Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

WikiProject Medicine

Project Page
WPMED Newsletter and signup
Manual of style (medicine)
Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
List of participants
Popular pages
Assessment (Log)

How to help:
Article alerts and resources for editors
Articles for cleanup, deletion, and orphaned
Patrol recent changes and sort stubs
Requested articles

Categories:
Project
Articles by quality and importance

This project page is for organizing the work of the WikiProject Medicine editors and Google reviewers on working together on medicine-related articles.

Initiated at Google.org and then announced at the doctors' mess, this collaboration is intended as an exploration of active cooperation between professional medical editors (hired by the Google Foundation) and any interested Wikipedians to further improve the quality of articles selected by the Google Foundation. Work began with the identification of a short list of articles for review, selected as a cross-section of medicine-related topics. Each article on the list now has an assessed "Class" and "Importance", harvested from its talk-page banner, reflecting Wikipedians' initial assessment of their state.

Google reviewers review the articles, identify problems, and make suggestions for improving the articles. Ultimately, the Google Foundation wants to hire professional translators to translate the best and most relevant medicine-related articles from the English Wikipedia to several Wikipedias in languages other than English. The Spanish, Arabic, and Kiswahili Wikipedias are the first targets.

Next up

Watchlist this page!
Build a task list
Identify collaborators
Choose a name for the collaboration
Determine the review process: should we ask that professional editors follow the WP review process, should we adapt WP review process to their conventions, or a hybrid?

The plan is to assess according to the GA criteria and post the review on the talkpage. The reviewers will have very little time to edit the articles. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Start with a review on one article - which one?
Identify a timeline: Is there a deadline? Should we hand off articles in small groups, or do we need to have them all finished at the same time?

Do you need help?

Wikipedia sometimes seems very complicated, but lots of people are willing to help you figure it out:

Any of the #Participants from WikiProject Medicine listed below can help you with wiki formatting codes, identifying and explaining typical Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and figuring out what happened if something isn't behaving. You can reach a specific participant by clicking on the link to his or her user talk page, and clicking the "new section" message to leave a note for the editor.
You can reach multiple participants at once by clicking on this page's talk page to leave a message.
If you need more help, or want to join the fun, feel free to leave a note at the doctors' mess (non-physicians welcome, too!). There are also many smaller groups organized around specific medical specialties; you can find a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces.
Finally, if you want to talk to someone outside of WikiProject Medicine, then you can type {{helpme}} on your own user talk page, followed by your question. The helpme template sends a note out to the IRC channel when you save your user talk page.

You may also want to know a bit about Wikipedia's most relevant guidelines:

Participants from WikiProject Medicine

Tim Vickers (talk)
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arcadian (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maralia (talk • contribs • email)
Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 20:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MaenK.A._Talk 21:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell ^Talk 23:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Garrondo (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Remember
WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kallimachus (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NCurse _work 16:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of review editors

List of articles

You can edit this list here, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Editorial review article list‎

This selection of articles was chosen as a combination of more and less popular topics, based on search queries, plus some good-quality articles: to try to get a sense of how the external reviewers will cope with a range of different articles.

