Developing an Ethical approach to using Wikipedia

Views:
 
Category: Entertainment
     
 

Presentation Description

Slides used by Brian Kelly, UK Web Focus in a talk on "Developing an Ethical approach to using Wikipedia" given at the WikiSci event held in London in September 2015.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Developing an Ethical Approach to Using Wikipedia as the Front Matter to all Research Wikipedia Science 2015 conference:

Developing an Ethical Approach to Using Wikipedia as the Front Matter to all Research Wikipedia Science 2015 conference Brian Kelly Independent consultant UK Web Focus Contact Details Email: ukwebfocus@gmail.com Twitter : @briankelly Blog : http://ukwebfocus.com/ ORCID : 0000-0001-5875-8744 1 Slides and further information available at http:// ukwebfocus.com/events#2015-09-02/ UK Web Focus Event hashtag: # wikisci The Wellcome Collection, 183 Euston Road, London on 2-3 September 2015 Slides available from http ://www.slideshare.net/lisbk/

Slide2:

2 2 You are free to: copy, share, adapt, or re-mix; photograph, film, or broadcast; blog, live-blog, or post video of this presentation provided that: You attribute the work to its author and respect the rights and licences associated with its components. Idea from Cameron Neylon Slide Concept by Cameron Neylon, who has waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights. This slide only CCZero . Social Media Icons adapted with permission from originals by Christopher Ross. Original images are available under GPL at: http://www.thisismyurl.com/free-downloads/15-free-speech-bubble-icons-for-popular-websites

Contents:

Contents Introduction Link strategies do work for researchers! The ethical dilemma Towards resolution of the dilemma Next steps 3 Introduction A Wikipedia-style presentation: Content has a CC-BY licence Slides available online Based on verifiable evidence Easy access to evidence Beta-approach (initial ideas; development from others encouraged) No original research Building on work of others Slides in open standard format  Comments on slides (via Slideshare) Acknowledgements Martin Poulter, Andy Mabbett, Wendy Hall, Geoff Bilder, Rod Ward, Alex Bateman, Melissa Highton, …

About this Talk:

About this Talk In August 2014 a Wikimania session proposed “ Wikipedia as the front matter to all research ”  .. A  survey of Links From Wikipedia to Russell Group University  Repositories  found 1,100+ Wikipedia links to Russell Group university repositories. However this can conflict with the “Neutral Point of View” principle. A post which asked “ So who’s editing the SNHU Wikipedia page? ” illustrated such risks and concluded “ You should not edit your institution’s Wikipedia page. It’s a PR debacle waiting to happen ” A “ Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms ” included a statement: Our firms believe that it is in the best interest of our industry, and Wikipedia users at large, that Wikipedia fulfill its mission of developing an accurate and objective online encyclopedia. Therefore, it is wise for communications professionals to follow Wikipedia policies as part of ethical engagement practices. This talk provides opportunities to explore a similar policy statement which could be adopted by UK universities, research councils, publishers and other stakeholders involved in research activities. 4 Introduction

About Me:

About Me Brian Kelly UK Web Focus at UKOLN: a national Web adviser to UK Universities from 1996-2013 Innovation Advocate at Cetis from Oct 2013 - May 2015 Dissemination of web developments and promotion of best practices for exploiting the web (Web/Innovation Advocate) Since June 2015 an independent consultant Speaker at SOLO (Science Online London) / SpotOn confs. Wikipedia activities: Wikipedia editor since 2004 Accredited Wikipedia trainer Wikipedia trainer at workshops for librarians & researchers Speaker at Eduwiki Serbia 2014 , Eduwiki UK 2014, … Poster presentation with Martin Poulter on Wikipedia & Metrics at 1:AM alt.metrics conference 5 Introduction

About You:

About You Who is (hands-up for all relevant options): Researcher Wikipedian Software developer Science communicator / advocate / trainer / journalist Policy maker Other I am all 1, 2 and 4 but mainly communicator/advocate/… Talk focuses on policy on advice/training implications for researchers 6 Introduction

About My Research Activities:

About My Research Activities 7 My research activities: Peer-reviewed papers on web accessibility, standards, impact, social media, … H-index of 15 (according to Google Scholar)

Viewing my Papers:

Evidence Advocacy Viewing my Papers Analysis of downloads in ~2012 (for reporting to funders) showed ‘popularity’ of papers (full text) Highest number of downloads of all researchers at University of Bath (twice as many as researcher in second place) 8 Evidence

Reasons for Popularity:

Reasons for Popularity “Can LinkedIn and Academia. edu Enhance Access to Open Repositories ?” 9 Evidence

Advice for Researchers:

Advice for Researchers My advice to researchers by 2012 (in run-up to REF 2015) 10 See http://ukwebfocus.com/2012/07/03/paper-accepted-for-or12/ Conclusions: Mainstream ‘white-hat’ linking SEO practices can work for researchers as well as everyone else May not be scalable (if everyone does it, benefits may be marginal) … so early adopters have competitive advantage!

