This looks like something where an experienced wikimedian with interest
in libraries and/or open access could fit.
Federico
-------- Messaggio inoltrato --------
Oggetto: [SCHOLCOMM] Job Posting: Opportunity at the NIH Library: Data
Services Informationist
Data: Thu, 23 May 2019 13:43:48 +0000
Mittente: "Belter, Christopher (NIH/OD/ORS) [E]"
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Library is pleased to announce
an exciting employment opportunity for an exceptional candidate to serve
as an informationist and lead the Library’s data services program. If
you have experience providing information and data services in a
biomedical library setting and want to play a significant role in a
dynamic organization, then consider joining the NIH Library team. This
is a GS-11/12/13, Technical Information Specialist position. For more
information, visit https://www.nihlibrary.nih.gov/services/data.
We expect to announce this vacancy on USAJOBS.gov on May 28, 2019, and
the application will be open for 10 calendar days. The application
period reflects the NIH’s effort to hire talented people quickly. You
may preview the draft announcements now at
https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/534055900/ and
https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/534056100/ but you will not
be able to apply until May 28th.
We encourage you to create or update your USAJOBS.gov account and
profile now so you will be ready to apply when this job is announced.
As part of the application process, it may be necessary to upload copies
of degree transcripts. We also encourage you to set up email
notifications for job announcements. Please visit the USAJOBS.gov Help
Center at https://www.usajobs.gov/Help/faq/ for more information.
Thank you for helping spread the word to others who may be interested.
Major responsibilities of the position are as follows.
Responsibilities
• Serves as lead and subject matter expert for the Library’s data
services program
• Assesses NIH researchers’ training needs in the areas of data
management, data visualization, data analysis, and R and Python programming
• Develops and delivers graduate-level training to meet identified needs
• Provides one-on-one advice and consultations in the areas of data science
• Assists NIH researchers in using the NIH Library’s data sciences
workstation, which offers a suite of tools for data analysis,
processing, and visualization for a variety of different types of data
• Consults and collaborates with NIH staff to aid them in locating,
accessing, identifying, and managing information
• Performs outreach across NIH and HHS to understand users’ information
needs and markets library services and resources that meet those needs
Contact Margaret McGhee at margaret.mcghee(a)nih.gov or (301) 451-9335 for
more information.
Chris Belter, MLS
Dear Librarians and Library Lovers,
#1Lib1Ref begins Tuesday January 15th! Imagine a world in which every
librarian added 1 more reference to Wikipedia...
Check out the new campaign homepage at *http://1lib1ref.org*
<http://1lib1ref.org>. We’ve added new resources for both editing
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wikipedia_Library/1Lib1Ref…>
and organizing
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wikipedia_Library/1Lib1Ref…>
.
Our goal is to make this year’s campaign as inclusive and expansive as
possible. Stay in touch by using the campaign hashtag #1Lib1Ref on social
media. You can reach out to the organizers any time at
1lib1ref(a)lists.wikimedia.org.
Happy birthday Wikipedia, and Happy #1Lib1Ref!
-Jake Orlowitz
The Wikipedia Library, WIkimedia Foundation
Dear Librarians and Library Lovers:
#1Lib1Ref
<https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/1lib1ref?source=feed_text&epa=HASHTAG> is
happening again from January 15th through February 5th! Imagine a world in
which every librarian added 1 more reference to Wikipedia...
We want you to make #1Lib1Ref your own! Adapt the subject area or type for
your community, region, and language. Run events when it works for you.
Also, try Citation Hunt’s new “Intersections” feature to preload topics
that you select and care about (http://citationhunt.org
<http://citationhunt.org/?fbclid=IwAR3-jEL52VBjSH-cb85C5-UlvruNxDelRkwXT0Cnu…>
)
Check out the new campaign homepage: http://1lib1ref.org.
<https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2F1lib1ref.org%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR…>
We’ve
added new resources for both editing and organizing.
Our goal is to make this year’s campaign as inclusive and expansive as
possible. We are working with a global team of ambassadors, affiliates,
champions, and amplifiers. Everyone can play a part in making Wikimedia
more reliable.
Stay in touch by using the campaign hashtag #1Lib1Ref on social media. You
can reach out to the organizers any time at 1lib1ref(a)lists.wikimedia.org.
Happy holidays and happy #1Lib1Ref!
