Answer: As the intended users of the Wiki are academics, professionals and students within Psychology, there is much greater potential for the articles and information to be of a higher standard than is the case in Wikipedia, due to a greater level of expertise. Another aim of the site is allow users of psychologic & psychiatric services to comment on their experiences in seperate discussion areas, linked to each article.
The completed Psychology Wiki is intended to have link every academic reference and paper, either on-site (elsewhere in the Psychology Wiki) or off-site (to external sources, eg. PubMed). This was the original intention of the internet, allowing scientists to quickly cross reference papers with their colleagues in related fields.
see the edit version of this page to understand this)which will free the copyright and then locate the file on your computer with the browse box. When all is ready to go- hit the upload button.
The trick that had me foxed for a while is that when you want to make a link to the uploaded pdf file you have to make the link with the picture frame button (Image button)- next to the A by the globe on the picture buttons above the edit box.
So highlight the name of your file click the picture frame and it will put the word image and the square brackets around the name to make the link. Hope thats clear.see this page PhDitis:_practitioner:further_readingfor an example.
...is this site not being hosted by one of the national psychology societies?[edit | edit source]
ANSWER: I think there is quite a discussion to be had on this question and there are a number of pros and cons that I have identified.
As it stands the site can be transferred over to another host if this is what we decide. It is fully backupable (if there is such a word) and the software to run it is free
The first problem to any move is capacity and cost. Wikipedia currently has 1m pages and 300,000 hits a day. Supposing we were able to document every reference as envisaged it is likely that we will approach this size say in 10 years time. With the number of academic and practioner psychologists by then, I think it is reasonable to think that level of activity could be reached also, if people are accessing it 2 or 3 times a day. Wikepedia currently runs on 56 computers linked together. So as you can see there would be a large management issue with implications for upgrading internet connections etc. You would need to employ a team of people to run the system. This I estimate at current prices would cost about £250,000 to set up, depending on accomodationa availability, with a budget of £100,000pa to run it. On this sort of analysis the wikicities deal looks by far the best option, assuming their advertising funded model is sustainable. They will be spreading these costs over a large number of projects so I feel it is viable in the longterm. For example it is crystal clear to me that all academic disciplines will need to go down this sort of route, because they all have the same knowledge management problems.
The pros I have identified with the current arrangements are:
That not being tied to a particular nations society protects the integrity of the internationalist part of the agenda for the site.
The advertising system for the site does allow the National societies to target their advertising to the psychology community. It may be possible to protect the scientific integrity of the site by securing advertising revenue from the societies collectively in the future. This might be halfway house model.
The cons I have identified are:
There is a problem gaining permission for the copyright to articles, given that they are to be used on a profit making site.
There is a hurdle to be overcome in peoples perception of the site and their belief that we as contributors are making money from it - which is not the case.
Its not clear to me but it may be that the national socities might feel that they couldn't recommend the site, support its growth etc, because it is a money making venture.
I notice that some of the advertisements down the side of the page advertise for students to purchase essays. Can these be screened out?[edit | edit source]
ANSWER: I am in contact wih Wikicities about this and will post their reply as soon as I receive it Lifeartist 14:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC).
Angela Beesley's reply was straightforward: "If there are specific URLs causing problems, please email them to me and I can block them from appearing in the Google ads." So please notify her directly throught the 'report a problem' link on the left hand panel below the google search box. It would be useful to list the blocked links here so we can keep upto date with the notifications.Lifeartist 09:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC).
...Quality controls are there for content of the Psychology Information?[edit | edit source]
ANSWER: Quality control is a clear issue if the site is to be a credible source of information for psychologists on a daily basis.
That quality control is possible is demonstrated by a recent study in Nature which revealed that Wikipedia was more accurate that Encyclopedia Brittanica when judged by a sample of scientific articles. See: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html.
A number of factors can work to ensure quality.
Education. It is clear to me that these collaborative databases are going to become increasingly important as the size of the knowledge management task increases exponentially with ever more active researchers and practioners.I believe that all graduates should have the skills to contribute to the development and maintenance of these databases, just as they have come to develop 'old' internet skills. Part of their education would be about the academic and professional standards appropriate to these sites.
Peer review. In a sense articles on the Psychology Wiki are under continuous peer review . My own view is that quality is ensured by regular participation and vetting of content by all of us as a profession. With a 1000 contributers each taking responsibility for their areas of expertise we can monitor the content. There are elements such as the watchlist and recent changes pages that allow us to do this. Each page has a discussion page were debates about the quality of content can be had to resolve disputes and each registered user has their own Talk page here they can be contacted and educated about the error of their ways.
I know people have concern about vandalism on the site, which would include, for us, people putting up low quality articles, degrading the quality of what was already posted. Our current thoughts on the potential efficacy of our procedures are here here.
...are these adverts down the side of the page? I want reassurance you are not an Ad farm copying material from Wikipedia[edit | edit source]
ANSWER: We are always happy to reassure that we are the genuine article.You are not the first to raise the issue.You can see some of our responses to these concerns in the first answer above.
Wikia is a company set up by the founders of Wikipedia on the basis of an advertising finance model They provide the facilities for the site but we as founder and contributors are separate from them and have no financial interest in the site.
Our aim has been to work towards a site for professional, academics and users of our services. So in addition to generating original material eg Our strategy has been to structure the site with WP articles with a view to upgrading them from general reader focus to a professional academic standard.