Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the Wikimedia UK Blog
Wikimedia UK: Supporting free and open knowledge

Archive for the ‘Wikipedia’ Category

The personal touch

Friday, June 27th, 2014
The image shows the Wikipedia puzzle globe logo

The iconic Wikipedia globe

This post was written by Jon Davies, Wikimedia UK’s Chief Executive

I thought I’d share this with you:

‘Dear Jon

Thank you for the opportunity to attend the xxxxxx. It was a privilege to meet such an interesting group of people and hear about the laudable ambitions and achievements of the Wikimedia organisation.

You inspired me to try editing a Wikipedia page; so today I have joined the rank of wiki-editors and updated the page about my village. And yes it was just as easy as you described.

I’ll certainly be spreading the word and encouraging other people to do likewise.

Kind regards


All I did was explain to this well educated middle aged woman a) how everyone had something to contribute; b) how women were not properly represented and;  c) how to press the ‘edit’ button. I have asked her which page she edited and hope her edit has been welcomed.

A model for digital democracy

Wednesday, June 11th, 2014
A photo of the UK's Palace of Westminster seen from across the River Thames at dusk

The Palace of Westminster, home to Parliament

This post was written by Stevie Benton, Wikimedia UK’s head of external relations, was originally published on the Demos blog here

A sense that all citizens of a state have a stake, and a say, in the process of government is in some ways crucial to our sense of identity as citizens. It is something that history suggests we as a nation are both proud and protective of. People fought and died for the rights and responsibilities offered by democracy.

But there is something of a disconnect between the democratic process as it exists and the levels of public engagement with that process that democracy demands in order to be truly representative. There is more to a fully functional, healthy democracy than placing an X in a box on election day.

If the latest from the Hansard Society is any measure, democracy in the UK is in trouble. However, for quite some time there has been an expectation that the internet would welcome a new era of mass participation in the democratic process. Digital democracy is an idea which has been widely discussed, but successful implementation on any large scale remains elusive.

Some international initiatives have proved to be worthwhile, particularly when it comes to politicians and governments increasing their openness and transparency: one example being the Open Government Partnership. The challenge is finding ways to engage with large numbers of citizens in a meaningful way which gives them real power and influence over policy and legislation away from the ballot box.

This is where the wiki model can lend a hand. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. In just over 13 years it has grown exponentially and now boasts over 4.5 million articles in English, and more than 31 million articles in total across more than 280 languages. Behind the articles there is a vast community of people who write and edit content, share openly licensed images and – the area that’s most interesting in this context – write and enact policy.

Carl Miller, Research Director of The Centre for the Analysis of Social Media (CASM) at Demos, contacted Wikimedia UK to draw our attention to a recent call for evidence from the Speaker of the House of Commons relating to digital democracy, which the Speaker himself discussed at an event last night.

We wondered if the community-driven ethos of Wikipedia could be replicated in a way that could make a meaningful contribution to the digital democracy landscape. (By the way, if you have an interest in this topic then Carl’s recent piece for Wired is a must-read.)

Wikipedia is by no means a democracy. It is not driven by a concept of the most popular idea, or the most popular position, being accepted, either as content or as policy. Rather, it is a consensus-driven process which is open to all. It is rare for either a Wikipedia article, or a Wikipedia policy, to truly be finished. The idea is that all contributions build on those that came before.

Demos and Wikimedia UK want to see if this open, consensus-driven process can work when applied to digital democracy. We have now jointly embarked on an ongoing attempt to take the collective know-how and experience of Wikipedia editors – Wikipedians – and attempt to crowdsource a submission to the Speaker’s call for evidence.

While I’m unsure if this has been tried before, early indications are that this can work. At the time of writing there have been more than 50 edits made to the page and its linked talk page. The call is open for anyone who would like to get involved, and I’d encourage you to do so. Simply follow this link, click the edit button and edit the copy. You can also view, and participate in, the discussion which is helping to shape the evidence, which is here.

What I find personally exciting about this is that neither Wikimedia UK nor Demos know what the finished evidence will look like. Neither organisation is trying to influence the course of the evidence, beyond encouraging as wide a body of participation as possible. It will reflect the collective, distilled wisdom of the crowd – which to me, is the essence of democracy.

Wikimedia UK microgrant leads to Wikipedia featured article

Thursday, May 8th, 2014
Image shows a black and white lithograph of a coastal scene

A lithograph of the Cornish coast

At the beginning of 2013, User:WormThatTurned applied for a Wikimedia UK microgrant for resources to improve a host of articles related to the Cornish coast. One of those articles, about Doom Bar, is now a featured article on Wikipedia and one the best on the encyclopaedia. He wrote this piece about his grant application last year.

One afternoon in February 2009, I was sitting in a pub with some friends and drinking Doom Bar, a beer I had started drinking ten years earlier because I found the name amusing. I’d been editing Wikipedia for a little while, but nothing big. Idly, I glanced at the back of the beer mat, which said “Where the River Camel meets the Atlantic on Cornwall’s ocean scarred North Coast, a bank of sand, centuries old, known as the Doom Bar protects and calms this beautiful estuary. Legend links the birth of the Doom Bar to the final curse of a dying mermaid who had rejected a sailor’s love only to be shot with an arrow from the spurned sailor’s bow.” It was just the inspiration I needed, and I was writing the article within a week.

One book I found as I was taking the article to good status was Brian French’s ‘Wrecks & Rescues Around Padstow’s Doom Bar’, in the local library. There were also many smaller books on the topic. I gleaned some information from them, wrote it all up and forgot all about them. Fast forward three years and I got it into my head that I’d love to see Doom Bar as a featured article. As part of this, I wanted to go back over French’s book, but struggled getting hold of it as it was out of print and produced by a local publisher at the other end of the country.

I thought I’d give a microgrant a go, to see if it was something that WMUK could help out with. The process was simple, just a few questions which I could answer without hesitation and a link to the book I was after on Amazon. It was approved before the day was over and after a quick email to the office, I received the book.

It’s helped me immensely, reminding me how interesting the topic is and how much information there is out there on paper. I’ve always found it difficult to come back to an article once my passion has waned, so I really appreciate the boost that WMUK has given to me.

To read the microgrant application see here – if you would like to apply yourself to support editing or outreach then read more here

Responding to recent news about vandalism to Wikipedia

Wednesday, April 30th, 2014

The Wikipedia globe being cradled by two hands

This post was written by Stevie Benton, Wikimedia UK’s Head of External Relations

Last week a story broke in the Liverpool Echo about vandalism to Wikipedia from the government’s computer network. In particular, the story examined edits to the article about the Hillsborough disaster.

I don’t want to focus on the story itself here. Instead, I’ll be looking at how we dealt with it from a communications perspective.

Within hours of being reported in Liverpool, the story was being picked up by media outlets on a national scale, especially by the BBC, and requests for comment and interviews began to pour in.

The first thing we needed to do was look at exactly what was being reported. Reading the coverage from the Liverpool Echo, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph, it became clear that the focus was on two points:

  • Vandalism of the Wikipedia article about the Hillsborough disaster
  • The vandalism came from computers connected to the government network.

The most important aspect of the story from a Wikimedia UK perspective was the first of the two and this was where we focused our response. Many thanks to Doug Taylor who uncovered the facts about these edits in record time.

There were three key messages we wanted to convey in our response:

  • That the vandalism to the articles was horrible but was limited to a few edits a long time ago
  • That the vandalism was removed very quickly by volunteers
  • That we show appreciation to the thousands of Wikipedians who work to create and curate Wikipedia.

With those messages clear, we could begin responding to the requests for comments while giving brief holding responses to requests for interviews, giving us time to find volunteers willing to speak on the radio. Step forward David Gerard and Joseph Seddon, who managed the possibly unique feat of speaking at the same time on two different BBC radio stations about two different topics.

We were also fielding requests from journalists about how easy it would be to find other edits from the same IP addresses, so an explanation of how Wikipedia works was offered, along with invitations to visit the Wikimedia UK offices. In particular, David’s excellent summary on Radio FiveLive explained to hundreds of thousands of people the basics of editing, some of whom may be intrigued enough to give it a try.

As the story continues to develop and more journalists explore the wonders of edit histories, more coverage of the topic is emerging. However, by engaging with the media effectively and openly, our key messages are continuing to be shared. If there is some good to come from this story, I hope it is a wider understanding of how Wikipedia works and especially that it’s written, edited and organised by a diverse and wonderful group of volunteers.

Improving Wikipedia coverage of women artists

Tuesday, April 8th, 2014
The photograph shows three women at a computer screen, having a conversation

Daria Cybulska of Wikimedia UK (centre) speaking with some of the event attendees

This post was written by Althea Greenan of the Women’s Art Library at Goldsmiths College

How did the Wikipedia editathon come about with regards to women artists? There have been a number of editathons that led to the session I held here recently.

I organized a modest follow up (8th March) of a much bigger event (1 Feb 2014) organised with Wikimedia NYC. This major event in the US inspired satellite events elsewhere including an event that took place at Middlesex University. The event I organised for the Women’s Art Library to celebrate International Women’s Day, was not only a follow up to this initiative from the librarians in the US, but is something I’ve been wanting to do ever since I became aware of the Wikimedian community and the GLAM projects that connect with collections in Galleries, Libraries and Museums. I have also been in discussions with artists groups such as conversation to be had from which emerged the awareness that women artists are not represented adequately in Wikipedia. It demonstrates the bias of content resulting from a lack of women writers, scholars and content creators.

I am the curator of the Women’s Art Library which was originally set up in the late 1970s as a slide registry building a centre of documentation and arts activities that raised awareness of women’s art practice. This organisation operated over several decades and the collection, now in Goldsmiths, continues to act as a centre for research and new art projects, and a space for interventions promoting the work of women, such as the Wikipedia workshop. The charity Wikimedia UK provides trainers, volunteers, who demystify, but also set standards on how to contribute good quality articles to Wikipedia, and it seemed like a very obvious thing to set up and see if it flies.

It was a very successful, exciting debate regarding the feminist strategy, born of necessity, that we need to write our own histories, set in the context of a rapidly expanding global resource that is seeking to be inclusive and yet maintain high, impartial standards of knowledge sharing. It is absolutely necessary to take up the challenge this opportunity brings and the important result from my first workshop is that everyone would like to follow it up with more to build on the knowledge and confidence to create records.

Pages are set up in Wikipedia relating to these events that might list records created etc (like this one), but it takes time to generate these, and to track down images that can be licensed to Creative Commons. The fact that an image can only be used if you relinquish aspects of copyright, allowing unrestricted use, can feel like an obstacle to some artists, but museums and others are increasingly putting images online, and allowing photography in public displays that acknowledge a different cultural approach to image-sharing.

In the past the Women’s Art Library  has ‘tackled gender equality in the arts’ through publications, especially a magazine that was distributed globally by the time the funding came to an end in 2002. It is a strategy that creates a context for contemporary and emerging artists to see themselves alongside each other, and historical women artists, and the powerful resonances that perspective gives is something that remains not only in reading back over those articles (an anthology is forthcoming in 2015 from IB Tauris), but also in the articles that now appear in a different publishing setting: the Internet.

The workshop was attended by a multi-generational cross-section of artists, students, lecturers, a trainee archivist and a musician, and all felt welcome into the conversation. I think that’s not only because I invited them to the Women’s Art Library to take a place at the table, but because, yes, I think Wikipedia is a good place to start redressing the balance. There is a very rich world of women’s art practice that we are aware of but which should become part of our shared knowledge too.

What I know is…

Tuesday, March 25th, 2014
The photo shows Dr Toni Sant standing giving a presentation while Dr Greg Sing sits on a stool

Dr Toni Sant (left) and Dr Greg Singh at the conference

This post was initially published by Lorna Campbell of Cetis and is republished here under its CC-BY licence

“We are all publishers now, publishing has never been so ubiquitous” – Padmini Ray Murray

Earlier this week I was speaking at What I Know Is, an interdisciplinary research symposium on online collaborative knowledge building organised by the University of Stirling’s Division of Communications, Media and Culture, together with Wikimedia UK. It was a completely fascinating and eclectic event that covered everything from new models of academic publishing, issues of trust and authorship, non-hierarchical networks of knowledge, extended cognition, collaborative art and the semantics of open.

