This sort of thing is happening a bit lately. It strikes me as possibly a somewhat more manageable form of expert participation than throwing individual well-meaning experts into a wiki cagefight with individual persistent idiots. How's the community tending to treat such groups?
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Martin Poulter M.L.Poulter@bristol.ac.uk Date: 4 April 2011 11:38 Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] Media coverage of Cancer Research UK workshop To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
BBC News (linked from front page and 4th most popular item currently!) Cancer charity to tidy up Wikipedia http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12887075
The Times Cancer Research UK to edit information on Wikipedia http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/news/article2971655.ece (NB behind a paywall)
-- Dr Martin L Poulter ICT Manager, The Economics Network Based at the ILRT, University of Bristol: http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
The full experience: http://infobomb.org/ Wikipedia contributor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MartinPoulter
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 04/04/2011 11:56, David Gerard wrote:
This sort of thing is happening a bit lately. It strikes me as possibly a somewhat more manageable form of expert participation than throwing individual well-meaning experts into a wiki cagefight with individual persistent idiots. How's the community tending to treat such groups?
The interface with institutions is becoming more complicated (good). But the jargon bears explanation:
*"workshop" tends to mean Wikipedians sitting down with others, persuading them editing is something they can do; *"backstage" events tend to mean others inviting in Wikimedians, to motivate them to edit; *"in residence" tends to mean a Wikimedian advocate and facilitator, partly there to convince the institution there is something to which they could ally in a strategic sense; *"academy" is apparently for general evangelism.
We naturally see all such things as tending to drive the addition of content to the projects. There remains the issue of whether they do recruit new expert editors; and whether these will know enough to (for example) head for a WikiProject if they need help with the obstreperous. My feeling is that dealing with onsite social interactions is still the hardest know-how to convey.
Charles