Wikipedia is twenty. It’s time to start covering it better. – Columbia Journalism Review

“In the first years of the site, the press enjoyed noting funny instances of Wikipedia vandalism. But, as the tone of the coverage shifts toward praise, and on the site’s 20th anniversary, we feel journalism should help readers better understand Wikipedia’s policies and inner workings—in other words, improve the general public’s Wikipedia literacy. We have identified two major themes that might help reporters in this effort….

Although it is true that Wikipedia is, broadly-speaking, an openly editable project, journalists who suggest that the encyclopedia itself is a free-for-all do a disservice to their readers. Over the years, the Wikipedia community has created a large number of mechanisms that regulate its market of ideas. Perhaps the most important one is the ability to lock articles for public editing. 

 

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but temporarily disabling people from editing it anonymously can go an extremely long way in preventing disinformation. Articles such as the “COVID-19 pandemic” are subject to semi-protection, meaning that anonymous IP editing is not allowed and that any contributors must register an account. Other articles have more extensive protections, such as the article on Donald Trump, which has long been subject to extended-confirmed protection, meaning that only Wikipedia editors who have been active for 30 days and who have performed at least 500 edits can directly edit Trump’s page….

 

Wikipedia, in the singular, does not “decide” or “ban” anything; rather, the community, or different groups within it, reach a temporary consensus on certain issues. That’s understandably hard to pack within a headline. But journalism suggesting that Wikipedia is a monolithic agent with a single point of view simply misses the mark. …

 

A key determinant of notability is whether the subject has received significant coverage from reliable media sources. The volunteer Wikipedia editor who declined the draft page about Strickland did so because, according to the guideline, there wasn’t enough coverage of Strickland’s work in news articles and other independent secondary sources to establish her notability. Katherine Maher, executive director of the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, later wrote an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times headlined “Wikipedia Mirrors the World’s Gender Biases, It Doesn’t Cause Them.” Rather than cast the blame on Wikipedia or its policies, Maher challenged journalists to write more stories about notable women like Strickland so that volunteer Wikipedians had sufficient material to source in their own attempts to fix the bias. The media can do more than just call out biases on Wikipedia; it can also help address them. …”

2023:Wikimania | 16-19 August in Singapore

“…This 18th edition will be a collaboration among volunteers, chapters and user groups of the Wikimedia East, Southeast Asia and the Pacific (ESEAP). Wikimania 2023 will run from 16-19 August in Singapore. There are 30 weeks, 4 days, 19 hours, 53 minutes and 44 seconds until Wikimania 2023. (refresh) This year’s theme is Diversity. Collaboration. Future. Diversity. Wikimania will be an opportunity to showcase ESEAP as an example of inclusion: different volunteer groups, individuals, and affiliates, at different stages of development, different cultures but closely involved in an equitable way. Collaboration. As a distributed growth mechanism, Wikimania will be a way to learn and share new knowledge like tools usage, organizing events / online campaigns, solving a Wiki-related problem and many others. Future. Wikimania is also significant to many Wikimedians as Wikimania 2023 will also be a forum to discuss implementing the Wikimedia Movement Strategy (#Wikimedia2030) and discuss other future-thinking topics. Note: We are still setting up the pages for Wikimania 2023. For more details visit: m:Wikimania 2023….”

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2023

Saudi Arabia jails two Wikipedia staff in ‘bid to control content’ | Wikipedia | The Guardian

“Saudi Arabia has infiltrated Wikipedia and jailed two administrators in a bid to control content on the website, weeks after a former Twitter worker was jailed in the US for spying for the Saudis.

One administrator was jailed for 32 years, and another was sentenced to eight years, the activists said.

An investigation by parent body Wikimedia found the Saudi government had penetrated Wikipedia’s senior ranks in the region, with Saudi citizens acting or forced to act as agents, two rights groups said….”

DPLA to make cultural treasures freely available on Wikipedia with new Sloan Foundation support | DPLA

“A $750,000 grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to the Digital Public Library of America will fuel a multi-year effort to connect America’s cultural heritage institutions with Wikipedia, the world’s free online encyclopedia. This grant will offer an opportunity to make millions of cultural treasures from hundreds of American libraries, archives, and museums freely available online, including Renaissance manuscripts from Philadelphia’s Science History Institute; historic photos of the Pacific Northwest from Seattle Public Library; and portraits of 18th-century actors from the University of Illinois….”