-The Wikipedia Library and the 1Lib1Ref Global Ambassadors
p.s. Please share/post/retweet in your networks to help spread the word :)
[image: 1lib1ref-may2018.png]
Dear Gabriele, dear all,
So you're ontologists. I suppose (hope) you enable researchers to produce
their articles as semantic content. But I'm curious on how you enable
fuzziness in knowledge production.
Would end point querying be available ?
I saw you put a F1000 reference in you email. I recall having worked on
that during my thesis.
(french) "*F1000Research* publie sous licence CC-BY et *requière* des *APC*
de *1000 USD HT* pour des articles *entre 2500 et 8000 mots*. 1000 USD de
plus sont exigés au delà de cette limite et il faut les contacter au delà
de 15000 mots." (my thesis, git repos linked in signature)
Would you grant us the pleasure of showing us the 'business model' of QEIOS
? I'd like to understand how this young firm
<https://opengovuk.com/company/10826076> of yours as reached the "9M active
researchers", "2.8M articles" and "1.5T *expenditure*" (and just for the
record, 1.5T, a trillion and a half of what ? USD, £ ?)
*M a mega, T a trillion, so should we guess for a F1000Research - like
business model, with Author Publication Charges (APC) about around
500(monetary unit) / article ?*
I let wikimedians do the math of *their* number of articles divided by
their total charges (understanding the limits in comparing 1st source and
encyclopedia production) to 'ponder' if F1000 and/or QEIOS rank as
"predatory publication" according to "raw cost" of sustaining a massive
publication structure. One should also take into account that many
universities grant "server" space for their 'workers' as well as archives
(for green OA as for grey production)...
You claim on your site that "Qeios
<https://www.qeios.com/read/definition/307> can be read 100% free by
anyone. There are no economic and technological barriers between knowledge
and people with Internet access.", but that does not tell us how it is
funded and about barriers in producing knowledge (not only reading others).
I still do not understand why researchers don't switch to wikimedian-like
productions. Or more precisely, I understand and strongly disagree on *why*
they continue feeding such a system of theirs. At least, I'd expect wide
margins of our social group to "fork" production-review-dissemination
systems (poorly funded universities or disciplines, strongly fundamentals
'math'-geeks, computer scientists working opensource-style etc.). I came to
the conclusion (while reading Bourdieu) that "academia" knows its (social)
reproduction patterns and quietly approve of it, and maintain it. I'm still
waiting for the critical mass.
In case the list is interested, I developed a protocol in my final thesis
chapter based on wikimedian space:
* descriptions in English (chinese and french) versions under common
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:JSL?uselang=fr>
* french project under wikiversité Journal Scientifique Libre
<https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Projet:Journal_scientifique_libre>
BR
Rudy, RP87
*CordialementRudy Patard <rudy.patard(a)gmail.com>*
*{{u|RP87 <https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Utilisateur:RP87>}}*
Coopérateur Optéos, commoner,
Développeur de techniques intermédiaires libres
& Chercheur in-terre-dépendant [hal
<https://cv.archives-ouvertes.fr/rudy-patard>] [youtube
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfpCq9sbJZ9_cgH6NncD8Kg>]
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 15:23, Gabriele - Qeios <gm(a)qeios.com> wrote:
> Dear Wikimedia OA list members,
>
> I’m Gabriele Marinello, co-founder along with Giorgio Bedogni and Alberto
> Bedogni of Qeios (https://www.qeios.com/about
> <https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWJlYzJmZTk1YjYz/Q858w9a4n1bhbpm-VBUtEqcG8…>).
> The reason I’m writing - to share with you what Qeios is about. Hopefully,
> you’ll find this interesting. It goes without saying, it’s about Open
> Science.
>
> We are striving hard to finally give researchers power over the entire
> knowledge life-cycle: production, quality check and sharing. The overall
> result is not just immensely positive for all the stakeholders in the
> process, but also, and most of all, for the output - knowledge. Free,
> better and more comparable/reproducible knowledge.
>
> In short.
>
> We do are applying the power of the community review, as many now do
> (fortunately), but to be faaaar more effective, we are doing this at 2
> different levels: the ingredients and the cake! The ingredients being the
> definitions of which an article, the cake, is made of. We firstly want the
> community to finally reach a consensus on what the best definitions to be
> used are when creating knowledge (a real “Definictionary” for researchers,
> so that they can all speak the same language!), and then let the same
> community openly review the output in terms of articles.
>
> Just to make you a quick example of an “ingredient”: think about the
> definition of “Quality of Life” (QoL), essential metric when evaluating
> almost any medical treatment (what is medicine fighting for?); there are
> thousands of different definitions of QoL… and anyone is using the one
> which is best suited to his/her p-value… in short, anyone is speaking the
> language which can benefit most to him/her.
>
> And a research article is made of hundreds of definitions… and for each
> there are dozens of variants... we can now easily understand how
> incomparable can be 2 articles that are trying to find an answer to the
> same question (e.g. what is the best treatment for Depression?), each being
> made of its unique mix of definitions... and it is precisely here that the
> indecision and inconclusiveness of the research arise: we are not able, in
> almost all cases, to say "treatment A is better than treatment B" simply
> because the 2 papers, the 2 studies, are not comparable!
>
> Articles and definitions are composed and published directly on the
> platform (and Qeios editor is satisfying like never before ; )). This is
> the most suitable way to take advantage of the new object “definition” in
> producing the best possible knowledge: the rating system built on
> definitions allows in fact researchers the assisted-choice of the best
> ingredients to use when composing their articles... and if now anyone can
> easily recognise the best definitions, articles will be automatically
> composed more homogeneously, which means more comparable/reproducible
> research.
>
> Researchers have the power, let’s use that power!
>
> For those who are not familiar with the open post-publication peer review
> (i.e. community review), I wouldn’t be able to give a better insight into
> its value than Andrew Gelman here:
> https://andrewgelman.com/2016/02/01/peer-review-make-no-damn-sense/
> <https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWJlYzJmZTk1YjYz/Q858w9a4n1bhbpm-VBUtEqcG8…>.
> To better understand what the guiding principles of the Qeios philosophy
> are, I would also suggest these articles by Jon Tennant et al. and Jason
> Priem: https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1151/v3
> <https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWJlYzJmZTk1YjYz/Q858w9a4n1bhbpm-VBUtEqcG8…>
> ; https://www.nature.com/articles/495437a
> <https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWJlYzJmZTk1YjYz/Q858w9a4n1bhbpm-VBUtEqcG8…>
> .
>
> In the words of Einstein: "Only the individual can think, and thereby
> create new values for society — nay, even set up new moral standards to
> which the life of the community conforms. Without creative, independently
> thinking and judging personalities the upward development of society is as
> unthinkable as the development of the individual personality without the
> nourishing soil of the community.” We defend the creativeness of the
> individual in the same way as we support the value that only the community
> can add.
>
> If you are curious, you can find a video and more information here:
> https://www.qeios.com/about
> <https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWJlYzJmZTk1YjYz/Q858w9a4n1bhbpm-VBUtEqcG8…>
>
> If then you are interested, you can sign up using an invitation link, here
> is Giorgio’s: https://www.qeios.com/invitation-to-join/researcher/314
> <https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWJlYzJmZTk1YjYz/Q858w9a4n1bhbpm-VBUtEqcG8…>
>
> If you have any questions/doubts or feedback, feel free to drop me an
> email at gm(a)qeios.com or call me at +39 380 8912791.
>
> Wishing you all a wonderful week,
>
> Gabriele
>
> —
> Gabriele Marinello
> Co-founder, Qeios Ltd
>
> 34, Old Barrack Yard, SW1X 7NP, London, UK
> UK +44 (0) 7426 853828
> IT +39 380 8912791
> gm(a)qeios.com
> www.qeios.com
>
Dear Gabriele,
- Thank you for the clarification. I forgot the order of magnitude
available from http://data.uis.unesco.org/# I apologize for this lack of
perspective of mine. A quote of UNESCO's source would be a minimum
requirement for a resource dedicated toward researchers I suppose.
- Precision on the business model (free basic, fee on "premium" etc.) could
be useful, (comparison to alternatives such as COS <https://cos.io/> too.
But there's still a question :
- How does it relate to Wikimedia ?
