Talk:Wiki Project Med

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Archives of this page


2012|2013|2014|2015
Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. Note: this is not the place to suggest changes to Wikipedia itself. If you have concerns or questions regarding medical content please post them on the talk page of the WikiProject Medicine in the appropriate language. English is here

The use of Wikipedia by doctors for their information needs[edit]

This is a proposal for a research project to study the relationship between Wikipedia and the information needs of doctors. The community's knowledge and feedback is more than appreciated! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardpullicino (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2014

Health Information for All[edit]

Wondering if we should put

"We support the global initiative Healthcare Information For All. We believe that every person and every health worker should have access to the healthcare information they need to protect their own health and the health of those for whom they are responsible."

On our page? We are currently a supporter of the organization. [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in that case that seems like a good idea to me.
Considering the issue of branding and noting affiliations more broadly, I also am wondering about branding. At Wiki Project Med/education outreach I just made some course pages for some classes, and am unsure of how to note affiliation. At all of the schools, presumably the schools should get some branding credit for hosting the class. I personally participated in the project at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and there, they were encouraged to note sponsorship from their school's organization overseeing student groups to emphasize that this was a student project, and not an official project supported by the entire school. Similarly, I expect that many Wikimedia classes might be supported only by their departments, like Amin's UCSF class might be supported by the psychiatry department but not the entire UCSF medical school.
Beyond this I am talking to en:American Medical Student Association members about collaboration, and wondering what kind of branding I should offer to AMSA. I expect that in a collaboration involving AMSA members then they would like their affiliation noted. Personally, I like the nonprofit values that AMSA has and their commitment to declining funding from the pharmaceutical industry.
I have my own bias in this in that when I support classes I would like to note support somehow from my employer, Consumer Reports. I am not sure what this should look like to readers, and also I am wondering what kind of categories or automated sorting systems that I can apply to collect outcome metrics about all students in all classes which I personally support with outreach.
There is still also the issue of getting Wiki Project Med support for outreach projects. I have never explicitly asked for it, but if it is available, I might like to affiliate all of my medical outreach work with Wiki Project Med, and to be a Wiki Project Med member whose work product is counted as an outcome of the existence of Wiki Project Med. In this kind of affiliation, I would like the benefits of affiliating my work with Wiki Project Med and getting some kind of approval that what I am doing meets Wiki Project Med standards, and in return I would offer Wiki Project Med credit for whatever I do and comply with Wiki Project Med standards.
This could be a starting point for discussion, and one possible policy to have until things get more complicated:
  • Wiki Project Med approval is granted on a project-by-project basis, and there are no formal standards for getting it. It comes by request, and has no clear costs or benefits, but includes the privilege of posting a link to Wiki Project Med along with a back link which says "This project is in affiliation with Wiki Project Med."
  • Concerning other branding, Wiki Project Med asks that if any additional partners begin to support a particular project and want their logo and brand put on a project page, then they ask for additional review. This is to give Wiki Project Med the opportunity to cease affiliation if that could mean some difficulty in associating with any controversial partner.
Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes basically I include all the work I do as partially supported by WPMED. We as the board should however really put together a method were people propose ideas for WPMED support and we formally approve them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Models for noting partnerships on project pages[edit]

Currently there is no standard for noting partnerships on any Wikimedia community project page. Perhaps Wiki Project Med would be interested in piloting a model.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I like the first one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Conference 2015[edit]