Links to Wikipedia from Repositories:

11 Links to Wikipedia from Repositories Background Survey of 24 Russell Group Unis published o n 28 Aug 2014 Total of 1,108 links found from IRs Blog post summarised findings Discussion Dangers that: Evidence → League table → R ace Research support staff, researchers, etc. ─ unaware of Wikipedia principles ─ focus on SEO benefits Awareness of WP principles ignored “ If we wish to see Wikipedia acting as the front matter to research provided by the university sector should we be seeking to develop a similar statement on how we will do this whilst ensuring that we act in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines ? ” Evidence

Wikipedia Challenges:

Wikipedia Challenges The Five Pillars of Wikipedia: It's an encyclopedia It's written from a neutral point of view Anyone can use, edit, share and modify the content Interact with each other respectfully and civilly It doesn't have firm rules 12 Challenges

About You:

About You Who has edited a Wikipedia article about: Your social interests Areas of no/little interest (e.g. fixing typos) Your professional interests Your organisation Yourself (if article exists)! 13 My first Wikipedia article was on Rapper Sword dancing (2004). Context to creation and structure: It’s British culture (worried Americans would create article) It’s from the northeast It’s not morris dancing!

Policies and Guidelines:

Policies and Guidelines 14 From Rod Ward

Neutral Point of View (NPOV):

Neutral Point of View (NPOV) Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias , all of the significant views that have been  published by reliable sources on a topic 15 Unless otherwise stated, text is available under the  Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License ; additional terms may apply. Wikimedia UK is a Charitable Company registered in England and Wales. Registered Company No. 6741827. Registered Charity No. 1144513 . Registered Office: 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources

Conflict of Interest:

Conflict of Interest (Hidden  at https ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CURATOR 16 Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest . (The word interest refers here to something in which a person has a stake or from which they stand to benefit.) [n 1] Conflict of interest is not about actual bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict. [2] That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's state of mind . [

Wikipedia for University Marketing Staff:

Wikipedia for University Marketing Staff One-day workshop for Wikipedia Web/marketing staff at Exeter University in July 2015 17 Blog post about event

Wikipedia for University Marketing Staff:

Wikipedia for University Marketing Staff One-day workshop for Wikipedia Web/marketing staff at Exeter University in July 2015 Attendees updated pages about their organisation Is this a problem? 18

Wikipedia for University Marketing Staff:

Wikipedia for University Marketing Staff One-day workshop for Wikipedia Web/marketing staff at Exeter University in July 2015 Attendees updated pages about their organisation Is this a problem? 19 But is additional of factual metadata ok?

Other Sectors:

Other Sectors Grant Shapps accused of editing Wikipedia pages of Tory rivals 20

Other Sectors:

Other Sectors ccc 21

Looking At Other Sectors:

Looking At Other Sectors 22 “ Top PR Firms Promise They Won't Edit Clients' Wikipedia Entries on the Sly”: Can the research sector learn from this? If so, who would do this: Individual unis? Groups of unis? Uni/research bodies?

Slide23:

23 On behalf of our firms, we recognize Wikipedia's unique and important role as a public knowledge resource. We also acknowledge that the prior actions of some in our industry have led to a challenging relationship with the community of Wikipedia editors. Our firms believe that it is in the best interest of our industry, and Wikipedia users at large, that Wikipedia fulfill its mission of developing an accurate and objective online encyclopedia. Therefore, it is wise for communications professionals to follow Wikipedia policies as part of ethical engagement practices. We therefore publicly state and commit, on behalf of our respective firms, to the best of our ability, to abide by the following principles: To seek to better understand the fundamental principles guiding Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. To act in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly those related to "conflict of interest." To abide by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. To the extent we become aware of potential violations of Wikipedia policies by our respective firms, to investigate the matter and seek corrective action, as appropriate and consistent with our policies. Beyond our own firms, to take steps to publicize our views and counsel our clients and peers to conduct themselves accordingly. We also seek opportunities for a productive and transparent dialogue with Wikipedia editors, inasmuch as we can provide accurate, up-to-date, and verifiable information that helps Wikipedia better achieve its goals. A significant improvement in relations between our two communities may not occur quickly or easily, but it is our intention to do what we can to create a long-term positive change and contribute toward Wikipedia's continued success.

Scientists Are Different!:

Scientists Are Different! Wendy Hall: Social machine: Internet + Web + Wikipedia + open access + people + context (political, social, …) Alex Bateman, EMBL: “I’m passionate about proteins (and now RNA!)” “I’ve created loads of articles about RNA” “So have my colleagues in my organisation” “And the wider community” “And Wikipedians delete much of our work” And possibly/arguably Wellcome Trust pay us to do this: part of grant is for public engagement) 24 And this is a good thing!

Learning from GLAM Community:

Learning from GLAM Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CURATOR#Cultural_sector 25 Many thanks to Andy Mabbett for 6 characters: “WP:COI”

Questions:

Questions Some questions: Should we (researchers with interest in Wikipedia) ignore the issue / inherit mainstream guidance? Should we develop guidelines/code of conduct/…? Who should own the guidelines/code of conduct? (research bodies , institutions, Wikipedia, COPE * , …? Should we name and shame institutions which appear to link to their own resources? What tools can help: auditing; DOI …; IP name (& shame cf edits from Westminster; …)? … 26 * COPE = Committee on Publication Ethics: http://publicationethics.org/

authorStream Live Help