 I exist in two worlds, and in one of those worlds I and the community I'm part of are kind of glum and despondent as how to gop to Mr Crack the future, and in the other world I and the community I'm part of feel invincible and uncomfortable among the ascendant. I think that captures that. So, to explain, I run the site economics network based on the University of Bristol, it's a national international project, and it's a leading site for university teachers of economics to find tips and to find resources, and we've had open educational resource projects, we've archived resources created by other, created elsewhere, and we've cataloged economic resources around the web. So, we're part of the university open education movement, and if you've been listening pat Llockley, who did a video at the open educational resource conference, it's easy to be very, very pessimistic. This is a graph of creative commons licensed submissions to educational repositories in the UK, and you can see that it spikes heavily around the time there's funded projects with deadlines for the people to produce this, and then it gradually tells off and it gets to now and it's almost zero. And the conclusion invited is, well, we've tried open educational resources and they didn't work. They've turned out not to be sustainable. The production is sustainable, it's Peterdact, we haven't had the avalanche of remixes and altered versions. That's what that's urging that the open education resources didn't work. So, the other world is wiccamedia, meaning Wikipedia and its many sister projects. And Economics Network is, by all accounts, a successful educational site. It gets 5,000 or 6,000 hits per month. What I contribute to volunteers of Wikipedia gets read 10,000 times a day. Wikipedia as a whole is getting 5,000 hits per second. Wikipedia, at the end of last year, got the Erasmus Prize. This is a prize for outstanding academics, to say, given Dan Dennett, the philosopher, given to outstanding people, occasionally to organisations, but at December last year it was awarded to the Wikipedia community for promoting learning and communication. I look at lots of people who have edited Wikipedia, congratulations, you've won the Erasmus Prize. And they made this lovely video about the way Wikipedia is helping cultural education. I'll just play a short clip of the education section. Wikipedia and Wikipedia community is extraordinary. It's an amazing group of people who are really passionate about this project, volunteering their own time to produce this website so that everyone can have access to the world's knowledge. There's nothing else like it on the internet today. It's a free and open project, both in cost and in licensing. And it's built by a global community of people for a global community of people. I think Wikipedia is important because it does fulfil that longing that, again, has existed for a century almost, and it began back in the day with people thinking index cards and microfil would be able to create this international global encyclopedia. Wikipedia actually realised that vision. And I tell my students in class today is going to change the course of your life, in that you're going to be contributing to the largest knowledge project in the history of humankind, and that your Wikipedia article could very well outlast outlive you. It's a momentous, huge thing and very exciting. So the resources you create might outlive you, which is the other end of the scale of optimism. A lot of this has been created in universities and it's learned and created content, which is part of an education revolution. These are figures from the Wiki Education Foundation. There's 14,000 students involved, maybe 20 million, kind of as a text I did. And I believe these numbers just relate to North America. So that's just because it's just a North American phenomenon. These are universities in the UK which have run Wikipedia assignments or are planning to other young ones or are currently. So if you read about villages in the north of England, you're often reading content by ports with university students. If you read about the psychology of identity, you're often reading about content, you're reading content by Southampton students. And if you read about the psychology of internet usage, you're reading content by students at the University of Hull. I came across this as a volunteer Wikipedia editing psychology article. Internet addiction disorder, there are a few of the three students who worked really hard on this. They put in lots of hours, lots of hours into addiction disorder. I had to worry about them. Instead you can go on the talk page of the article and there's usually a little batch there saying that it's being improved by course. And in this one, there were two courses. And this often happens, that something will be created by students at one level in one institution and then improved or reviewed by students at another level in a different institution. And we get some nice surprises. I've got a bunch of anecdotes, I'll just focus on one. This is someone assigned to read a Wikipedia article that she'd written. She joined an athletic environment course as a master student and on the first reading list was a Wikipedia article about the topic. And the course leader said, this is Wikipedia but it's actually a good overview for the article. And she said, I wrote this because in her final year undergraduate, her previous course, she'd been assigned to write this article. And she told the course leader and the course leader got her to give a guest lecture in this course that she just joined. Wikipedia's volunteer base is notoriously overwhelmingly male and overwhelmingly weird as in white educated people in industrialised literature democracies. And weird as no insult to the Wikipedia community. But with educational assignments, it's different. Wickey educational assignments are participated by a majority of women and create content about a lot of topics that were the best in the world and mainly male and mainly white volunteer base would take a long time to get around to the best. So Dina Strassman, the academic, has allocated her students to write articles about a lot of topics affecting women in this