#	Name	Status as of May 2010	Page views for March 2010	Reviewed by outside experts	Wikipedians for this article	Importance	Are we done yet?
1	2009 flu pandemic (talk)	GA	47931	Yes BSW-RMH	(Your name here!)	Mid
2	Hemorrhoid (talk)	Start	184818	Yes MICROED8	User:Jmh649 (DocJames)	High
3	Sexual intercourse (talk)	B	827536	Yes BSW-RMH	(Your name here!)	Not WPMED
4	Recreational drug use (talk)	List	41245	Yes by Tarheeltoxin	(Your name here!)	High
5	Oral sex (talk)	B	346739	Yes by BSW BV	(Your name here!)	Not WPMED
6	Female reproductive system (human) (talk)	Start	58476	Yes Factcheck101	(Your name here!)	Not WPMED
7	Pregnancy (talk)	B	178132	Yes by BSW BV	(Your name here!)	Top
8	Male reproductive system (human) (talk)	Start	20793	Yes SLeonard	(Your name here!)	Not WPMED
9	Cervical cancer (talk)	C	91183	Yes BSWSJR	(Your name here!)	Top
10	Hypertension (talk)	B	189435	Yes by BSW-RMH	(Your name here!)	Top
11	Sleep apnea (talk)	C	93225	Yes AMFEditor	(Your name here!)	High
12	Sinusitis (talk)	B	78332	Yes by BSW-JMH	User:Jmh649 (DocJames)	High
13	Irritable bowel syndrome (talk)	C	99803	Yes by SarMarTay	Kallimachus (talk)	High
14	Huntington's disease (talk)	FA	150197	Yes by BSW-RMH	Garrondo (talk · contribs)	High	Yes
15	Streptococcal pharyngitis (talk)	GA	47370	Yes by Facthead82	User:Jmh649 (DocJames)	High	Yes
16	Hepatitis B (talk)	GA	119825	Yes by BSW-RMH	(Your name here!)	High
17	Bedbug (talk)	B	151929	Yes by BSW BV	(Your name here!)	Mid
18	Head-louse infestation (talk)	C	7209	Yes by BSW BV	Casliber (talk · contribs)	High
19	Asthma (talk)	C	122482	Yes by Bioc06	User:Jmh649 (DocJames), Axl ¤ [Talk]	Top
20	Gynaecology (talk)	Start	49292	Yes by BSW BV	(Your name here!)	Mid
21	Cerebral arteriovenous malformation (talk)	C	3790	Yes by Skmcmena	(Your name here!)	Mid
22	Compliance (medicine) (talk)	B	4201	Yes by BSW-RMH	(Your name here!)	Not yet
23	Whiplash (medicine) (talk)	B	19134	Yes by FactCheck_EH	(Your name here!)	Mid
24	Heartburn (talk)	Start	64253	Yes by BSW-RMH	User:Jmh649 (DocJames)	High
25	Bacterial vaginosis (talk)	B	39885	Yes by Factcheck101	(Your name here!)	High
26	Hypovitaminosis D (talk)	C	8727	Yes by BSW-RMH	(Your name here!)	High
27	Visual system (talk)	C	15253	Yes by Medchecker	(Your name here!)	Mid
28	Surgery (talk)	B	66942	Yes by BSW BV	(Your name here!)	Top
29	Erectile dysfunction (talk)	C	77025	Yes by Fact Check AMEF	(Your name here!)	High
30	Obstetric fistula (talk)	C	7284	Yes BSW BV	(Your name here!)	High
31	Chagas disease (talk)	FA	25610	Yes by BSW-RMH	DO11.10 (talk · contribs)	High	Yes
32	Filariasis (talk)	Start	18518	Yes by TJS001	Kallimachus (talk)	High
33	Dracunculiasis (talk)	B	14525	Yes BSWSJR	(Your name here!)	High
34	Onchocerciasis (talk)	C	12261	Yes by Kcandando	LeadSongDog (talk · contribs)	High
35	African trypanosomiasis (talk)	B	25362	Yes by BSW-JMH	(Your name here!)	High
36	Vaccination schedule (talk)	C	8982	Yes by Factcheckalm	DO11.10 (talk · contribs)	Mid
37	Nutrition (talk)	B	71942	Yes by Jason.somarelli	(Your name here!)	High
38	Leishmaniasis (talk)	B	26971	Yes by MotherShabubu	(Your name here!)	High
39	Cystic fibrosis (talk)	B	149984	Yes by Ggschwei	(Your name here!)	Mid
40	Syphilis (talk)	B	188579	Yes by Pdb factcheck	(Your name here!)	High

Message from Google.org

Follow up announcement to Wikipedia community

Thank you to all Wikipedians who contributed to our trial editorial review! It was wonderful to see such enthusiastic participation, and we are extremely grateful for your support.

We have now had some time to evaluate the initial series of external reviews, and have been able to refine our approach based on our observations and your feedback on the discussion pages.

One of the most important findings of the trial was that in general, both sets of external reviewers tended to agree with the existing Wikipedia article rankings, adding an additional measure of credibility to the Wikipedia process of grading articles. We’re comfortable to say that when an article has been internally graded as good quality, this assessment can be accepted with confidence.

In addition, the dynamic nature of Wikipedia editing makes it difficult to say when a reviewed article should be considered 'complete'.

Given these two findings, we have decided to tweak our approach. Instead of working from an initial set of articles for translation based predominantly on popular search queries, we have selected a new set combining both popularity and quality, by mapping only articles that are already graded ‘B’, ‘GA’, or ‘FA’ to our query lists. Using this approach, we have a set of approximately 700 English articles that satisfy our requirements for both quality and user interest. This set can be added to over time as new articles improve to meet the quality threshold.

A handful of articles were high priority from a user perspective, but ranked 'C' or below (including 4 articles on topics in traditional Indian medicine, which were very popular among our Hindi users). For these articles, we are working to re-engage editors who received particularly high praise from the taskforce.

Thank you again for working with us during this initial trial. We learned a great deal and it was an important step towards our goal of translating high quality health content into many languages!

Best, Joanne Stevens, Google.org Program Manager

There is still substantial work to be done on the articles that have been reviewed. We need more editors to work on them.

A few comments:

What I would prefer more would be a review once the article has reached a certain point. I have gout at WP:GAN and would currently appreciated further opinions.

Also if the reviewers could use the highest quality paper per WP:MEDRS that would be preferred. I do not consider the Mayo clinic a sufficient ref for Wikipedia or medline plus for that matter. They are often not exactly correct.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message from BioScience Writers

We are pleased to be reviewing 12 additional Wikipedia articles that have been ranked as high priority for the WikiProject Medicine/Google.org Project: Constipation, Asthma, Vitiligo, Depression (mood), Dizziness, Tonsillitis, Vitamin E, Boil, Triphala, Ashwagandha (Withania Somnifera), Asana (yoga), and Ayurveda. These articles are currently graded ‘C’ or lower, and our goal is to provide an external review of each that will help the Wikipedia community raise these articles to ‘B’ status. We appreciate all discussion about the reviews and how a ‘B’ grade can be achieved for each. BioScience Writers (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]