Thanks for your thoughts, Lane. All good points. Just on this:

"Having a banner would be a break from tradition to make a much bolder quality claim with content much lower in quality than the articles which get that star."

I'll only be referring to BMJ articles that have recently passed the Featured Article Candidate or Featured Article Review processes. This is a step up from FA.

As Daniel mentions, the idea of using the "article improvement banner" format rather than the infobox for this was mooted by Magnus in the unconference discussion. There seemed to be unanimity on the potential for blowback from MOS (and other) concerns, and Magnus (and Daniel, I think) thought that using the banner might attract less furor than trying to insert it in the infobox.

This is all just speculation and gut-feeling. If Magnus is already active in the infobox space then I'm inclined to trust his instincts on that one.

There is a hole in most articles between the FA star in the top right corner and the top of the infobox that I think would be perfect, and is about the right size, in my opinion (but that's not exactly replicating the maintenance tags).

Daniel, thanks for clarifying your position. Regarding your last point, a trial on Wikisource would carry very little weight on en.Wikipedia, so I'd prefer to begin on en.Wikipedia. I take your point that this whole thing - Wikimedia content that is effectively a [[WP:RS]]  - will need to find a good fit in all of Wikimedia's projects.

So, Daniel, if I can come up with a not-ugly template/MediaWiki thing/whatever, I'll ping you and ask you what you think about it sitting on top of the Comp. Biol. articles.

I guess I ask Magnus now.

I'll let this list know what happens. More criticism and feedback welcome.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Daniel Mietchen <daniel.mietchen@googlemail.com> wrote:
I just found
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:External_peer_review ,
which is used for a number of articles, but on the talk page.
d.


