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 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole>
On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Daniel Mietchen <
daniel.mietchen(a)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(a)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/I…
) that may provide further testing ground
* suspecting that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_tex…
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/Bibliogr…
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access/Signalling_…
* 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-Medicine mailing list
>>>> Wikimedia-Medicine(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-Medicine mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-Medicine(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-Medicine mailing list
>> Wikimedia-Medicine(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Lane Rasberry
> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> 206.801.0814
> lane(a)bluerasberry.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-Medicine mailing list
> Wikimedia-Medicine(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Medicine mailing list
Wikimedia-Medicine(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine