Tag Archives: wikipedia

Wellcome Library donates 100,000 medical images to Wikimedia Commons

“The Wellcome Library has donated over 100,000 images on medical history, which have now been uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. The high resolution photographs and scans are used to illustrate a wide range of Wikipedia articles such as disease, art history, cartoons, sexuality and biographies. Wellcome Images provide free public access to their digital collection online, covering topics from medical and social history to current healthcare and biomedical science. Wellcome Images is part of the Wellcome Collection, with an extensive range of manuscripts, archives and films and more than 250,000 paintings, prints and drawings.” (via Wikimedia blog)

Leave a Comment

Wikipedia turns 14, receives prestigious Erasmus Prize 2015

“Today, Wikipedia turns fourteen years old. On this day in 2001, a simple idea changed the world: the idea that anyone, no matter who they are or where they lived, had something to contribute to the sum of all human knowledge. It was a simple idea, but intensely powerful, and it resonated with hundreds of thousands of people. Together, your contributions have made Wikipedia the most comprehensive repository of free information in the history of humanity.” (via Wikimedia blog)

Leave a Comment

What Wikipedia’s First Users Got Wrong

“These days the real challenge would be finding someone who doesn’t use Wikipedia all the time. But, back in 2003, when TIME first mentioned the word in its pages, the challenge in writing about Wikipedia was explaining what it was. Wikipedia had launched on Jan. 15, 2001 — that’s 14 years ago Thursday — and contained a mere 150,000 entries when TIME explained that “To contribute to wikipedia.org, an online encyclopedia, all you need is Web access.” (via TIME)

Leave a Comment

Can Wikipedia Disrupt News As It Did Encyclopedias?

“Wikipedia revolutionized the way people amass information. It provides a free, one-stop shop for the Internet’s collective knowledge on any given topic. Now, one of the site’s founders, Larry Sanger, is launching a ‘Wikipedia for news’ called Infobitt. Infobitt says it will be “the world’s first crowdsourced front page news site.” It calls on users to post news events and aggregate summarized facts for each story. The importance of each fact is determined by votes, which take the form of dragging and dropping the piece of information into a ranking of 10 slots. The collection of facts under each story is called a ‘bitt.’ The importance of each bitt is also voted on in this way.” (via Newsweek)

Leave a Comment

Around half of Wikipedia’s medical editors are experts

“Wikipedia is known to be a go-to place for healthcare information for both professionals and the lay public. The first question everyone asks is: but how reliable is it? In a new study, just published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, we took a different approach. We wanted to know more about the people behind the medical pages on Wikipedia, what background do they come from, whether they have specific interests in health and what drives them to contribute to Wikipedia. Because getting health-related content on Wikipedia right is about more than getting the facts correct. It’s about how the information is presented, how topics are covered and what perspectives taken. You can read the paper here: http://www.jmir.org/2014/12/e260” (via Wikimedia blog)

Leave a Comment

Wikipedia Is More Biased Than Britannica, but Don’t Blame the Crowd

“The sixth most visited website in the world is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, managed by a loosely coordinated group of volunteers from around the globe. If the wisdom of the crowd has a poster child, Wikipedia is it. But new research shows that the average Wikipedia article is more politically biased than its Britannica counterpart. That sounds like an indictment of crowdsourcing, but on closer inspection it instead reveals what makes the crowd really work. In a working paper released last month, Shane Greenstein of Kellogg and Feng Zhu of Harvard Business School measured the political bias of Wikipedia and Britannica by counting the number of politically charged words in pairs of articles. Previous research has demonstrated that political partisans use different language. In the U.S., Republicans are more likely to use terms like “illegal immigration” and “border security.” Democrats are more likely to use “war in Iraq”, “civil rights”, or “trade deficit”. These word choices predict the speaker’s ideological slant.” (via Harvard Business Review)

Leave a Comment

Three Questions and Three Answers as Food for Thought About the Future of Wikipedia

“Wikipedia prides itself of being the encyclopedia of the 21st century. Except that in the 21st century there are no encyclopedias. Wikipedia has amazingly removed this category from the face of the earth. Since we already are the biggest, most updated, shared and common encyclopedia in the world – and mostly since we are virtually the only one left – this is the time to understand what our future holds. If we settle for the status quo and only try to preserve what we have, we will soon be left behind. If we really want to fulfill our vision and provide every single human being free access to the sum of all knowledge, we should ask ourselves – where is this knowledge?” (via Wikimedia blog)

Comments Off

Wikipedia, a Professor’s Best Friend

“Michael Gorman, a former president of the American Library Association, wrote some years ago that “a professor who encourages the use of Wikipedia is the intellectual equivalent of a dietitian who recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything.” If that is true, I must be an intellectual fast-food vendor. I am a professor who not only recommends that my students use Wikipedia but also encourages them to edit and develop it. However, I am in the clear minority in academia. Most professors treat Wikipedia with suspicion and contempt, if not open hatred.” (via The Chronicle of Higher Education)

Comments Off

Wikipedia’s medical errors and one doctor’s fight to correct them

“You can’t always believe what you read on the internet. That is particularly true when it comes to medical information in the crowd-sourced online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. But one doctor is on a mission to change that. Dr. James Heilman works as an emergency room physician in Cranbrook, B.C., and is also a clinical instructor at UBC. He’s just returned from Wikimania, a Wikipedia conference that was held in London this August, where he encouraged his colleagues to help edit and improve the accuracy of medical information found on Wikipedia.”We know Wikipedia isn’t perfect. We know it can be better,” says Heilman.” (via CBC News)

Comments Off

Wikimedia Foundation releases its first transparency report

“We are happy to announce the release of the Wikimedia Foundation’s first transparency report. Transparency is a tenet of the Wikimedia movement.  Anyone can see how a Wikipedia article is created and how it evolves, and anyone can contribute to the software that runs the Wikimedia projects. The transparency report we share today is in furtherance of our commitment to such openness. Every year, the Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit organization, receives requests from governments, individuals, and organizations to disclose information about our users or to change content on the Wikimedia projects. This transparency report is the amalgamation of two years of data — it details the number of requests we received, where these requests came from, and how we responded to them.” (via Wikimedia blog)

Comments Off

© Copyright 2015, Information Today, Inc., All rights reserved.