one about the Arab Spring. So the Arab Spring created an optimism about women's rights but it actually gave more power to religious fundamentalists in the step back. And this is all detailed with references in this article. So university is actually creating a huge amount of content. That content is open by every standard. It's available to everybody. It's being translated to different languages. It has a global perspective. So it seems like the promises of the open educational revolution, if you go back to the Dutch declaration, the Paris declaration and so on, seem to be coming true. I recommend that video clip I've got doesn't play very well in here but the documentary Life in a Day which came out a few years ago showing how people live around the world in one day. They interviewed this boy, Abel, in Peru. And this is his wooden truck, this is his toy that he takes with him. And he's asked what he loves. And first he says, I love my dad because he lives with his father, his father feeds him, his father works to provide for him. And then he goes into the shack where he brings out his laptop. So the thing that I love most is my laptop because it has Wikipedia and Wikipedia is a giant library of every topic. So he is a recipient of the One Laptop Per Child project which gave these three laptops to lots of kids with a customized child-friendly version of Wikipedia on it. So the source of that has to be something you can use with that licensing. It has to be multilingual because it doesn't speak English. It has to be customizable without permission to make your child-safe customized version. So this is content being produced in the educational process by learners and reaching the widest possible audience. And there are good stories of sustainability coming out of this. So the Finance and Economics Experimental Experiment at the University of Exeter back in 2007-2008 was writing up their guide for economics experiments as a classroom technique. So you teach economics as a laboratory subject. And they decided to put it into a sister project of Wikipedia which is wikiversity. And despite the, well, anyone can edit, there's an edit button, won't it degrade over time? The wikiversity community welcomed it. It's kept going, it's still there. A lot of minor punctuation errors have been fixed. It's been planned as a quality resource but it still exists. A lot of other educational projects of this vintage had custom domains and had their own sites and maybe it's now no one's job to maintain it so the site gets switched off. And this is something being wrestling. So I found this, against a volunteer, so resources from 2004 I think about the system in the United States and how it worked, disadvantaged economically and politically of African Americans. But I was reading this after the Ferguson Alliance and thought that people probably should be aware of this and should probably be on the agenda of debate. But you can see the design has aged. What you can't see is that the navigation didn't use hyperlinks. It used a flash-based system which was probably really cool and new at the time but now doesn't work in a lot of browsers so people couldn't actually navigate to this content. And the two authors have moved on to different jobs. One of them isn't an academic anymore. And the crazy comment that wasn't there, it was just default. There's no copyright statement so you have to assume it's all rights reserved. You've got no right to copy it. I got in touch with the authors, fortunately, and fortunately they still could access the server and just edit it to put in the Creative Commons license. Which gave me permission to copy it to WikiBooks and to rebuild it in more sensible things. It's incomplete because some of what they're working with was copyrighted images and data from the New York Times. So it's partial, but this is a more lasting thing than the flash-based system of 2004 server. So these things are all on platforms that don't show up on Pat Llockney's graph because they're not in a repository. And huge volumes, tens of millions of characters, stuff that would be huge if you pointed them out, is not showing up in the graph of how much open educational sources have been produced. I don't conclude that it's open educational spending. I conclude we need to rethink repositories. And histropedias, well I think this is the most powerful demonstration of open educational content and remixing. I'm not doing it because the internet connection is dodgy on this laptop. But you can go to histropedia.com and type in a category named Wikipedia. So I put in Age of Enlightenment or you could do Battles of World War I or you could do Composers for Boots. And pretty much instantly comes up this interactive timeline that you can scale through. It's made from text from Wikipedia, images from Wikimedia Commons, and data like foundation dates, birth dates, publication dates from Wikidata. So it's a demonstration you're doing in a few seconds and it's really impressive. And it's one of the things that Wikidata enables a fantastic project to have a session on tomorrow. So what number do we put in the graph of histropedia? How many extra educational resources are there because of histropedia existing? Arguably zero, because it doesn't contain educational content, it's merely a software layer over stuff that already exists. Or you could say thousands because any category on Wikipedia, and there's many thousands of them, can be made into a timeline. Or you could say because it's customizable, because you can take any combination of Wikipedia articles and arrange them to make the timeline of the concept you want to talk about, you could say it's an astronomical number. So it's just hard to count or put a label on what what open educational content this represents. But I want to talk about preserving for the long term. And so a bit of theory on a distinguished preserving utility of the resource from preserving the resource itself. So for some things, they coincide. If I sign up to a contract and put that contract in the repository, when I want to get the repository, when I want to get the content back, it's got to be the same, otherwise it's useless. Any change is bad. We all know that just changing even one letter of a text can completely change the meaning and significance of that text. And that applies to things like a contract and maybe primary data and some things. But not to everything. If I've got a current affairs portal news.bbc, I go there and it's the same as it was yesterday. It's useless. I'm going there particularly to find what's happened in the last 24 hours. It's got to change to be useful. And I argue that open educational resources are somewhere on the continuum that they've got to change to be useful over time. So there's probably a multiply peaked function in hopefully its intellectual diversity and something created to illustrate the points of the dominant theory will be used to apply it by somebody and will be used to critique the dominant theory in some other course by some other academic. So I posit this spectrum of things that of what you need to do to preserve the utility of these of these types of resource. And especially with economics of what economics is applying economic theory to things in the news. They've got to change really rapidly. But even core how you teach the core workings of the theory will change over time. What illustrates that quality is a moving target really well is quality on Wikipedia. So we have on Wikipedia these formal review processes. Only about half a percent of the articles have been through them. But an article can be labelled good article, featured article and there are different criteria for them. And someone uninvolved with writing is that according to criteria. If you go to the talk page of an article and click on where it says article milestones you get this list. And what this list is a history of the review processes the articles been through. For each one you're going to link to what the article was like at the time it was submitted to review. And then the link is actually to the review so it's done in public you get the concerns raised by the reviewer and any changes needed and you get the debate between the reviewer and the authors so you can see what was submitted to review what the points brought up in review were and what changes were made as a result. And this is interesting yesterday because this was awarded good article in 2006 then de-listed the good article batch was taken away in 2007 and put back in 2009. These badges can be taken away partly because a lot of extra content of those quality people might write a lot of extra stuff into the article and it's poorly written so the article no longer deserves a good article. Sometimes the quality scale moves up so featured articles being redefined to be a more demanding level so articles will be de-badged or the quality level can stay exactly the same and the article can stay exactly the same but facts move on so there was a top quality article about UK corporation tax and it's not changed but UK corporation tax works differently so it's no longer top quality content of article but having given this spectrum I put a few things quite far down the spectrum needing change that maybe you'd think you don't need to edit at all I'm going to give an example of editing legislation because a couple of you have seen this before During the last year the Supreme Court of the United States handed down the decision in Obergefell vs Hodges which was the decision legalising same sex marriage across the United States and the judgement itself was quoted widely on social media people who liked the way it was worth it it's openly available and it's a PDF from the Supreme Court website but it's a PDF that's not ideal it's a very self-contained thing and my experience with official URLs is that it's not very stable even for important documents but because of the copyright status works the federal government public domain I could copy this into Wikisource Wikisource is the free library where people transcribe out of copyright published text and often this is transcribing out of copyright books and pamphlets from image scans but it can copy text in elsewhere so I could give it a context I could give it information as to what this is its significance linked to the Wikipedia article and the document itself makes a lot of references it refers to Confucius and Alex de Tocqueville on the cultural significance of marriage it refers to a lot of other judgments so it refers to loving versus Virginia which is the judgment that established interracial marriage so if you know all this stuff great but you might not know so it's kind of a cost of entry that you have to know this cultural and legal background to understand the document but it's easy to make more accessible you can't edit the actual wording but Wikisource allows you to add links links to Wikipedia articles links to other bits of Wikisource so I could link to the text of the other judgments or link to the profile of Confucius to say who that is so rather than being a barrier this is something that people could come with any level of prior knowledge and learn something from and it can be tagged so I'd tag it as Supreme Court decisions on civil rights there are other texts like declarations of human rights at UN documents that are referred to in legislation and you can actually make it a link so people can find the thing with one click the other thing I've been doing on Wikisource is women's rights and the emergence of feminism in the 17th and 18th century not my area but I'm learning as I go and one of the texts was this tribute by John Duncan this poet who thought that who argued that women given the chance to be just great philosophers and great poets as men are specific examples of when he thinks genius is and but again if you are immersed in mid 18th century poetry you'll know who he's talking about a lot of the poets in the first are by pseudonyms so with a bit of detective work or a bit of consulting modern scholarship I could find out who he's talking about and make links and they didn't have a profile on Wikisource so he could create one and in one case so I created this this profile for an author he mentions and then he mentions two poems so one of them I found on internet archive I had a problem with that text I can transcribe it so this gives a richer context for the power