Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement.Here's the
Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/
I see a pile of Wikimedians engaging with them, which is promising.
I visited WMUK on Tuesday and chatted with Stevie Benton (the new
media person), Richard Symonds and Daria Cybulska about this topic.
The approach we could think of that could *work* is pointing out "if
you're caught with *what other people* think is a COI, your name and
your client's name are mud." Because in all our experience, even
sincere PR people seem biologically incapable of understanding COI,
but will understand generating *bad* PR.
- d.
Carcharoth wrote:
>What I'm thinking in particular
is that some FACs would benefit from what is essentially an *external*
peer review process (as opposed to the internal peer review and other
review processes). i.e. Actively soliciting reviews from those holding
credentials (academic or otherwise) in the topic area. Historically,
given the "anyone an edit" and (mostly) pseudonymous nature of
editing, there hasn't been much interest in this model of reviewing,
but I'd be interested to see reactions to this.
Some medical FAs had the benefit of external peer review (coeliac disease, subarachnoid hemorrhage), but as always it depends on someone outside Wikipedia to take an interest. The quality, depth and timeliness of the peer review is largely dependant on that.
Jfdwolff
Dear Wikipedia contributors,
We did it! For the past six weeks, you have all graciously tolerated my
emails requesting participants for my undergraduate senior thesis
project<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Motivations_to_Contribute_to_Wikipe…>
on
users’ motivations to contribute to Wikipedia. On Monday, I reached out to
this community, begging for just eighteen more participants to reach my
target sample size of 100 respondents. We not only reached that goal, but
exceeded it: 161 Wikipedia contributors responded to my questionnaire!
Your insightful responses are invaluable to my project and I cannot express
my gratitude for this community enough, so thank you, thank you, thank you!
When my final paper is written in June, I will make it available to the
Wikipedia community.
Thank you once again for your insight, thoughtful questions, and feedback.
Best,
Audrey
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/04/doctors-use-but-dont-rely-totally-on-w…
"According to recent research that has been shared with Wikimedia UK,
use of Wikipedia for medical information is almost universal among a
sample of doctors. Many of them praise its accuracy, but they are
aware of its faults and that it needs to be read critically.
The investigators conducted an online survey of medical staff at two
large hospital trusts in England. Nearly all the 109 responses
included free-text comments."
- d.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Justin_Knapp_Day
Jimbo proclaimed on April 20, 2012:
Greetings everyone!
I hereby proclaim, in my usual authoritarian and bossy manner, that
today (April 20) shall forever been known as Justin Knapp Day.
Wikipedians of the distant future shall marvel at the first person to
ever make 1,000,000 edits. Tonight at dinner, every Wikipedian should
say a toast to Justin and his many edits.
In countries which celebrate Easter, which is sometimes at a similar
time of year, and indeed will fall on Justin Knapp day in 2014 for
both the Eastern and Western traditions, children will be allowed to
eat up to 1 million candies each.
- d.
Dear Wikipedia contributors,
In the past few weeks, I have reached out to this community on
numerous occasions,
requesting help with my undergraduate honors thesis, which examines
Wikipedians’ motivations to contribute. For anyone who would like more
information about this project, a detailed description can be found here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Motivations_to_Contribute_to_Wikipe…
.
In my last email, I mentioned that I hoped to attain a sample size of at
least 100 Wikipedians, but had only received 52 responses. I am ecstatic to
report that I now have 82 responses – just 18 responses short of the
targeted sample size. If you have not taken the
questionnaire<https://us1.us.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8ixU9RkozemzC4s>,
please consider donating approximately five minutes of your time to
complete it.
I am so grateful for the Wikipedia community’s support in this project and
will make a final draft of the paper available to the community.
If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact
Audrey Abeyta at audrey.abeyta(a)gmail.com.
Thank you in advance for your participation!
Audrey
UC Santa Barbara | Department of Communication
audrey.abeyta(a)gmail.com
I want to add some stuff to [[Wikipedia:Statistics]] about article
creation and deletion. I know there is a bit of stuff out there but I
can't for the life of me find it.
Anyone got some links at their fingertips that they can send my way?
Thanks
Alan
>> This directly conflicts with the Wikipedia FAQ/Article subjects (2012) page
>> that specifically
>> asks public relations professionals to remove vandalism, fix minor errors
>> in spelling,
>> grammar, usage or facts, provide references for existing content, and add
>> or update facts
>> with references such as number of employees or event details.
>But the real-life situation is that someone paid to edit has a boss and/or
>paymaster. Jimbo knows what he is doing here with sending out a soundbite,
>rather than citing the page. The boss can understand the soundbite, and is
>almost certainly not going to bother to understand the page.
Let me get this straight. You are arguing "It is okay to for Jimbo to tell
the company something which contradicts policy because it's more likely
the company will understand the non-policy than the actual policy".
>Yes indeed. Jimbo neither makes policy nor enforces it, of course.
"Besides, it's their own fault for listening to Jimbo anyway. They should
know enough about Wikipedia to understand that he doesn't make policy. I
mean, he's just the public face of Wikipedia, why would anyone who needs to
know about Wikipedia policy listen to him?"
To any normal person, this is simply a case of Wikipedia contradicting
itself. The fact that it's not because Jimbo doesn't make policy is a
piece of Wiki-arcana that the outsider really can't be expected to
understand. The fact that we're deliberately trying to get the people to
listen to Jimbo and ignore the actual policy just makes it worse.