It did, yes, but that wasn't it's primary focus - AFT is an example of
expert engagement in the same way it's an example of PHP: sure it uses
it but that's not necessarily what comes to mind when you think of it.
(I appreciate I've left myself open to quite a lot of comments about
precisely what does come to mind for people when they think of AFT.
Mostly obscenities, I suspect.)
I quite like the GLAM+STEM idea - is it being discussed on a list
somewhere? (Absent here, which may not be the right location.)
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
AFT did try to engage readers, but if I recall
correctly it had a checkbox
saying something like "I am an expert on this subject and I want to provide
feedback." This is reaching far back in my hazy memory, but I think that
similar features were present in both AFT3 and AFT5.
That's an interesting idea about getting GLAM to focus on review in addition
to content creation. FloNight and I have also been talking about expanding
the GLAM concept to what I'm calling GLAM+STEM, meaning that we're
interested in engaging STEM institutions as well as GLAM institutions in
content creation (and potentially content quality review.)
Pine
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:17 AM, WereSpielChequers
<werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I thought AFT was an attempt to engage readers not Subject Matter Experts.
In my experience two of our most effective ways to outreach to those
experts who are not already in the community are the GLAM program and
potentially the education program.
This was one of the areas that Johnbod explored in his time as Wikimedians
in Residence at Cancer Research UK. You might want to talk to him as to how
that went and the extent to which it could be replicated. The focus of a lot
of residents has been more on getting openly licensed digital material, but
I don't see why we couldn't have more residencies focussed on expert review,
providing of course that the articles in that area are already at a stage
worthy of review.
On 23 May 2016 at 18:34, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Another article on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [1] I wonder,
could any of the practices described here be implemented on Wikipedia in a
way that would be helpful? WMF tried to engage SMEs through the now
mothballed AFT, and I believe that there is an ongoing effort to get SME
comments with the assistance of a bot facilitating communications from SMEs
to article talk pages (Aaron, do you remember the name of that project, and
if so could we get an update about it?)
Thanks,
Pine
[1]
http://qz.com/480741/this-free-online-encyclopedia-has-achieved-what-wikipe…
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l