that you can see if you agree with Duncan and you can see this is a particular genius power and you can learn from it whether you're navigating back the curiosity or whether you're being assigned as part of a course and I hope this work lowers the threshold for running a course on this area of poetry so that's what I mean by a web of knowledge I don't think anybody has the totally atomistic view of educational content but this is more about linking things up to make a web of something literature or a web of civil rights legislation or a web because these authors mention each other pay tribute to each other, cite each other and that doesn't mean that I'm taking it totally holistic that we've got to evaluate and preserve the entire web Hofstad, wonderful but said that holism and reductionism aren't the only options you can have reductholism and hasrianism so what you have with Wikis is that you've got a unit of content which has a set of links to other things and expects other things to exist they may be profiles and identifiers or explanations of key concepts and so they build up and you evaluate the quality of that chunk and you provide covenants and quality information for that chunk and these things link together but not in just any way that there's different ways to link and to talk about preserving the ability of things to change I want to talk about a couple of publication processes which we call journals of wiki or if you want to be really buzzwordy J to W and wiki's journal so on Wikipedia you cannot publish original research that's one of the community guidelines everything has to be published already in a scholarly source and cited what the editors of this journal have done across the computational biology is very clever they've invited local topic papers so papers that are not an asset to new research but reviews of a technique or a phenomenon or a practice in computational biology they have their own wiki so they've got the open source software in Wikipedia and made their own wiki and this is publicly viewable but not publicly editable so it's just restricted to the editors and authors of the journal and they create their review paper and they get feedback on Wikipedia's house style to make it Wikipedia compatible and once they're happy with it it's submitted to the journal in normal way and gets published in plus computational biology so it's citable it looks good in the CV a paper published by these early career researchers but it's Wikipedia compatible in terms of license in terms of its style so it's pasted straight into Wikipedia as an article so they've got two publications they've got the sight of all looks good in an academic CV paper which we know is fixed and we've got the Wikipedia article which has lots of incoming links to the house of the web of knowledge and that people can stumble upon and is freely available and in a platform where it will probably be translated into lots of other languages and the figures from the article have been uploaded to Wikipedia so they can be used in this article and used in related articles and a badge has been added to this article to indicate that it is a copy of a particular open access text and to give that full citation just in this field and so they're putting information openly accessible where people can stumble upon it who may be potential students or potential researchers of this and raising awareness of computational biology and its methods this article on Wikipedia will evolve and people will edit it and change it but that's a good thing people will find better ways to phrase the text and make new citations have to be added over time and be more current than the journal published article and you can do the reverse so as I say you can't publish original research on Wikipedia but to a doctor the latest peer reviewed research paper isn't that useful because they need some context what else has been the search about this topic what's useful is a clinical review so looking at the best sources the best systematic reviews of medical literature about the identification treatment prevention of this disease and so a bunch of authors on Wikipedia wrote a clinical review for this disease reviewed it with the featured article reviewed the on wiki review processes and submitted it to a journal went through a very tough peer review process, three reviewers they had lots of suggested changes fed back into the Wikipedia article to improve it and it's accepted, it's published so they've got again a Wikipedia article which is evolving a fixed citable paper publication a problem they had was who to credit as the author because you can go to you can click on Wikipedia article on view history and then revision history statistics it's a really counterintuitive link it doesn't suggest there's anything useful there but if you follow those links you get this statistical breakdown of how the Wikipedia article was made and as of last week there have been 3,398 different versions of the Denguei Feam article made by 1,417 authors not all of you are human there were robots that were correcting typos reverting vandalism correcting those errors so you can look at the main authors you can look at the authors ordered by how much they contributed and so there are basically 4 authors of the main academic content of this and they are credited in the journal James is a doctor in Canada's health service Jacob is a doctor with NHS and I think the other two are biomedical researchers thank goodness for socialised medicine and doctors who see this as a public service so the journal had to note these are the 4 main authors but there were 1,200 other contributors humans and bots to this article but again immediately the journal article that we know is more useful over time new things will be found the Wikipedia article will evolve the journal article won't and I recommend the editorial where they explained why they had published this and they raised the idea that the article will evolve on Wikipedia maybe it could be submitted again in future and being reviewed again and published again get a different publication of DIY maybe that will be an ongoing process that what we know that dengue of evil will change hopefully some of these diseases will become historical diseases like smallpox that will conquer and optimistic about that because we have this platform to freely share to billions of people the way to prevent, identify and treat this disease so if you can't beat them maybe join them and I say that both of them are Wikipedia looking at higher education and some in the higher education looking at Wikipedia this is a trip database which searches medical sources and orders them by evidential significance so it's got the systematic reviews at the top and review papers and individual research reports but also other time to make the source like patients information leaflets and so on and they've made a conscious decision to include Wikipedia articles but only the ones that have been through the featured article or good article review process there's been some check and on the economics network there's not many examples but if something's been through featured article review on Wikipedia we will catalogue that as a resource a lot of things created by academics so what you've really been looking for ladies and gentlemen at last bullet points what I'm saying is that actually despite the grass despite the pessimism more open educational content has been created now than ever before by a huge margin huge amounts of that were not that's difficult to quantify but it is an explosion and the promised benefits of open education are starting to materialize learn the creative content huge quantities cross loads of different subjects changing the public discussion about topics by creating things that people can stumble across anyone in the world with the internet device but preserving it means preserving people's interest and investment in it which means preserving the ability to change and maybe installing repository software and loading zip files into it with IMS metadata and having PMH metadata harvesting maybe that's not the way to do that successful platforms have this web of knowledge aspect and give people the edit button I want to edit your site I want to edit legislation I want to edit the search papers I want to edit give me the damn edit button these things aren't repository in those traditional sense but they are where people are going to and where people are putting their open educational content and educational content isn't one thing it overlaps with secondary data overlaps with research reviews so we need publishing models that affect things and have different roles and I suggest we're starting to have publishing models and that's my I think that's closer to the truth that it might be rather optimistic closer to the truth than the pessimistic negative idea that it hasn't worked but that's me and please give feedback on Twitter and I invite questions thank you if you don't ask a question I've won I've deliberately invested time for audience contributions it's not a running out of really just I don't know really just I don't know so so there are permanent identifiers for everything so again there's so much that's there but it's not obvious because usability is kind of a software that's not really been updated so take the three and a half thousand different versions each of those is bookmarkable so each of those has the name but there's an identifier and you make a URL with that identify and retrieve so you can scroll back in time to 2001 and find what the article looked like then so this has come up in universities when we talk about Wiki education assignments and the authorities ask we'll be able to look, see what Wikipedia looked like at this point in time and actually it's better than VLEs because VLEs can have an update that changes how the software works and you can't reconstruct what the course looked like in the previous semester whereas you can go back to 2001 and in the left bar there will be a permanent link and you can go and that will be the link to the particular identifier so you can bookmark the article and when you come back to that that will be changed by whatever change process or you can bookmark the permanent link and that will be as it was at that time oh yeah so each article has a history as in the list of all edits have been made to it and all authors have contributed to it and so there are tools like the revision history statistics tool which gives you an overview and because it's all open public data you can build different splits onto it to extract that different data so you can get from one of these permanent identifiers you could get a list of all the authors have contributed but it works as a principle that people say as much or as little about themselves on their user profiles as they want so a lot of people say working on medical articles are actually doctors and biomedical researchers and so on and we'll put that so I've spoken to people who do animal research and want to contribute to animal research articles and Wikipedia don't want anything about the person on their user profile don't want to be identified but they are experts so you'd get this information about users but it's something useful or something else what sort of data can you so so vandalism does happen the example I like is yellow lines so you show something yellow lines on the road double yellow lines and I don't know what that means and you say can you park here and I go yeah I can park here the yellow lines don't stop me I just drive a vehicle up onto these lines but you say no actually you can't park here physically it's possible for you to park here but actually if you do you'll be in all sorts of trouble so can you go in and delete a whole article or change the year of the American Revolution to 1979 you can technically but there are bots watching this for changes and vandalism has a particular pattern there are there's always people somewhere in the world who speak English, who have computers who run Wikipedia, who are monitoring you can care, as a logged in user you can select a range of articles to monitor and to be notified of any change to them so I'm interested mainly in economics and psychology so I get notified of changes to those hundreds of those articles and there are contribution records so as well as the record of an article of everyone who has contributed to it there's a record for a contributor of everything they contributed to so if somebody is just going around different articles putting the word bump in their contribution record just be the word bump and so that makes that transparency and we need to put this somehow into the academic the things we're building in higher education I think these contribution records are a way to do it but there's put me just somebody said if you wicked data sounds tempting faith because you're putting lots of data in a place which is editable by anyone on the computer and okay yeah but you make one this database that only approved experts in edit and wicked media will make one anyone can edit and anyone can put stuff to which you're betting will be the one stop shot everybody goes to everybody builds their software up we know it's already happening so there's different so there's a lot of different ways to handle this moment part of it is with community standards like my analogy of the double yellow lines so you could have people in the article I think it's better this way and no it's better the way it was before no it's better with this in going back and forth but if that happens all the participants are blocked temporarily and told to just calm down so we have the talk page every article has a talk page which isn't for comments about the topic it's for discussing how to improve the article and people are expected to to talk out their disagreement and to talk from sources so I really believe that so I've personally experienced that so it has to be this way it's let's look at academic textbooks review papers and such on this topic and what balance do they give and what wording do they give but you can do it other ways so you can have so Wikipedia doesn't allow what's called content forks you can't have a psychology topic from a behavioural perspective and the same thing from cognitive perspective the different parties have to work out together how to create an article about that thing but you could have wicked books is more so you can mark off areas of wicked bursting, wicked books so we're going to create this perspective on this thing so down to the community standards you create I think people think it's about installing software but no it's the whole other layer of stuff you've got to do on top of it with wicked data there's complications like how many countries are there really in the world there's not one definitive number because there's different sources of totally different things and some countries refuse to accept Palestine and some refuse to accept Israel and so on some won't count minor territories and the way to do that in wicked data is that you can have multiple values for an item but with different sources so you can say according to the CIO fact book it's this number and according to UN it's this number but then the software and the people consuming that have got to treat that and say Google and not make it you put into Google number of countries and it comes up with one number so we should be consuming this data in a more tertiary way. I can hear you I think the librarian is the natural ally of the Wikipedia because we're both communities that use incredible pedantry for public good so librarians Brian Kelly did this blog post of the attributes of a librarian and the attributes of Wikipedia and they map perfectly although he doubted that Wikipedians are interested in books but in my experience Wikipedians are really interested in books and they include as a Wikipedia so librarians I've had the greatest negativity and also the greatest positivity from the academic librarian community in doing Wikimedia outreach and some see this kind of threatening and see themselves as kind of gatekeepers to expensive databases and tools and we're not going to bother with this freely available public stuff and some see some sort of curators and spreaders of knowledge and enablers of digital literacy and here's something where you can teach literacy because the publication process is open it's not like a textbook you get the textbook and there's been an editing process there's been controversy but you don't see that you just see the finished item with Wikipedia you can actually see the battles being fought by different factions trying to fight over that so learn about these the article histories the debates, the controversy and the scientific quality standards and teach students this and teach them to yeah that's the crucial part of induction that a lot of educators in universities and schools are still trying to tell learners to pretend Wikipedia doesn't exist don't use it at all and then they'll have a question like an assignment like what political philosophy is John Locke associated with and the student goes and searches Google Wikipedia about John Locke and it says and it gives the exact form of word to answer the question so they copy that and they get marks with so they're told not to use Wikipedia but they're given marks for using this that's fine we can't pretend it doesn't exist we have to engage with it including pointing out it's false which is fine as for the the mountains of stuff digital and books that academic librarians are sitting on, yeah open that up events where people come in and photograph special collections and actually encourage them to upload to commons so I've just written a book chapter about DIY digitisation and some special collections invite the public in and say bring your phone, photograph a document but keep the image to yourself or only share it under a fully copyrighted licence and no if you have that gift of being able to interact with this physical document this piece of cultural heritage give that opportunity to other people don't restrict the benefits to yourself and the best way to share that with other people is put it on commons, tag it for all the identifiers for where it came from where this business thing is and yeah give us your stuff give us your stuff please the I used to University of Bristol electronic resources to prove Wikipedia and that's probably the reputation of some of those resources that gets the biggest readership like I said tens of thousands people a day so don't treat it as something embarrassing or something