Please help with OpenCitations’ entry in Wikipedia – OpenCitations blog

“The Wikipedia entry for OpenCitations is woefully out of date, inaccurate and brief. As Directors of OpenCitations, Silvio and I are unable to improve this situation because of Wikipedia’s proper conflict-of-interest restriction on self-promotion.

OpenCitations is actively seeking greater involvement from members of the global academic community, as explained in our Mission Statement. One way in which such individuals, particularly those who are both existing Wikipedia editors and already know about OpenCitations, can help OpenCitations, while at the same time supporting Wikipedia in its quest for accurate information, is by revising and expanding the present Wikipedia entry on OpenCitations to reflect the infrastructure’s current activities and data holdings, while maintaining perspective and a neutral point of view. This will increase the availability of reliable knowledge about OpenCitations and its place in the ecosystem of Open Science infrastructures….”

Guest Post – Wikipedia’s Citations Are Influencing Scholars and Publishers – The Scholarly Kitchen

“A well-written Wikipedia page will cite scholarly publications with links to the articles in those citations that can be accessed immediately by users. At the 2019 Charleston Conference keynote, Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle claimed that 6% of Wikipedia readers click on a link in the footnotes (although another study found that it was more like 0.03%). In 2016, Wikipedia was the 6th-largest referrer for DOIs, with half of referrals successfully authenticating to access the article. External links on Wikipedia produce an estimated 7 million dollars of revenue per month. Given that Wikipedia is such a popular website, it’s unsurprising that academic publishers are actively pursuing ways to promote their work on Wikipedia. 

Scholarly publishers have reported increased traffic as a result of giving access to their publications to Wikipedia editors, and a controlled experiment on Wikipedia shows that they are right to value Wikipedia citations. Works cited on Wikipedia have an outsized influence on scholarly work — specifically in its literature reviews. Additionally, one research article found that open-access (OA) articles were cited more frequently than non-OA articles on Wikipedia in 2014, an idea supported by the generally increased readership of OA articles compared to paid-access articles (all of these ideas are explained in more detail below). …”

Wikipedia is open to all, the research underpinning it should be too. | Impact of Social Sciences

“Often thought of as ‘the last good place on the internet’, Wikipedia plays a key role in the online information ecosystem by linking its entries to current and historic research papers. But, after following these links, how much of this research is openly accessible? Presenting evidence from a recent study, Andy Tattersall, finds that around 50% of research linked to Wikipedia from the White Rose Universities of Sheffield, York and Leeds, is openly accessible. As Wikipedia’s stated aim if for its sources to verifiable, he argues openness should be central to the use of research on Wikipedia. …”

Environmental Justice Wikipedia Editathon – LibCal – Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis

“On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 from 11:00am-4:00pm EST IUPUI Arts & Humanities Institute along with IUPUI Library and IU Bloomington Libraries will be hosting an editing event around global environmental justice.

During the event we will discuss research and issues related to environmental justice and offer a Wikipedia editing training session. Following training, we will work together to improve and create articles about environmental justice and related issues. Speakers will begin at 11am sharp! …”

Randomized controlled experiments hint at Wikipedia’s huge real-world impact – Wiki Education

“I became a Wikipedian because of a belief that knowledge — and access to knowledge — matters. Wikipedia, more than anything else I could point to, offered a way to bring together and make sense of the sheer, overwhelming accumulation of human knowledge. Library stacks full of more books and journals than anyone could read in a hundred lifetimes! Surely this kind of intellectual connective tissue makes a difference! Until recently that was a matter of faith to me; no longer.

Three well-designed experiments from the last few years show some specific ways that Wikipedia has large, measurable effects in the real world — and hint at what I’ve long believed. When you improve Wikipedia, you can be confident that it’s reaching people, affecting what they think, what they write, and how they behave. The juice is worth the squeeze….”

Diamond open access | Wikipedia

Diamond open access refers to academic texts (such as monographs, edited collections, and journal articles) published/distributed/preserved with no fees to neither reader nor author. Alternative labels include platinum open access, non-commercial open access, cooperative open access or, more recently, open access commons. While these terms were first coined in the 2000s and the 2010s, they have been retroactively applied a variety of structure and forms of publishing from subsidized university publisher to volunteer-run cooperative that have existed in prior decades.

In 2021, it is estimated that between 17,000 and 29,000 scientific journals rely on a diamond open access model. They make up for 73%[1] of the journals registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals and 44% of the articles, as their mean output is smaller than commercial journals. The diamond model has been especially successful in Latin America-based journals (95% of OA journals[1]) following the emergence of large publicly supported platforms, such as SciELO and Redalyc.

In 2022, new national and international policies, such as the UNESCO recommendation on open science, and the Action Plan for Diamond Open Access promoted by the cOAlition S aim to support the development of non-commercial or community-driven forms open access publishing.

 

Scholia for Software

Abstract:  Scholia for Software is a project to add software profiling features to Scholia, which is a scholarly profiling service from the Wikimedia ecosystem and integrated with Wikipedia and Wikidata. This document is an adaptation of the funded grant proposal. We are sharing it for several reasons, including research transparency, our wish to encourage the sharing of research proposals for reuse and remixing in general, to assist others specifically in making proposals that would complement our activities, and because sharing this proposal helps us to tell the story of the project to community stakeholders.

A “scholarly profiling service” is a tool which assists the user in accessing data on some aspect of scholarship, usually in relation to research. Typical features of such services include returning the biography of academic publications for any given researcher, or providing a list of publications by topic. Scholia already exists as a Wikimedia platform tool built upon Wikidata and capable of serving these functions. This project will additionally add software-related data to Wikidata, develop Scholia’s own code, and address some ethical issues in diversity and representation around these activities. The end result will be that Scholia will have the ability to report what software a given researcher has described using in their publications, what software is most used among authors publishing on a given topic or in a given journal, what papers describe projects which use some given software, and what software is most often co-used in projects which use a given software.

 

 

[2208.08426] “We Need a Woman in Music”: Exploring Wikipedia’s Values on Article Priority

Abstract:  Wikipedia — like most peer production communities — suffers from a basic problem: the amount of work that needs to be done (articles to be created and improved) exceeds the available resources (editor effort). Recommender systems have been deployed to address this problem, but they have tended to recommend work tasks that match individuals’ personal interests, ignoring more global community values. In English Wikipedia, discussion about Vital articles constitutes a proxy for community values about the types of articles that are most important, and should therefore be prioritized for improvement. We first analyzed these discussions, finding that an article’s priority is considered a function of 1) its inherent importance and 2) its effects on Wikipedia’s global composition. One important example of the second consideration is balance, including along the dimensions of gender and geography. We then conducted a quantitative analysis evaluating how four different article prioritization methods — two from prior research — would affect Wikipedia’s overall balance on these two dimensions; we found significant differences among the methods. We discuss the implications of our results, including particularly how they can guide the design of recommender systems that take into account community values, not just individuals’ interests.

 

[2208.08426] “We Need a Woman in Music”: Exploring Wikipedia’s Values on Article Priority

Abstract:  Wikipedia — like most peer production communities — suffers from a basic problem: the amount of work that needs to be done (articles to be created and improved) exceeds the available resources (editor effort). Recommender systems have been deployed to address this problem, but they have tended to recommend work tasks that match individuals’ personal interests, ignoring more global community values. In English Wikipedia, discussion about Vital articles constitutes a proxy for community values about the types of articles that are most important, and should therefore be prioritized for improvement. We first analyzed these discussions, finding that an article’s priority is considered a function of 1) its inherent importance and 2) its effects on Wikipedia’s global composition. One important example of the second consideration is balance, including along the dimensions of gender and geography. We then conducted a quantitative analysis evaluating how four different article prioritization methods — two from prior research — would affect Wikipedia’s overall balance on these two dimensions; we found significant differences among the methods. We discuss the implications of our results, including particularly how they can guide the design of recommender systems that take into account community values, not just individuals’ interests.

 

SAGE Publishing Partners with The Wikipedia Library to Grant Journal Access to Wikipedia Editors — SAGE Publishing

“SAGE Publishing is pleased to announce a partnership with The Wikipedia Library to provide Wikipedia editors full-text access to SAGE’s more than 1,100 journals beginning immediately. The partnership will connect peer-reviewed research to those outside of academia for greater societal understanding and increase research connections….”