HealthNewsReview.org reviews media coverage of health articles in
newspapers:
"What is HealthNewsReview.org?
HealthNewsReview.org is a website dedicated to:
* Improving the accuracy of news stories about medical treatments,
tests, products and procedures.
* Helping consumers evaluate the evidence for and against new ideas
in health care.
We support and encourage the ABCs of health journalism.
* Accuracy
* Balance
* Completeness
How is HealthNewsReview.org funded?
The funding for HealthNewsReview.org is provided by the Foundation for
Informed Medical Decision Making."
Maybe we should apply for a grant:
http://informedmedicaldecisions.org/
Fred
In a message dated 10/24/2010 10:58:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com writes:
> This is not a mechanical
> process. It is editing in the true sense of the word: it takes
> judgement, it takes takes research-- things we have been claiming are
> against our basic principles. >>
This sounds a bit out of left field and makes me wonder what project on
which you've been working? "Editing in the true sense of the word...
judgement... research... against our basic principles."
Can you show me exactly where editing, judgement and research are against
our basic principles. Because I've been editing, judging and researching, in
my project writing since I joined the project. I have never intended, nor
I think have I stated anywhere in my writings here (or elsewhere) that these
three elements are against our basic principles, so I wonder from where you
get that?
W
Despite repeated assurances at Wikimania, on lists and on strategywiki,
that the strategic plan was going to consider all Wikimedia projects as
important, now at
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Five-year_targets the
second target, «Increase the amount of information we offer» considers
only the number of Wikipedia articles.
«We're aware of the challenges around bot-created articles, articles of
low quality, etc., and the limited focus on Wikipedia, so this metric
shouldn't be seen in isolation, but is an important indicator.» Yes, but
a wrong one.
I'm, very, very disappointed: I have to conclude that all the words on
community participation etc. were only empty rhetoric.
Nemo
Here is a medical use of Wikipedia, from Journal of Pathology Informatics:
The pathology informatics curriculum wiki: Harnessing the power of
user-generated content
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2929539/?tool=pubmed
This journal article in free online. I really like it. They don't whine
about Wikipedia, they use it, and made their own wiki, using information
from Wikipedia:
http://pathinformatics.wikispaces.com/
And encourage medical professionals to pitch in and improve Wikipedia
medical articles:
"Please get involved
We encourage contributors to (1) use the the wiki format to improve and
extend this curriculum; (2) help edit and maintain the pathology
informatics related pages in Wikipedia that are linked to this
curriculum, and (3) create new pathology informatics pages in Wikipedia
and link them to this website. In each of the lessons of the curriculum,
we highlight areas where we feel that there is need for new or updated
articles in Wikipedia relating to that topic."
Fred
In a message dated 10/24/2010 5:15:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
> Perhaps you aren't listening? Although I do notice moments where you
> tend to make the same points. Still what I'm trying to do is to at least
> get some here to think as to how one might produce a body of work that
> can be relied upon. Where the body of work isn't continually under
> attack or being buggered about with. >>
>
Perhaps it's you were aren't listening. Because we already know how "one
might produce a body of work *upon which* one can rely".
That's not the problem however with your "suggestions".
Rather, you want to *change* Wikipedia into that sort of work. Or rather I
think actually you'd have wished it had been that way from the get-go.
But it wasn't, it's not, and it's not really likely that this sort of
approach is one in which you'll find a result that you would wish.
Doesn't it seem to you like this sort of method, is not likely to work?
I mean, posting your grievances here on Foundation-L ?
W
Hi all,
Most of you are aware that I'm leading the Foundation's annual
fundraiser this year, in addition to my work as Head of Reader
Relations. It became increasingly obvious to Zack and me that my
attention was being split, which was no good for either tasking.
The result of that is that we're beefing up our capacity in reader
relations, especially with Cary rotating off the job in December.
I'm pleased to announce that Christine Moellenberndt has joined the
Wikimedia Foundation as a Community Associate, reporting to me, on a
temporary appointment through Feb 28. Christine has been a Wikimedia
reader for some time, which positions her nicely as someone who can
speak for the needs of our readers. Her area of expertise is online
communities, which made for a perfect triangulation. She's writing
her masters thesis right now, focusing on LiveJournal.
She's done a tremendous amount of research over the last week or so,
and is hitting the ground running, beginning with internal protocols,
and building out scalable support systems.
You should consider Christine your first point of contact: I've found
that she's one of the few people I've ever met more likely to be
online than I am. With that in mind, please do your best to not abuse
her, huh?
She can be reached on IRC (ChristineM) or by email (cmoellenberndt(a)wikimedia.org
or readers(a)wikimedia.org). Most telephone calls to me will be
redirected to her, as well. If there's something urgent that you need
me to see, feel free to continue to send it directly to me.
Christine will bring questions to me, early on, but I've found her to
be a quick study and think she'll be fully functional almost
immediately.
Best wishes,
Philippe
____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation
philippe(a)wikimedia.org
ofc: +1 415 839 6885 (x 6643)
mobile: 918 200 WIKI (9454)
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Hello,
WikiHow is a good place for how-tos, and has an amazing community.
They unfortunately use a license (NC-SA) that isn't compatible with
Wikimedia projects. If you want to do something like WikiHow under a
CC-SA license, you might pursue a new Project for them -- while
incubating the project on Wikibooks. As Robert Horning notes, there
are some examples there already.
There are other models like HowStuffWorks that you could look at for
how to organize this sort of information, if you really want to
organize a new Project.
On 10/21/10, Robert S. Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote:
> I've never been a real fan with the "new project" process as it relates
> to Wikimedia, and I find it unfortunate that nothing new has been
> created for quite some time. The last major "community-sponsored" (aka
> the idea originated with ordinary users as opposed to something of a pet
> project by a WMF board member) project to become a major Wikimedia
> project was Wikiversity.
I'm not sure what 'pet projects' you are thinking about. Wikiversity
is the last major Wikimedia project, period. [unless you are counting
the Incubator itself?]
> As I've mentioned on the talk pages at Meta, I wish somebody would
> officially state on Meta and elsewhere that new Wikimedia sister
> projects will never be started,
Whereas I see support of good sister projects -- including avoiding
duplication of effort and directing them to partners when Wikimedia
isn't the right incubator/host -- as essential to realizing our
mission. So I think we should just fix the process.
There are at least two good candidates for new sister projects:
* Wikibibliography / WikiScholar, which has been developed on Meta and
in a couple of threads on this list
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiScholar
* Wikifamily / Rodovid, which has been working well as an independent
project but may be looking for more stable long-term support.
> This mailing list is the correct place to put ideas like this forward,
Yes.
> I have yet to see any idea get
> proposed here on this list to ever become a sister project unless there
> has been a HUGE effort involving at least hundreds if not many more
> Wikimedians
Well, launching a new Project is a big deal, so this is not entirely
unexpected. Shouldn't we have as many people weighing in on new
Project launching as weigh in on cross-project policy changes?
> and often an effort to delete a major category of content
> from one of the existing projects as well.
This is more about providing models for the creation and sharing of a
new type of information than about the 'deletion' of something from
one project to move it to another. We don't usually think of
"migrating images to Commons" as "deletion from an existing project"
-- even though moving images to commons means that they disappear from
RC and watchlists -- because we have cross-project transclusion for
images.
General cross-project transclusion is a feature we don't have yet, but
with a more vibrant ecosystem of Projects, this might soon change.
Sam.
If anyone is "relying" on Wikipedia, then they have a fundamental
disconnect from what we were and still are trying to do.
The entire point of Wikipedia today, is to make people think, not to stop
them from thinking.
That is why we now, for the first time in history, have a method, if it's
not actual practice in every article that's only a time and effort issue...
a Method for citing deep to the actual source from which any particular
piece of wisdom is taken.
No other work, in the history of man, has had this ability. Wikipedia
cannot be compared to any other encyclopedia, because nothing like it, has ever
existed before. All of your arguments about the type of knowledge it does
or does not contain as like so many pieces of tissue paper thrown against
a concrete wall. And yet you cannot see that.
I always tell people that Wikipedia is not the *source* for a piece of
evidence. They should look at the sources cited in the article, and if
anything is questionable, then question it with a fact tag. I regularly remove
fact-tagged phrases and sentences, as should anyone.
Saying it's not an encyclopedia, it's a "project" is mincing words. The
OED was a project, the ODBN was/is a project. That doesn't mean they have
no product. What it means is the project produces a body of work, that body
of work is the encyclopedia called Wikipedia. The project is also called
Wikipedia, because it's a unique, never-ending project to produce an
encyclopedia. A situation that has also never exited before in history.
I'm certainly, for one, quite happy, that those people who refuse to
understand what we're trying to do, have been expelled from the work. Note
carefully, I did not say they don't understand it, I said they refuse to
understand it. There are plenty of (failed) projects that mimic more closely the
mind-set of a person who believes that an approved final-version should be
produced. Perhaps those people would be happier at a project like that.
The majority of the world, has voted with their clicks. We can see the
results for ourselves.
W
In a message dated 10/24/2010 1:18:20 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
wikimail(a)inbox.org writes:
someone's going to have to engage in the campaign of educating people
on why not to rely on sources like Wikipedia.
Anybody else here find it ironic that we're trying to have a discussion
about the
relative merits and impacts of paid editing, and whether it is detectable or
stoppable, but the list moderators have banned from participation the
founder
of the world's first wiki-focused paid editing service?
So, we lose that point of view in developing our neutral point of view.
H.N.
Hi folks,
As some of you may know, there exists a small bunch of Wikipedians in Kenya. In the last couple of months, we have been discussing ways in which we might increase Wikip\media awareness within Kenya. We then decided to experiment by starting by using offline Wikipedia in primary & secondary schools.
We still are at a very early stage: the framework/proposal is still sketchy. Please check it out at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Kenya/Project_for_Kenyan_Schools and give us your feedback. Feel free to edit, redaft or whatever you may call it so that we can come up with a more concrete proposal.
Looking forward to getting your collaboration.
Yours,
m|Abbas.