What can fact-checkers learn from Wikipedia? We asked the boss of its nonprofit owner – Poynter

“Several studies have shown that Wikipedia is as reliable if not more reliable than more traditional encyclopedias. A 2012 study commissioned by Oxford University and the Wikimedia Foundation, for example, showed that when compared with other encyclopedic entries, Wikipedia articles scored higher overall with respect to accuracy, references and overall judgment when compared with articles from more traditional encyclopedias. Wikipedia articles were also generally seen as being more up-to-date, better-referenced and at least as comprehensive and neutral. This study followed a similar 2005 study from Nature that found Wikipedia articles on science as reliable as their counterparts from Encyclopedia Britannica.”

Amplifying the impact of open access: Wikipedia and the diffusion of science – Teplitskiy – 2016 – Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  With the rise of Wikipedia as a first-stop source for scientific information, it is important to understand whether Wikipedia draws upon the research that scientists value most. Here we identify the 250 most heavily used journals in each of 26 research fields (4,721 journals, 19.4M articles) indexed by the Scopus database, and test whether topic, academic status, and accessibility make articles from these journals more or less likely to be referenced on Wikipedia. We find that a journal’s academic status (impact factor) and accessibility (open access policy) both strongly increase the probability of it being referenced on Wikipedia. Controlling for field and impact factor, the odds that an open access journal is referenced on the English Wikipedia are 47% higher compared to paywall journals. These findings provide evidence is that a major consequence of open access policies is to significantly amplify the diffusion of science, through an intermediary like Wikipedia, to a broad audience.

What do you call a homepage? Incorporating indigenous knowledge into Wikipedia – Wikimedia Blog

First Nation in Canada may soon have a Wikipedia to call their own.

The Atikamekw Nehirowisiw Nation, located in central Quebec, is one of the few aboriginal peoples in Canada where virtually the entire population still speaks the language, making it among the most vibrant among the First Nations.

An ongoing project, the first of its kind in Canada, is working with the Atikamekw community to develop Wikipedia content in their own language. The initiative’s goal is to one day have the Atikamekw Wikipedia, currently in the Wikimedia incubator join one of the hundreds of extant Wikipedias.

‘It is a way to pass on ancestral knowledge using computers and it allows to preserve traditional practices,” project member Nehirowisiw says. ‘It is an educational tool for all.'”

If Voltaire had used Wikipedia… | Voltaire Foundation

“Sharing open knowledge about Voltaire’s histories

To raise awareness of Voltaire as a historian, we used three tools:

  1. Histropedia: a free tool for creating engaging, interactive visualisations
  2. Wikidata: a free database and sister site of Wikipedia that drives Histropedia and other visualisations
  3. Wikipedia: the free multilingual encyclopedia.

As well as holding data about people, publications, and events, Wikidata acts as a cross-reference between the different language versions of Wikipedia, showing which concepts are represented in which languages. By querying Wikidata, we could count how many language versions of Wikipedia had an article on each work by Voltaire. This showed, as expected, a large imbalance: forty languages for Candide versus three for the Essai sur les mœurs, for example. The current number of articles for each work is shown by the size of the bubbles below.”

Part 2: How big was OA Week this year? How comprehensive is the OAD? The Ope…

“The Open Access Directory (+OAD, @oad) is an #openaccess encyclopedia of open access. Among other things, it tracks OA-related conferences and workshops. For October 2016, it captured 411 events, reflecting the surge of global activity surrounding this year’s OA Week.

http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/2016#October …”

Should the Open Access Directory update or retire the #openaccess speakers bu…

“Years ago the Open Access Directory (+OAD) launched a list of people willing to speak about OA at conferences, organized by country. 

http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_speakers_bureau

The idea was to help conference organizers identify potential speakers, especially by country or region, and to consider people they night not have thought about. 

It was a good idea, and in the early days it grew to a decent size. But it has barely been revised in years, and today represents only a small fraction of the many good people qualified to speak about OA at conferences.

So the Open Access Directory faced a question. Should we try to expand the list, or retire it?

We’ve decided to try to expand it. If we succeed, it will be useful again. If we don’t succeed, we can always retire it later. We’d rather try first than not try at all.

If you’re not listed and want to be, please add yourself. If you’re already listed but want to update your affiliation or contact info, please do so. And please spread the word to colleagues who ought to be listed….”

Should the Open Access Directory update or retire the #openaccess speakers bu…

“Years ago the Open Access Directory (+OAD) launched a list of people willing to speak about OA at conferences, organized by country. 

http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_speakers_bureau

The idea was to help conference organizers identify potential speakers, especially by country or region, and to consider people they night not have thought about. 

It was a good idea, and in the early days it grew to a decent size. But it has barely been revised in years, and today represents only a small fraction of the many good people qualified to speak about OA at conferences.

So the Open Access Directory faced a question. Should we try to expand the list, or retire it?

We’ve decided to try to expand it. If we succeed, it will be useful again. If we don’t succeed, we can always retire it later. We’d rather try first than not try at all.

If you’re not listed and want to be, please add yourself. If you’re already listed but want to update your affiliation or contact info, please do so. And please spread the word to colleagues who ought to be listed….”