Submissions/Possible strategies of increasing involvement of scientists and academics in Wikimedia projects/notes
SESSION OVERVIEW[edit | edit source]
- Possible strategies of increasing involvement of scientists and academics in Wikimedia projects
- Day & time
- Aug 11, 14.00 - 14.30
- Session link
- Giuseppe Profiti (User:Baruneju)
SESSION SUMMARY[edit | edit source]
Scientists already have all the skills needed to contribute to Wikipedia. They have access to paywalled scientific journals via their institution.
Downside: scientists may be skeptical about Wikipedia
Source: survey among 95 scientists (on Ukraininan Wikipedia). About 76% are skeptical, they do not read articles about scientific subjects.
A possible answer to such an argument is that they do not have enough data about Wikipedia to make a correct analysis. By providing information about scientific projects on Wikipedia, about 39% of them had an increased trust in Wikipedia.
Page reads can lure scientists. Investing time spent in reading literature on other subjects in writing articles.
- scientific photo competitiion (e.g. scientists may have pictures that did not end into scientific papers and that they can share)
- articles contests and competitions, scientists as jury to make participants confortable (e.g. judged by peers)
Participate in scientific conferences, involvment of young researchers
Scientists are encouraged to go public, Wikipedia is a good way to do it
Q: scientists often require credit for their work, for example to apply for a grant
- A: example, a wikipedia article pageview went into a grant proposal
- A (audience1): there are other metrics (e.g. impactstories) that are considered besides impact factor
- A (audience2): they may also register with their real name
- A (audience3): PLOS computational biology publishes articles that become wikipedia articles, so scientists have both. Contributions to wikipedia can be linked to ORCID profile
Q: with conflict of interest, can you put your own paper into wikipedia?
- A: this is an ethical question, but I don't see why not.
Q: what about original research? It is encouraged in scientific articles but not in Wikipedia articles?
- A: they should use reviewed articles, as per wikipedia rules