Jenny it's curious that you say that because a person cannot cite their *own work* that means they cannot contribute in their expert area. If they are *truly* an expert and not a faux expert, then they can *surely* contribute all the background material which is generally accepted in their field, without even touching recent work.

If they cannot do that, I would present the claim, that they are not an expert in that field in the first place.

-----Original Message----- From: Leigh Thelmadatter osamadre@hotmail.com To: Other Education List education@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Jul 10, 2014 11:01 am Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Education] Overcoming a roadblock to engagement

Ive gotten mixed answers on the question of citing one's own work.

From: gristock@me.com Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 15:43:46 +0100 To: education@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Education] Overcoming a roadblock to engagement

Greetings everyone. I'm still working on that system to encourage university professors to contribute to Wikipedia, a system that is concerned not through teaching, like the Education Programme, but through research.

I need some help. Can you tell me, in the Wikipedia API, is there a way to count the contributions that a user has made on behalf of another particular user? For example, a professor might ask a group of PhD students to make contributions involving his/her research on various Wikipedia pages, on his/her behalf.

I have been frequently told (at the Teahouse and elsewhere) that Professors are not allowed to contribute information about their own published research papers on Wikipedia pages, because this would be biased. (Which is rather a downer for the professor, because this means they are forbidden to write about the things they are most passionate and knowledgeable about.)

If this is rule is true, then it must certainly be seen as a roadblock to academic engagement with Wikipedia. If it isn't, then it is editors' perception of the rule as true (as I have experienced) that is the roadblock.

It seems to me that the way to overcome this roadblock is to introduce a way of counting the contributions made by a person (say, a research student, or a colleague) on behalf of a Professor. So at the end of the year, the Professor can say 'my research contributed to X edits on Wikipedia' as easily as each individual student (who might contribute on behalf of many academic researchers) can count their individual edits.

Can the API accommodate this in some way? Perhaps through some sort of 'project' code or something?

Yours hopefully,

Jenny Gristock (Open_Research)

Sent from my iPad

On 9 Jul 2014, at 22:40, LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org wrote:

Hi all!

I wanted to draw your attention to the Educator Training we'll be having as part of the Wikimania Pre-conference on August 7:

https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education_Pre-Conference/Educator_t...

The Educator Training is designed to give educators of all levels the knowledge they need to use Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects as a teaching tool in their classrooms. The training is open to educators from any country, and Wikipedia editing experience is not required.

If you're interested in attending or you know someone who is, please see the page for more information. I especially encourage anyone who's thought about getting a Wikipedia Education Program going in your country to attend, as you'll learn a lot about the different kinds of assignments students could do.

LiAnna

My point was, to be more clear, that you are implying that *given* that a Professor is "not allowed to contribute information about their *own* published research papers...." this mean "they are forbidden to write about the things about they are most passionate and knowledgeable about."

The given point is true, the conclusion you draw from it is false. That was my point.

Without citing my own work, I can contribute in areas about which I am an expert, simply by citing all the works of those upon which shoulders I stand. Correct? That was my point.

Wikipedia does not *have* to be current. In fact it probably should not be, but rather it should form the substrate upon which current work progresses. It does not have to cite that current work.

<<I have been frequently told (at the Teahouse and elsewhere) that Professors are not allowed to contribute information about their own published research papers on Wikipedia pages, because this would be biased. (Which is rather a downer for the professor, because this means they are forbidden to write about the things they are most passionate and knowledgeable about.) >>

-----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com To: Wikimedia Education education@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Jul 10, 2014 11:19 am Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Education] Overcoming a roadblock to engagement

Thanks, but I did not say that a person could not cite their own work.

What I said was that the advice given to academics at the Treehouse is that they are not allowed to do so.

This appeared to be backed up by Leigh who said that advice on this issue was 'variable' if I remember correctly.

Sent from my mobile

On 10 Jul 2014, at 19:14, Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com wrote:

Jenny it's curious that you say that because a person cannot cite their *own work* that means they cannot contribute in their expert area. If they are *truly* an expert and not a faux expert, then they can *surely* contribute all the background material which is generally accepted in their field, without even touching recent work.

If they cannot do that, I would present the claim, that they are not an expert in that field in the first place.

-----Original Message----- From: Leigh Thelmadatter osamadre@hotmail.com To: Other Education List education@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Jul 10, 2014 11:01 am Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Education] Overcoming a roadblock to engagement

Ive gotten mixed answers on the question of citing one's own work.

From: gristock@me.com Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 15:43:46 +0100 To: education@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Education] Overcoming a roadblock to engagement

Greetings everyone. I'm still working on that system to encourage university professors to contribute to Wikipedia, a system that is concerned not through teaching, like the Education Programme, but through research.

I need some help. Can you tell me, in the Wikipedia API, is there a way to count the contributions that a user has made on behalf of another particular user? For example, a professor might ask a group of PhD students to make contributions involving his/her research on various Wikipedia pages, on his/her behalf.

I have been frequently told (at the Teahouse and elsewhere) that Professors are not allowed to contribute information about their own published research papers on Wikipedia pages, because this would be biased. (Which is rather a downer for the professor, because this means they are forbidden to write about the things they are most passionate and knowledgeable about.)

If this is rule is true, then it must certainly be seen as a roadblock to academic engagement with Wikipedia. If it isn't, then it is editors' perception of the rule as true (as I have experienced) that is the roadblock.

It seems to me that the way to overcome this roadblock is to introduce a way of counting the contributions made by a person (say, a research student, or a colleague) on behalf of a Professor. So at the end of the year, the Professor can say 'my research contributed to X edits on Wikipedia' as easily as each individual student (who might contribute on behalf of many academic researchers) can count their individual edits.

Can the API accommodate this in some way? Perhaps through some sort of 'project' code or something?

Yours hopefully,

Jenny Gristock (Open_Research)

Sent from my iPad

On 9 Jul 2014, at 22:40, LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org wrote:

Hi all!

I wanted to draw your attention to the Educator Training we'll be having as part of the Wikimania Pre-conference on August 7:

https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education_Pre-Conference/Educator_t...

The Educator Training is designed to give educators of all levels the knowledge they need to use Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects as a teaching tool in their classrooms. The training is open to educators from any country, and Wikipedia editing experience is not required.

If you're interested in attending or you know someone who is, please see the page for more information. I especially encourage anyone who's thought about getting a Wikipedia Education Program going in your country to attend, as you'll learn a lot about the different kinds of assignments students could do.

LiAnna

I would be alarmed should a researcher with a "surprising" finding think they should contribute that directly to an article about a foundational issue, citing only their own work. That would be pretty likely to get pulled out.

"New" findings of this sort, should never, in my opinion, be contributed. Full Stop.

Once those findings have been verified by others in that field, we are in a different territory of course. "New surprising findings", self-contributed, are anathema to encyclopedias.

-----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com To: Wikimedia Education education@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Jul 10, 2014 11:49 am Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Education] Overcoming a roadblock to engagement

If a researcher has new results in a particular field, a published, surprising research finding that confounds expectations, I think it might be understandable why they might feel most passionate and most knowledgeable about those new findings and might want to share them inside a Wikipedia article.

That is all I said. I did not say they could not contribute.

I do think that it would be very strange to insist that a researcher can't insert a fact and a (self-citing) reference into an article because that would be a COI. But if that is how it is, then I would like to know. And I also feel that if one of the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation is to encourage more academics to edit Wilkipedia, then having a clear policy on this is rather important, and these questions that I am asking here is me trying to find out what the policy and technical data-crunching possibilities are with respect to self-citing and student/colleague citing.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/mar/29/wikipedia-survey-academic-c...