On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Daniel Mietchen
<daniel.mietchen@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> thanks to Anthony for the detailed report and for Lane's thoughts on the matter.
>
> To expand on me being "sort of umm aah", I am
> * very interested in getting experts to review our content
> * aware that giving credit to external reviewers is not popular in the community
> * aware that banners are an issue too
> * supportive of Magnus' suggestion to just introduce the "banner" as
> another one of those maintenance templates (cf.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Article_message_templates )
> * aware that the existing article message templates are (almost?)
> exclusively about issues with the article in question - I haven't
> found any yet that would say anything positive about the article
> * supportive of using the PLOS CB Topic Pages as a testing ground (cf.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:PLoS_Computational_Biology_articles
> )
> * involved in other expert review initiatives (e.g.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computational_Biology/ISCB_competition_announcement_2015
> ) that may provide further testing ground
> * suspecting that
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_open_access_publications
> may contain some pages for which a version has also passed peer review
> * exploring Hypothes.is as a reviewing tool (e.g.
> https://via.hypothes.is/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholinergic_neuron )
> * wondering whether and how the signalling of "peer-reviewedness"
> could be integrated with the signalling of source metadata, as per
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Source_MetaData/Bibliographic_metadata_for_scholarly_articles_in_Wikidata
> and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access/Signalling_OA-ness
> * interested in a solution that would be applicable beyond WP:MED or
> enwp or perhaps even Wikipedia - what about testing the waters via a
> similar "banner" on Wikisource first?
>
> Cheers,
> d.
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Lane Rasberry <lane@bluerasberry.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> About the banner - I would want to see a copy of it. I concur that "I really
>> don't want to mess this up by having to battle for the banner or by
>> introducing it to WT:MED clumsily". A proposal type that seems similar to me
>> is attribution.
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikicredit>
>> If we gave credit for reviewing an article then that seems comparable to
>> credit for doing anything else. While I think the Wikimedia community would
>> support the idea, I do not think there would be enough support for anything
>> less than a well made proposal. If this were to happen, then either it would
>> need to be defined as definitely happening on a limited scale for a stated
>> amount of time as a pilot (one year, max ten articles, perhaps) or be very
>> documented if there is a desire to have potential to grow.
>>
>> An alternative to having the banner is getting the same review but not
>> advertising it so publicly. This might be desirable because I would rather
>> develop the review process first before building infrastructure to make
>> promises of quality as a result of the review process. Currently,
>> Wikipedia's best content (FAs) are only advertised with a discreet star.
>> Having a banner would be a break from tradition to make a much bolder
>> quality claim with content much lower in quality than the articles which get
>> that star. I have not seen Daniel's PLOS Biology rating system or its
>> documentation but if it makes sense, I might prefer to build from that
>> rather than found something new right away, especially considering the risk.
>> It is just the way that Wikipedia works that if a policy change is
>> overextended and it gets a consensus of complaints, then the issue is closed
>> for 6-12 months. I would prefer low-risk policy changes throughout the
>> process until and unless there is certainty to expect community support.
>>
>> If I were to talk to Magnus about something, it would be applying quality
>> and review labels somehow to medical data displayed in infoboxes. That is
>> his space already, and I anticipate that this is going to be a place in
>> Wikipedia targeted by external investment and review to get medical data
>> into Wikipedia. When it does come to Wikipedia by way of Wikidata, we have
>> no plans (so far as I know) to make it obvious how data in Wikipedia is
>> sourced when it comes from Wikidata. Some kind of external review of
>> infoboxes may be easier to get, easier to advertise in Wikipedia articles,
>> and the basis for lots of other kinds of in-wiki affirmations of quality.
>>
>> Very interesting ideas - all of it, Anthony. I am suggesting other things
>> but everything as you proposed is reasonable as it stands and more likely in
>> some ways than some of the ideas that I shared here.
>>
>> yours,
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Sydney.
>>>
>>> Thanks for asking.
>>>
>>> I think it went well.
>>>
>>> I got to talk one-on-one with Jacob de Wolff, chair of WikiProject Med
>>> Foundation, and Daniel Mietchen (on that board and presently contracted to
>>> NIH). I also met Magnus Manske, an early MediaWiki developer, currently with
>>> Wellcome's Sanger Institute, and Geoffrey Bilder of CrossReff. Jacob and
>>> Daniel will, I think, be reliable supporters on-wiki. I managed to prise a
>>> commitment out of Magnus to help with any MediaWiki changes that might be
>>> needed, and Geoffrey offered to help with attaching a doi (digital object
>>> identifier) to the peer-reviewed version of an article. I had dinner with
>>> John Byrne - WiR for the CRUK project.
>>>
>>> All of them gave me very useful feedback specific to the BMJ project, and
>>> I was able to give them a bit of the history and a description of how this
>>> is likely to go.
>>>
>>> I gave a brief presentation during the unconference which was attended by
>>> about 15 people - but the real engagement in that session came from the
>>> above-mentioned.
>>>
>>> I asked Daniel if he'd plop a banner (like the article improvement banners
>>> you see at the top of lots of articles) at the top of the seven Wikipedia
>>> computational biology articles that were peer reviewed by PLOS Computational
>>> Biology, pointing the reader to the reviewed version hosted at PLOS. (He
>>> presently has a miniscule, unfindable link at the bottom of each article.)
>>> He was sort of umm aah, but I think he'll do it if I present him with the
>>> banner.
>>>
>>> Now I've got to get the banner. I guess I'll ask Magnus for that - though
>>> I think it's way below his pay grade ... I don't know who else to ask.
>>>