Trust was a recurring theme that ran through the event. Symposium chair Greg Singh touched on fundamental issues of digital literacy and trust in his opening talk and Ally Crockford, the National Library of Scotland’s Wikimedian in residence, explored these themes in a talk about tensions and anxieties that persist around Wikipedia and collaborative authoring. Issues of trust persist around Wikipedia partially due to the unfinished nature of many entries, however Ally argued that the evolving nature of Wikipedia is one of its strengths, you can see the history of everything written there. More fundamentally, Ally argued that Wikipedia democratises knowledge and teaches the value of thinking critically. Wikipedia is no longer a resource, it has become a structure for open access knowledge. Ally also picked up on continued anxiety and distrust of open access policies that lingers in academia, and in the humanities in particular, a sentiment that was echoed by many in the room.

Wikipedia and the Digital Enlightenment

Monday, March 17th, 2014
The image is a photo of Peter Murray Rust

Peter Murray Rust

Peter Murray Rust is a chemist at the University of Cambridge and a vocal campaigner for open knowledge. He will be speaking at this year’s Wikimania conference which will take place in London on 8-10 August. He was recently awarded a fellowship by the Shuttleworth Foundation “to make a real difference to the world”. The following is adapted from a post on his personal blog and is reproduced under its CC-BY licence.

Wikipedia is one of the great and lasting achievements of this century and typifies the Digital Enlightenment. It epitomises so much – cooperation, democracy, meritocracy, innovation, challenge to authority. It represents the dream of the Encyclopédie of Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d’Alembert. [Note – I’m using “Wikipedia” to include Wikimedia, Wikispecies , Wikidata, etc.]

Note, I’ve used Wikipedia to reference these people and their creation. They are massive. You should read the pages.

I have. I now use Wikipedia as my primary source for much of my knowledge.

What??? an academic relies on Wikipedia? Sacrilege! Disaster! You should use your library. You should buy textbooks. You should sweat to get your knowledge. Wikipedia isn’t written by academics but common people. It must be rubbish.

This was an almost universal reaction from academia when Wikipedia started. Lecturers banned students from using it and required them to read out-of-date textbooks instead. Only a few academics embraced the ideas. Here was the infrastructure for the Digital Enlightenment (I don’t know whether this phrase is in common use, but it should be).

What’s the Enlightenment? Why is it in Capitals?

Let’s look in Wikipedia. (We know it’s rubbish, but it might give us a tip). The Age of Enlightenment.

The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals beginning in late 17th- and 18th-century Europe emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition.[1] Its purpose was to reform society using reason, to challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and to advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism, and intellectual interchange.[2] The Enlightenment was a revolution in human thought. This new way of thinking was that rational thought begins with clearly stated principles, uses correct logic to arrive at conclusions, tests the conclusions against evidence, and then revises the principles in the light of the evidence.

and this applies equally to Wikipedia. When the cultural history of this century is written (the pre-Singularity bit, at least, if machines value history) Wikipedia will have the same place as the Encyclopédie. I’m pleased that I’m on record as supporting Wikipedia – See John McNaughton, The Observer [newspaper] 5th April 2009. When asked whether I trusted Wikipedia I replied:

“The bit of Wikipedia that I wrote is correct”

Now, of course that is immensely and unacceptably arrogant in the Wikipedia community and I only used the phrase to shock the complacency of academics. In Wikipedia there is no “I” but only “we”. There is no “correct” but only “as good as our energy and resources can make it at the present time”. After all most pages start as single sentences. The article on Diderot has been revised 500 times in the last 4 years. None of those is final – all are as good as possible.

In science Wikipedia is massive. Huge amounts of species, compounds, theorems, physics, stars, … up to date and in many cases pretty comprehensive. And where it’s too massive there are links to authoritative resources. What’s not so known is the growth of complementary resources:

  • Wikimedia Commons
  • Wikidata
  • Wikispecies

I wonder where I can find out about them?

I shan’t know what I am going to say till I stand up in front of the Wikimanians. It depends on what I do tomorrow – NO! what WE do tomorrow. August is web-years away. I’m hoping I can put demos in front of US. Get US involved in changing the world.

At the start of the Digital Enlightenment.

One sentence on Wikipedia: a microcosm of information literacy

Tuesday, February 18th, 2014
Image shows a black and white icon often used to illustrate atoms

An “atomic approach” to Wikipedia can be useful

This post was written by Dr Martin Poulter, Jisc Wikimedia Ambassador

What are the building blocks or “atoms” of Wikipedia? A Wikipedia article can have many elements, but at its core is it built of originally-worded statements of fact with a citation to a reliable, published source which is independent of the thing written about. When a contribution is removed, it has usually broken at least part of this definition.

