Jump to content

Submissions/The Wikipedia Year of Science 2016: What worked, what didn't, and how you can pull off a large-scale content initiative

From Wikimania

This is an accepted submission for Wikimania 2017.

Submission no. 6016 Subject - EO
Title of the submission
The Wikipedia Year of Science 2016: What worked, what didn't, and how you can pull off a large-scale content initiative
Type of submission (lecture, panel, tutorial/workshop, roundtable discussion, lightning talk, poster, birds of a feather discussion)
Author of the submission
LiAnna Davis
Language of presentation
E-mail address
User:LiAnna (Wiki Ed)
Country of origin
Affiliation, if any (organisation, company etc.)
Wiki Education Foundation
Personal homepage or blog
Abstract (up to 300 words to describe your proposal)

The Wikipedia Year of Science was an initiative led by the Wiki Education Foundation to improve Wikipedia's science content in 2016. Science, you say? Isn't STEM content on Wikipedia already pretty good?

You might be surprised.

In this presentation, Wiki Ed's LiAnna Davis will explain why science content on Wikipedia needs work too, and what Wiki Ed did during the Year of Science, a large-scale initiative to improve Wikipedia’s content in STEM and social science topics spearheaded by Wiki Ed.

We'll describe what we learned from our work during the Year of Science, including;

  • forming partnerships with academic associations, including the American Chemical Society, Society of Marine Mammalogy, and American Society of Plant Biologists
  • gaining insight from subject matter experts about the quality of science content on Wikipedia
  • collaborating with the Simons Foundation on edit-a-thons at seven science association conferences
  • creating discipline-specific editing guides in science topics such as chemistry, ecology, environmental sciences, species, and genes and proteins
  • understanding why writing articles for Wikipedia is such a powerful experience for students, especially women considering pursuing science careers
  • (most notably) supporting more than 6,000 student editors in the sciences as they wrote for Wikipedia for the first time, adding nearly 5 million words to 5,500 science articles on the English Wikipedia

We'll describe the impact we've had to Wikipedia, how Wikipedia fits in to broader trends about science in higher education, and the lessons we've learned along the way. We'll also talk about where we're going from here: What are we doing to sustain the impact of the Year of Science, and how can interested community leaders in other countries replicate this project.

What will attendees take away from this session?
  • Learn about the Year of Science project
  • Learn what worked and what didn't work
  • Learn how to replicate a large-scale content initiative like the Year of Science
Theme of presentation
For workshops and discussions, what level is the intended audience?
Length of session (if other than 25 minutes, specify how long)
25 minutes
Will you attend Wikimania if your submission is not accepted?
Slides or further information (optional)
Session notes
Submissions/The Wikipedia Year of Science 2016: What worked, what didn't, and how you can pull off a large-scale content initiative/notes
File:Year of Science Wikimania 2017.pdf
Is this Submission a Draft or Final?

This is a Completed submission for Wikimania 2017 ready to be reviewed by a member of the Programme Committee.

Interested attendees

  1. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AmandaRR123 (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rhododendrites (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel Mietchen (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC) very interested in such activities at the interface between Wikimedia projects and research, and on how we can build on them in the future[reply]
  5. Debaser42 (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WritingTeacherC (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Saguaromelee (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- interested, but I don't like the title. Nobody oversees the whole Wikipedia/Science year anymore. And at the end, it's only a small part of the world. This should be clearly visible in the title. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Joalpe (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LZia (WMF) (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ovedc (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. #TMorata (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14. VMasrour (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15. ...Mardetanha (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16. MtDu (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC) x2[reply]
  17. -Another Believer (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18. -Krish Dulal (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]