like that but that's the main function of the library in preserving that knowledge and that scholarship sorry I wasn't doing that but I'll give you some options oh so my question is about research institutions and this is a university strategic level where you had ideas about the drivers and the opportunities for engagement between the academics and students and the library but as a research community what should we be doing and what we're currently doing thanks a lot so the open access agenda and open access requirements for the REF and for HEFGI and so on are a huge opportunity because Wikipedia and Wikipedia accept free cultural works so they have to be allowed for they have to be reusable and remixable by anyone of any purpose so there can't be a no-directed clause, there can't be a non-commercial use clause and that gold open access under the open access regime has a CC by or a Wikipedia compatible licence research outputs with the Wikipedia compatible licence is a huge opportunity like I gave the example with journal to wikipublication that if you've got an article with that licence then you can copy in the figures and use them to make a wikipedia article you can copy in bits of text maybe take out some of the jargon and that is already happening so a lot of articles of Wikipedia about ants and other insects are actually made from repurposed research articles so that people take bits of text and copied it and then prominently credit the article so that's impact that's putting research where it will be found by the public and shaped public debate and we know how many politicians have plagiarised Wikipedia and speech so we're putting it in research where politicians and their researchers will plagiarise it from it seems to me that the most most efficient impact so it's a huge opportunity making the search outputs with the minds to whether they're Wikipedia compatible secondary data can be on wikidata source text can be on wikisource and figures can be reused so one eye context is a protein scientist and they write paper about urinary proteins published in the class but for extra impact copied the figures into wikipedia, copied some of the text basically made a wikipedia article about this topic and put it through a featured article review and it got on the front page of Wikipedia and he reckons he's got lots more citations because even scientists and researchers use Google and go to the first thing Google recommends which is Wikipedia and find this so I think the institutional drivers and now pushing towards wikid media compatibility being something to be thought of as part of the search publication there is another I think there is somebody here and then somebody in the back and then somebody in the back so you can imagine that there will be a lot of and you've given this kind of visualisation that there are hundreds of people waiting to account on their way to improve things and there is a continuing data of the community how do you do that so so I have a background that I was trying to write in the introduction room and it was very difficult why do you that's a really good question I won't pretend to have the full answer to it, it's more like here's the question, here's what we should be learning from and I don't know yet what we should be learning I think things like the transparency like the contribution record is an example of that so if you're making a succession of valuable additions to things like you're adding citations to really good peer-to-peer literature that's visible on your user profile and so it's gamified in a sense that people are getting each interaction people are getting sort of a positive QDOS, put a positive camera on it or negative critical maths is a lot to do with it so I don't know how we do that whether we join things up or we avoid the fragmentation we do things bigger than institutional scale but it's subject scale or sector scale or speaking to Wikipedia or we're just picking back on successful communities that already already exist I think you know the transparency that what people what user's contribution has to be visible is to make things to think oh we want to hide this away that mechanism away and just present the end result to users and actually you know that you've shown mechanism and what's going on and that gives a basis for a critical judgement about the other product because they can see how it's made you know what the Germans say about sausages and legislation that people who love them should watch them be made and I think the opposite applies to textbooks and all that stuff you've got to see the process to understand the end result who he is we love orchid we love identifiers of all kinds if you go to my user page I've got my orchid number on my user page and on my commons page and if you go to the biography of the problem of searching hasn't orchid, hopefully the orchid will be there or there is a template to put that in and in wicked data there's a field where you can attach orchids to people we love that sort of stuff that linking in are something created to the scholarly authority OK, I'm not taking track of time you may have to track me off stage because I can Just a quick question Do you have any list of articles about the site of the orchid which you go away in the trial search to say that you should be getting more educated about the site of the orchid and understand the possibilities that orchids have had there's a bunch of tools for this it is possible to take a particular URL or a domain and get a list of all links from a particular wiki say English Wikipedia to that link or domain there are people making lists by DOIs I think Crossref are doing this sort of stuff making the most cited DOIs on Wikipedia making tables there's also a project to find all the open access literature which isn't cited on Wikipedia and make those lists available because something is peer reviewed and it's a search paper it probably belongs on Wikipedia somewhere so that's a useful list I don't have the links to hand but there are exactly those kind of bibliometric projects going on I can try and find links to share with you Thank you all very much I think that's it, thank you all very much for your questions