With best wishes

Jen

Sent from my mobile

On 10 Jul 2014, at 19:14, Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com wrote:

Which is rather a downer for the professor, because this means they are

forbidden to write about the things they are most passionate and knowledgeable about.)

_______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

In my own opinion, peer-review is not sufficient for "surprising" results.

Rather, another layer, that of "having your paper cited by others as a foundation for their own research" Or "having others confirm your findings"

At that point, I would think it's acceptable. Too often new surprising results turn out to be errors.

-----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com To: Wikimedia Education education@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Jul 10, 2014 12:15 pm Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Education] Overcoming a roadblock to engagement

Sent from my mobile

On 10 Jul 2014, at 19:57, Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com wrote:

Once those findings have been verified by others in that field, we are in a

different territory of course.

"New surprising findings", self-contributed, are anathema to encyclopedias.

In other words, Peer review. We're talking about citing published papers. Not just citing from your own website or anything like that of course!

_______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

Jennifer:

Again, look at Wikipedia's policy on primary sources. The policy is quite clear.

(And, again, are you discussing this on Wikipedia? If so, where?)

Take care

Jon

On Jul 10, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com wrote:

If a researcher has new results in a particular field, a published, surprising research finding that confounds expectations, I think it might be understandable why they might feel most passionate and most knowledgeable about those new findings and might want to share them inside a Wikipedia article.

That is all I said. I did not say they could not contribute.

I do think that it would be very strange to insist that a researcher can't insert a fact and a (self-citing) reference into an article because that would be a COI. But if that is how it is, then I would like to know. And I also feel that if one of the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation is to encourage more academics to edit Wilkipedia, then having a clear policy on this is rather important, and these questions that I am asking here is me trying to find out what the policy and technical data-crunching possibilities are with respect to self-citing and student/colleague citing.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/mar/29/wikipedia-survey-academic-c...

With best wishes

Jen

Sent from my mobile

...

On 10 Jul 2014, at 19:14, Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com wrote:

Which is rather a downer for the professor, because this means they are forbidden to write about the things they are most passionate and knowledgeable about.)

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

I'm not sure where you're looking, but I'm thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARY, which is indeed clear enough:

"All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Now this (along perhaps with [[WP:OR]] can indeed be a change from how many academics and researchers see their role. But then that's because they're forgetting that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, rather than (say) an academic journal.

Take care

Jon

On Jul 10, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:

On 10 July 2014 19:59, Jon Beasley-Murray jon.beasley-murray@ubc.ca wrote: Jennifer:

Again, look at Wikipedia's policy on primary sources. The policy is quite clear.

Given that it says "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules", I have to disagree. In the abstract, this kind of comment can be misleading.

Charles _______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

Charles:

The devil may be in the details, but Wikipedia's warning against primary sources is very clear indeed. And this is precisely one of the rather important things at stake in this discussion.

The short version: Wikipedia is not a place for anyone to publish (or publicize) their own research.

Which does not of course meant that academics (or other researchers) cannot or should not edit Wikipedia in the areas of their expertise. Of course they can!

Me, I'm not particularly concerned with telling Jennifer what to do. But I am worried about a more or less organized attempt to tell academics to violate Wikipedia policies, and/or delegate others to do so "on their behalf."

And no, this mailing list isn't really the place for this discussion. Which is why I repeatedly asked Jennifer where (or whether) she had proposed this initiative on Wikipedia itself.

Take care

Jon

On Jul 10, 2014, at 10:15 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:

On 11 July 2014 06:02, Jon Beasley-Murray jon.beasley-murray@ubc.ca wrote: I'm not sure where you're looking, but I'm thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARY, which is indeed clear enough:

"All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

I was reading from the next para, which qualifies what you have copied it here. If you had taken a couple more minutes to reply ...

Now this (along perhaps with [[WP:OR]] can indeed be a change from how many academics and researchers see their role. But then that's because they're forgetting that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, rather than (say) an academic journal.

"Interpretive" is the crux here. Since you are more concerned to tell Jennifer what to do, I think it should be explained that the reason not to use "primary" sources is that, for example, old historical documents are treacherous from the point of view of interpretation.

In common parlance, "spin" is what is to be excluded. We are now talking about subsections of [[Wikipedia:No original research]]; which does not exclude "research" done properly, just research with added spin. I would say it is fairly much off-topic for this thread, actually.

Charles _______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

I really agree with Jon: - policies are clear on avoiding primary sources - it's ok for people to edit on their areas of expertise - it's dangerous to cite their own research, directly or "on their behalf" and i think it's no necessary

Pau.

2014-07-11 7:33 GMT+02:00 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com :

On 11 July 2014 06:25, Jon Beasley-Murray jon.beasley-murray@ubc.ca wrote:

...

Charles:

The devil may be in the details, but Wikipedia's warning against primary sources is very clear indeed. And this is precisely one of the rather important things at stake in this discussion.

The relevant wording warns, in effect, against doing anything besides

taking a fair abstract from academic papers. I'm really not accepting your argument, otherwise.

Charles

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

I think it all comes down to disclosure and responsibility. And I would prefer to see the professors make the edits (or suggest the edits) rather than delegating/proxying to their students because: 1) Avoids accusation of meatpuppetry 2) No "passing the buck around" or "he said she said" scenario 3) Prevents problems down the road when the edit(s) are scrutinized years later and the student has already left the institution

Andrew

"Fill the world with children who care and things start looking up."

From: gristock@me.com Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 19:44:41 +0100 To: education@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Education] Overcoming a roadblock to engagement

If a researcher has new results in a particular field, a published, surprising research finding that confounds expectations, I think it might be understandable why they might feel most passionate and most knowledgeable about those new findings and might want to share them inside a Wikipedia article.

That is all I said. I did not say they could not contribute.

I do think that it would be very strange to insist that a researcher can't insert a fact and a (self-citing) reference into an article because that would be a COI. But if that is how it is, then I would like to know. And I also feel that if one of the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation is to encourage more academics to edit Wilkipedia, then having a clear policy on this is rather important, and these questions that I am asking here is me trying to find out what the policy and technical data-crunching possibilities are with respect to self-citing and student/colleague citing.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/mar/29/wikipedia-survey-academic-c...

With best wishes

Jen

Sent from my mobile

...

On 10 Jul 2014, at 19:14, Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com wrote:

Which is rather a downer for the professor, because this means they are forbidden to write about the things they are most passionate and knowledgeable about.)

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

Hi Jennifer,

First, COI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest is related to editing Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships. It does not forbid obviously writing about the things you're an expert on. If you are able to separate these two things, you're allowed to do it.

Related to the tracking of the alumni, I did it by creating a page https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuari:Paucabot/Sneak where there were listed my students' constributions, so I could easily keep track of their progress. To count their editions, you can use this tool https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Open_Research&project=en.wikipedia, which counts all user contributions, but it does not matter as usually the only editions that pupils make are the ones related to the project.

In addition, if the aim of getting editions done by alumni is due to COI issues, I think it's not the solution. The problem does not depend on the user that makes the edits but on the intention of the edits.

Pau.

2014-07-10 16:43 GMT+02:00 Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com:

Greetings everyone. I'm still working on that system to encourage university professors to contribute to Wikipedia, a system that is concerned not through teaching, like the Education Programme, but through research.

