SuSanA - Forum Kunena Site Syndication http://forum.susana.org/ Thu, 02 Oct 2014 02:21:30 +0000 Kunena 1.6 http://forum.susana.org/components/com_kunena/template/default/images/icons/rss.png SuSanA - Forum http://forum.susana.org/ en-gb Re: Health information on Wikipedia is going from strength to strength - can we do the same for sanitation (together with others)? - by: WikiDocJames http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10304 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10304 [Start of Page 2 of the discussion]


Yes this is a common and not unexpected perspective. I guess the question is what is adequate coverage? Many of our article on medical topics stretch to five or ten thousand words. They are used extensively by both medical students and physicians in clinical practice as well as members of the lay public. About half of our medical contributors are healthcare providers. The same is technically possible with sanitation topics and sanitation professionals.

James]]>
WG 1 (cap. development) Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:05:18 +0000
Re: Health information on Wikipedia is going from strength to strength - can we do the same for sanitation (together with others)? - by: Florian http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10300 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10300
But I don't think that wikipedia should be the main priority for Susana members to disseminate detailed specialist information on sanitation. The Susana website, akvopedia, e-compendium etc. etc. are the more appropriate platforms for this, in my opinion.

That said, I still see the point of the Susana community taking interest and initiative in ensuring that on wikipedia, sanitation topics are adequately covered and that information is correct and up to date. With "adequately covered", I understand short encylcopedia style articles explaining the term and directing to relevant specialist information. I don't see the need of the Susana community to invest resources in more than that. (still, if anyone does more than that, great!)


[End of Page 1 of the discussion]]]>
WG 1 (cap. development) Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:15:31 +0000
Re: Health information on Wikipedia is going from strength to strength - can we do the same for sanitation (together with others)? - by: Florian http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10299 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10299
Elisabeth:
Did you see the 2 threads that I have going on that? See:
forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development

Would you like to add your opinion to that on the forum?


--------------------------------------
Florian:
I thought about posting, but it would have been a little unenthusiastic, so I didn’t. I just don’t share so much the enthusiasm or feel the need to invest much in these Wikipedia articles. I also I don’t agree to the statement of Wiki-James that e-compendium and akvopedia are the duplication and all should be on Wikipedia first. I find there is already quite a bit of info available on sanitation Wikipedia, probably more than enough for the general interest, and those with real interest, will have no trouble to find the specialist websites like Susana or e-compendium. For in-depth information, I personally still prefer very much such specialist sites or publications, where I know who is the author.

But then, I know Wikipedia just as a normal user, I’ve never edited anything on there.

--------------------------
Elisabeth:
I see.
But then you look at the discussion on “septage” and the first thing that Kris quotes is the Wikipedia page on septage! That, for me is proof (again) how much Wikipedia is used. I think you really need to put yourself in the shoes of the general uninformed public, not in the shoes of sanitation experts. You and I don’t need that information on Wikipedia, but others do. I am thinking of students, journalists, housewives, people running small charities and so on.
And does it not bother you that the entry on ecosan on Wikipedia is quite out of date? And that there is no entry on UDDTs? It does bother me...


----------------------------
Florian:
The septage definition is a good example. Kris mentioned it probably because he found it when googling “definition, septage”. That’s what I do when I look for information, and surely, often enough Wikipedia is the first answer. But if we dig deeper in the topic, e.g. discuss which definition of septage is the best one, we won’t be satisfied with Wikipedia, but rather take Sandec or EPA documents as reference.

So if you or anyone in Susana is to invest into Wikipedia, I would see it most useful and efficient to focus on short summaries, with links to the relevant specialist information. Just as Kris suggested. For example, to me the ecosan article is totally fine. It tells the “uniformed public” in a few clear sentences enough to understand the term and gives a few links to the most relevant specialist sites. Perhaps the definition does not correspond to the latest wording we prefer. But does it harm? I don’t think so. If you think so, it would probably take no more than 10 min to update the definition…

And for UDDT, if I google it, the first hits are: 1. Akvopedia 2. Wikipedia (urine diversion), 3. SSWM. 4. Phlush, 5. Susana. Do you really see a problem here for the general public to get proper information?]]>
WG 1 (cap. development) Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:40:50 +0000
Re: The IWA Water Wiki - and Wikipedia, doubling of efforts? - by: Hans http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/6126-the-iwa-water-wiki-and-wikipedia-doubling-of-efforts?limit=12&start=12#10279 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/6126-the-iwa-water-wiki-and-wikipedia-doubling-of-efforts?limit=12&start=12#10279 akvopedia.org/wiki/Transparency_%26_Accountability where we position WIN (Water Integrity Network) and IRC. So we welcome any contact on this to strengthen online sharing by partnering.