*Does QEIOS intend to disseminate under CC-BY-SA all content produced /
stored with its service ?*
And more specifically and "wikimedianly"
*Would applying semantic content (with semantic media wiki for instance) to
wikijournals (wikiversity), not be a wider strategy ?*
*BR*
*Rudy*
*CordialementRudy Patard <rudy.patard(a)gmail.com>*
*{{u|RP87 <https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Utilisateur:RP87>}}*
Coopérateur Optéos, commoner,
Développeur de techniques intermédiaires libres
& Chercheur in-terre-dépendant [hal
<https://cv.archives-ouvertes.fr/rudy-patard>] [youtube
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfpCq9sbJZ9_cgH6NncD8Kg>]
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 19:37, Gabriele - Qeios <gm(a)qeios.com> wrote:
> Dear Rudy, dear all,
>
> thank you for your email.
>
> - Qeios’ text editor is a visual editor specifically designed for
> researchers.
>
> - “9M active researchers around the world”, “2.8M articles published per
> year” and “1.5T global R&D expenditure per year” [1.5 trillion PPP
> (purchasing power parity) dollars] are UNESCO figures about the scientific
> community, not Qeios’ numbers. We have just launched Qeios Beta and started
> inviting researchers. Qeios’ community counts now 120 researchers. We
> didn’t think those figures could be confusing. Thank you for the feedback.
>
> - So far, Qeios have been funded by co-founders’ personal savings + money
> from a couple of knowledge-enthusiasts. To make it self-sustainable, stable
> and allow for improvements, we are planning to apply a monthly fee of $10
> to access some services such as Qeios’ text editor and storage, depending
> on their usage. There won’t be advertisements, APCs or any other hidden
> expenses.
>
> We are just offering a possible solution and trying to make research
> better.
>
> Feedback of any type is much appreciated.
>
> Many thanks and all the best,
>
> Gabriele
>
> —
> Gabriele Marinello
> Co-founder, Qeios Ltd
>
> 34, Old Barrack Yard, SW1X 7NP, London, UK
> UK +44 (0) 7426 853828
> IT +39 380 8912791
> gm(a)qeios.com
> www.qeios.com
>
> On Wed, Nov 14th, 2018 at 7:21 PM, Rudy Patard <rudy.patard(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Gabriele, dear all,
>>
>> So you're ontologists. I suppose (hope) you enable researchers to produce
>> their articles as semantic content. But I'm curious on how you enable
>> fuzziness in knowledge production.
>> Would end point querying be available ?
>>
>> I saw you put a F1000 reference in you email. I recall having worked on
>> that during my thesis.
>> (french) "*F1000Research* publie sous licence CC-BY et *requière* des
>> *APC* de *1000 USD HT* pour des articles *entre 2500 et 8000 mots*. 1000
>> USD de plus sont exigés au delà de cette limite et il faut les contacter au
>> delà de 15000 mots." (my thesis, git repos linked in signature)
>> Would you grant us the pleasure of showing us the 'business model' of
>> QEIOS ? I'd like to understand how this young firm
>> <https://opengovuk.com/company/10826076> of yours as reached the "9M
>> active researchers", "2.8M articles" and "1.5T *expenditure*" (and just
>> for the record, 1.5T, a trillion and a half of what ? USD, £ ?)
>> *M a mega, T a trillion, so should we guess for a F1000Research - like
>> business model, with Author Publication Charges (APC) about around
>> 500(monetary unit) / article ?*
>> I let wikimedians do the math of *their* number of articles divided by
>> their total charges (understanding the limits in comparing 1st source and
>> encyclopedia production) to 'ponder' if F1000 and/or QEIOS rank as
>> "predatory publication" according to "raw cost" of sustaining a massive
>> publication structure. One should also take into account that many
>> universities grant "server" space for their 'workers' as well as archives
>> (for green OA as for grey production)...
>> You claim on your site that "Qeios
>> <https://www.qeios.com/read/definition/307> can be read 100% free by
>> anyone. There are no economic and technological barriers between knowledge
>> and people with Internet access.", but that does not tell us how it is
>> funded and about barriers in producing knowledge (not only reading others).
>>
>> I still do not understand why researchers don't switch to wikimedian-like
>> productions. Or more precisely, I understand and strongly disagree on
>> *why* they continue feeding such a system of theirs. At least, I'd
>> expect wide margins of our social group to "fork"
>> production-review-dissemination systems (poorly funded universities or
>> disciplines, strongly fundamentals 'math'-geeks, computer scientists
>> working opensource-style etc.). I came to the conclusion (while reading
>> Bourdieu) that "academia" knows its (social) reproduction patterns and
>> quietly approve of it, and maintain it. I'm still waiting for the critical
>> mass.