I need some help. Can you tell me, in the Wikipedia API, is there a way to count the contributions that a user has made on behalf of another particular user? For example, a professor might ask a group of PhD students to make contributions involving his/her research on various Wikipedia pages, on his/her behalf.

I have been frequently told (at the Teahouse and elsewhere) that Professors are not allowed to contribute information about their own published research papers on Wikipedia pages, because this would be biased. (Which is rather a downer for the professor, because this means they are forbidden to write about the things they are most passionate and knowledgeable about.)

If this is rule is true, then it must certainly be seen as a roadblock to academic engagement with Wikipedia. If it isn't, then it is editors' perception of the rule as true (as I have experienced) that is the roadblock.

It seems to me that the way to overcome this roadblock is to introduce a way of counting the contributions made by a person (say, a research student, or a colleague) on behalf of a Professor. So at the end of the year, the Professor can say 'my research contributed to X edits on Wikipedia' as easily as each individual student (who might contribute on behalf of many academic researchers) can count their individual edits.

Can the API accommodate this in some way? Perhaps through some sort of 'project' code or something?

Yours hopefully,

Jenny Gristock (Open_Research)

Sent from my iPad

On 9 Jul 2014, at 22:40, LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org wrote:

Hi all!

I wanted to draw your attention to the Educator Training we'll be having as part of the Wikimania Pre-conference on August 7:

https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education_Pre-Conference/Educator_t...

The Educator Training is designed to give educators of all levels the knowledge they need to use Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects as a teaching tool in their classrooms. The training is open to educators from any country, and Wikipedia editing experience is not required.

If you're interested in attending or you know someone who is, please see the page for more information. I especially encourage anyone who's thought about getting a Wikipedia Education Program going in your country to attend, as you'll learn a lot about the different kinds of assignments students could do.

LiAnna

-- LiAnna Davis Head of Communications and External Relations Wiki Education Foundation +1-415-770-1061 www.wikiedu.org

*Please note my new email address and update your contacts accordingly: lianna@wikiedu.org lianna@wikiedu.org*

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

2014-07-10 17:33 GMT+02:00 Vojtěch Dostál vojtech.dostal@wikimedia.cz:

The user contributions can also be tracked using the Education extension which you can get installed for your wiki. Students just enrol in the class using a special page like this:

https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Program:VO%C5%A0_soci%C3%A1ln%C4%9B_...

To get the statistics for each course, you just copy the list of usernames in each class and analyze them using Wikimetrics app.

Thanks, Vojtěch, I dodn't know this tool https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Education_Program. It seems very useful ...

Pau.

Just a technical/infrastructure note that might be useful:

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com wrote:

But I see that this is being replaced by the Campaigns extension, I wonder what might be most appropriate there.

Yes, Editor Campaigns https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Editor_campaigns is ultimately slated to replace the Education Extension https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Education_Program, but this will happen gradually over the next year (or so, depending on engineering resources, etc.). Editor Campaigns will likely have its initial release in the coming weeks/months, and as more functionality is added to it, it will start to supersede functions that the Education Extension currently provides (chunk by chunk, not in one fell swoop).

One of the goals of Editor Campaigns is to have a more flexible arrangement https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Editor_campaigns/Technical_design so you wouldn't have to always set up a 'Class,' but rather you could set up a 'Research' perhaps. Same goes for workshops and edit-a-thons, etc. It will also integrate with Wikimetrics to make running reports on your user cohorts a breeze :)

In short, I'd say if you want something that works today for managing/tracking a cohort of users on-wiki, go with the Education Extension on your project's wiki; and keep in the loop with any developments by signing up here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_message_delivery/Targets/Wikipedia_Education_Program_technical_updates :)

Hope that helps! Tighe

-- Tighe Flanagan Manager, Wikipedia Education Program Wikimedia Foundation +1.415.839.6885 x6880 tflanagan@wikimedia.org education.wikimedia.org

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far (on citing one's own research in an article.)

I would echo Leigh's point about advice to potential editors being mixed: in June, for example, The advice at the Teahouse was that an academic ought to confine contributions regarding their own research papers to the Talk page of a topic or alternatively to write about a topic without citing themselves. Quite how you do that if your work is new I am not sure.

This [in my view, peculiar] perspective, that citing yourself is a COI, is a million miles away from Pau's [in my view, sensible] advice that

First, COI is related to editing Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships. It does not forbid obviously writing about the things you're an expert on. If you are able to separate these two things, you're allowed to do it.

I would be much obliged if those who agree with Pau could +1 his email (or this one) so that I can be sure that the whole system I am attempting to design, - which involves academics and their students contributing information from their own research and citing it - does not by definition forbidden because of COI.

Many thanks

Jenny (Open_Research)

Advice given quote:

"Bearing in mind the conflict of interest issues raised above, it would be acceptable if you went to an article's talk page and mentioned that a new piece of academic research on the topic is available, providing relevant information. This would allow interested editors to read your work and, if warranted, integrate it into existing pages. Additionally, if you're an academic with expertise in a field, I would strongly encourage you to work on improving articles relevant to your area of interest (steering clear of citing yourself). Keihatsu talk 19:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

On 10 Jul 2014, at 16:28, Pau Cabot paucabot@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Jennifer,

First, COI is related to editing Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships. It does not forbid obviously writing about the things you're an expert on. If you are able to separate these two things, you're allowed to do it.

Related to the tracking of the alumni, I did it by creating a page where there were listed my students' constributions, so I could easily keep track of their progress. To count their editions, you can use this tool, which counts all user contributions, but it does not matter as usually the only editions that pupils make are the ones related to the project.

In addition, if the aim of getting editions done by alumni is due to COI issues, I think it's not the solution. The problem does not depend on the user that makes the edits but on the intention of the edits.

Pau.

2014-07-10 16:43 GMT+02:00 Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com:

...

Greetings everyone. I'm still working on that system to encourage university professors to contribute to Wikipedia, a system that is concerned not through teaching, like the Education Programme, but through research.

I need some help. Can you tell me, in the Wikipedia API, is there a way to count the contributions that a user has made on behalf of another particular user? For example, a professor might ask a group of PhD students to make contributions involving his/her research on various Wikipedia pages, on his/her behalf.

I have been frequently told (at the Teahouse and elsewhere) that Professors are not allowed to contribute information about their own published research papers on Wikipedia pages, because this would be biased. (Which is rather a downer for the professor, because this means they are forbidden to write about the things they are most passionate and knowledgeable about.)

If this is rule is true, then it must certainly be seen as a roadblock to academic engagement with Wikipedia. If it isn't, then it is editors' perception of the rule as true (as I have experienced) that is the roadblock.

It seems to me that the way to overcome this roadblock is to introduce a way of counting the contributions made by a person (say, a research student, or a colleague) on behalf of a Professor. So at the end of the year, the Professor can say 'my research contributed to X edits on Wikipedia' as easily as each individual student (who might contribute on behalf of many academic researchers) can count their individual edits.

Can the API accommodate this in some way? Perhaps through some sort of 'project' code or something?

Yours hopefully,

Jenny Gristock (Open_Research)

Sent from my iPad

...

On 9 Jul 2014, at 22:40, LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org wrote:

Hi all!

I wanted to draw your attention to the Educator Training we'll be having as part of the Wikimania Pre-conference on August 7:

https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education_Pre-Conference/Educator_t...

The Educator Training is designed to give educators of all levels the knowledge they need to use Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects as a teaching tool in their classrooms. The training is open to educators from any country, and Wikipedia editing experience is not required.

