Talk:Wiki Project Med/Archives/2016

In collaboration with User:West.andrew.g we have been producing data regarding Wikipedia and Medicine here . We have just come out with data regarding how many edits people have made to medical articles during 2015[1] and how many medical articles exist is different languages.[2] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

When non-Wikipedians ask about Wikipedia they want this information. Thanks very much - this information is great for public relations. I will use editor stats and article counts by language in lots of talks because I know this always comes up. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If you have other details you want collected happy to hear them :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Doc James This information would be much more valuable if it were contrasted with information from competitors.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Stats/Number_of_articles_by_language_2015 - Wikipedia is in lots of languages. How many languages does WebMD, NIH, and CDC use, and how much content do they have in each?
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Top medical editors 2015 (all) - Again, what are equivalent numbers (best estimate) for competitors? How does one even begin thinking about this?
• Then the biggest issue is traffic. I continue to hear that Wikipedia is not a significant source of health information, and the presumption behind this statement is that Wikipedia is a low-traffic health information source and that competitors are high-traffic. I know there are already charts, but I would like to see them regularly updated, and especially - I would like to get any authority to sign off on the validity of comparison charts so that they can be circulated and discussed with more confidence.

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

We discuss this some here [3]

It is difficult to get data from other people. We cannot even get pageview data from the NIH unfortunately. I would love to compare how many page views their article on "cancer" or "gout" get with respect to our article on the same topic.

We include a broader scope of topics in what we define as medicine in some respects (physicians for example) but narrowing in other respects (we do not have 10 of M of abstracts for journal articles).

Thus comparisons are a little like apples and oranges and the services we are using to make the estimates are far from perfect. We just got info on mobile for example that was not in the prior analysis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear all, James Heilman was removed from the WMF yesterday.[4] It doesn't look like this is open for review or appeal, and James has stated on email that he is happy to return to the board of the WikiProject Med Foundation. Responses have been positive, and given that the original grounds for his resignation are now not relevant anymore I see no reason to deny this.

I have stated on email that I am finding myself with insufficient time to chair the Foundation to the standards that I would personally expect, and that I am happy to relinquish the chair back to James. Please state your views below. JFW (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. JFW (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support Support We are a hands-on board. James is a hands-on leader, who is well-suited to this role. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support Support Vinicius Siqueira (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Support CFCF 💌 📧 23:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Support Ocaasi (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Support -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Support Biosthmors (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• (Caveat: As of this writing I am not a formal member, so I don't think I get to vote here. I did just submit an application for membership, moments ago.) It has been suggested by several people that re-electing Doc James might be an appropriate response to the WMF Board's decision to remove him. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, and I don't know how Doc James would respond to being reelected and/or re-appointed, but it seems like a reasonable option for the community to consider. With that in mind, I'd suggest moving slowly in reappointing him to the WikiProject Med Foundation board (if it's deemed impossible for him to serve on both boards, either due to COI concerns or the demands on his time). -Pete F (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, Pete. If James is restored to the WMF board, I'm sure our board will be able to agree on a replacement chair. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes I would be happy to return to the board of the WMF if they are willing to have me. Otherwise am also happy to return to the board of Wiki Project Med Foundation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

We continue to collaborate with the en:International League Against Epilepsy. They have moved EpilepsyDiagnosis.org to a CC BY SA license following a couple of years of discussion. They are also forming an open access journal in which to publish Wikipedia formatted literature reviews which I imagine User:Anthonyhcole will be happy about. Additionally they are interested in some of us presenting at their next big conference in Dec 2016 in Houston. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That's great James. Their journal Epilepsia is the journal of epilepsy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Has been sent out to all the top editors across all languages. The cut off was more than 250 edits to medical articles. The award can be seen here and includes an invite to join Wiki Project Med Foundation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The board has been discussing holding our first annual general meeting soon. James has just invited the 300 most active medical editors across all language Wikipedias to join. I've proposed sending an invitation to the talk page of all medicine projects across all languages.

