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

WikiOpenEncyclopedia, health, research, education, & community

@JakeOrlowitz

Wikipedia’s missionImagine 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)

Wikipedia’s scale30m articles, 4m English16 million images8000 views per second

500 million unique visitors per month2 billion edits, 700 million English edits

Wikimedia’s scope286 languages18 projects

...images, data, dictionary, travel guide, species, quotes, books, source material, wiki software

Wikipedia’s volunteers20 million registered users80,000 active users1,400 administrators

… working for free, with no central control

Wikipedia’s FoundationSan Francisco

200 employees

Donor funded

Non-profit

No-ads!

Wikipedia’s pillarsNeutral point of viewVerifiabilityConsensusCivilityOpen copyright

Wikipedia’s reliabilityAs good as Britannica

Errors fixed quickly over time

Virtual filter

Many eyeballs make all bugs shallow

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.

180,000 articles globally

30,000 English

5 billion pageviews per year

> WHO, NIH, WebMD, or UpToDate

Wikipedia in Medicine

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

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.

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.”

Is Wikipedia...

Peer Reviewed?

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

References... References...

WP:MEDRS

Featured / Good articlesPost-publication informal crowdsourced peer reviewSemi-formal peer review

Total: 4000 FAs and 18,000 GAsMedicine: 58 FAs and 145 GAs (<1% )

Frequently written by expertsPrimarily by one or by a few people

More formal peer review and author credit?

Who Are We Writing For?

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

Health Information for All

Translation neededProblem Little health content exists in many languages

Factor Majority of research written in English

Solution Translate from English to other languages

Translation goals80-100 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)

Translation partnersTranslators Without Borders

NGO founded in 1993 for Humanitarian translation

WikiProject MedicineWikipedians interested in improving medical content

Wiki Project Med

Global impactTens 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

● Wikipedia is a viable way to address this knowledge gap.

The Library ConnectionWP Only as good as our sources

Libraries have the best sources

Wikipedia has the most eyeballs

Connect a circle of research and dissemination

The Wikipedia LibraryGain access to paywalled sourcesFacilitate research for editorsConnect with librariesLead to free and local sourcesPromote open access

Access donationsCredo ReferenceHighBeam ResearchQuestia Online LibraryJSTORThe Cochrane Library...NYT, Oxford, Wiley, LexisNexis?

Thinking big

What if every publisher donated free access to the 1000 most active

Wikipedians in that subject area?

Wikipedia Visiting ScholarsAcademic traditionResearch affiliatesUnpaid, remote positionsFull access to collectionsLiason to Wikipedia’s community

Thinking big

What if every library or research institution had one Wikipedia on staff to access their

collections and build the encyclopedia?

University partnershipInstitutional donation

5 -10 thousand editors

Subscription license

High cost

Technical implementation (OAuth)

Thinking big

The Wikipedia LibraryPowered by Stanford??

Fulfillment toolOCLC Pilot

IP affiliation

Proxy Resolver

Open URL

University initiative

Thinking big

What if every reference in a Wikipedia article had the link to the full text source next to it?

Resource exchangeWP:RX

Fair use

Academic sharing

Global

OA Button

Thinking big

What if any editor anywhere in the world could be given a fair-use, full-text

copy of the source they need?

OA signalling

Thinking big

What if every reference in a Wikipedia article tagged whether it was free to read or reuse?

Wikipedia, Libraries = natural allies

Wikipedia is the starting point for research

We lead readers back to sources at librariesSo they can think critically about subjects

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

Education ProgramStarted with 2010 Public Policy Initiative

20,000 printed pages

6,000 Wikipedia articles

Increasing participation

Increasing quality

Wikipedia Ambassadors

Inviting diversity

a playful approach to broaden our community

The challenge

technical, social, policy hurdlescomplex, unguided environment quick, sometimes rude people/bots intense debates public and impersonal exchanges

Wikipedia’s culture can seem... complicated, inaccessible, and intimidating

Can we change the tone to encourage diverse contributors to join our communities?

This doesn’t help attract diversity

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

Being recognized validates experience

Acknowledgement encourages engaging

Positive feedback connects you to people you work with

Strategy: Acknowledgement

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

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

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.

Experimental impactTH new editors have...1.7x longer user retention2x more articles edited3.2x more female editors

sample of women started editing more after WWC launched

Experimental impactThe 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

CC-BY-SA 4.0, Images from Wikimedia Commons

Jake Orlowitz User:Ocaasi

@JakeOrlowitzjorlowitz@gmail.com

Wikimedia Foundation GrantsWiki Project Med Foundation

The Wikipedia LibraryThe Wikipedia Adventure

FunIsSrsBsnss Productions