The conference just ended. I'll write a summary over the next few days. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Daniel Mietchen Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry that the report took longer — I had been waiting for a detailed report that I knew was being prepared by Pine. This is available now as a draft and scheduled to come out in next week's Signpost. He attended on behalf of another user group (Cascadia Wikimedians), so his perspective on the event was similar to mine in many aspects. For him, "the most significant developments and topics of discussion at the conference were":
  • Lila's supportive approach to affiliates
  • Strong interest in getting more support from WMF for user groups
  • Concern about volunteer burnout
  • Concern about online civility
  • Interest in developing more and improved tools for program evaluation
  • Frustration with administrative workloads for volunteers
  • Interest among affiliates about networking with each other to achieve common goals
That basically fits with my perceptions, though I would order some of those points differently. To skim his report, I recommend searching for "thematic", "user group" or "affiliate", but the piece is well worth reading as a whole and rich in links to further details.
The conference was strongly geared towards chapters, and almost all sessions were framed in terms of "local" or "regional" activities rather than thematic ones, but if thematic issues surfaced, Wiki Project Med often served as the poster child, since many attendees seemed to be somewhat aware of our activities. If thematic perspectives did not come up on their own, I found myself pointing out again and again that many of the things that had been discussed in a particular session could be reframed by replacing "local" or "regional" with "thematic", or by adding a thematic spin to location-based activities like edit-a-thons.
Some of the most interesting sessions in my view:
These were complemented by a number of meetups, most of which unfortunately taking place in parallel, so I only managed to attend two:
  • Wikimedia Conference 2015/Social events/WMCEE meetup, where it became clear that many of the WMCEE activities could be given a medical spin if someone were to take the lead on this; it was also suggested that activities co-organized in collaboration with thematic organizations could become part of a chapter's annual plan as part of their FDC grant proposals; both points resonated well in discussions with representatives from outside CEE
  • Wikimedia user groups meetup, where it became clear that many user groups face similar problems, so that more intensive exchange would be useful; in particular, there were four user groups that have no geographic focus, and they are now linked via Wikimedia diaspora organisations; it was also discussed whether non-chapter affiliates could become part of the existing affiliates mailing list.
I managed to talk to representatives from almost all affiliates and encouraged them to keep thematic organizations like Wiki Project Med in mind when planning their activities, and had the opportunity to discuss the Translation task force with several of them, including the Taiwan and Nepali chapters. I was in turn encouraged by positive feedback from people at affiliates, WMF (including Lila), AffCom and FDC about our work.
One thing I discussed with many and where no good solution is in sight is what to do with cases like the Ebola task force, which had to operate in areas where there are no local affiliates, nor good WMF contacts. Related discussions, especially with the representatives from Nepal, triggered thoughts on how we might best establish some procedures and infrastructure to be better prepared to react to the next epidemic, earthquake or other disaster. This links well to a related interest of mine, which concerns open approaches in the framework of emergency responses, on which I am collecting thoughts here.
Overall, I think this Wikimedia Conference was a good opportunity to raise awareness of the potential and challenges of organizing Wikimedia activities around a theme rather than (or in addition to) a location, and it was more effective at that than the one I attended in 2013, when thematic orgs were a very new concept. We should definitely try to follow up on this when meeting with other affiliates and volunteers again, especially at Wikimania. For next year's Wikimedia Conference, it would be good to have non-chapter affiliates involved in the program and perhaps to have at least some sessions structured around themes rather than localities.
-- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Project Med and List of articles every Wikipedia should have[edit]

Is there any plan to consolidate "Health and Medicine" list along the lines of the Wiki Project Medicine roster? For instance dump Alzheimer's from the Golden 1000 list and include depression, COPG ... (take your pick) instead. Regards - SmozBleda talk 00:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I am busy putting together a list of 1000 medical articles. Basically working to improve the leads of important topics and then working with Translators Without Borders and other to get them into other languages.
Alzheimer's is a disease of top importance. Have replaced penicillin with COPD. Cholera should really be gastroenteritis. We will see if these changes stick.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Changes should have been made here. I made some alterations in the anatomy section as well, would like to make more. I feel it's very likely the changes will go through. CFCF (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections 2015[edit]

Wmf logo vert pms.svg

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2015 elections for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Questions and discussion with the candidates for the Board will continue during the voting.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 17 to 23:59 UTC May 31. Click here to vote. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2015 Board election page on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Volunteer Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 17:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

Updates[edit]

We are now a tax exempt in the United States, with many thanks to Ralph Coti.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent work. Congratulations to all. JFW (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
! Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Industry funding and ghostwriting of sources[edit]

In case anyone here would like to comment, I've opened a discussion about the above at en:Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Industry funding and ghostwriting of sources, with a view to adding something to the guideline. Sarah (SV) talk 22:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Its hard to pick up but is a concerning practice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the "GLAM Night Out" session at Wikimania 2012 featured an excellent panel discussion on this topic. Charles Ornstein of Propublica -- a publication that has done good work on stuff like this -- was particularly compelling. I don't think there was video or audio, but the page contains some info that might be of interest: http://wikimania2012.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM_Night_Out -Pete F (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Name of this organization[edit]

I wanted to check in about the name of this organization. There has always been some confusion about this. The last public discussion about this was a few years ago at Talk:WikiProject_Med/Archives/2013#Please_choose_another_name.

To review -

  • The legal registered name of this organization is WIKIPROJECT MED FOUNDATION, INC.
  • This organization most commonly goes by "Wiki Project Med" or "Wiki Project Med Foundation"
  • "Wikimedia Medicine" was the first proposed name for this organization, but was excluded because of a prohibition on using the trademarked term "Wikimedia" and legal regulations about using the term "medicine"
  • "WikiProject Medicine" is the name for each separate community forum for discussing health content in the network of Wikimedia projects
  • In the linked discussion above, "Wiki Med" is discouraged by the Wikimedia Foundation because they feel that "Wiki Med" seems like "Wikimedia"

I have raised the name issue in private correspondence in the past, advocating for thoughtfulness in choosing a single name with a single spelling so that the efforts of this group would have consistent branding and the consistent online use which would support good search engine indexing.

Just recently, participants in this project released a web app which is called "WikiMed Medical Encyclopedia". This might be a break from branding and might not be a good long-term name for this application.

I would like to call for confirmation of the primary name for this organization and for secondary names which might be used, if members feel like this organization needs multiple names. If anyone wants to propose a name change, this probably is not a good place to do that unless the person proposing a name change has already registered a domain. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes agree. We have gone through a few names. Now that we are an official user group we could request Wikimedia Med from the WMF.
The app is a product thus its name does not need to match that of this organization or the Wikiprojects. I was not directly involved with determining its current name but I assume we could request it changed if we have a better one in mind.
We also own the domain www.opentextbookofmedicine.com Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)