>>
>> In case the list is interested, I developed a protocol in my final thesis
>> chapter based on wikimedian space:
>> * descriptions in English (chinese and french) versions under common
>> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:JSL?uselang=fr>
>> * french project under wikiversité Journal Scientifique Libre
>> <https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Projet:Journal_scientifique_libre>
>>
>> BR
>> Rudy, RP87
>>
>>
>> *CordialementRudy Patard <rudy.patard(a)gmail.com>*
>>
>> *{{u|RP87 <https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Utilisateur:RP87>}}*
>>
>> Coopérateur Optéos, commoner,
>> Développeur de techniques intermédiaires libres
>> & Chercheur in-terre-dépendant [hal
>> <https://cv.archives-ouvertes.fr/rudy-patard>] [youtube
>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfpCq9sbJZ9_cgH6NncD8Kg>]
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 15:23, Gabriele - Qeios <gm(a)qeios.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Wikimedia OA list members,
>>
>> I’m Gabriele Marinello, co-founder along with Giorgio Bedogni and Alberto
>> Bedogni of Qeios (https://www.qeios.com/about
>> <https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWJlYzJmZTk1YjYz/Q858w9a4n1bhbpm-VBUtEqcG8…>).
>> The reason I’m writing - to share with you what Qeios is about. Hopefully,
>> you’ll find this interesting. It goes without saying, it’s about Open
>> Science.
>>
>> We are striving hard to finally give researchers power over the entire
>> knowledge life-cycle: production, quality check and sharing. The overall
>> result is not just immensely positive for all the stakeholders in the
>> process, but also, and most of all, for the output - knowledge. Free,
>> better and more comparable/reproducible knowledge.
>>
>> In short.
>>
>> We do are applying the power of the community review, as many now do
>> (fortunately), but to be faaaar more effective, we are doing this at 2
>> different levels: the ingredients and the cake! The ingredients being the
>> definitions of which an article, the cake, is made of. We firstly want the
>> community to finally reach a consensus on what the best definitions to be
>> used are when creating knowledge (a real “Definictionary” for researchers,
>> so that they can all speak the same language!), and then let the same
>> community openly review the output in terms of articles.
>>
>> Just to make you a quick example of an “ingredient”: think about the
>> definition of “Quality of Life” (QoL), essential metric when evaluating
>> almost any medical treatment (what is medicine fighting for?); there are
>> thousands of different definitions of QoL… and anyone is using the one
>> which is best suited to his/her p-value… in short, anyone is speaking the
>> language which can benefit most to him/her.
>>
>> And a research article is made of hundreds of definitions… and for each
>> there are dozens of variants... we can now easily understand how
>> incomparable can be 2 articles that are trying to find an answer to the
>> same question (e.g. what is the best treatment for Depression?), each being
>> made of its unique mix of definitions... and it is precisely here that the
>> indecision and inconclusiveness of the research arise: we are not able, in
>> almost all cases, to say "treatment A is better than treatment B" simply
>> because the 2 papers, the 2 studies, are not comparable!
>>
>> Articles and definitions are composed and published directly on the
>> platform (and Qeios editor is satisfying like never before ; )). This is
>> the most suitable way to take advantage of the new object “definition” in
>> producing the best possible knowledge: the rating system built on
>> definitions allows in fact researchers the assisted-choice of the best
>> ingredients to use when composing their articles... and if now anyone can
>> easily recognise the best definitions, articles will be automatically
>> composed more homogeneously, which means more comparable/reproducible
>> research.
>>
>> Researchers have the power, let’s use that power!
>>
>> For those who are not familiar with the open post-publication peer review
>> (i.e. community review), I wouldn’t be able to give a better insight into
>> its value than Andrew Gelman here:
>> https://andrewgelman.com/2016/02/01/peer-review-make-no-damn-sense/
>> <https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWJlYzJmZTk1YjYz/Q858w9a4n1bhbpm-VBUtEqcG8…>.
>> To better understand what the guiding principles of the Qeios philosophy
>> are, I would also suggest these articles by Jon Tennant et al. and Jason
>> Priem: https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1151/v3
>> <https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWJlYzJmZTk1YjYz/Q858w9a4n1bhbpm-VBUtEqcG8…>
>> ; https://www.nature.com/articles/495437a
>> <https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWJlYzJmZTk1YjYz/Q858w9a4n1bhbpm-VBUtEqcG8…>
>> .
