Wikipedia and SMEs; another article about the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Wikipedia and SMEs; another article about the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Pine W
Another article on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [1] I wonder, could any of the practices described here be implemented on Wikipedia in a way that would be helpful? WMF tried to engage SMEs through the now mothballed AFT, and I believe that there is an ongoing effort to get SME comments with the assistance of a bot facilitating communications from SMEs to article talk pages (Aaron, do you remember the name of that project, and if so could we get an update about it?)

Thanks,
Pine

[1] http://qz.com/480741/this-free-online-encyclopedia-has-achieved-what-wikipedia-can-only-dream-of/

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia and SMEs; another article about the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

WereSpielChequers-2
I thought AFT was an attempt to engage readers not Subject Matter Experts.

In my experience two of our most effective ways to outreach to those experts who are not already in the community are the GLAM program and potentially the education program.

This was one of the areas that Johnbod explored in his time as Wikimedians in Residence at Cancer Research UK. You might want to talk to him as to how that went and the extent to which it could be replicated. The focus of a lot of residents has been more on getting openly licensed digital material, but I don't see why we couldn't have more residencies focussed on expert review, providing of course that the articles in that area are already at a stage worthy of review.





On 23 May 2016 at 18:34, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
Another article on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [1] I wonder, could any of the practices described here be implemented on Wikipedia in a way that would be helpful? WMF tried to engage SMEs through the now mothballed AFT, and I believe that there is an ongoing effort to get SME comments with the assistance of a bot facilitating communications from SMEs to article talk pages (Aaron, do you remember the name of that project, and if so could we get an update about it?)

Thanks,
Pine

[1] http://qz.com/480741/this-free-online-encyclopedia-has-achieved-what-wikipedia-can-only-dream-of/

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia and SMEs; another article about the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Pine W
AFT did try to engage readers, but if I recall correctly it had a checkbox saying something like "I am an expert on this subject and I want to provide feedback." This is reaching far back in my hazy memory, but I think that similar features were present in both AFT3 and AFT5.

That's an interesting idea about getting GLAM to focus on review in addition to content creation. FloNight and I have also been talking about expanding the GLAM concept to what I'm calling GLAM+STEM, meaning that we're interested in engaging STEM institutions as well as GLAM institutions in content creation (and potentially content quality review.)

Pine

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:17 AM, WereSpielChequers <[hidden email]> wrote:
I thought AFT was an attempt to engage readers not Subject Matter Experts.

In my experience two of our most effective ways to outreach to those experts who are not already in the community are the GLAM program and potentially the education program.

This was one of the areas that Johnbod explored in his time as Wikimedians in Residence at Cancer Research UK. You might want to talk to him as to how that went and the extent to which it could be replicated. The focus of a lot of residents has been more on getting openly licensed digital material, but I don't see why we couldn't have more residencies focussed on expert review, providing of course that the articles in that area are already at a stage worthy of review.





On 23 May 2016 at 18:34, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
Another article on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [1] I wonder, could any of the practices described here be implemented on Wikipedia in a way that would be helpful? WMF tried to engage SMEs through the now mothballed AFT, and I believe that there is an ongoing effort to get SME comments with the assistance of a bot facilitating communications from SMEs to article talk pages (Aaron, do you remember the name of that project, and if so could we get an update about it?)

Thanks,
Pine

[1] http://qz.com/480741/this-free-online-encyclopedia-has-achieved-what-wikipedia-can-only-dream-of/

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia and SMEs; another article about the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Oliver Keyes-5
It did, yes, but that wasn't it's primary focus - AFT is an example of
expert engagement in the same way it's an example of PHP: sure it uses
it but that's not necessarily what comes to mind when you think of it.

(I appreciate I've left myself open to quite a lot of comments about
precisely what does come to mind for people when they think of AFT.
Mostly obscenities, I suspect.)

I quite like the GLAM+STEM idea - is it being discussed on a list
somewhere? (Absent here, which may not be the right location.)

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> AFT did try to engage readers, but if I recall correctly it had a checkbox
> saying something like "I am an expert on this subject and I want to provide
> feedback." This is reaching far back in my hazy memory, but I think that
> similar features were present in both AFT3 and AFT5.
>
> That's an interesting idea about getting GLAM to focus on review in addition
> to content creation. FloNight and I have also been talking about expanding
> the GLAM concept to what I'm calling GLAM+STEM, meaning that we're
> interested in engaging STEM institutions as well as GLAM institutions in
> content creation (and potentially content quality review.)
>
> Pine
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:17 AM, WereSpielChequers
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I thought AFT was an attempt to engage readers not Subject Matter Experts.
>>
>> In my experience two of our most effective ways to outreach to those
>> experts who are not already in the community are the GLAM program and
>> potentially the education program.
>>
>> This was one of the areas that Johnbod explored in his time as Wikimedians
>> in Residence at Cancer Research UK. You might want to talk to him as to how
>> that went and the extent to which it could be replicated. The focus of a lot
>> of residents has been more on getting openly licensed digital material, but
>> I don't see why we couldn't have more residencies focussed on expert review,
>> providing of course that the articles in that area are already at a stage
>> worthy of review.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23 May 2016 at 18:34, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Another article on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [1] I wonder,
>>> could any of the practices described here be implemented on Wikipedia in a
>>> way that would be helpful? WMF tried to engage SMEs through the now
>>> mothballed AFT, and I believe that there is an ongoing effort to get SME
>>> comments with the assistance of a bot facilitating communications from SMEs
>>> to article talk pages (Aaron, do you remember the name of that project, and
>>> if so could we get an update about it?)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pine
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://qz.com/480741/this-free-online-encyclopedia-has-achieved-what-wikipedia-can-only-dream-of/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l