If you're interested in attending or you know someone who is, please see the page for more information. I especially encourage anyone who's thought about getting a Wikipedia Education Program going in your country to attend, as you'll learn a lot about the different kinds of assignments students could do.

LiAnna

-- LiAnna Davis Head of Communications and External Relations Wiki Education Foundation +1-415-770-1061 www.wikiedu.org

Please note my new email address and update your contacts accordingly: lianna@wikiedu.org

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

2014-07-10 18:17 GMT+02:00 Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com:

I would be much obliged if those who agree with Pau could +1 his email (or this one) so that I can be sure that the whole system I am attempting to design, - which involves academics and their students contributing information from their own research and citing it - does not by definition forbidden because of COI.

In addition: I think researchers have a great field to contribute which

does not involve citing their own references. If you're an expert in organolithium chemistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organolithium_chemistry, you could write about that without having to cite your own works, writing articles slightly related to the purpose of your research. I think that it is possible, and It's the fairest way to do it.

Alternatively, you could cite your own work if it's the only source that states one specific fact (and maybe explaining it at the discussion of the article).

Pau.

I advise that researchers either:

1. Write on topics where you have knowledge and interest but few publications; researching for a WP article may help you prepare to work and publish in that area!

2. If you do write on a topic where you actively publish, then you should collaborate with other respected editors, and let them make the choices about which papers are cited, etc. I encourage academics to work with the relevant WikiProject; by having the WP community involved with the article it is much more likely to be balanced and less likely to be reverted or even deleted.

3. I know one very prominent researcher actively editing WP, and he advocates the use of published topic-review articles and book chapters as sources. He believes that primary academic papers are less useful anyway (at least in science), and the reviews/books give a broader perspective that is more appropriate for an encyclopedia.

In my experience, people active in a research field often have very strong views about what is important and what is not. They may have a unique perspective the drives their work, but others in the field may consider it a distorted view. This affects how topics are covered in an article - and it goes well beyond the citations at the bottom.

Martin A. Walker Department of Chemistry State University of New York at Potsdam +1 (315) 267-2271 walkerma@potsdam.edu

On 7/10/2014 12:51 PM, Pau Cabot wrote:

2014-07-10 18:17 GMT+02:00 Jennifer Gristock <gristock@me.com mailto:gristock@me.com>:

I would be much obliged if those who agree with Pau could  +1 his
email (or this one) so that I can be sure that the whole system I am
attempting to design, - which involves academics and their students
contributing information from their own research and citing it -
does not by definition forbidden because of COI.

In addition: I think researchers have a great field to contribute which does not involve citing their own references. If you're an expert in organolithium chemistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organolithium_chemistry, you could write about that without having to cite your own works, writing articles slightly related to the purpose of your research. I think that it is possible, and It's the fairest way to do it.

Alternatively, you could cite your own work if it's the only source that states one specific fact (and maybe explaining it at the discussion of the article).

Pau.

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

Martin's advice is good, but again, I'd be wary about directly encouraging this. It could be abused in the ways you suggested in your first email.

Where, by the way, are you discussing this project on wiki? I'm sure that other Wikipedia editors will have useful input.

Take care

Jon

On Jul 10, 2014, at 10:38 AM, Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com wrote:

Thank you Martin, these sound like very good guidelines when contributing a whole article on a topic.

This seems to me to be a sensible addition to advice concerning whether it is permissible to cite yourself within an article, as a reference a contributed fact or finding. [Answer: Yes, bearing in mind the context as outlined by Charles and others].

For research areas that are new, and have no review papers yet, Wikipedia is a real agent for collaboration.

Thanks so much to everyone for helping with this.

Jenny. / Open Research

Twitter: nulliusinverba Www: Gristock.net

Sent from my mobile

...

On 10 Jul 2014, at 18:09, Martin Walker walkerma@potsdam.edu wrote:

I advise that researchers either:

1. Write on topics where you have knowledge and interest but few publications; researching for a WP article may help you prepare to work and publish in that area!

2. If you do write on a topic where you actively publish, then you should collaborate with other respected editors, and let them make the choices about which papers are cited, etc. I encourage academics to work with the relevant WikiProject; by having the WP community involved with the article it is much more likely to be balanced and less likely to be reverted or even deleted.

3. I know one very prominent researcher actively editing WP, and he advocates the use of published topic-review articles and book chapters as sources. He believes that primary academic papers are less useful anyway (at least in science), and the reviews/books give a broader perspective that is more appropriate for an encyclopedia.

In my experience, people active in a research field often have very strong views about what is important and what is not. They may have a unique perspective the drives their work, but others in the field may consider it a distorted view. This affects how topics are covered in an article - and it goes well beyond the citations at the bottom.

Martin A. Walker Department of Chemistry State University of New York at Potsdam +1 (315) 267-2271 walkerma@potsdam.edu

...

On 7/10/2014 12:51 PM, Pau Cabot wrote:

2014-07-10 18:17 GMT+02:00 Jennifer Gristock <gristock@me.com mailto:gristock@me.com>:

I would be much obliged if those who agree with Pau could +1 his email (or this one) so that I can be sure that the whole system I am attempting to design, - which involves academics and their students contributing information from their own research and citing it - does not by definition forbidden because of COI.

In addition: I think researchers have a great field to contribute which does not involve citing their own references. If you're an expert in organolithium chemistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organolithium_chemistry, you could write about that without having to cite your own works, writing articles slightly related to the purpose of your research. I think that it is possible, and It's the fairest way to do it.

Alternatively, you could cite your own work if it's the only source that states one specific fact (and maybe explaining it at the discussion of the article).

Pau.

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

I take your point with careful consideration, however I was not asking who agreed with any scheme. Instead I was asking for people to +1 if they agreed with the principle that self-citing was not a conflict of interest.

I would be very happy to learn more about "Advancing primary sources".

Best wishes Jen

Sent from my mobile

On 10 Jul 2014, at 18:23, Jon Beasley-Murray jon.beasley-murray@ubc.ca wrote:

Jennifer:

Why ask only for "+1"s?! You're looking only for confirmation, not for other reactions to your scheme?

For what it's worth, and per my earlier email, this gets a "-1" from me, for reasons that are not simply (or even mainly) to do with conflict of interest. (Another issue, at least with the scheme as you put it here, is the problem of researchers advancing primary sources. Not on.)

Take care

Jon

...

On Jul 10, 2014, at 9:17 AM, Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com wrote:

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far (on citing one's own research in an article.)

I would echo Leigh's point about advice to potential editors being mixed: in June, for example, The advice at the Teahouse was that an academic ought to confine contributions regarding their own research papers to the Talk page of a topic or alternatively to write about a topic without citing themselves. Quite how you do that if your work is new I am not sure.

This [in my view, peculiar] perspective, that citing yourself is a COI, is a million miles away from Pau's [in my view, sensible] advice that

...

First, COI is related to editing Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships. It does not forbid obviously writing about the things you're an expert on. If you are able to separate these two things, you're allowed to do it.

I would be much obliged if those who agree with Pau could +1 his email (or this one) so that I can be sure that the whole system I am attempting to design, - which involves academics and their students contributing information from their own research and citing it - does not by definition forbidden because of COI.

