Talk:Society of Biology Wikipedia workshop
Report
The morning session covered the introduction to editing, userspaces, and formatting. The afternoon session covered referencing, WP policies, COI, WikiProjects and how to get help.
The attendees commented on how much they had enjoyed the sessions (Good introductions and great to have a gentle and encouraging atmosphere to start on), and all seemed to take something useful away from the day. There was feedback collected on the day: 7 responses that were given are summarised here. This was generally very positive, with some people commenting that the event would benefit from a bit more structure.
Many thanks are due to the trainers who all worked well together; the opportunity to do 1-to-1 work with the attendees allowed them to work at different paces on different topics for a significant proportion of each session.
Attendees
All women, without previous experience of editing Wikipedia.
- User:Nesbitr
- User:Gin Buck
- User:Lvharps
- User:LauraUdakis
- User:Scientistchic
- User:Geneticcuckoo
- User:Mimitanimoto
- User:Sara Ellis
- User:Bella.wills
Trainers
2011 briefing note
I prepared a briefing note back last year, and thought that sharing a slightly redacted version for this workshop would make sense, so we have some continuity of vision.
From: Fae Date: 30 August 2011 Subject: Info: Society of Biology coordination meeting Hi, I had an enjoyable chat this afternoon with [JSS] and [AT] about the internal event for Member Organizations of the Society of Biology. [Detail redacted] The workshop would be for an afternoon around 16 engaged people who are likely to be coming armed with questions and ideas for how to get programmes underway with their own institutions [detail redacted]. From the Wikimedia side we would provide a presentation on * how review works (inc. article quality assessment and impact of GA, FA, DYK) * issues around the development of content, * public impact, * a summary of the different projects and their state/importance (i.e. Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, Commons and the 270 Wikipedia languages). The level of workshop or presentations would be at "train the trainers" or internet savvy with a dose of case study reality to ensure expectations for outcomes are realistic and measurable. The flow would be: * Introduction, gather interests * Presentations * Breakout into facilitated work groups around interests * Summary session and next steps Our chat was around 2 hours and very enthusiastic. [Detail redacted] I would like to see a ratio of 1 experienced Wikimedian facilitator to 4 workshop attendees, this would give us the ability to go through case studies and examples in detail. Bouncing off the wall and may or may not form part of the afternoon depending on who registers would be topics such as: * Media (journalists) * COI and experts * Peer review * Academic sources vs. sources of public accessibility * OR, SYNTH, SPS, BIAS, WEIGHT... * Choosing articles of maximum public impact * Recentism and the long view * Where do databases go? * Open publishing * Organizational policies for copyright and access * Managing e-volunteer engagement PS *Charles Darwin House provides a super venue for follow on events or workshops with a maximum conference capacity of 140. *There are 2,000 Fellows, we would only need one or two to help with ensuring better public outreach and their names would have significant impact in the academic community. *16 is an ideal number, if there was a lot more interest we may re-negotiate how the event could work, though this might need rather more preparation and discussion. [Detail redacted]