Grants:PEG/bluerasberry/open access release funding for paper on Wikipedia in classroom/Report
- Did you comply with the requirements specified by WMF in the grant agreement?
- Is your project completed?
Activities and lessons learnedEdit
- Published an article -
- Azzam, Amin; Bresler, David; Leon, Armando; Maggio, Lauren; Whitaker, Evans; Heilman, James; Orlowitz, Jake; Swisher, Valerie; Rasberry, Lane; Otoide, Kingsley; Trotter, Fred; Ross, Will; McCue, Jack D. (2016). "Why Medical Schools Should Embrace Wikipedia". Academic Medicine: 1. ISSN 1040-2446. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001381.
- It is open access, so it is mirrored on-wiki and elsewhere. File:Why Medical Schools Should Embrace Wikipedia.pdf
- It has been remixed as a poster File:Editing Wikipedia for medical school credit - 2016 poster.pdf
- presented to the wiki community in various places
- on the Wikimedia Foundation blog at "Medical school class profiled as case study of Wikipedia Education Program"
- in English Wikipedia's The Signpost at "Case study of Wikimedia Education Program published"
- in English Wikipedia's WikiProject Medicine at archive 87 and archive 90
- The paper was presented at various conferences, including
- Got good impact (top 5%) as calculated by altmetrics
- What worked well?
- Everything went as planned. If a paper like this is published in this way, it will get the extra circulation for being open access and the buzz that the Wikipedia community usually gives to such things.
- What didn't work?
- Many academics are still offended by the mention of wiki, so I and some others got more of the ongoing experience of anti-wiki hostility. Being out in public does that. A lot of Wikipedia community members object to the idea of spending $3900 in an industry that is anti-wiki and seen as oppositional. There is mutual misunderstanding between academia and the wiki community.
- What would you do differently if you planned a similar project?
- I would not have done anything differently with the time I had to invest in this. If I had more time then I might have organized a more intense media push at the time of the paper's publication.
I wrote a new one related to my experience with this grant.
Outcomes and impactEdit
- Provide the original project goal here.
- 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.
- Did you achieve your project goal? How do you know your goal was achieved? Please answer in 1 - 2 short paragraphs.
Progress towards targets and goalsEdit
The project did not begin with any particular expectations, but as of 28 December 2016, here is the altmetrics data for discussions on the paper -
- 14 news outlets
- 2 blogs
- 66 tweeters
- 1 peer review site
- 4 Facebook pages
- 1 Wikipedia page
- 2 Redditors
- 6 Mendeley
The instructions say, "the metrics should all be calculated in the same way, through the standardized use of tools such as Wikimetrics". The publication of an research paper off-wiki is not something which can be measured with Wikimetrics. I think these metrics do not apply.
|1. # of active editors involved||n/a|
|2. # of new editors||n/a|
|3. # of individuals involved||n/a|
|4a. # of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages||0|
|4b. # of new images/media uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (Optional)||2||paper, poster|
|5. # of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects||n/a|
|6. Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects||n/a|
- Learning question
- Did your work increase the motivation of contributors, and how do you know?
- Yes. The most straightforward evidence is a top 5% grade in altmetrics. This grade is supporting evidence that a motivated reader base found value in the work and sought to promote it more than a typical publication.
Option A: How did you increase participation in one or more Wikimedia projects?
- Having an academic paper in circulation makes it possible for more academics to introduce Wikipedia into school environments. Making this paper accessible with open access is a long-term investment in the integration of Wikipedia and universities.
Option B: How did you improve quality on one or more Wikimedia projects?
- Wikipedia's poor reputation presents the quality of its content as much worse than it is. Circulating an academic paper which includes quality assessment of Wikipedia's content improves the subjective quality of all of Wikipedia's content, even if objectively the paper does not change content.
Option C: How did you increase the reach (readership) of one or more Wikimedia projects?
- The paper is confrontational with the medical community. Wikipedia has been the world's most consulted source of health information since about 2007 and this paper is an early step toward facing that reality. The paper is a palatable encroachment into medical schools, which as institutions have been challenging for the Wikipedia community to enter.
Reporting and documentation of expendituresEdit
This section describes the grant's use of funds
- Did you send documentation of all expenses paid with grant funds to grants at wikimedia dot org, according to the guidelines here? Answer "Yes" or "No".
- Please list all project expenses in a table here, with descriptions and dates. Review the instructions here.
|Number||Category||Item description||Unit||Number of units||Actual cost per unit||Actual total||Budgeted total||Currency||Notes|
|1||publishing fee||open access license||per article||1||3900||3000||3000||USD||The fee was actually 3900, not 3000 as planned, and the University of California covered the remaining $900.|
- Total project budget (from your approved grant submission)
- Total amount requested from WMF (from your approved grant submission, this total will be the same as the total project budget if PEG is your only funding source)
- Total amount spent on this project
- Total amount of Project and Event grant funds spent on this project
- Are there additional sources that funded any part of this project? List them here.
- Yes - the University of California covered the remaining $900
- Are there any grant funds remaining?
- Please list the total amount (specify currency) remaining here. (This is the amount you did not use, or the amount you still have after completing your grant.)
- If funds are remaining they must be returned to WMF, reallocated to mission-aligned activities, or applied to another approved grant.
- Please state here if you intend to return unused funds to WMF, submit a request for reallocation, or submit a new grant request, and then follow the instructions on your approved grant submission.
- none left