Preventing any doubling of efforts will be very difficult but I believe that there is room for different platforms serving different target groups, e.g. Akvopedia focuses on low cost technologies and approaches for developing countries. If I go to the composting toilet article on Wikipedia the top photo refers to a place in Sweden and the article is (logically) not written from a development sector perspective.

The WYSIWYG editor (or CK-editor) has been developed by Energypedia, for the SuSanA wiki we took that editor and together we improved it to enhance future simple editing of wiki pages by SuSanA members. As the functionality available within Visual Editor is yet not comparable with what the SuSanA WYSIWYG editor offers, we decided not to wait on Visual Editor but launched our WYSIWYG-editor. And I agree: simply offering the new editor and expecting the nr of new editors to rise automatically, is not realistic. That's why we, as a first step, launched SuSanA's wiki during the meeting in Stockholm. Together with the secretariat we are now going to introduce the wiki to the various WG's/members. Publishing SuSanA's publications in wiki format on the SuSanA platform will without doubt contribute to spreading SuSanA's message and thus contributes to SuSanA's role as a knowledge network.]]>
WG 1 (cap. development) Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:51:29 +0000
Re: Health information on Wikipedia is going from strength to strength - can we do the same for sanitation (together with others)? - by: WikiDocJames http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10275 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10275
With respect to editing about SuSanA, yes if the content added is supported by references and if their is no financial issues it is not an issue.

Have fixed the naming issue

J]]>
WG 1 (cap. development) Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:03:47 +0000
Re: Health information on Wikipedia is going from strength to strength - can we do the same for sanitation (together with others)? - by: muench http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10274 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10274 What is NIH exactly? I googled it and found this one: National Institutes of Health in the USA, is that the one you mean? www.nih.gov/

Secondly, what does this mean in practice:

People here [...] need to be careful about editing the article on SuSanA itself.

?

It is obvious that one would try to write in a totally objective, non-biased view. As SuSanA is a lose network (no income, no formal structure etc.), I can't imagine much of a conflict of interest here if one or several of the 4000 members wrote about SuSanA on Wikipedia?

By the way the current entry on SuSanA has not been edited since 2007 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Sanitation_Alliance_(SuSanA) ) and has a note which says:
This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (March 2008)


Oh and the first thing I would do (if I knew how) is to connect the two pages, as this page says there is no entry for SuSanA:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Sanitation_Alliance

Regards,
Elisabeth]]>
WG 1 (cap. development) Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:44:29 +0000
Re: Health information on Wikipedia is going from strength to strength - can we do the same for sanitation (together with others)? - by: WikiDocJames http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10272 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10272
So for example the NIH is allowing a few staff to edit Wikipedia's articles on women's health on paid time. They are not for obvious reasons editing the articles on the NIH as that would be a conflict of interest.

People here should edit Wikipedia's content on sanitation and water. They need to be careful about editing the article on SuSanA itself.

Best
James]]>
WG 1 (cap. development) Tue, 23 Sep 2014 10:24:48 +0000
Re: Health information on Wikipedia is going from strength to strength - can we do the same for sanitation (together with others)? - by: muench http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10271 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10271
I thought your posting above was excellent. I liked in particular this part:

So I am going to be a little controversial and argue that e-compendium and AKVOpedia are the duplication of effort. Writing something only matters if those who need the information can and do read it. I would love to see Wikipedia's sanitation content improved. And welcome those from here to join us.

An additional benefit of contributing to Wikipedia is that a number of mobile companies have agreed to provide free access for 350 million people in the developing world via cellphones. This means that they can access the information without data charges.


It is so good to finally meet a Wikipedian in "flesh and blood", and one that is interesting in sanitation is even better!

I am wondering if my fellow sanitation people have ever asked their bosses in their own organisations if they could spend a small amount of their work time on editing certain Wikipedia pages (like 1 hour per week, or even only 1 hour per month). Would this not be of relevance especially to organisations who work on WASH advocacy stuff? Or should Wikipedians never be paid and always work on such things in their own spare time as a volunteer contribution? (also an option)

As I mentioned above, when I worked at GIZ (2008-2012) we were not allowed to edit Wikipedia articles - but is this the same for all the other organisations, too? What about WASH United for example or other medium sizes NGOs?

Actually now I remember a project by WSP (Worldbank) where one of their staff members was setting up Wikipedia pages on water supply and sanitation in several countries, e.g.:
For Ethiopia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Ethiopia
For Peru: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Peru
For the whole of Latin America: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_s...ion_in_Latin_America

They did a whole range of countries and now I remember the name of the person behind this as well: it was Manuel Schiffler (he later moved to KfW). Mental note to myself: dig up his contact details and ask him what his experiences with this was, and what we could learn from this exercise.

I would like to start small by suggesting, how about a few of us get together (taskforce? New possible delivery for SuSanA working groups?) and:
  1. improve the current Wikipedia page for pit latrines (pointing out when they are not appropriate).
  2. improve the current page for ecological sanitation (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_sanitation). Could we have avoided the lengthy discussion we had about the definition of ecosan here? Probably not, but it would still be reassuring to know that the Wikipedia entry on ecosan would be well written.
  3. update the page about "sustainable sanitation": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_sanitation
  4. update the page about SuSanA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Sanitation_Alliance_(SuSanA) - note because of the brackets in the link the hyperlink doesn't work properly; you will need to copy the URL into your browser or search directly in Wikipedia.

Does anyone have an interest in doing this as a team effort? Ideally by being allowed by your employer to spend a little bit of time on it during the work day. If not, then as a voluntary contribution? Anyone willing to join me?

James said the new, easier editor of Wikipedia is already available now (see here: forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-...2&start=12#10270)

One thing I didn't know but I found out recently is that one can look up the previous authors of any page on the View History tab (although many authors don't reveal more than their login name).

Anyone else apart from me and James interested in this?

As Kris said (I fully agree):
[...] I am a big fan of Wikipedia and I think it one of the great projects of this generation (maybe it should be called one of the world-wonders of the digital age?).


Regards,
Elisabeth]]>
WG 1 (cap. development) Tue, 23 Sep 2014 07:36:25 +0000
Re: questions about Wikipedia for sanitation information dissemination - by: WikiDocJames http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/6126-the-iwa-water-wiki-and-wikipedia-doubling-of-efforts?limit=12&start=12#10270 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/6126-the-iwa-water-wiki-and-wikipedia-doubling-of-efforts?limit=12&start=12#10270
The new editor was difficult to make. I do not think it has effect editor numbers much. Sanitation does fall into the thematic area of many areas. We see pit toilet is part of 4 wikiprojects en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pit_toilet

J]]>
WG 1 (cap. development) Tue, 23 Sep 2014 04:32:56 +0000
questions about Wikipedia for sanitation information dissemination - by: muench http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/6126-the-iwa-water-wiki-and-wikipedia-doubling-of-efforts?limit=12&start=12#10257 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/6126-the-iwa-water-wiki-and-wikipedia-doubling-of-efforts?limit=12&start=12#10257
Thanks for this information, very interesting. I think it is great to have you on the Forum here: someone from the medical profession who has taken it upon him to improve wikipedia pages on sanitation - great! And I think it should make us - people from the sanitation sector - think even harder if we shouldn't also contribute our bit.

A question about this new Wikipedia editor: When do you think it will be available? Is it expected that the number of Wikipedians (people who edit wikipedia pages) will jump up drastically with such a new editor? How come it has taken Wikipedia so long to come out with a new editor, was it difficult/espensive to do?

(we have had a similar conversation about the editor used for this forum and the conclusion was that with the Kunena software, which this forum uses, it is currently not supported to switch to a "Word"-type editor (see: forum.susana.org/forum/categories/148-yo...hat-you-getq-wysiwyg)).

I don't think that for the forum, the number of posts would increase markedly with a different type of editor, but perhaps for Wikipedia pages, this will be the case?

I had never heard before bout the WikiProjects. Where can one access a list of all WikiProjects or find those relevant for us (sanitation)? You mentioned the WikiProject called Environment:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Environment

Would this be the most suitable one for sanitation? Would it be a problem if sanitation fell into the thematic areas of several WikiProjects?


Regards,
Elisabeth]]>
WG 1 (cap. development) Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:07:13 +0000
Re: WIKI-SUSAN? Open Source! - by: WikiDocJames http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/6126-the-iwa-water-wiki-and-wikipedia-doubling-of-efforts?limit=12&start=12#10239 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/6126-the-iwa-water-wiki-and-wikipedia-doubling-of-efforts?limit=12&start=12#10239 stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Composting_toilet

Yes Wikipedia is not for primary research papers. It is for a review of the topic at hand. Many of the articles go into amazing depth. And one can have sub articles that go into even greater depth.

With respect to community, Wikipedia's editors organize themselves around WikiProjects. For example one can see WikiProject Medicine here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine with our discussions here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine There is a WikiProject Water and a WikiProject Environment. They of course could both use more active participants. Having information about conferences is not unreasonable within these project but yes the main effort is to write overview articles.


Wikipedia's new editor, called visual editor is in beta. It is like a word processor.

