The probability of one of the students taking an article to FA in a month is as close to zero as it can be. In this sense I would eliminate the mention of publishing in JMIR.-- Garrondo ( talk) 08:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Shooting for FA criteria within a month is rarely attainable on a medical article (which are much harder to write than some of the average cookie-cutter, poorly written articles making it routinely through FAC these days) even for an experienced editor, and it is highly doubtful that a new editor can attain that. But these instructions have a bigger problem: they are opening up the potential that FAC will be flooded with unprepared articles, which will be summarily dismissed and archived (please review the FAC instructions). Articles cannot be at both GAN and FAC at the same time, and ideally (since these are new editors) would go to peer review first, which can easily take a month. Yes, going through these processes is "likely beyond the scope of the timeline", but more concretely, it is definitely beyond the scope of the timeline, new editors should be encouraged to get a peer review first, and to possibly approach GAN if the PR goes well. Experienced editors often bypass GAN, but that would not be a wise course for a new medical editor-- these instructions are misleading in a way that may frustrate participants and lead to unrealistic expectations of how content review processes work. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)You should obtain the good article criteria and shoot for even the featured article critera by the end of the month. (Having your article formally go through both of these processes is likely beyond the scope of the timeline of the assignment. But please feel free to continue to improve "your" articles, if you enjoy the place.)
I'd like to know which Wikipedians are in charge of helping this course page be helpful. 'Cause I just made some changes. Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Is there a link to the 100 articles in the pipeline for translation? Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I could detail an agenda and James and Jake maybe you could detail an agenda so we don't plan to overlap. Maybe it would be best for me to drop to 30 minutes but I guess we should see what we're going to say first. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Things I'm thinking are important to mention that I will get to if you don't mention them before me are WP:HELP, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDMOS, WT:MED, WP:MEDRS (but of course I you'll hit this with secondary), and possibly mention a pipeline to publishing? I'm sure I'll think of others before the meeting. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
wp:simpleintro. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
"This course seeks to benefit the world by giving the general public and health-care professionals a text they can all read, appreciate, and respect, free of charge." We should put it in a quote box for emphasis. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I know I need to give Dr. Azzam the course instructor right still. We mutually assigned each other tasks. And the WP:Training for educators was a Dr. Azzam task. Also I would ask that Dr. Azzam read WP:INSTRUCTORS, though he should know much of that already (and much of it is geared more towards undergraduate courses). Dr. Azzam, when you have taken the training and read the few paragraphs there I will grant you the user right. =) Best regards. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Noted at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#WMFlabs.org. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
If we have 8 students and each one has an Ambassador, why can't we get 4 featured articles at the end of the month? User:jbmurray? Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
First, because it relied on one Wiki-exceptional, experienced and committed professor (Jbmurray), but more significantly, because it relied on the entire FA community at the time. WP:FAT brought in almost every writer involved in the FA community at the time of those FAs to help, to the extent that I was at the time most concerned about the drain on resources as it impacted other FACs. Without the large number of helpers (no, not just an ambassador), it is unknown whether those FAs could have happened. In theory, getting the same large number of experienced writers around an experienced leader such as Doc James could possibly result in same ... except ... as of a few years ago, there is no longer a committed cadre of writers involved in a dynamic FA community as there was at the time Jbmurray's class was active.
And finally, because the FA process is not the same (meaning that the type of critical review that was once common at FAC is no longer, and these students will get better review from WP:MED members), I suggest that new medical editors can be more helpful by just cleaning up the huge amount of garbage that is throughout Wikipedia articles, even medical ones, and that seeking the "reward" of a bronze star isn't necessarily the most helpful use of their time. There is much to be done-- the bronze star is good for a medical editor to aim for as they become experienced and want to dedicate days, weeks and months to one article, but in the interim, there are so many more ways to be helpful.
And, these new editors should be aware that you don't just "get" an article to FA status once and expect it to stay there-- the commitment to keeping it there has to be there, as medical articles can quickly deteriorate if not tended. If they get an article through a successful peer review, maybe even GA, and if they still want to stick around Wikipedia, then they may be ready for approaching FA. (It might be noted that, as of the last time I checked, not a single one of Jbmurray's students was still editing, so it falls to him to keep those FAs updated.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
My experience is with medical FAs like Tourette syndrome (TS), schizophrenia, autism, Asperger syndrome (constant new developments in this realm), and tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is hit by every Randy from Boise (Tom, Dick and Harry), took round-the-clock tending, fell into disrepair after the departure of Tim Vickers, and (I believe) ended up defeatured. The autism spectrum and schizophrenia are hit by all kinds of ill-informed edits, and there are at least half a dozen editors who watch them constantly. TS-- just going through doing the updates for the new DSM5 and the fact that European guidelines were finally written is going to take me about a month of four hour days. I cannot say that any of these articles are typical of an article like common cold, so I can't say if my experience translates. I suspect that articles in the neuropsych realm are more subject to damage from Randy from Boise.
On the other hand, tuberculosis proved to be harder to maintain than TS, so perhaps even some of the more routine (meaning, longer established as a diagnosis) articles would be just as hard to maintain as the neuropsych articles.
And then, articles on topics like AIDS ...
Then, the matter of whether editors have journal access (I am slowed down these days because I no longer live close to a medical library.)
So, all-in-all, I think a very wild speculative guess would be that we need at least a half dozen, committed, knowledgeable editors with journal access for ongoing maintenance for each article, and that each of those editors might need to spend about two hours per week (if the vigilance is constant). But that is a really wild guess ... too many factors. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Dr. Amin was curious about how to evaluate the students after they finish. Is there any wisdom here? Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Good luck on all this! Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 02:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Are there WP:Featured articles (FAs) or WP:Good articles (GAs) in particular need of updating? Maybe they could be assigned. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is on the list of the 100 potential articles and is a GA. I am most concerned about its sourcing (highly sourced to 2010 European guidelines, while ... how can I say this politely ... the Europeans aren't known for being the center of knowledge in childhood neuropsychiatric disorders) and some of the statements in there. More recent secondary reviews from better known US researchers (think MGH in this case, and other well known US researchers at the front of this field) are available. I'd work on it myself, but since I don't have full journal access, I am limited to what free full text I find. If any of the UCSF crowd is willing to take on the ADHD article, I would be willing to help and guide, but I don't have free full text journal access. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I've volunteered to help a student or two with their work. Can someone please tell me whether my services will be required and, if so, give me a rough timeline (when we begin, when the assignment is due). Do I have the opportunity to opine before "my" students commit to an article? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 05:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Are students still editing articles? I've seen some sporadic activity, but the previously-stated timeline on the project page seemed to indicate that editing would be over by now. I ask because Lesion has endorsed Hepatitis as a WP:WPMED collaboration of the month, and I would advocate for holding off on that if the UCSF students are still editing as part of this project. -- Scray ( talk) 20:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Just thinking out-loud. I wonder if after the articles were finalized, if they could be "locked" (Like the article on George Washigton) only to be altered by an Physician or PhD with proper rights (which could be many, if done correctly)... in addition a certification could be placed above the article with a time stamp or something so that other physicians could actually use it as a reference. I think that this would also incentivise physicians to participate as they know (1) their article will only be updated by a fellow professional (2) use of wikipedia as an accurate medical resource would increase.
Great idea to offer this as a course!
83462 02:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC), MS4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndheathcote ( talk • contribs)
The probability of one of the students taking an article to FA in a month is as close to zero as it can be. In this sense I would eliminate the mention of publishing in JMIR.-- Garrondo ( talk) 08:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Shooting for FA criteria within a month is rarely attainable on a medical article (which are much harder to write than some of the average cookie-cutter, poorly written articles making it routinely through FAC these days) even for an experienced editor, and it is highly doubtful that a new editor can attain that. But these instructions have a bigger problem: they are opening up the potential that FAC will be flooded with unprepared articles, which will be summarily dismissed and archived (please review the FAC instructions). Articles cannot be at both GAN and FAC at the same time, and ideally (since these are new editors) would go to peer review first, which can easily take a month. Yes, going through these processes is "likely beyond the scope of the timeline", but more concretely, it is definitely beyond the scope of the timeline, new editors should be encouraged to get a peer review first, and to possibly approach GAN if the PR goes well. Experienced editors often bypass GAN, but that would not be a wise course for a new medical editor-- these instructions are misleading in a way that may frustrate participants and lead to unrealistic expectations of how content review processes work. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)You should obtain the good article criteria and shoot for even the featured article critera by the end of the month. (Having your article formally go through both of these processes is likely beyond the scope of the timeline of the assignment. But please feel free to continue to improve "your" articles, if you enjoy the place.)
I'd like to know which Wikipedians are in charge of helping this course page be helpful. 'Cause I just made some changes. Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Is there a link to the 100 articles in the pipeline for translation? Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I could detail an agenda and James and Jake maybe you could detail an agenda so we don't plan to overlap. Maybe it would be best for me to drop to 30 minutes but I guess we should see what we're going to say first. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Things I'm thinking are important to mention that I will get to if you don't mention them before me are WP:HELP, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDMOS, WT:MED, WP:MEDRS (but of course I you'll hit this with secondary), and possibly mention a pipeline to publishing? I'm sure I'll think of others before the meeting. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
wp:simpleintro. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
"This course seeks to benefit the world by giving the general public and health-care professionals a text they can all read, appreciate, and respect, free of charge." We should put it in a quote box for emphasis. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I know I need to give Dr. Azzam the course instructor right still. We mutually assigned each other tasks. And the WP:Training for educators was a Dr. Azzam task. Also I would ask that Dr. Azzam read WP:INSTRUCTORS, though he should know much of that already (and much of it is geared more towards undergraduate courses). Dr. Azzam, when you have taken the training and read the few paragraphs there I will grant you the user right. =) Best regards. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Noted at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#WMFlabs.org. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
If we have 8 students and each one has an Ambassador, why can't we get 4 featured articles at the end of the month? User:jbmurray? Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
First, because it relied on one Wiki-exceptional, experienced and committed professor (Jbmurray), but more significantly, because it relied on the entire FA community at the time. WP:FAT brought in almost every writer involved in the FA community at the time of those FAs to help, to the extent that I was at the time most concerned about the drain on resources as it impacted other FACs. Without the large number of helpers (no, not just an ambassador), it is unknown whether those FAs could have happened. In theory, getting the same large number of experienced writers around an experienced leader such as Doc James could possibly result in same ... except ... as of a few years ago, there is no longer a committed cadre of writers involved in a dynamic FA community as there was at the time Jbmurray's class was active.