>>
>> In the words of Einstein: "Only the individual can think, and thereby
>> create new values for society — nay, even set up new moral standards to
>> which the life of the community conforms. Without creative, independently
>> thinking and judging personalities the upward development of society is as
>> unthinkable as the development of the individual personality without the
>> nourishing soil of the community.” We defend the creativeness of the
>> individual in the same way as we support the value that only the community
>> can add.
>>
>> If you are curious, you can find a video and more information here:
>> https://www.qeios.com/about
>> <https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWJlYzJmZTk1YjYz/Q858w9a4n1bhbpm-VBUtEqcG8…>
>>
>> If then you are interested, you can sign up using an invitation link,
>> here is Giorgio’s:
>> https://www.qeios.com/invitation-to-join/researcher/314
>> <https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWJlYzJmZTk1YjYz/Q858w9a4n1bhbpm-VBUtEqcG8…>
>>
>> If you have any questions/doubts or feedback, feel free to drop me an
>> email at gm(a)qeios.com or call me at +39 380 8912791.
>>
>> Wishing you all a wonderful week,
>>
>> Gabriele
>>
>> —
>> Gabriele Marinello
>> Co-founder, Qeios Ltd
>>
>> 34, Old Barrack Yard, SW1X 7NP, London, UK
>> UK +44 (0) 7426 853828
>> IT +39 380 8912791
>> gm(a)qeios.com
>> www.qeios.com
>>
>>
>
Hey folks!
For Open Access Week 2018 we're running the Wikipedia Library's OAbot.org
campaign again. OAbot is a simple tool that helps you find a paywalled
citation on Wikipedia and add a free-to-read linked version in the
reference. Here's how you can help:
1) TRY THE TOOL YOURSELF
Just follow the steps at OAbot.org. This one is self-explanatory. You
can see where you fall on the leaderboard here:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/oabot/stats
2) SPREAD THE CAMPAIGN ON SOCIAL MEDIA (SAMPLE MESSAGES YOU CAN USE):
- Many hands make light work. Clear the backlog of paywalled citations
on @Wikipedia without a free-to-read alternative link. OAbot.org
- What's better than a citation on @Wikipedia? A citation you can
access, read, and verify. Make it happen: OAbot.org
- This OAweek, make a dent in the scholarly universe by making just one
@Wikipedia citation free-to-read. Our OAbot.org tool will show you a
reference and help you add it to Wikipedia. Try it out!
- Wikipedia can only truly share the sum of human knowledge if people
can read its references! Make our shared mission reality by adding
free-to-read links into paywalled citations using OAbot.org!
- What if every scholarly reference on @Wikipedia included a link to a
free-to-read version, preprint, or author-hosted manuscript? You can make
it happen with OAbot.org!
- We think we've found an open access version of an article cited on
Wikipedia! Can you review our guess and edit @Wikipedia to include a link
to it? OAbot.org
- Imagine if every citation on @Wikipedia was free to read. You can get
us closer to that goal with OAbot.org!
- OAbot.org has made nearly 6,000 citations accessible to @Wikipedia
readers. Can we double that this year? tools.wmflabs.org/oabot/stats
- A recent study found that 60% of scholarly citations on @Wikipedia are
*not* free for readers to access. Let's change that with OAbot.org
Good hashtags to include: #openaccess #oaweek #wikicite. If you could
please share just one of these in the next week from your social media
account it would amplify the campaign all over the world.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia more reliable and more verifiable for
everyone!
Best,
Jake Orlowitz
Wikipedia Library
Wikimedia Foundation
"We remain convinced that, given the current level and status of data
availability, using proprietary data is a necessity in order to provide
timely, relevant indicators"
"We will use Unpaywall data alongside Scopus data."
I'm not sure what coverage they're talking about. If it's about Elsevier
not being in I4OC, well that's easy to fix if they wish.
Federico
-------- Messaggio inoltrato --------
Oggetto: Open Science Monitor - the new methodology has been released
Data: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:35:34 +0200
Mittente: Jakimowicz, Katarzyna
Dear Expert,
The new methodology for Open Science Monitor has just been released:
https://medium.com/@osimod/an-updated-methodology-for-the-open-science-moni…
On behalf of the Open Science Monitor team, I would like to thank you
for your comments regarding Open Science Monitor methodology. Your
contributions have helped us refine the methodology in order to provide
better data to support open science policy.
