Oliver: I mean "I'm working on a comprehensive answer to your question (singular)".
Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for your thoughtful replies. > > Oliver: I'm working on a comprehensive answer to your questions. > > Anders: I, too, am very relieved when I see something from a scholarly > society or highly-regarded institution out-ranking us on search engine > results for medical queries, and am pleased to see Google relying on such > sources and not Wikipedia for their "sum of all human knowledge." > > In case it got lost in the terrible formatting of my opening post, I'd > very much like to know if the foundation intends employing staff to oversee > the measurement of Wikipedia/-media quality and to nurture strategic > initiatives aimed at making Wikipedia more reliable. > > > Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole> > > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Anders Wennersten < > m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote: > >> For medical articles we at svwp are very wary as there exist very good >> webpages issued by the health authorities related to all healthproblems and >> we certainly do not want our wp pages to contradict those. >> >> We encountered severe problems when the English(American) articles were >> first introduced at svwp, as their recommendation differed from what is >> recommended here. For example when you have an urinary tract infection, it >> is here often not treated at all here, as bacteria is seen as normal, not >> to be taken away. But the big problem was he different recommendation of >> use of antibiotics and penicillin, which are prescribed much more >> restricted here then in US. >> >> In our case we came to a proper article but only after long discussion, >> and most of us are laymen in medicin, so not able to check as closely all >> articles. And actually we at svwp are quite happy that the webpages from >> the authorities on health is ranked higher then our pages, at least when >> articles have sections around treatment and recommended prescriptions. >> >> Anders >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Oliver Keyes skrev den 2015-04-05 19:36: >> >>> Has there been work to determine the accuracy of our medical coverage >>> that's found it lacking? All the studies I've seen have said it's >>> pretty good, but that was a while ago, and I know anecdotally that >>> we've got a lot of work to do around, for example, womens' health >>> issues. >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> (I just posted this with bad formatting. Would a moderator please delete >>>> that earlier version?) >>>> >>>> "Among my friends and acquaintances, everybody distrusts Wikipedia and >>>> everybody uses it." — Freeman Dyson, "How We Know" The New York Review >>>> of >>>> Books, 10 March 2011. >>>> >>>> (Discussing recent UK survey results.) "We're trusted slightly more than >>>> the BBC. Now, that's a little scary, and probably inappropriate. ... We >>>> all >>>> know it's flawed. We all know we don't do as good a job as we wish we >>>> could >>>> do ... People trusted Encyclopedia Britannica - I think it was, like - >>>> 20 >>>> points ahead of us." — Jimmy Wales, "State of the Wiki" Wikimania >>>> speech, >>>> 10 August 2014. >>>> >>>> The Wikimedia Foundation vision: "Imagine a world in which every single >>>> human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our >>>> commitment." >>>> >>>> But "knowledge" of something implies confidence in its accuracy. While >>>> Wikipedia is untrustworthy, it is purveying something other than >>>> knowledge. >>>> This is a problem for the foundation, since it is failing to realise its >>>> vision - and for humankind, who deserves an encyclopaedia it can trust. >>>> >>>> It is also a critical, existential vulnerability for Wikipedia. Google >>>> is >>>> factoring trustworthiness into its ranking algorithm.[1][2] It has >>>> already >>>> stopped using Wikipedia's medical articles in its "knowledge graph". >>>> Rightly. Soon we'll see Wikipedia's medical content (rightly) demoted >>>> from >>>> (often) the top search result to 5th or 10th - or oblivion (rightly) on >>>> page two. >>>> >>>> The recently released State of the Wikimedia Foundation 2015 Call to >>>> Action >>>> [3] lists a set of objectives. One of the items under the heading >>>> "Focus on >>>> knowledge & community" is "Improve our measures of community health and >>>> content quality, and fund effective community and content initiatives. >>>> >>>> The quality parameter that most needs measuring and improving is >>>> reliability/trustworthiness - if we take the survival of Wikipedia as an >>>> important goal. *Will the Foundation be funding any staff positions >>>> whose >>>> purpose is to measure the quality of the encyclopedia and nurture >>>> strategic >>>> initiatives specifically aimed at making Wikipedia an encyclopedia >>>> people >>>> can trust?* >>>> >>>> Five years ago the Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan [4] resolved to >>>> measure and measurably improve the quality of our offering, and no >>>> resources were allocated and it did not happen. >>>> >>>> 1. Hal Hodson 28 February 2015 "Google wants to rank websites based on >>>> facts not links" New Scientist >>>> 2. Hal Hodson 20 August 2014 "Google's fact-checking bots build vast >>>> knowledge bank" New Scientist >>>> 3. >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/State_of_ >>>> the_Wikimedia_Foundation#2015_Call_to_Action >>>> 4. >>>> https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_ >>>> Strategic_Plan_Summary/Improve_Quality >>>> >>>> Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