Many thanks

Jenny (Open_Research)

Advice given quote:

"Bearing in mind the conflict of interest issues raised above, it would be acceptable if you went to an article's talk page and mentioned that a new piece of academic research on the topic is available, providing relevant information. This would allow interested editors to read your work and, if warranted, integrate it into existing pages. Additionally, if you're an academic with expertise in a field, I would strongly encourage you to work on improving articles relevant to your area of interest (steering clear of citing yourself). Keihatsu talk 19:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

...

On 10 Jul 2014, at 16:28, Pau Cabot paucabot@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Jennifer,

First, COI is related to editing Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships. It does not forbid obviously writing about the things you're an expert on. If you are able to separate these two things, you're allowed to do it.

Related to the tracking of the alumni, I did it by creating a page where there were listed my students' constributions, so I could easily keep track of their progress. To count their editions, you can use this tool, which counts all user contributions, but it does not matter as usually the only editions that pupils make are the ones related to the project.

In addition, if the aim of getting editions done by alumni is due to COI issues, I think it's not the solution. The problem does not depend on the user that makes the edits but on the intention of the edits.

Pau.

2014-07-10 16:43 GMT+02:00 Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com: Greetings everyone. I'm still working on that system to encourage university professors to contribute to Wikipedia, a system that is concerned not through teaching, like the Education Programme, but through research.

I need some help. Can you tell me, in the Wikipedia API, is there a way to count the contributions that a user has made on behalf of another particular user? For example, a professor might ask a group of PhD students to make contributions involving his/her research on various Wikipedia pages, on his/her behalf.

I have been frequently told (at the Teahouse and elsewhere) that Professors are not allowed to contribute information about their own published research papers on Wikipedia pages, because this would be biased. (Which is rather a downer for the professor, because this means they are forbidden to write about the things they are most passionate and knowledgeable about.)

If this is rule is true, then it must certainly be seen as a roadblock to academic engagement with Wikipedia. If it isn't, then it is editors' perception of the rule as true (as I have experienced) that is the roadblock.

It seems to me that the way to overcome this roadblock is to introduce a way of counting the contributions made by a person (say, a research student, or a colleague) on behalf of a Professor. So at the end of the year, the Professor can say 'my research contributed to X edits on Wikipedia' as easily as each individual student (who might contribute on behalf of many academic researchers) can count their individual edits.

Can the API accommodate this in some way? Perhaps through some sort of 'project' code or something?

Yours hopefully,

Jenny Gristock (Open_Research)

Sent from my iPad

...

On 9 Jul 2014, at 22:40, LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org wrote:

Hi all!

I wanted to draw your attention to the Educator Training we'll be having as part of the Wikimania Pre-conference on August 7:

https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education_Pre-Conference/Educator_t...

The Educator Training is designed to give educators of all levels the knowledge they need to use Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects as a teaching tool in their classrooms. The training is open to educators from any country, and Wikipedia editing experience is not required.

If you're interested in attending or you know someone who is, please see the page for more information. I especially encourage anyone who's thought about getting a Wikipedia Education Program going in your country to attend, as you'll learn a lot about the different kinds of assignments students could do.

LiAnna

-- LiAnna Davis Head of Communications and External Relations Wiki Education Foundation +1-415-770-1061 www.wikiedu.org

Please note my new email address and update your contacts accordingly: lianna@wikiedu.org

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

Jennifer:

I would be very wary indeed of the model you're proposing, in which either individual researchers or their proxies insert their work into Wikipedia. We see enough of that already, and I would be concerned if there were any official (or even semi-official) encouragement of the practice.

The issue is less conflict of interest (though that's true, too) as (self)promotion (which you seem to be actively encouraging) and undue weight.

This is not to say that professors (academics, researchers) should not be writing in their areas of expertise. Of course they should! But perhaps a rule of thumb is that they should be writing about *other* people's work in that area, rather than their own.

Take care

Jon

On Jul 10, 2014, at 7:43 AM, Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com wrote:

Greetings everyone. I'm still working on that system to encourage university professors to contribute to Wikipedia, a system that is concerned not through teaching, like the Education Programme, but through research.

I need some help. Can you tell me, in the Wikipedia API, is there a way to count the contributions that a user has made on behalf of another particular user? For example, a professor might ask a group of PhD students to make contributions involving his/her research on various Wikipedia pages, on his/her behalf.

I have been frequently told (at the Teahouse and elsewhere) that Professors are not allowed to contribute information about their own published research papers on Wikipedia pages, because this would be biased. (Which is rather a downer for the professor, because this means they are forbidden to write about the things they are most passionate and knowledgeable about.)

If this is rule is true, then it must certainly be seen as a roadblock to academic engagement with Wikipedia. If it isn't, then it is editors' perception of the rule as true (as I have experienced) that is the roadblock.

It seems to me that the way to overcome this roadblock is to introduce a way of counting the contributions made by a person (say, a research student, or a colleague) on behalf of a Professor. So at the end of the year, the Professor can say 'my research contributed to X edits on Wikipedia' as easily as each individual student (who might contribute on behalf of many academic researchers) can count their individual edits.

Can the API accommodate this in some way? Perhaps through some sort of 'project' code or something?

Yours hopefully,

Jenny Gristock (Open_Research)

Sent from my iPad

On 9 Jul 2014, at 22:40, LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org wrote:

...

Hi all!

I wanted to draw your attention to the Educator Training we'll be having as part of the Wikimania Pre-conference on August 7:

https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education_Pre-Conference/Educator_t...

The Educator Training is designed to give educators of all levels the knowledge they need to use Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects as a teaching tool in their classrooms. The training is open to educators from any country, and Wikipedia editing experience is not required.

If you're interested in attending or you know someone who is, please see the page for more information. I especially encourage anyone who's thought about getting a Wikipedia Education Program going in your country to attend, as you'll learn a lot about the different kinds of assignments students could do.

LiAnna

-- LiAnna Davis Head of Communications and External Relations Wiki Education Foundation +1-415-770-1061 www.wikiedu.org

Please note my new email address and update your contacts accordingly: lianna@wikiedu.org

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

I too believe that the ideal approach is for academics to write about other people's work: that is why my original question was about ways of tracing/counting this.

But if you're saying that a research student writing about other people 'a work (plural, not singular ) is not advisable because they are somehow a 'proxy', I must say I don't quite see it that way, but thank you for helping me to see the multiple ways in which this could be construed.

Sent from my mobile

On 10 Jul 2014, at 18:21, Jon Beasley-Murray jon.beasley-murray@ubc.ca wrote:

Jennifer:

I would be very wary indeed of the model you're proposing, in which either individual researchers or their proxies insert their work into Wikipedia. We see enough of that already, and I would be concerned if there were any official (or even semi-official) encouragement of the practice.

The issue is less conflict of interest (though that's true, too) as (self)promotion (which you seem to be actively encouraging) and undue weight.

This is not to say that professors (academics, researchers) should not be writing in their areas of expertise. Of course they should! But perhaps a rule of thumb is that they should be writing about *other* people's work in that area, rather than their own.

Take care

Jon

...

On Jul 10, 2014, at 7:43 AM, Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com wrote:

Greetings everyone. I'm still working on that system to encourage university professors to contribute to Wikipedia, a system that is concerned not through teaching, like the Education Programme, but through research.

I need some help. Can you tell me, in the Wikipedia API, is there a way to count the contributions that a user has made on behalf of another particular user? For example, a professor might ask a group of PhD students to make contributions involving his/her research on various Wikipedia pages, on his/her behalf.