Proposed invitation:

Hi! I'm writing to invite people with an interest in medicine and health to join Wiki Project Med Foundation, a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. There are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate with you. If you'd like to join us, please complete this form, and if you have any questions or comments, please join the conversation on our talk page. --Anthonyhcole along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the membership application[5]

• (削除) Should we make the COI box optional? (削除ここまで)
• And should we reword it as "Do you have any conflicts of interest? If no simple put "no"
• And for sex we should have a "rather not say" box
• And we should have a link to a tool that will help people determine how old their account is and how many edits they have made. I am happy if they are not medical edits

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'd feel more comfortable if members declared any glaring conflicts of interest.
• The present wording is "Do you have a commitment or loyalty that conflicts significantly with our mission, such as receiving payment to positively represent a therapy." I prefer the existing language, because it spells out what we mean by COI. I'd like it to give them a tick box for "No", and a tick box for "Yes" followed by a paragraph box where they can explain their COI. But Google docs seems to offer either tick boxes or paragraph responses - not both.
• Agree "rather not say" sex should be an option.
• James, would you like the tool to be in the Google form or in the responses spreadsheet?

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added "I'd rather not say" to the sex question. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Google form is good. The output is a spreadsheet no? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Our by-laws presently say

Membership will be open to all persons over the age of twelve (12) years and who support the mission of the Corporation. The members and the Board of Directors of the Corporation by their majority vote may from time to time establish such other criteria for membership, including a schedule of dues, as they deem appropriate.

The criteria for membership are basically embodied in the above-linked Google form. Perhaps once we've finished this discussion, we should summarise the criteria on the main page under "Membership"? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I've seen serious criticism elsewhere of people using Google to host confidential information. That is probably a valid concern. Are there alternative, more secure methods of managing memberships? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes people who have access can easily duplicate all information. I think we should simply try to collect as little information as possible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The membership application currently states:

Other private information (real names, full addresses if optionally given, email addresses, contact numbers) will be collected and stored by the Membership Secretary. This information will never be shared with an outside organization or with non-Board members, without explicit permission from the member concerned, and will only be shared with other members of the WPMEDF Board if necessary for WPMEDF communications that advance our ongoing projects and mission.

New York non-profits are subject to some fairly inflexible provisions regarding members' right to inspect the membership list; see e.g. NPC §621:

(a) Except as otherwise provided herein, every corporation shall keep [...] a list or record containing the names and addresses of all members [...]

(b) Any person who shall have been a member of record of a corporation for at least six months immediately preceding his demand [...] upon at least five days written demand shall have the right to examine in person or by agent or attorney, during usual business hours, its [...] list or record of members and to make extracts therefrom.

I'm not sure if this provision can be tailored out in your bylaws (there's nothing explicit to that effect in §621, but perhaps New York law allows for such in general), but I would suggest giving some thought to how you might deal with these requirements in practice. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill. We had a moment in Wikimedia Australia, where someone was standing on his right to inspect the membership list (with home addresses). When he realised he'd actually have to travel to the office and look at the physical book (i.e., the staff wouldn't post or email him a copy), I think he lost interest. Still, we need to change the above advice. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I've changed the preamble to read:

Members' Wikimedia usernames and country of residence will be public. Other information (real name, full address, email address, contact number, sex, age, conflict of interest, etc.) will be collected and stored by the Membership Secretary.

Per New York Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 621, the list of current members' real names and addresses (only) may be viewed at our New York office by anyone (or their agent or attorney) who has been a member for at least six months immediately preceding their request to view. Your Wikimedia user name will not be revealed; neither will any other information - just name and address. If we receive such a request, we will email all members five days before viewing occurs, so they may resign from the foundation and have their name and address removed from the viewed list.

Kirill, do you know of a software package for managing memberships? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I like that wording Anthony. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: I'm not aware of any software that's specifically intended for membership management, but I think just about any CRM package can be used for that purpose. At WMDC, for example, we use the contact management features in Podio. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey All We are one of the supporting organizations of Health Information For All as per [6] I have renewed our support again this year with a 50pound donation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Our offline medical app was update to include anatomy articles here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

We now have medical ZIMs for all the official languages of India in which we have medical content here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I created a new Individual Engagement grant to try and fix a problem. Grants:IdeaLab/Effective Engagement with Health Topic Experts using Guided Checklists

From my work with Cochrane as a Wikipedian in Residence and my observations of other attempts to engage health topic experts in editing, I've come to the conclusion that the quality of the contributions of health topic experts does not match their level of expertise and effort the we as Wikipedians put into training new medical editors. So, I decided to create a new project to develop a Guided Checklist that would assist a health topic expert in assessing the quality of a health articles on Wikipedia, and then guide their contributions toward making edits to correct the lack of quality.

My individual engagement grant would involve interviewing health topic experts and active medical editors, as well as a community consultation on Wikipedia English WikiProject Med. Please add yourself as a volunteer if you would like to participate. Or leave suggestions on the talk page. Or endorse if you support the idea. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Talk archives