And finally, because the FA process is not the same (meaning that the type of critical review that was once common at FAC is no longer, and these students will get better review from WP:MED members), I suggest that new medical editors can be more helpful by just cleaning up the huge amount of garbage that is throughout Wikipedia articles, even medical ones, and that seeking the "reward" of a bronze star isn't necessarily the most helpful use of their time. There is much to be done-- the bronze star is good for a medical editor to aim for as they become experienced and want to dedicate days, weeks and months to one article, but in the interim, there are so many more ways to be helpful.
And, these new editors should be aware that you don't just "get" an article to FA status once and expect it to stay there-- the commitment to keeping it there has to be there, as medical articles can quickly deteriorate if not tended. If they get an article through a successful peer review, maybe even GA, and if they still want to stick around Wikipedia, then they may be ready for approaching FA. (It might be noted that, as of the last time I checked, not a single one of Jbmurray's students was still editing, so it falls to him to keep those FAs updated.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
My experience is with medical FAs like Tourette syndrome (TS), schizophrenia, autism, Asperger syndrome (constant new developments in this realm), and tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is hit by every Randy from Boise (Tom, Dick and Harry), took round-the-clock tending, fell into disrepair after the departure of Tim Vickers, and (I believe) ended up defeatured. The autism spectrum and schizophrenia are hit by all kinds of ill-informed edits, and there are at least half a dozen editors who watch them constantly. TS-- just going through doing the updates for the new DSM5 and the fact that European guidelines were finally written is going to take me about a month of four hour days. I cannot say that any of these articles are typical of an article like common cold, so I can't say if my experience translates. I suspect that articles in the neuropsych realm are more subject to damage from Randy from Boise.
On the other hand, tuberculosis proved to be harder to maintain than TS, so perhaps even some of the more routine (meaning, longer established as a diagnosis) articles would be just as hard to maintain as the neuropsych articles.
And then, articles on topics like AIDS ...
Then, the matter of whether editors have journal access (I am slowed down these days because I no longer live close to a medical library.)
So, all-in-all, I think a very wild speculative guess would be that we need at least a half dozen, committed, knowledgeable editors with journal access for ongoing maintenance for each article, and that each of those editors might need to spend about two hours per week (if the vigilance is constant). But that is a really wild guess ... too many factors. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Dr. Amin was curious about how to evaluate the students after they finish. Is there any wisdom here? Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Good luck on all this! Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 02:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Are there WP:Featured articles (FAs) or WP:Good articles (GAs) in particular need of updating? Maybe they could be assigned. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is on the list of the 100 potential articles and is a GA. I am most concerned about its sourcing (highly sourced to 2010 European guidelines, while ... how can I say this politely ... the Europeans aren't known for being the center of knowledge in childhood neuropsychiatric disorders) and some of the statements in there. More recent secondary reviews from better known US researchers (think MGH in this case, and other well known US researchers at the front of this field) are available. I'd work on it myself, but since I don't have full journal access, I am limited to what free full text I find. If any of the UCSF crowd is willing to take on the ADHD article, I would be willing to help and guide, but I don't have free full text journal access. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I've volunteered to help a student or two with their work. Can someone please tell me whether my services will be required and, if so, give me a rough timeline (when we begin, when the assignment is due). Do I have the opportunity to opine before "my" students commit to an article? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 05:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Are students still editing articles? I've seen some sporadic activity, but the previously-stated timeline on the project page seemed to indicate that editing would be over by now. I ask because Lesion has endorsed Hepatitis as a WP:WPMED collaboration of the month, and I would advocate for holding off on that if the UCSF students are still editing as part of this project. -- Scray ( talk) 20:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Just thinking out-loud. I wonder if after the articles were finalized, if they could be "locked" (Like the article on George Washigton) only to be altered by an Physician or PhD with proper rights (which could be many, if done correctly)... in addition a certification could be placed above the article with a time stamp or something so that other physicians could actually use it as a reference. I think that this would also incentivise physicians to participate as they know (1) their article will only be updated by a fellow professional (2) use of wikipedia as an accurate medical resource would increase.
Great idea to offer this as a course!
83462 02:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC), MS4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndheathcote ( talk • contribs)