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.


--


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