All week, in celebration of #OAWeek, SPARC and Wikipedia Library are
hosting a global, virtual, week-long, open access editathon.
You can jump right in with a full guide and easy entry points for making
your first contribution to the event.
We're aiming for *1000* improvements and tracking the progress of everyone
involved.
Please check it out, spread the word, add your name as a participant, and
make one change to bring us closer to a world of Open Access!
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Library/OA_week
Best,
Jake Orlowitz
The Wikipedia Library
Hey folks!
Join SPARC and Wikipedia Library in a ***Global Virtual Open Access
Editathon** celebrating Open Access Week from now until Sunday.
Help us reach the goal of 1000 improvements to OA content on Wikimedia
projects!
Come on over and jump in...
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Library/OA_week
Cheers,
Jake Orlowitz (Ocaasi)
The Wikipedia Library
Hello, you may remember the WMIT WIR at BEIC; if not, see links in
English. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/BEIC
Last week, the 10 months collaboration came to an end; I published a
lenghty report/case study in Italian. TL;DR: free software developed, 10
BEIC staff contributing, a thousand images uploaded, 6500 usages, 400
articles created, 4 millions accesses/month.
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:GLAM/BEIC/2015-07
The partnership between WMIT and BEIC will actually continue, but I'll
have a non-BEIC job at WMIT and a non-wiki job at BEIC. So I'll do
little/no editing for BEIC; probably some planning, training, uploading
and maybe coding. Maybe WMIT will keep providing BEIC a wiki editor and
invoice for it, maybe not.
I have some requests from you! I hope you can help.
1) Comments on the past months, e.g. based on the monthly updates or
brutal numbers.
2) Suggestions on what is worth translating of the report. There are
passages trying to push institutions to free software, open data, public
domain, community consultation, involvement of staff. Someone liked my
metaphor "be like mushroom, not sequoias". But maybe this is all covered
better elsewhere already?
3) Recommendations on how to update
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence . Should I
still be listed there, or call the WIR done? Where to record the
WMIT-BEIC partnership?
4) Lessons from other partnerships with institutions having an in-house
wikimedian not doing wiki work. (Other than Sannita/Luca at ICCU...)
Perhaps Scotland, Netherlands and Switzerland have more to say as AFAICT
they are all moving towards a permanent team serving multiple
institutions à la traveling WIR, like WMIT.
Nemo
P.s.: Sorry for cross-posting but I think it's better than many
overlapping messages; if possible reply on each list to the parts
relevant for that list and cc only me, not all the other lists.
Hi all,
There's a cool event based in Uganda, but designed for remote
participation, this weekend.
"Outernet" is a project to repurpose satellites to "broadcast" free
information, that can be picked up by inexpensive receivers, for free, and
then reshared for free over local networks/WiFi. A way to get information
to remote and underserved parts of the world. It's one-way communication,
so certainly not a replacement for the Internet or a total solution to the
Digital Divide -- but a very cool project nonetheless. They are also
developing democratic processes for deciding what content to share.
They are having an edit-a-thon this weekend. It runs for 36 continuous
hours: 10am Saturday to 10pm Sunday, local time in Uganda.
Event link/signup:
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/outernet-edit-a-thon-tickets-17702656121
And see their blog post:
http://blog.outernet.is/please-steal-this-blog-post/?utm_source=Outernet+Up…
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
######Cross-Post from Advocacy Advisors#########
Hi all,
This morning I met Nick Shockey from SPARC [1] and the Right to Research
Coalition [2]. He's in Brussels to set up their Advocacy strategy and
campaign on OA and OER.
What we have have very much in common with them is that we're both worried
that the term "Open Access" might be diluted to mean just having access.
They also like to have more and more things put under a cc-by license,
which overlaps with our goals. (As a reminder, here are our positions on
the topic: [3][4])
The R2RC is organising an Open Access, Open Education and Open Data
conference in Brussels coming November [5] and have asked us for some help:
1. Advise them on their advocacy targets and strategy. (I am already doing
that.)
2. Participate in the conference by sending Wikimedians on scholarships.
(Do you think we could/should do it and if yes how?)
3. They're planning a reception in the European Parliament in November and
need a speaker. (Can we recommend someone?)
4. Struggle for interpretation: They have a brochure in the US explaining
and defining OA in line with the Budapest Declaration. (Should we work with
them on creating a European version and disseminating it?)
Thanks!
Dimi
[1]http://www.sparc.arl.org/about/staff/nick-shockey
[2]http://www.righttoresearch.org/
[3]http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/18/wikimedia-open-access-policy/
[4]http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/20/free-open-access-and-wikipedia/
[5]http://www.righttoresearch.org/blog/opencon-2015-details-announced.shtml
Hey all,
If you're interested in Open Access, Open Data and Open Education, the Open
Con this year take place in Brussels 14-16 November. [1]
The conference is aimed at Open communities sharing know-how and project
experiences, but will also have a very clear focus on policy and policy
makers.
So, if you want to to acquire skills in organising national/local Open
projects or learn how to advocate for Open, this might be for you. Deadline
is 22 June.
I am not sure if our own TPS programme could be applied to here? [2]
Best,
Dimi
P.S.: I was invited to join the a conference advisory group for this, so if
you have any suggestions you'd like me to share there, let me know!
[1]http://opencon2015.org/blog/opencon-2015-applications-are-open
[2]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS
Hello everyone,
Thanks a lot for all your great suggestions and comments. I appreciate your
insights.
Stuart - that's a really good point. One quick way to ensure the bot isn't
adding information that's already there is by checking if the source
article has already been cited on that specific Wikipedia page. If the
citation is already present on that page, then users could potentially
check if the new content is redundant.
Edward - I read about Open Access Reader and I think it's a great
initiative. I could contribute to this project by providing summaries,
citation information, and the target page section to insert the summary
into. We could crowdsource the 'integration' step.
Lane - thanks a lot for all your great ideas. I would be interested in
discussing options 3 and 4 in further detail.
Option 3 - Talk pages would be a great platform for directly posting the
summaries. Volunteers could help with the integration process.
Option 4 - Do you have any suggestions on where we could post information
on Wikipedia? Volunteers could propose where to post and / or my bot could
propose possible page sections for volunteers to choose from. This will
definitely serve as a useful continuous feedback loop.
Pierre-Carl - I understand the Open Access Project OA-signalling tool is
working on annotating whether citations refer to open access articles or
not. That initiative could definitely help identify the OA citations for
each articles. Is there any other way to determine this currently?
I look forward to hearing from all of you.
Best,
Saloni
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:01 PM, <openaccess-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Send OpenAccess mailing list submissions to
> openaccess(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> openaccess-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> openaccess-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of OpenAccess digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Integrating scientific literature into Wikipedia
> (Pierre-Carl Langlais)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 13:41:08 +0200
> From: Pierre-Carl Langlais <pierrecarl.langlais(a)gmail.com>
> To: openaccess(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenAccess] Integrating scientific literature into
> Wikipedia
> Message-ID: <5565AD54.3000701(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I think an interesting first trial would be to select automatically
> retrieve relevant OA bibliographies for each articles. As an experienced
> wikipedian, I can testify that searching for references might be a
> time-consuming activity, especially whenever I'm dealing with a topic I
> don't know fully well. This kind of feature would allow to focus on the
> actual writing.
>
> Greetings,
>
> PCL
>
> Le 27/05/15 13:34, Lane Rasberry a écrit :
> > Hello,
> >
> > Here are some options. We could talk more about any of them.
> >
> > 1. A bot which created new Wikipedia articles about certain well
> > reported clinical trials would probably be more feasible than
> > putting sentences into Wikipedia health articles.
> > 2. If you actually want to put content into existing articles, there
> > probably is no way for your team learning how to do this without
> > someone close to you spending about 40 hours on Wikipedia learning
> > community practice. Wikipedia is the world's most consulted source
> > of health information and takes itself seriously in this space.
> > 3. If you want the easiest path, make the bot exactly as you say, but
> > have it post to article talk pages so that a human volunteer can
> > preview the content and integrate it into the Wikipedia article
> > manually.
> > 4. If you want to trial this, have the bot post information in a list
> > anyone on or off Wikipedia and let volunteers choose where to post
> > this. If you do this you would get feedback on what works and how
> > it works.
> >
> > yours,
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Edward Saperia
> > <ed(a)wikimanialondon.org <mailto:ed@wikimanialondon.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Very interesting!
> >
> > I've been working on a project that is related, but uses humans to
> > do summarising and inserting:
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OpenAccessReader
> >
> > *Edward Saperia*
> > Conference Director Wikimania London <
> http://www.wikimanialondon.org/>
> > email <mailto:ed@wikimanialondon.org> • facebook
> > <http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia> • twitter
> > <http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia> • 07796955572
> > 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG
> >
> > On 27 May 2015 at 08:49, Saloni Agrawal <saloniagrawal(a)gmail.com
> > <mailto:saloniagrawal@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone, my name is Saloni, and I’m a bioinformaticist.
> >
> > I am interested in integrating scientific literature into
> > Wikipedia. I’m developing software that imports short 3 or
> > 4-sentence summaries from open access articles into
> > appropriate sections of Wikipedia pages. The idea is for
> > readers to have access to open and recent published research
> > and to make Wikipedia a more comprehensive resource.
> >
> > For example, this paper
> > (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=10906501) describes
> > a clinical study carried out among Latin American women to
> > test a combined injectable contraceptive called Mesigyna. My
> > software is designed to summarize a few sentences from the
> > abstract (Creative Commons license for legal reasons) and
> > integrate it on this page “Combined injectable contraceptive”
> > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_injectable_contraceptive
> )
> > elaborating on Mesigyna in the Formulations sections.
> >
> > Ideally, I would like to develop this into a bot so that users
> > don’t have to manually add information. I would really
> > appreciate any guidance and guidelines on implementing this
> > and how to get approval from the Wikipedia community.
> >
> >
> >
> > I look forward to your thoughts and suggestions.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Saloni
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenAccess mailing list
> > OpenAccess(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > <mailto:OpenAccess@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenAccess mailing list
> > OpenAccess(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:
> OpenAccess(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lane Rasberry
> > user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> > 206.801.0814
> > lane(a)bluerasberry.com <mailto:lane@bluerasberry.com>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenAccess mailing list
> > OpenAccess(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess
>
>