I have been frequently told (at the Teahouse and elsewhere) that Professors are not allowed to contribute information about their own published research papers on Wikipedia pages, because this would be biased. (Which is rather a downer for the professor, because this means they are forbidden to write about the things they are most passionate and knowledgeable about.)

If this is rule is true, then it must certainly be seen as a roadblock to academic engagement with Wikipedia. If it isn't, then it is editors' perception of the rule as true (as I have experienced) that is the roadblock.

It seems to me that the way to overcome this roadblock is to introduce a way of counting the contributions made by a person (say, a research student, or a colleague) on behalf of a Professor. So at the end of the year, the Professor can say 'my research contributed to X edits on Wikipedia' as easily as each individual student (who might contribute on behalf of many academic researchers) can count their individual edits.

Can the API accommodate this in some way? Perhaps through some sort of 'project' code or something?

Yours hopefully,

Jenny Gristock (Open_Research)

Sent from my iPad

...

On 9 Jul 2014, at 22:40, LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org wrote:

Hi all!

I wanted to draw your attention to the Educator Training we'll be having as part of the Wikimania Pre-conference on August 7:

https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education_Pre-Conference/Educator_t...

The Educator Training is designed to give educators of all levels the knowledge they need to use Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects as a teaching tool in their classrooms. The training is open to educators from any country, and Wikipedia editing experience is not required.

If you're interested in attending or you know someone who is, please see the page for more information. I especially encourage anyone who's thought about getting a Wikipedia Education Program going in your country to attend, as you'll learn a lot about the different kinds of assignments students could do.

LiAnna

-- LiAnna Davis Head of Communications and External Relations Wiki Education Foundation +1-415-770-1061 www.wikiedu.org

Please note my new email address and update your contacts accordingly: lianna@wikiedu.org

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

In general:

1. Citing your own academic work and/or adding an article on Wikipedia about your work would be to introduce original research AND potentially COI, and both of those are not ok. You could propose an edit on an article talk page with an explanation that you are the researcher.

2. Editing an article about yourself would be COI. You could propose an edit on the article talk page with the explanation that you are the subject of the article.

3. Encouraging your students to add your or their research on Wikipedia would be meatpuppetry, original research, and/or potentially COI, and any of those is not OK.

4. Encouraging your students to edit your biography on Wikipedia would be meatpuppetry and potentially COI, and both of those are not OK. A professor did this in the past and was caught.

When in doubt, I recommend writing on an article talk page, explaining your relationship to the content that you are proposing to add, and writing a draft of your proposed change for other editors to review.

Pine

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Jon Beasley-Murray < jon.beasley-murray@ubc.ca> wrote:

Hi:

Your question was: "is there a way to count the contributions that a user has made *on behalf of* another particular user?" (my emphasis)

And: "It seems to me that the way to overcome this roadblock is to introduce a way of counting the contributions made by a person (say, a research student, or a colleague) *on behalf of* a Professor." (again, my emphasis)

Which rather sounds like a proxy, by any definition of that term.

I would be strongly against encouraging such practices.

Take care

Jon

On Jul 10, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com wrote:

...

I too believe that the ideal approach is for academics to write about

other people's work: that is why my original question was about ways of tracing/counting this.

...

But if you're saying that a research student writing about other people

'a work (plural, not singular ) is not advisable because they are somehow a 'proxy', I must say I don't quite see it that way, but thank you for helping me to see the multiple ways in which this could be construed.

...

Sent from my mobile

...

On 10 Jul 2014, at 18:21, Jon Beasley-Murray jon.beasley-murray@ubc.ca

wrote:

...

...

Jennifer:

I would be very wary indeed of the model you're proposing, in which

either individual researchers or their proxies insert their work into Wikipedia. We see enough of that already, and I would be concerned if there were any official (or even semi-official) encouragement of the practice.

...

...

The issue is less conflict of interest (though that's true, too) as

(self)promotion (which you seem to be actively encouraging) and undue weight.

...

...

This is not to say that professors (academics, researchers) should not

be writing in their areas of expertise. Of course they should! But perhaps a rule of thumb is that they should be writing about *other* people's work in that area, rather than their own.

...

...

Take care

Jon

...

On Jul 10, 2014, at 7:43 AM, Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com

wrote:

...

...

...

Greetings everyone. I'm still working on that system to encourage

university professors to contribute to Wikipedia, a system that is concerned not through teaching, like the Education Programme, but through research.

...

...

...

I need some help. Can you tell me, in the Wikipedia API, is there a

way to count the contributions that a user has made on behalf of another particular user? For example, a professor might ask a group of PhD students to make contributions involving his/her research on various Wikipedia pages, on his/her behalf.

...

...

...

I have been frequently told (at the Teahouse and elsewhere) that

Professors are not allowed to contribute information about their own published research papers on Wikipedia pages, because this would be biased. (Which is rather a downer for the professor, because this means they are forbidden to write about the things they are most passionate and knowledgeable about.)

...

...

...

If this is rule is true, then it must certainly be seen as a roadblock

to academic engagement with Wikipedia. If it isn't, then it is editors' perception of the rule as true (as I have experienced) that is the roadblock.

...

...

...

It seems to me that the way to overcome this roadblock is to introduce

a way of counting the contributions made by a person (say, a research student, or a colleague) on behalf of a Professor. So at the end of the year, the Professor can say 'my research contributed to X edits on Wikipedia' as easily as each individual student (who might contribute on behalf of many academic researchers) can count their individual edits.

...

...

...

Can the API accommodate this in some way? Perhaps through some sort of

'project' code or something?

...

...

...

Yours hopefully,

Jenny Gristock (Open_Research)

Sent from my iPad

...

On 9 Jul 2014, at 22:40, LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org wrote:

Hi all!

I wanted to draw your attention to the Educator Training we'll be

having as part of the Wikimania Pre-conference on August 7:

...

...

...

...

https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education_Pre-Conference/Educator_t...

...

...

...

...

The Educator Training is designed to give educators of all levels the

knowledge they need to use Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects as a teaching tool in their classrooms. The training is open to educators from any country, and Wikipedia editing experience is not required.

...

...

...

...

If you're interested in attending or you know someone who is, please

see the page for more information. I especially encourage anyone who's thought about getting a Wikipedia Education Program going in your country to attend, as you'll learn a lot about the different kinds of assignments students could do.

...

...

...

...

LiAnna

-- LiAnna Davis Head of Communications and External Relations Wiki Education Foundation +1-415-770-1061 www.wikiedu.org

Please note my new email address and update your contacts

accordingly: lianna@wikiedu.org

...

...

...

...

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

Thanks Jen, and by the way it is far better to ask in a place like this and be told "no" then to go onto Wikipedia and to get into trouble there. (:

Pine

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com wrote:

I thank you all for your guidance and I see that whilst having students in teaching classes editing multiple subjects is ok, asking students to edit multiple topics about research in the same institution, topic etc is unlikely to be OK because they will be too close to the people involved and I agree this is A Bad Idea.

However just in the interest of being clear, with respect to the other things mentioned here, I was not talking about original research - only peer reviewed published papers - and never mentioned articles about "yourself/biography".

I certainly wouldn't want anyone to even imagine I would consider such practices.

On a more personal note I am a writer who was last employed as an academic many years ago.

I take these issues seriously, which is why I came here to ask questions in the first place. I do believe the issues are not yet clear and need to be so.

It is especially confusing when I see people referencing their own websites!