Kind regards,
--
Katarzyna Jakimowicz
Associate Director
The Lisbon Council asbl____
We're thrilled to announce that applications to attend WikiCite 2018 are
now open <https://goo.gl/forms/hV6rXRCdQ3fAK9v13>.
[image: WikiCite 2018.png]
WikiCite 2018 <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2018> is a 3-day
conference, summit, and hack day dedicated to the vision of creating an
open repository of bibliographic data to support the citation and
fact-checking needs of Wikimedia projects, and possibly, to serve as an
open infrastructure for research, education, and information quality across
the web.
WikiCite 2018 expands efforts started with WikiCite 2016
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2016> and WikiCite 2017
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2017> to explore these
possibilities by leveraging Wikidata—Wikimedia’s structured knowledge
base—and to develop open source tools to improve citation management and
verifiability strategies for free knowledge. Since then, the amount of
bibliographic data in Wikidata has grown exponentially, allowing us to
glimpse the possibilities of a truly open, universal library and citation
graph, while also exposing significant social and technical challenges.
This year presents a pivotal moment for WikiCite, wherein its emergent
community — consisting of Wikimedians, librarians, LODLAM practitioners,
software engineers, data scientists, and open knowledge advocates — must
grapple with possible growth scenarios, address critical gaps, and set a
course for the project’s future
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiCite/Roadmap>. If you are
passionate about tending Wikipedia’s root system (references!), or believe
in the broader possibilities of contributing to the bibliographic commons,
WikiCite 2018 presents an unprecedented opportunity to meet fellow dreamers
and hackers, and to help shape this vital effort.
This year’s event will be hosted at the David Brower Center
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brower_Center> in Berkeley,
California, USA, November 27-29, 2018. Applications to attend the event
(including travel support requests
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2018/Travel_funding>) are open
until *September 17, 2018*:
*WikiCite 2018 application form*
<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScfZdLgVZYUQfj99SSeUsj-uwe3BdHgjRQ…>
We hope you will join us!
–The WikiCite 2018 organizing committee
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2018#Organizing_committee>
This application will be conducted via Google Forms—a third-party service,
which may subject it to additional terms. For more information on privacy
and data-handling, see the survey privacy statement
<https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2018_Application_Form_Privac…>
.
Good morning/afternoon/night everyone,
If you are an editor of the French, Italian or English Wikipedia, and you
are curious about how to contribute to technologies for improving
verifiability of Wikipedia articles, please read on—we need your help!
In the context of the Knowledge integrity
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Integrity> program, we (the
WMF Research
team <http://research.wikimedia.org>) are studying ways to flag unsourced
statements needing a citation
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Identification_of_Unsourced_Statem…>
using machine learning, with the aim of identifying areas where adding high
quality citations is particularly urgent or important. Following the
success of the first labeling campaign
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Identification_of_Unsourced_Statem…>,
we now need to collect additional, high-quality labeled data regarding
why sentences
need citations.
You are invited to participate in a second annotation task
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Identification_of_Unsourced_Statem…>.
We used your input from the last experiment to generate a taxonomy of
reasons
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Identification_of_Unsourced_Statem…>
why editors add citations. With this taxonomy now embedded in the
interface, the annotation experience will be much faster and fun.
If you are interested in participating, please go to
http://labels.wmflabs.org/ui/enwiki/ (replace enwiki with itwki or frwiki
if you speak Italian or French), login, and from *'**Labeling Unsourced
Statements II’**,* request one (or more) workset. For each task in a
workset, the tool will show you an unsourced sentence in an article and ask
you to annotate it. You can then label the sentence as needing an inline
citation or not, and specify a reason for your choice from a drop-down
menu. If you can't respond please select 'skip'. You can also sign up by
(optionally) adding your name on this page
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Identification_of_Unsourced_Statem…>
to receive updates about future campaigns and results from this research
If you have any question/comment on this project, please let us know by
contacting miriam(a)wikimedia.org or leaving a message on the talk page of
the project
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Identification_of_Unsourced_S…>.
Thank you for your time!
Miriam and Dario