Taking each part of this definition, and asking “why?”, is a way to structure a discussion about the reliability of information found online. This briefing gives some examples of “why” questions that can emerge (or be elicited) and some pointers for discussion that will illuminate each point.

This could be used with a very wide variety of learners, depending on how you frame the discussion and on your examples. The discussion could be directed to focus on critical thinking, understanding of digital resources, knowledge of a specific subject, or even abstract questions about the nature of knowledge. (more…)

Stephen Fry records his voice for Wikipedia

Saturday, January 25th, 2014
The photo shows Stephen Fry sat in a leather chair

Stephen Fry

Stephen Fry wears many hats – wit, television presenter, actor, writer and geek. He now has a new hat to wear: Wikipedia contributor.

Stephen was recently approached by Wikipedia editor Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing), who founded the Wikipedia voice intro project (WikiVIP). Although in New York at the time, Stephen willingly obliged and recorded a sample of his speaking voice for use on his Wikipedia biography.

The project asks people who are the subject of Wikipedia articles – whether they are celebrities like Stephen Fry, or those notable for other activities like scientists or artists – to make short recordings of their voice, lasting around ten seconds or so. The recordings are then uploaded to the article so that Wikipedia’s readers know what they sound like and how to correctly pronounce their names. Contributors to the project so far include lunar astronaut Charlie Duke and Baron Knight of Weymouth a peer of the United Kingdom. You can listen to all of the voice recordings made for the project so far here on Wikimedia Commons or on the appropriate Wikipedia articles.

Once the recording of Stephen’s voice was uploaded and added to his biography, Andy also transcribed it as timed text captions which are displayed as the audio plays.

Andy is also working with the BBC on a project to extract similar clips from certain BBC programmes. Significantly, this is the first time that the BBC have openly licensed content from their broadcast programmes.

At an event at new Broadcasting House on 18 January, volunteers identified over three hundred clips, which the BBC are reviewing, processing, and then uploading to Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedians are then inserting them into relevant Wikipedia articles. At the time of writing, just under half of the identified clips have been uploaded, and work continues. Examples added
to articles so far range from Sir Tim Berners-Lee to Aung San Suu Kyi.

You can help the Wikipedia voice intro project by asking people you know who are the subject of Wikipedia articles to make recordings of their voices in any language in which they’re comfortable (the project is not just for English speakers). You can also help to transcribe the existing files into timed text captions.

And if you happen to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, why not record a sample of your voice? If you’d like more details of how you can get involved in the voice project, or Wikipedia in general, please email stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk

Telling the stories of rural England with Wikipedia

Friday, January 24th, 2014
Image shows Humphrey Southall at a lectern giving a presentation

Humphrey Southall presenting at EduWiki. Photo by Rock Drum, CC-BY-SA

This post was written by Dr Humphrey Southall, Reader in Geography, University of Portsmouth, written with Dr Martin Poulter, Jisc’s Wikimedia Ambassador and was originally published here

In November, at the EduWiki Conference 2013, academics and Wikimedians spent two days discussing a range of issues of common concern. David White of the University of Oxford’s Department for Continuing Education delivered a keynote exploring the ways in which students use Wikipedia, and I contributed a presentation of my own, describing a Wikipedia-based assignment I give to first-year students in Applied Human Geography and also looking at how academics can inform the widest public about their subject, and raise awareness of the reliable sources used in research.

For the past two decades, I’ve been part of a team building the site A Vision of Britain with funding from Jisc, the National Lottery and research bodies. I have also been involved in international discussions about ‘gazetteers’, during which I’ve come to regard Wikipedia as one of the world’s most widely used gazetteers. In the course of creating links between A Vision of Britain and Wikipedia it grew clear how many stub articles existed about villages and that gave me an idea that developed into an engaging, challenging assignment for my first-year students.

In one module, I want students to get substantial experience of using census data, and of proper referencing – to understand the numbers associated with a place and be able to interpret what those mean for the people who live there. The new assignment idea was to get students to deliver their work into Wikipedia. Each one was allocated a Wikipedia article about a village in northern England, and expected to look after it over a period of months, making gradual improvements by adding reliably sourced information.