With thanks

Jen / Open Research

Sent from my mobile

On 10 Jul 2014, at 20:05, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

In general:

1. Citing your own academic work and/or adding an article on Wikipedia

about your work would be to introduce original research AND potentially COI, and both of those are not ok. You could propose an edit on an article talk page with an explanation that you are the researcher.

2. Editing an article about yourself would be COI. You could propose an

edit on the article talk page with the explanation that you are the subject of the article.

3. Encouraging your students to add your or their research on Wikipedia

would be meatpuppetry, original research, and/or potentially COI, and any of those is not OK.

4. Encouraging your students to edit your biography on Wikipedia would be

meatpuppetry and potentially COI, and both of those are not OK. A professor did this in the past and was caught.

When in doubt, I recommend writing on an article talk page, explaining your relationship to the content that you are proposing to add, and writing a draft of your proposed change for other editors to review.

Pine

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Jon Beasley-Murray < jon.beasley-murray@ubc.ca> wrote:

...

Hi:

Your question was: "is there a way to count the contributions that a user has made *on behalf of* another particular user?" (my emphasis)

And: "It seems to me that the way to overcome this roadblock is to introduce a way of counting the contributions made by a person (say, a research student, or a colleague) *on behalf of* a Professor." (again, my emphasis)

Which rather sounds like a proxy, by any definition of that term.

I would be strongly against encouraging such practices.

Take care

Jon

On Jul 10, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com wrote:

...

I too believe that the ideal approach is for academics to write about

other people's work: that is why my original question was about ways of tracing/counting this.

...

But if you're saying that a research student writing about other people

'a work (plural, not singular ) is not advisable because they are somehow a 'proxy', I must say I don't quite see it that way, but thank you for helping me to see the multiple ways in which this could be construed.

...

Sent from my mobile

...

On 10 Jul 2014, at 18:21, Jon Beasley-Murray <

jon.beasley-murray@ubc.ca> wrote:

...

...

Jennifer:

I would be very wary indeed of the model you're proposing, in which

either individual researchers or their proxies insert their work into Wikipedia. We see enough of that already, and I would be concerned if there were any official (or even semi-official) encouragement of the practice.

...

...

The issue is less conflict of interest (though that's true, too) as

(self)promotion (which you seem to be actively encouraging) and undue weight.

...

...

This is not to say that professors (academics, researchers) should not

be writing in their areas of expertise. Of course they should! But perhaps a rule of thumb is that they should be writing about *other* people's work in that area, rather than their own.

...

...

Take care

Jon

...

On Jul 10, 2014, at 7:43 AM, Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com

wrote:

...

...

...

Greetings everyone. I'm still working on that system to encourage

university professors to contribute to Wikipedia, a system that is concerned not through teaching, like the Education Programme, but through research.

...

...

...

I need some help. Can you tell me, in the Wikipedia API, is there a

way to count the contributions that a user has made on behalf of another particular user? For example, a professor might ask a group of PhD students to make contributions involving his/her research on various Wikipedia pages, on his/her behalf.

...

...

...

I have been frequently told (at the Teahouse and elsewhere) that

Professors are not allowed to contribute information about their own published research papers on Wikipedia pages, because this would be biased. (Which is rather a downer for the professor, because this means they are forbidden to write about the things they are most passionate and knowledgeable about.)

...

...

...

If this is rule is true, then it must certainly be seen as a

roadblock to academic engagement with Wikipedia. If it isn't, then it is editors' perception of the rule as true (as I have experienced) that is the roadblock.

...

...

...

It seems to me that the way to overcome this roadblock is to

introduce a way of counting the contributions made by a person (say, a research student, or a colleague) on behalf of a Professor. So at the end of the year, the Professor can say 'my research contributed to X edits on Wikipedia' as easily as each individual student (who might contribute on behalf of many academic researchers) can count their individual edits.

...

...

...

Can the API accommodate this in some way? Perhaps through some sort

of 'project' code or something?

...

...

...

Yours hopefully,

Jenny Gristock (Open_Research)

Sent from my iPad

...

On 9 Jul 2014, at 22:40, LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org wrote:

Hi all!

I wanted to draw your attention to the Educator Training we'll be

having as part of the Wikimania Pre-conference on August 7:

...

...

...

...

https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education_Pre-Conference/Educator_t...

...

...

...

...

The Educator Training is designed to give educators of all levels

the knowledge they need to use Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects as a teaching tool in their classrooms. The training is open to educators from any country, and Wikipedia editing experience is not required.

...

...

...

...

If you're interested in attending or you know someone who is, please

see the page for more information. I especially encourage anyone who's thought about getting a Wikipedia Education Program going in your country to attend, as you'll learn a lot about the different kinds of assignments students could do.

...

...

...

...

LiAnna

-- LiAnna Davis Head of Communications and External Relations Wiki Education Foundation +1-415-770-1061 www.wikiedu.org

Please note my new email address and update your contacts

accordingly: lianna@wikiedu.org

...

...

...

...

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

In regard to your below sentence

<<It is especially confusing when I see people referencing their own websites!>>

Jennifer I am one of those, who follow links and remove citations to self-published material, not vetted by other experts. I wouldn't say there are many of us doing this task, but it's really annoying to me, to find people and websites trying to "make" themselves into experts simply by spewing links to their own undocumented articles, all over the project.

I also remove links to anonymous material, by the way, since there is no way to vet the author as an expert if who don't even know who they are.

And I'm highly suspect even of websites claiming or appearing to be "expert" if they are unknown if their own field. There are simply far too many sites and authors speaking in authoritative tones, and trying to add their weight to articles that are supposed to be balanced and non-controversial.

-----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com To: Wikimedia Education education@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Jul 10, 2014 12:38 pm Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Education] Overcoming a roadblock to engagement

I thank you all for your guidance and I see that whilst having students in teaching classes editing multiple subjects is ok, asking students to edit multiple topics about research in the same institution, topic etc is unlikely to be OK because they will be too close to the people involved and I agree this is A Bad Idea.

However just in the interest of being clear, with respect to the other things mentioned here, I was not talking about original research - only peer reviewed published papers - and never mentioned articles about "yourself/biography".

I certainly wouldn't want anyone to even imagine I would consider such practices.

On a more personal note I am a writer who was last employed as an academic many years ago.

I take these issues seriously, which is why I came here to ask questions in the first place. I do believe the issues are not yet clear and need to be so.

It is especially confusing when I see people referencing their own websites!

With thanks

Jen / Open Research

Sent from my mobile

On 10 Jul 2014, at 20:05, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

In general:

1. Citing your own academic work and/or adding an article on Wikipedia about your work would be to introduce original research AND potentially COI, and both of those are not ok. You could propose an edit on an article talk page with an explanation that you are the researcher.

2. Editing an article about yourself would be COI. You could propose an edit on the article talk page with the explanation that you are the subject of the article.

3. Encouraging your students to add your or their research on Wikipedia would be meatpuppetry, original research, and/or potentially COI, and any of those is not OK.

4. Encouraging your students to edit your biography on Wikipedia would be meatpuppetry and potentially COI, and both of those are not OK. A professor did this in the past and was caught.

When in doubt, I recommend writing on an article talk page, explaining your relationship to the content that you are proposing to add, and writing a draft of your proposed change for other editors to review.

Pine

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Jon Beasley-Murray jon.beasley-murray@ubc.ca wrote:

Hi:

Your question was: "is there a way to count the contributions that a user has made *on behalf of* another particular user?" (my emphasis)

And: "It seems to me that the way to overcome this roadblock is to introduce a way of counting the contributions made by a person (say, a research student, or a colleague) *on behalf of* a Professor." (again, my emphasis)

Which rather sounds like a proxy, by any definition of that term.

