The document discusses the ethical considerations of using Wikipedia as a resource in research, highlighting the challenges of adhering to Wikipedia's neutrality and conflict of interest policies. It emphasizes the importance of developing guidelines that align with Wikipedia's principles for researchers, universities, and communication professionals. The talk also reviews the successes and risks associated with linking university repositories to Wikipedia and the need for a collaborative approach to improve engagement practices within the research community.

1. Developing an Ethical Approach to
Using Wikipedia as the Front
Matter to all Research
Wikipedia Science 2015 conference
Brian Kelly
Independent consultant
UK Web Focus
Contact Details
Email: ukwebfocus@gmail.com
Twitter: @briankelly
Blog: http://ukwebfocus.com/
ORCID: 0000-0001-5875-8744
1Slides and further information available at
http://ukwebfocus.com/events#2015-09-02/
UK Web Focus Event hashtag: #wikisci
The Wellcome Collection, 183 Euston Road, London on 2-3 September 2015
Slides available from
http://www.slideshare.net/lisbk/

2. 22
You are free to:
copy, share, adapt, or re-mix;
photograph, film, or broadcast;
blog, live-blog, or post video of
this presentation provided that:
You attribute the work to its author and respect the rights and
licences associated with its components.
Idea from Cameron Neylon
Slide Concept by Cameron Neylon, who has waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights. This slide only CCZero.
Social Media Icons adapted with permission from originals by Christopher Ross. Original images are available under GPL at:
http://www.thisismyurl.com/free-downloads/15-free-speech-bubble-icons-for-popular-websites

3. Contents
• Introduction
• Link strategies do work for researchers!
• The ethical dilemma
• Towards resolution of the dilemma
• Next steps
3
Introduction
A Wikipedia-style presentation:
• Content has a CC-BY licence
• Slides available online
• Based on verifiable evidence
• Easy access to evidence
• Beta-approach (initial ideas;
development from others encouraged)
• No original research
• Building on work of others
• Slides in open standard format 
• Comments on slides (via Slideshare)
Acknowledgements
Martin Poulter, Andy Mabbett,
Wendy Hall, Geoff Bilder, Rod Ward,
Alex Bateman, Melissa Highton, …

4. About this Talk
In August 2014 a Wikimania session proposed “Wikipedia as the
front matter to all research” .. A survey of Links From Wikipedia to
Russell Group University Repositories found 1,100+ Wikipedia
links to Russell Group university repositories.
However this can conflict with the “Neutral Point of View” principle. A
post which asked “So who’s editing the SNHU Wikipedia page?”
illustrated such risks and concluded “You should not edit your
institution’s Wikipedia page. It’s a PR debacle waiting to happen”
A “Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications
firms” included a statement:
Our firms believe that it is in the best interest of our industry, and
Wikipedia users at large, that Wikipedia fulfill its mission of
developing an accurate and objective online encyclopedia.
Therefore, it is wise for communications professionals to follow
Wikipedia policies as part of ethical engagement practices.
This talk provides opportunities to explore a similar policy statement
which could be adopted by UK universities, research councils,
publishers and other stakeholders involved in research activities.
4
Introduction

5. About Me
Brian Kelly
• UK Web Focus at UKOLN: a national Web adviser to UK
Universities from 1996-2013
• Innovation Advocate at Cetis from Oct 2013 - May 2015
• Dissemination of web developments and promotion of best
practices for exploiting the web (Web/Innovation Advocate)
• Since June 2015 an independent consultant
• Speaker at SOLO (Science Online London) / SpotOn confs.
Wikipedia activities:
• Wikipedia editor since 2004
• Accredited Wikipedia trainer
• Wikipedia trainer at workshops for librarians & researchers
• Speaker at Eduwiki Serbia 2014, Eduwiki UK 2014, …
• Poster presentation with Martin Poulter on Wikipedia & Metrics at
1:AM alt.metrics conference 5
Introduction

6. About You
Who is (hands-up for all relevant options):
1. Researcher
2. Wikipedian
3. Software developer
4. Science communicator / advocate / trainer /
journalist
5. Policy maker
6. Other
I am all 1, 2 and 4 but mainly communicator/advocate/…
Talk focuses on policy on advice/training implications for
researchers
6
Introduction

7. About My Research Activities
7
My research activities:
• Peer-reviewed
papers on web
accessibility,
standards, impact,
social media, …
• H-index of 15
(according to
Google Scholar)

8. Evidence
Advocacy
Viewing my Papers
Analysis of downloads in ~2012 (for reporting to funders) showed
‘popularity’ of papers (full text)
Highest number of downloads of all researchers at University of
Bath (twice as many as researcher in second place) 8
Evidence

9. Reasons for Popularity
“Can LinkedIn and Academia. edu Enhance
Access to Open Repositories?”
9
Evidence

10. Advice for Researchers
My advice to researchers by 2012 (in run-up to REF 2015)
10
See http://ukwebfocus.com/2012/07/03/paper-accepted-for-or12/
Conclusions:
• Mainstream ‘white-hat’ linking SEO practices can work for
researchers as well as everyone else
• May not be scalable (if everyone does it, benefits may be
marginal) … so early adopters have competitive advantage!

11. 11
Links to Wikipedia from Repositories
Background
• Survey of 24 Russell Group Unis
published on 28 Aug 2014
• Total of 1,108 links found from IRs
• Blog post summarised findings
Discussion
• Dangers that:
 Evidence → League table → Race
 Research support staff, researchers, etc. ─ unaware of
Wikipedia principles ─ focus on SEO benefits
 Awareness of WP principles ignored
• “If we wish to see Wikipedia acting as the front matter to research
provided by the university sector should we be seeking to develop
a similar statement on how we will do this whilst ensuring that we
act in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines?”
Evidence

12. Wikipedia Challenges
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia:
1. It's an encyclopedia
2. It's written from a neutral point of view
3. Anyone can use, edit, share and modify the content
4. Interact with each other respectfully and civilly
5. It doesn't have firm rules
12
Challenges

13. About You
Who has edited a Wikipedia article about:
• Your social interests
• Areas of no/little interest (e.g. fixing typos)
• Your professional interests
• Your organisation
• Yourself (if article exists)!
13
My first Wikipedia article was on Rapper Sword dancing (2004).
Context to creation and structure:
• It’s British culture (worried Americans would create article)
• It’s from the northeast
• It’s not morris dancing!

14. Policies and Guidelines
14
From Rod Ward

15. Neutral Point of View (NPOV)
• Articles must not take sides, but should explain the
sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what
you say and how you say it.
• All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written
from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means
representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as
possible, without bias, all of the significant views that
have been published by reliable sources on a topic
15
Unless otherwise stated, text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may
apply. Wikimedia UK is a Charitable Company registered in England and Wales. Registered Company No. 6741827. Registered
Charity No.1144513. Registered Office: 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_
point_of_view#Bias_in_sources

16. Conflict of Interest
(Hidden  at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CURATOR
16
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to
Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers,
or your financial or other relationships. Any external
relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. (The word
interest refers here to something in which a person has a
stake or from which they stand to benefit.)[n 1]
Conflict of interest is not about actual bias. It is about a
person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias
that we assume exists when roles conflict.[2] That someone
has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a
judgment about that person's state of mind.[

17. Wikipedia for University Marketing Staff
One-day workshop
for Wikipedia
Web/marketing
staff at Exeter
University in July
2015
17
Blog post about event

18. Wikipedia for University Marketing Staff
One-day workshop for
Wikipedia
Web/marketing staff at
Exeter University in
July 2015
• Attendees updated
pages about their
organisation
Is this a problem?
18

19. Wikipedia for University Marketing Staff
One-day workshop for
Wikipedia
Web/marketing staff at
Exeter University in
July 2015
• Attendees updated
pages about their
organisation
Is this a problem?
19
But is additional of factual
metadata ok?

20. Other Sectors
Grant Shapps accused of editing
Wikipedia pages of Tory rivals
20

21. Other Sectors
• ccc
21

22. Looking At Other Sectors
22
“Top PR Firms Promise
They Won't Edit
Clients' Wikipedia
Entries on the Sly”:
• Can the research
sector learn from
this?
If so, who would do
this:
• Individual unis?
• Groups of unis?
• Uni/research
bodies?

23. 23
On behalf of our firms, we recognize Wikipedia's unique and important role as a public knowledge
resource. We also acknowledge that the prior actions of some in our industry have led to a
challenging relationship with the community of Wikipedia editors.
Our firms believe that it is in the best interest of our industry, and Wikipedia users at large, that
Wikipedia fulfill its mission of developing an accurate and objective online encyclopedia. Therefore,
it is wise for communications professionals to follow Wikipedia policies as part of ethical
engagement practices.
We therefore publicly state and commit, on behalf of our respective firms, to the best of our ability,
to abide by the following principles:
To seek to better understand the fundamental principles guiding Wikipedia and other Wikimedia
projects.
• To act in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly those related to
"conflict of interest."
• To abide by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use.
• To the extent we become aware of potential violations of Wikipedia policies by our respective
firms, to investigate the matter and seek corrective action, as appropriate and consistent with
our policies.
• Beyond our own firms, to take steps to publicize our views and counsel our clients and peers to
conduct themselves accordingly.
We also seek opportunities for a productive and transparent dialogue with Wikipedia editors,
inasmuch as we can provide accurate, up-to-date, and verifiable information that helps Wikipedia
better achieve its goals.
A significant improvement in relations between our two communities may not occur quickly or
easily, but it is our intention to do what we can to create a long-term positive change and contribute
toward Wikipedia's continued success.

24. Scientists Are Different!
Wendy Hall:
Social machine: Internet + Web + Wikipedia + open
access + people + context (political, social, …)
Alex Bateman, EMBL:
• “I’m passionate about proteins (and now RNA!)”
• “I’ve created loads of articles about RNA”
• “So have my colleagues in my organisation”
• “And the wider community”
• “And Wikipedians delete much of our work”
• And possibly/arguably Wellcome Trust pay us to
do this: part of grant is for public engagement)
24
And this is a good thing!

25. Learning from GLAM Community
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CURATOR#Cultural_sector
25
Many thanks to Andy Mabbett for 6 characters: “WP:COI”

26. Questions
Some questions:
• Should we (researchers with interest in Wikipedia)
ignore the issue / inherit mainstream guidance?
• Should we develop guidelines/code of conduct/…?
• Who should own the guidelines/code of conduct?
(research bodies, institutions, Wikipedia, COPE*,
…?
• Should we name and shame institutions which
appear to link to their own resources?
• What tools can help: auditing; DOI …; IP name (&
shame cf edits from Westminster; …)?
• …
26
* COPE = Committee on Publication Ethics: http://publicationethics.org/