Main Page: Difference between revisions
(Update events list) |
(Update blog post) |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|advert= | |advert= | ||
|blog post= | |blog post= | ||
; | ;Science and Wikipedia - a round-up | ||
[[File: | [[File:Entrance_to_Wellcome_Trust_building_Euston_Road_London.jpg|thumb|right|140px|The Wellcome Trust building, host to the upcoming Wikipedia Science Conference]] | ||
''This post was written by | ''This post was written by Dr Martin Poulter, Wikimedia UK volunteer and convener of the Wikipedia Science Conference'' | ||
The past year has been eventful and exciting for anyone interested in how Wikipedia can support the process and understanding of science. Here are a few stories that have caught my attention, plus a next step that anyone can take. | |||
We knew that the free encyclopedia is one of the top ten most-visited web sites, but [http://crosstech.crossref.org/2014/02/many-metrics-such-data-wow.html thanks to the charity CrossRef] we now know that it is in the top ten sites via which people reach scholarly papers. | |||
However, not all links are equal. A [http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.07608 paper published on Arxiv] and [http://www.technologyreview.com/view/539001/why-wikipedia-open-access-revolution/ summarised in the MIT Technology Review] finds that open-access papers are 47% more likely to be cited on English Wikipedia than closed-access papers. The authors conclude “open access policies have a tremendous impact on the diffusion of science to the broader general public through an intermediary like Wikipedia.” | |||
Closed access versus open access can be a matter of life and death, as shown by a [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/opinion/yes-we-were-warned-about-ebola.html?_r=1 New York Times article about the African Ebola outbreak], which noted that some crucial research was practically unavailable because “downloading one of the papers would cost a physician [in Liberia] $45, about half a week’s salary.” | |||
The single most-used source on Ebola in affected countries at the peak of the African outbreak was Wikipedia, as we now know thanks to a Journal of Medical Internet Research paper about Wikipedia’s medical content. The paper, [http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/05/19/towards-health-information-for-all-wikipedia/ summarised on the LSE Impact of Social Science blog], found that Wikipedia is now “the single most used website for health information globally”. The authors surveyed Wikipedia’s top contributors to medical content (those with more than 250 edits). Of 117 respondents, more than half were professionals in, or students of, healthcare. | |||
<span class="plainlinks">[https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2015/08/science-and-wikipedia-a-round-up/<nowiki>[</nowiki>Post continues...<nowiki>]</nowiki>]</span> | |||
<span class="plainlinks">[https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2015/ | |||
|events=<!--Aim to have between 8 and 10 events listed to avoid this section taking up too much or to little space--> | |events=<!--Aim to have between 8 and 10 events listed to avoid this section taking up too much or to little space--> |
Revision as of 15:10, 4 August 2015
Cymraeg | English
Wikimedia UK
|
|
Для української мови Вікіпедії ласка, відвідайте http://uk.wikipedia.org; для Вікімедіа Україна відвідайте http://ua.wikimedia.org
For the Ukrainian language Wikipedia please visit http://uk.wikipedia.org; for Wikimedia Ukraine please visit http://ua.wikimedia.org
Want to suggest changes to the content and presentation of this page? Comment on the talk page, or experiment at the Sandbox