The students do not visit their villages, which are also too obscure to be documented in Portsmouth’s libraries, so their research depends on online resources, including A Vision of Britain, Online Historical Population Reports, British History Online, Neighbourhood Statistics, Old Maps Online, and Geograph. These sites and other initiatives to digitise resources have transformed our ability to carry out small historical research projects that were practically impossible not long ago.

In preparation, students had two, one-hour sessions on basic Wikipedia editing, learning how to create headings and links, and about Wikipedia’s style requirements. They were also referred to Wikipedia’s guide to writing better articles and to the extensive guidelines drawn up by WikiProject UK Geography, a group of Wikipedians working to improve relevant articles.

And we were fortunate to have enthusiastic help. Andrew Gray, then the British Library’s Wikipedian In Residence, used a tool to create a list of short, incomplete articles about villages that had not been worked on for at least a year. Keith_D and other veteran Wikipedia editors who focus on articles related to northern England also gave help and encouragement.

As an example of what the students achieved, the article on Sawley, North Yorkshire, which was formerly a bare list of key figures, is now a helpful narrative with 30 references. The article history shows this evolution in detail, with a student adding chunks of referenced text and Keith_D and other Wikipedians making tweaks and suggestions. The students’ work is not what would be done by professional historians working with archival sources, but I’m satisfied that the quality of referencing stands up against professional work.

The project was not without its difficulties. Some students initially found the prospect of writing ‘in public’ challenging, but now the articles have been improved most are proud to have their work on public view.

And there were practical problems. The useability of the Wikipedia interface was one, though this has got better over time. Students were also affected by restrictions that apply to ‘new accounts’ on Wikipedia – defined as those created fewer than ten days ago or with fewer than four edits. The restrictions are designed to discourage spammers, but they added a layer of difficulty to the first edits and meant that students could not configure their preferences.

The homepage of the Vision of Britain website

A growing number of course leaders in other universities worldwide are setting Wikipedia writing assignments, typically for second- or third-year undergraduates who would otherwise be doing a dissertation. Giving first-year students the tasks of researching, synthesising and writing their own articles is quite unusual, and it has become possible because of the very systematic online sources now available.

The assignment will continue next year and in the future. It is a victim of its own success in that northern villages with very short Wikipedia articles are now hard to come by, so future attention will turn to other counties.

There are some things that we want to improve on. For example, a lot of student discussion about the assignment took place on Facebook where it could not be monitored. One goal is to structure the assessment so that students are encouraged to take part in more open discussion, including on Wikipedia itself, where there are talk pages for every article and for every user.

The project was co-ordinated from a page on Portsmouth’s Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). It was maximally convenient for students to have all course-related information in one place, but it meant that details of the project were not publicly accessible. That is something else that we will review.

As well as its educational merits, this assignment extended the knowledge that’s freely available to the public via Wikipedia and promoted the use of professionally-created geographical databases. The same could be done with many other subjects and their research resources.

Martin’s tips for educators who want to work with Wikipedia:

  • Tell the Wikipedia community what you are doing, so that they work with you rather than against you. Normal practice for educational assignments on Wikipedia is to create a project page, listing affected articles and involved users. Wikipedia has tools to register the students and to give staff a dashboard of students’ edits.
  • Take a good look at existing articles in your subject area to see the standard practices and styles that Wikipedians have developed. The ‘Talk’ page will show you past or ongoing discussions about the article and any reviews of its quality. The ‘View History’ tab shows how the article has evolved over time.
  • If you want students to create articles, make sure the topics are things that are extensively written about in reliable published sources that are independent of the subject. Many Wikipedia articles are short ‘stubs’ that are ideal for improvement; there are ways to list the stubs in a particular topic area.
  • Handouts, short videos, and other resources have already been created to introduce students to Wikipedia.
  • If you are already editing Wikipedia, try creating a new account and making test edits, to see how the interface looks to new users.
  • Above all, be sure to contact Wikimedia UK early on in planning the course, as they can help with all these points, and also put course leaders in touch with useful people for face-to-face and on-wiki support.

You can find out more about using A Vision of Britain and Wikipedia in the ‘A Vision of Britain’ blog, and about the Wikimedia 2013 conference on the Wikimedia UK blog. The slides from Humphrey’s talk at the conference are here.

Thanks to the Jisc Communications team for help with copyediting this blog post.

Get involved