James Heilman


See also related discussion on the forum here:
forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-...together-with-others]]>
WG 1 (cap. development) Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:39:50 +0000
Re: Health information on Wikipedia is going from strength to strength - can we do the same for sanitation (together with others)? - by: WikiDocJames http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10209 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10209 ]]> WG 1 (cap. development) Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:01:49 +0000 Re: Health information on Wikipedia is going from strength to strength - can we do the same for sanitation (together with others)? - by: WikiDocJames http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10208 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10208
If we look at Akvopedia we see that its article on the dry toilet has received 10,474 views in English since Mar 2009 www.akvopedia.org/s_wiki/index.php?title...ilet&action=info The Wikipedia article on the same topic Pit toilet has receive 13,143 views in the last 3 months (the numbers for Wikipedia do not contain mobile views, not sure about Akvopedia)

Akvopedia has content in 3 languages. Wikipedia has content in 6 languages and soon to be 100 languages as this is one of the articles we plan to translate. Wikipedia exists in 278 languages. If we look at ecompendium we notice it is copyrighted thus not compatible with the other two which are under open licenses. This means that it is much harder to translate into other languages.

With respect to who Wikipedia's audience is, it is the general population. This means that it is for both members of the lay public and professionals. We know for example that Wikipedia is the single most used information source for medical students and is used by 50-70% of practicing physicians. The way we structure our content is we try to have the lead as a simple overview. The body of the article for a well educated person. And sub articles for those who wish professional level detail. Our article on schizophrenia is a good example of this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

So I am going to be a little controversial and argue that e-compendium and AKVOpedia are the duplication of effort. Writing something only matters if those who need the information can and do read it. I would love to see Wikipedia's sanitation content improved. And welcome those from here to join us. An additional benefit of contributing to Wikipedia is that a number of mobile companies have agreed to provide free access for 350 million people in the developing world via cellphones. This means that they can access the information without data charges.

If a gentleman from Kenya can build an airplane based on material from Wikipedia image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/...2/03/declowerint.pdf I am sure others can build windmills, toilets and irrigation systems. We just need the information to be available for when they are looking for it in a language that they understand.

James Heilman]]>
WG 1 (cap. development) Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:00:29 +0000
Re: Health information on Wikipedia is going from strength to strength - can we do the same for sanitation (together with others)? - by: JKMakowka http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10181 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10181 But it is more about information that is useful to the general public and as an entry point for more in-depth studies. It should definitely link to places like the e-compendium, SuSanA and AKVOpedia (to name a few), but more or less duplicating that content on the Wikipedia just adds one more place for "data maintenance".

Individual health information (as opposed to public health or sanitation information) is of much more use to the general public, and having a relatively neutral and crowd-reviewed place for it like the Wikipedia should ensure that less advertisements for specific drugs or non-scientific "cures" are included in what you find.]]>
WG 1 (cap. development) Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:42:03 +0000
Re: Health information on Wikipedia is going from strength to strength - can we do the same for sanitation (together with others)? - by: muench http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10177 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/54-wg-1-cap-development/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others?limit=12&start=12#10177
I don't see why people would use Wikipedia only for health-related information but not for sanitation-related information? In any case, sanitation should be part of public health information, shouldn't it (most obvious with respect to hand-washing and behavioral aspects).

The main advantages I see for Wikipedia compared to Akvopedia/eCompendium (same thing; Akvopedia was just a 1:1 copy of the compendium), or compared to IWA's Water Wiki pages:
  • Novices, students and the general public are more likely to look on Wikipedia because they don't even know about Akvopedia or eCompendium or SSWM or Water Wiki... The Wikipedia pages could then link them to the other pages, including this forum!
  • There is a potential for many more authors who might edit the Wikipedia pages compared to editing IWA Water Wiki pages or Akvopedia pages (and eCompendium pages are not meant to be edited by "the crowd" if I understand correctly).

I see Wikipedia as THE resource for all knowledge that people are looking for in any field. I can see it from my own behaviour that I always turn to Wikipedia first when I want to know something in a field that I am not familiar with.

That's why I find it so interesting that our health colleagues are finding innovative ways of getting the health related Wikipedia pages better, for example by including the editing of Wikipedia pages in the university courses of medical students (quotes taken from my post above):

we have partnered with the University of California San Francisco College of Medicine in the offering of a 4 week elective to 4th year medical students that involves improving Wikipedia...


and by incentivising academics to write on Wikipedia:

we have begun working with the journals Open Medicine and Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) to have Wikipedia articles formally peer reviewed and published under the authors real names...


To me, this is awesome stuff.

Regards,
Elisabeth]]>
WG 1 (cap. development) Mon, 15 Sep 2014 11:06:17 +0000