[Foundation-l] Participation of intellectual professions

[Fred Bauder]

> I see a number of issues holding professionals back from contributing:
>
> 1) Some do not realize that it is possible to edit Wikipedia ( I hear
> this
> at work when people ask me how I became an editor ).  Maybe we should
> advertise the fact that yes you too can edit Wikipedia.

This, I think, probably accounts for most who might participate but
don't. Senior academics write books and journal articles. They don't fool
around on the internet for hours like we do.

>
> 2) Many are just not interested.  In medicine we have had issues with
> getting physicians to do continuing medical education.

A high percentage of practicing physicians, about 50%, regularly consult
Wikipedia and many do contribute. Which is not a surprising reaction to
discovery of minor or major errors and omissions. I suspect it is
precisely the ones who don't keep up adequately with their continuing
education who are most likely to consult Wikipedia. (It is a lazy way of
researching anything)

> Many just want to
> do
> their job and that is it.  Contributing to Wikipedia is work.  However
> students are required to do work and I think this is one of the
> populations
> which would be easiest to attract.  McGill University may have started a
> Wikipedia club.  Promoting these may be useful.

Students are our core constituency.

>
> 3) A great deal of competition to Wikipedia has sprung up such as
> Radiopeadia ( which does not allow commercial use of images ), Medpedia (
> which only allow professionals to contribute ), and Wikidocs ( which has
> more technical content ).  Each addressing some perceived drawback in
> Wikipedia.  None however has received the viewership of Wikipedia but of
> course cuts into the pool of available volunteers.

Nearly all of us who have created alternative sites continue to
participate on Wikipedia to some extent.

> Medpedia has
> partnered
> with a number of very respected Universities.  I think we could learn
> something for each of these formats such as clarification around image
> copyright and that CC does not mean you lose the rights to it, greater
> exposure of the professionals who already contribute, etc.
>
> 4) Wikipedia has received negative press in professional publications.
> We
> need to address these negativities most of which are false.  Currently a
> number of us at WikiProject Med are writing a paper for publication
> promoting Wikipedia as a health care information resource.  Other subject
> areas should do the same.

Yes, nearly always issues are raised which are off-point or ancient
history. Just as a political campaign has a "war room" to respond to such
press we should make a point of responding. David Gerard has done a great
deal of this, particularly in the U.K.

>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc.

Fred Bauder