>>> Once Daniel's done that, I'll make the announcement at en.Wikipedia
>>> talk:WikiProject Medicine. I want Daniel to break the ice on the banner
>>> because he's far less likely to trigger an MOS revolt over in Comp. Biol.
>>> than us at medicine on what I expect to be high-visibility articles - and if
>>> I wait for that I can point the WT:MED denizens to Daniel's articles so they
>>> can see how it'll look, or at least how it will work.
>>>
>>> So that's where I am.
>>>
>>> The foundation released the results of its community/reader consultation
>>> process last week.
>>>
>>> The biggest thing on the minds of our readers (as opposed to the editor
>>> community) is accuracy/reliability. This - or something like this - has to
>>> happen, and soon, and on a grand scale. So I really don't want to mess this
>>> up by having to battle for the banner or by introducing it to WT:MED
>>> clumsily.
>>>
>>> You don't know Magnus do you Sydney? It's just that I think he thought I
>>> was a bit of an idiot, so if someone who's clearly not an idiot were to tell
>>> him how awesome it is that he offered to help, it might oil the wheels a bit
>>> here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anthony Cole
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Anthony,
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate an update from the wikipedia science conference about
>>>> if you had an opportunity to present about the BMJ collaboration.
>>>>
>>>> And any other updates and plans.
>>>>
>>>> Sydney
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 25, 2015 4:08 AM, "Anthony Cole" <ahcoleecu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah. Sorry Hilda, wrong term. I mean we should offer the reader a really
>>>>> nice-looking presentation of the reviewed version of the article, rather
>>>>> than something pulled up from the article's history. This rather than this.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the more I think about this, the less important I think it is. The
>>>>> main thing to achieve is a really prominent link at the top of the current
>>>>> version of a reviewed article linking the reader to the reviewed version.
>>>>>
>>>>> There should be such a link at the top of the current version of any
>>>>> article reviewed by BMJ, but also at the top of Dengue fever, at the top of
>>>>> the cancer articles that CRUK reviewed for us and at the top of all the
>>>>> articles Daniel Mietchen managed to get reviewed by Computational Biology if
>>>>> those involved want it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether they link to a nicely-presented, journal style edition or just
>>>>> the plain old Wikipedia history page is fairly trivial.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from a really prominent link to the reviewed version at the top of
>>>>> the current page, there should also be a prominent link to a nice, readable
>>>>> diff between the reviewed and current versions - so the reader can see how
>>>>> the topic/article has evolved since the last review.
>>>>>
>>>>> These are the things I'm hoping to get support for, if there is any
>>>>> opposition to them on en.Wikipedia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anthony Cole
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Bastian, Hilda (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]
>>>>> <hilda.bastian@nih.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> G'day!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm happy to support this - but can't come to London. Hoping to be at
>>>>>> the USA meeting though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure what you mean by a fair copy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hilda
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: Anthony Cole [ahcoleecu@gmail.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 9:48 PM
>>>>>> To: Wiki Medicine discussion
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Wiki-Medicine] BMJ Wikipedia reviews
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lodewijk, Sydney, Hilda, I think I'm going to need lots of support to
>>>>>> pull this off. BMJ are not publishing the reviewed version - we are, by
>>>>>> pointing to the relevant diff in the article's history. I'd like us to offer
>>>>>> the reader a much nicer presentation of the reviewed article than that,
>>>>>> which means Wikimedia hosting a "fair copy" (like normal articles published
>>>>>> on publishers' websites).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd also like us to point the reader to a diff between the reviewed
>>>>>> version and the current version that doesn't have all the wiki markup -
>>>>>> basically a diff that the average reader will easily parse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This will only happen if we can demonstrate solid support from the
>>>>>> Wikipedia med community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I intend outlining this at the conference, if I get a slot in the
>>>>>> Sunday afternoon unconference. I don't suppose you guys might be able to
>>>>>> drop everything and turn up at the inaugural Wikipedia Science Conference in
>>>>>> London on 2-3 September, is there? :o)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15 Aug 2015 1:05 am, "Anthony Cole" <ahcoleecu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've just come out of the second teleconference with fellow WPMEDF
>>>>>>> board member Jake Orlowitz, and Fiona Godlee and Peter Ashman of BMJ.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BMJ has offered to provide expert peer-review of up to 10 of our
>>>>>>> medical articles. We can choose the articles and can submit them at our own
>>>>>>> pace. I'll post the details at English Wikipedia's Wikiproject Medicine talk
>>>>>>> page on Monday or Tuesday - I'm very busy the next 48 hours. Have a great
>>>>>>> weekend everyone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Anthony Cole
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Wikimedia-Medicine mailing list
>>>>>> Wikimedia-Medicine@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wikimedia-Medicine mailing list
>>>>> Wikimedia-Medicine@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-Medicine mailing list
>>>> Wikimedia-Medicine@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-Medicine mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-Medicine@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lane Rasberry
>> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
>> 206.801.0814
>> lane@bluerasberry.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-Medicine mailing list
>> Wikimedia-Medicine@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine
>>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Medicine mailing list
Wikimedia-Medicine@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine