thinking big What if every reference in a Wikipedia article tagged whether it was free to read or reuse?
  40. 40. Wikipedia, Libraries = natural allies Wikipedia is the starting point for research We lead readers back to sources at libraries So they can think critically about subjects
  41. 41. Wikipedia in the classroom ● Engaged students global audience, realworld purpose ● Unique assignment peer feedback, cool and different ● Media literacy identify bias, evaluate credibility ● Constructing knowledge content gaps ● Discourse collaboration, community of practice ● Expository writing literature review, citation ● Critical thinking process reflection ● Plagiarism close paraphrasing, copyright ● Digital citizenship online etiquette, wiki code
  42. 42. Education Program Started with 2010 Public Policy Initiative 20,000 printed pages 6,000 Wikipedia articles Increasing participation Increasing quality
  43. 43. Wikipedia Ambassadors
  44. 44. Inviting diversity a playful approach to broaden our community
  45. 45. The challenge technical, social, policy hurdles complex, unguided environment quick, sometimes rude people/bots intense debates public and impersonal exchanges Wikipedia’s culture can seem... complicated, inaccessible, and intimidating
  46. 46. Can we change the tone to encourage diverse contributors to join our communities? This doesn’t help attract diversity
  47. 47. Strategy: Invitation Some people won’t jump in until they’re asked Invitation makes us feel welcome and supported It begins creating a sense of belonging
  48. 48. Being recognized validates experience Acknowledgement encourages engaging Positive feedback connects you to people you work with Strategy: Acknowledgement
  49. 49. Seeing faces gives a sense of human community Allows us to imagine ourselves becoming part of something together Empathy is encouraged by visual cues Strategy: Showing people
  50. 50. Play lowers the fear of failure Allows us to try new things and make mistakes Can help us do serious things more, because we enjoy them Strategy: Playful design
  51. 51. IdeaLab is an incubator for Wikimedia- related ideas. As much as we want to know your idea for a better hat to deflect alien mind-rays, remember to tell us how your idea improves a Wikimedia website or makes contributing easier for Wikimedia volunteers.
  52. 52. Experimental impact TH new editors have... 1.7x longer user retention 2x more articles edited 3.2x more female editors sample of women started editing more after WWC launched
  53. 53. Experimental impact The Wikipedia Adventure ● 20% more edits than a noninvited control group ● 90% more edits than invited nonplayers ● 320% more edits by game finishers ● 20 - 70%, players more likely to make 20+ edits ● 290%, finishers more likely to make 20+ edits
  54. 54. CC-BY-SA 4.0, Images from Wikimedia Commons Jake Orlowitz User:Ocaasi @JakeOrlowitz Wikimedia Foundation Grants Wiki Project Med Foundation The Wikipedia Library The Wikipedia Adventure FunIsSrsBsnss Productions