Open main menu

Grants:PEG/bluerasberry/open access release funding for paper on Wikipedia in classroom

This Wikimedia Foundation grant has a fiscal sponsor. Consumers Union administered the grant on behalf of Lane Rasberry.

statusfunded
bluerasberry/open access release funding for paper on Wikipedia in classroom
I am seeking funding to make an academic paper open access.
targetEnglish Wikipedia
strategic priorityImprove quality
start dateMarch 15
start year2016
end dateJune 01
end year2016
budget (local currency)3000
budget (USD)3000
grant typeIndividual
non-profit statusNo
creatorBluerasberry
contact(s)• lane@bluerasberry.com• Amin.Azzam@ucsf.edu
created on19:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


GoalEdit

I am requesting this grant to cover the fee for open access publication of "Why medical schools should embrace Wikipedia: Analysis of final-year medical student contributions to Wikipedia articles for academic credit at one school". All the work is done. The only thing left is to decide whether to pay $3000 to make it open access. The journal has requested that we not share preprints but we can provide a copy to grant reviewers if they request.

A group of researchers, including me, have already done research, analyzed information, and written an academic paper presenting a case study of the use of the Wikipedia Education Program model in a series of medical school classes. The paper is accepted for publication in Academic Medicine, which is a good journal and an appropriate place for publication.

PlanEdit

ActivitiesEdit

  • Publish paper with open access
  • Distribute it in the following channels
    • English Wikipedia, including The Signpost
    • Wiki Medicine lists and notices
    • Wikipedia Education Program lists and forums
    • All authors will distribute it in their social circles

ImpactEdit

This is the first deep case study of the impact of the Wikipedia Education Program which focuses on using Wikipedia as a way to deliver information to readers. It is a well considered article with excellent authorship, in a good journal, and being promoted by Wikipedians with a history of getting good media attention. This paper could get popular media discussion, and it also sets an academic precedent of presenting the impact of the Wikipedia Education Program in the medical sector.

Target readershipEdit

The most important readership of this piece is medical school faculty and administrative leadership. The paper presents Wikipedia as an information channel worth developing and which merits the attention of medical school staff and students.

Secondarily it improves the profile of Wikipedia generally, because if Wikipedia is good enough for health information (which is the most sensitive sort of communication between experts and the public) then Wikipedia is good enough to share information in any field.

Fit with strategyEdit

What crucial thing will the project try to change or benefit in the Wikimedia movement? Please select the Wikimedia strategic priority(ies) that your project most directly aims to impact and explain how your project fits. Most projects fit all strategic priorites. However, we would like project managers to focus their efforts on impacting 1-2 strategic priorities. Examples of strategic priorities can be found at here.

  • Increasing quality - "Increasing participation by subject matter experts to perform surface and in-depth reviews"

Having academic critique of Wikimedia projects sets a precedent for further academic critique. Critiques of strategies to develop health information are especially useful, considering that Wikipedia's medical content is the most popular subject matter for academic discussion. See en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Research_publications for a list of research publications in this field. This is the first paper examining how medical students can contribute to Wikipedia.

Measures of successEdit

Please provide a list of both quantitative and qualitative criteria that will be used determine how successful the project is. You will need to report on the success of the project according to these measures after the project is completed. See the PEG Program Resources for suggested measures of success. Note: In addition to your project-specific measures of success, you will also be asked to report on some Global Metrics at the end of your final report. Please keep this in mind as you plan, and we'll support you as you begin your project.

The impact of this project will be measured as reach and Citation impact.

Resources and risksEdit

ResourcesEdit

  • Research is done
  • Paper is written
  • Authors are keen to distribute
  • A journal has accepted it for publication
  • Wiki Ed and the Wikipedia Education Program have this paper's outcomes as the premise of their existence

RisksEdit

  • Academic papers are kind of lame
  • Many people just read the abstract
  • $3000 for open access is lame
  • Paper could be challenged as bunk - not true but it happens occasionally

BudgetEdit

Please provide a detailed breakdown of project expenses according to the instructions here. See Budget Guidelines. Grantees are subject to line-item scrutiny of expenses. Changes to the approved budget beyond 10% in any category must be approved in advance.

Project budget tableEdit

USD $3000 -> Academic Medicine in exchange for open access

Total cost of projectEdit

USD $3000

Total amount requestedEdit

USD $3000

Additional sources of revenueEdit

0

Non-financial requirementsEdit

See a description of non financial assistance available. Please inform the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) of any requirements for non-financial assistance now.

WMF blog post opportunity

DiscussionEdit

Community notificationEdit

You are responsible for notifying relevant communities of your proposal, so that they can help you! Depending on your project, notification may be most appropriate on a village pump, talkpage, mailing list. Please paste a link below to where the relevant communities have been notified of this proposal, and to any other relevant community discussions. Need notification tips?

EndorsementsEdit

Do you think this project should be selected for a Project and Event Grant? Please add your name and rationale for endorsing this project in the list below. Other feedback, questions or concerns from community members are also highly valued, but please post them on the talk page of this proposal.

  • I am one of the authors of this manuscript. I believe that creating this elective course for medical students has been the biggest thing both my medical students and I have done to improve human health worldwide. Nothing would make me happier than "copycat-improvements" to our model of embedding Wikipedia-editing into medical school curricula. This manuscript gives me a much greater chance of convincing medical school vice-deans of education or other faculty to embrace improving WIkipedia in service of all their medical student graduates, and all those future physicians' patients. AminMDMA (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • One of the more common questions we at the Wiki Education Foundation field from academics considering teaching with Wikipedia is whether there are journal articles they can consult. Increasing the number of open access articles about Wikipedia will help encourage more academics to engage with direct contributions to the encyclopedia or incorporating it into their classrooms as a teaching tool, improving the quality and quantity of Wikipedia articles. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm on the board of Wiki Project Med. Introducing medical students to Wikipedia is essential, if we're to have enough expert contributors to do the big job ahead of us over the coming years. This article will help get medical schools on board. The choice of journal is perfect. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • In my volunteer capacity, I want to endorse this proposal: we need to be supporting the Wikimedia Community's professional advancement of their work. When it both advances Wikipedia in Education and the Medical communities ability to acknowledge these kinds of activities as scholarly. Medicine is one of the fields which needs validation by peer reviewed journals, and open access publication seems like the only reasonable way to do this (and our grants process is the best way to support that). That being said, the dissemination plan is a little lackluster: I would would want to see a plan for both social media and other professional network dissemination. For example, could you forward the paper to a Medical Library or Med School listservs? Having a professional dissemination plan beyond social circles would be important. Sadads (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Without commenting on this particular grant, for conflict of interest best practices, I just want to disclose that I am one of (several) authors of this paper. As WMF staff, that should be openly disclosed. The paper also notes my Wikipedia Library position in the affiliations. Jake Ocaasi (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Speaking as a Board member of Wiki Project Med Foundation and a Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane, I support this grant request to fund open access publication of this article. I regularly interact with health care professionals who are interested in working with Wikipedia, and they frequently ask for published literature to share with their home institutions. Publication of this paper in a peer reviewed open access journal will add to this body of work. As WiR at Cochrane, I've learned a good bit about dissemination plans for published article, and will happily support a social media strategy to promote the paper as well. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments by Kopiersperre move to discussion page please sign in this section here is you want to endorse --DerekvG (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorsement for research granted by en:UCSF. The researchers presenting this paper won "2016 Academy of Medical Educators Cooke Award for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning" for the research the paper describes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
For grantees

If you are the grantee or representative that wrote this grant submission, you may request changes by using these links: