Grants:IdeaLab/drive contributions from the academic world through better ORCID integration: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Thelmadatter (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
***Yes, exactly - and also all kind of system games to pump one's stats up that we can't think of right now. Plus, bringing specifically ego-driven people to an encyclopedia may increase the amount of work needed to clean after. Still, I think the project has a positive net value. [[User:Pundit|Pundit]] ([[User talk:Pundit|talk]]) 22:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC) |
***Yes, exactly - and also all kind of system games to pump one's stats up that we can't think of right now. Plus, bringing specifically ego-driven people to an encyclopedia may increase the amount of work needed to clean after. Still, I think the project has a positive net value. [[User:Pundit|Pundit]] ([[User talk:Pundit|talk]]) 22:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC) |
||
*Ditto [[User:Pundit]], we would need to set this up, not only against gaming but to be sure that academic Wikipedians understand policies and practices... in other words, give them some support. Ive run events at my campus with professors, and have learned that you cannot assume that they will just figure out how to write for Wikipedia. In fact, in some ways it's easier with students as they can be more flexible. However, I very much agree that we need expert help on articles, especially basic and high-importance articles.[[User:Thelmadatter|Thelmadatter]] ([[User talk:Thelmadatter|talk]]) 00:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC) |
*Ditto [[User:Pundit]], we would need to set this up, not only against gaming but to be sure that academic Wikipedians understand policies and practices... in other words, give them some support. Ive run events at my campus with professors, and have learned that you cannot assume that they will just figure out how to write for Wikipedia. In fact, in some ways it's easier with students as they can be more flexible. However, I very much agree that we need expert help on articles, especially basic and high-importance articles.[[User:Thelmadatter|Thelmadatter]] ([[User talk:Thelmadatter|talk]]) 00:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC) |
||
*'''support''' we desperately need an on ramp for subject matter experts, to write about, among other things, vital articles. we have [[User:Astinson (WMF)]] to work with. [[User:Slowking4|Slowking4]] ([[User talk:Slowking4|talk]]) 12:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==Expand your idea== |
==Expand your idea== |
||
Revision as of 12:38, 22 February 2017
drive contributions from the academic world through better ORCID integration
Give academics and grad students direct credit via ORCID for their contributions.
created on20:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Project idea
What is the problem you're trying to solve?
For many subjects, the majority of the subject experts are in (or connected to) the academic world. Many of these people are time-poor and have no motivation to contribute to wikimedia efforts, so their expertise is lost to us.
What is your solution?
ORCID is a consortia-based attribution framework for the academic world: individuals using connect their contributions across publishers, institutions and fields to present their research outputs as a whole. By (optionally) bi-directionally linking wikimedia accounts to ORCID identifiers, we would enable these people (primarily academics and grad students) to get professional credit for their work, while expanding the motivation for this pool of subject experts
Project goals
- More academic subject experts contributing to Wikimedia projects
- Lower barriers to the use of Wikimedia projects in academic teaching and learning
Who will you be doing outreach with?
Academics, postgraduate students, independent researchers.
Get Involved
About the idea creator
en.wiki editor of >12 years from an academic background.
Participants
Becoming part of the ORCID consortia is probably something that would have to be done by a WMF staffer (with input from legal). ORCID Auth2 work probably needs to be done by WMF devs.
Endorsements
- I am cautious, as this idea could also have adverse effects, but all in all I think it can indeed bring more academics to WIkipedia. Pundit (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- What kind of thing are you thinking of, User:Pundit? Academics making many small edits to improve their perceived contributions? Stuartyeates (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly - and also all kind of system games to pump one's stats up that we can't think of right now. Plus, bringing specifically ego-driven people to an encyclopedia may increase the amount of work needed to clean after. Still, I think the project has a positive net value. Pundit (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- What kind of thing are you thinking of, User:Pundit? Academics making many small edits to improve their perceived contributions? Stuartyeates (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ditto User:Pundit, we would need to set this up, not only against gaming but to be sure that academic Wikipedians understand policies and practices... in other words, give them some support. Ive run events at my campus with professors, and have learned that you cannot assume that they will just figure out how to write for Wikipedia. In fact, in some ways it's easier with students as they can be more flexible. However, I very much agree that we need expert help on articles, especially basic and high-importance articles.Thelmadatter (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- support we desperately need an on ramp for subject matter experts, to write about, among other things, vital articles. we have User:Astinson (WMF) to work with. Slowking4 (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Expand your idea
No funding needed?
See also
- ORCID (drafted May 2016)