I would be strongly against encouraging such practices.

Take care

Jon

On Jul 10, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com wrote:

I too believe that the ideal approach is for academics to write about other people's work: that is why my original question was about ways of tracing/counting this.

But if you're saying that a research student writing about other people 'a work (plural, not singular ) is not advisable because they are somehow a 'proxy', I must say I don't quite see it that way, but thank you for helping me to see the multiple ways in which this could be construed.

Sent from my mobile

...

On 10 Jul 2014, at 18:21, Jon Beasley-Murray jon.beasley-murray@ubc.ca wrote:

Jennifer:

I would be very wary indeed of the model you're proposing, in which either individual researchers or their proxies insert their work into Wikipedia. We see enough of that already, and I would be concerned if there were any official (or even semi-official) encouragement of the practice.

The issue is less conflict of interest (though that's true, too) as (self)promotion (which you seem to be actively encouraging) and undue weight.

This is not to say that professors (academics, researchers) should not be writing in their areas of expertise. Of course they should! But perhaps a rule of thumb is that they should be writing about *other* people's work in that area, rather than their own.

Take care

Jon

...

On Jul 10, 2014, at 7:43 AM, Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com wrote:

Greetings everyone. I'm still working on that system to encourage university professors to contribute to Wikipedia, a system that is concerned not through teaching, like the Education Programme, but through research.

I need some help. Can you tell me, in the Wikipedia API, is there a way to count the contributions that a user has made on behalf of another particular user? For example, a professor might ask a group of PhD students to make contributions involving his/her research on various Wikipedia pages, on his/her behalf.

I have been frequently told (at the Teahouse and elsewhere) that Professors are not allowed to contribute information about their own published research papers on Wikipedia pages, because this would be biased. (Which is rather a downer for the professor, because this means they are forbidden to write about the things they are most passionate and knowledgeable about.)

If this is rule is true, then it must certainly be seen as a roadblock to academic engagement with Wikipedia. If it isn't, then it is editors' perception of the rule as true (as I have experienced) that is the roadblock.

It seems to me that the way to overcome this roadblock is to introduce a way of counting the contributions made by a person (say, a research student, or a colleague) on behalf of a Professor. So at the end of the year, the Professor can say 'my research contributed to X edits on Wikipedia' as easily as each individual student (who might contribute on behalf of many academic researchers) can count their individual edits.

Can the API accommodate this in some way? Perhaps through some sort of 'project' code or something?

Yours hopefully,

Jenny Gristock (Open_Research)

Sent from my iPad

...

On 9 Jul 2014, at 22:40, LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org wrote:

Hi all!

I wanted to draw your attention to the Educator Training we'll be having as part of the Wikimania Pre-conference on August 7:

https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education_Pre-Conference/Educator_t...

The Educator Training is designed to give educators of all levels the knowledge they need to use Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects as a teaching tool in their classrooms. The training is open to educators from any country, and Wikipedia editing experience is not required.

If you're interested in attending or you know someone who is, please see the page for more information. I especially encourage anyone who's thought about getting a Wikipedia Education Program going in your country to attend, as you'll learn a lot about the different kinds of assignments students could do.

LiAnna

-- LiAnna Davis Head of Communications and External Relations Wiki Education Foundation +1-415-770-1061 www.wikiedu.org

Please note my new email address and update your contacts accordingly: lianna@wikiedu.org

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

_______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

_______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

_______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

OK, so no contributions under the direction of a senior. But rather, independent activity. Thank you for your help.

Sent from my mobile

On 10 Jul 2014, at 19:48, Jon Beasley-Murray jon.beasley-murray@ubc.ca wrote:

Hi:

Your question was: "is there a way to count the contributions that a user has made *on behalf of* another particular user?" (my emphasis)

And: "It seems to me that the way to overcome this roadblock is to introduce a way of counting the contributions made by a person (say, a research student, or a colleague) *on behalf of* a Professor." (again, my emphasis)

Which rather sounds like a proxy, by any definition of that term.

I would be strongly against encouraging such practices.

Take care

Jon

...

On Jul 10, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com wrote:

I too believe that the ideal approach is for academics to write about other people's work: that is why my original question was about ways of tracing/counting this.

But if you're saying that a research student writing about other people 'a work (plural, not singular ) is not advisable because they are somehow a 'proxy', I must say I don't quite see it that way, but thank you for helping me to see the multiple ways in which this could be construed.

Sent from my mobile

...

On 10 Jul 2014, at 18:21, Jon Beasley-Murray jon.beasley-murray@ubc.ca wrote:

Jennifer:

I would be very wary indeed of the model you're proposing, in which either individual researchers or their proxies insert their work into Wikipedia. We see enough of that already, and I would be concerned if there were any official (or even semi-official) encouragement of the practice.

The issue is less conflict of interest (though that's true, too) as (self)promotion (which you seem to be actively encouraging) and undue weight.

This is not to say that professors (academics, researchers) should not be writing in their areas of expertise. Of course they should! But perhaps a rule of thumb is that they should be writing about *other* people's work in that area, rather than their own.

Take care

Jon

...

On Jul 10, 2014, at 7:43 AM, Jennifer Gristock gristock@me.com wrote:

Greetings everyone. I'm still working on that system to encourage university professors to contribute to Wikipedia, a system that is concerned not through teaching, like the Education Programme, but through research.

I need some help. Can you tell me, in the Wikipedia API, is there a way to count the contributions that a user has made on behalf of another particular user? For example, a professor might ask a group of PhD students to make contributions involving his/her research on various Wikipedia pages, on his/her behalf.

I have been frequently told (at the Teahouse and elsewhere) that Professors are not allowed to contribute information about their own published research papers on Wikipedia pages, because this would be biased. (Which is rather a downer for the professor, because this means they are forbidden to write about the things they are most passionate and knowledgeable about.)

If this is rule is true, then it must certainly be seen as a roadblock to academic engagement with Wikipedia. If it isn't, then it is editors' perception of the rule as true (as I have experienced) that is the roadblock.

It seems to me that the way to overcome this roadblock is to introduce a way of counting the contributions made by a person (say, a research student, or a colleague) on behalf of a Professor. So at the end of the year, the Professor can say 'my research contributed to X edits on Wikipedia' as easily as each individual student (who might contribute on behalf of many academic researchers) can count their individual edits.

Can the API accommodate this in some way? Perhaps through some sort of 'project' code or something?

Yours hopefully,

Jenny Gristock (Open_Research)

Sent from my iPad

...

On 9 Jul 2014, at 22:40, LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org wrote:

Hi all!

I wanted to draw your attention to the Educator Training we'll be having as part of the Wikimania Pre-conference on August 7:

https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education_Pre-Conference/Educator_t...

The Educator Training is designed to give educators of all levels the knowledge they need to use Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects as a teaching tool in their classrooms. The training is open to educators from any country, and Wikipedia editing experience is not required.

If you're interested in attending or you know someone who is, please see the page for more information. I especially encourage anyone who's thought about getting a Wikipedia Education Program going in your country to attend, as you'll learn a lot about the different kinds of assignments students could do.

LiAnna

-- LiAnna Davis Head of Communications and External Relations Wiki Education Foundation +1-415-770-1061 www.wikiedu.org

Please note my new email address and update your contacts accordingly: lianna@wikiedu.org

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

---

Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education