User:Duncan.Hull

File:Phs Soc event.jpg at The Physiological Society in London in 2017 about wikibiographies of Fellows of the Royal Society. Picture by Andrew Davidson.]]

Most of my contributions to Wikipedia are quick biographies (Wikibiographies) of living women in engineering, women in science and women in STEM fields. These biographies would otherwise be either woefully incomplete or non-existent. As part of an ongoing collaboration between

WomenInRed.org, the Royal Society in London and Wikimedia UK,{{cite journal|doi=10.1038/nature.2015.18313|title=Wikipedians reach out to academics|journal=Nature|location=London|publisher=Springer Nature|year=2015|last1=Hodson|first1=Richard}} nature.com{{Cite journal | last = Hull | first = Duncan | year = 2017 | title = Wikipedia at the Royal Society: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly | journal = | volume = | issue = | pages = | publisher = Physiological Society|website=YouTube.com|location=London | doi = 10.6084/m9.figshare.5525494 | url = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdjQyh1UJSU}}{{Twitter | id= wikiscientists | name= Wiki Loves Scientists}} twitter.com/wikiscientists{{cite web |url=http://duncan.hull.name/2012/09/26/fws/ |title=Fellows of the Wiki Society? The Royal Society in London experiments with Wikipedia |last1=Hull |first1=Duncan |date=2012 |publisher=O'Really Media |location=Manchester, UK|website=duncan.hull.name|archivedate=2013-06-17|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130617203045/http://duncan.hull.name/2012/09/26/fws/}} I have created and improved Wikibiographies of some Fellows of the Royal Society, particularly the Female Fellows of the Royal Society. I've tried to follow the fundamental wiki-principles{{cite q|Q21145331}}{{cite web |url=http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html |title=Encyclopedia Frown: Wikipedia is amazing. But it’s become a rancorous, sexist, elitist, stupidly bureaucratic mess |last1=Auerbach |first1=David |authorlink=David Auerbach |date=2014 |publisher=Slate|website=slate.com|archivedate=2014-12-12|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141212011946/http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html}}{{cite book |last=Reagle Jr |first=Joseph M. |date=2010 |title=Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia |oclc=699490862 |publisher=MIT Press |location=Boston, Massachusetts |page=256 |isbn=978-0-262-01447-2|authorlink=Joseph M. Reagle Jr.}} especially:

• Being bold (WP:BOLD) because most biographies are written post-mortem, and not before.{{cite journal|last1=Longair|first1=Malcolm|authorlink=Malcolm Longair|title=Editorial|journal=Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society|volume=66|year=2019|pages=1–6|issn=0080-4606|doi=10.1098/rsbm.2019.0004}}
• Citing reliable sources to allow verification of facts (WP:VERIFY).
• Aiming for a Neutral Point Of View (WP:NPOV) by avoiding writing biographies of people I know personally or professionally.
• Paying attention to the Biographies of living persons policy (WP:ALIVE) by sticking to verifiable facts and avoiding gossip, hearsay and libel.
• Ignoring all the rules (WP:IGNORE) everyones favourite rule, but only when it suits them.

{{As of|2020|01}}, most fellows elected from after 2014, have reasonable Wikibiographies that usually include a good portrait. If you'd like to help address the gender bias in Wikipedia which reflects everyday sexism in society at large. See the redlist index of notable women without biographies, for articles waiting to be written such as female computer scientists, female engineers and female mathematicians.

File:FFRS_2014_to_2018.png which reflects sexism in society at large, where women are either mis-represented or completely under-represented. {{As of|2022|02|14}} only 19% of all biographies in Wikipedia are about women (358,922 of 1,873,707 total), see womeninred.org.{{cite web|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20190417100623/http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2019/02/08/goodbye-diversity-committee/|archivedate=2019-04-17|url=http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2019/02/08/goodbye-diversity-committee/|website=royalsociety.org|title=In Verba: Goodbye Diversity Committee|year=2019|first=Uta|last=Frith|authorlink=Uta Frith}} {{User WikiProject Women in Red}}]]

File:FAIR_data_principles.jpg]]

Even if you are considered notable by editors, you may not necessarily have a Wikibiography as coverage of scientists is often poor.{{Cite journal | last1 = Hull | first1 = Duncan | last2 = Byrne | first2 = John | year = 2015 | title = Improving the troubled relationship between Scientists and Wikipedia | journal = Wikipedia Science Conference | volume = | issue = | pages = | publisher = FigShare|location=London | jstor = | doi = 10.6084/m9.figshare.1535122 | url = https://www.slideshare.net/dullhunk/improving-the-troubled-relationship-between-scientists-and-wikipedia}} {{As of|2019|03}} this slide deck has over 13,000 views according to SlideShare{{cite journal|last1=Samoilenko|first1=Anna|last2=Yasseri|first2=Taha|authorlink2=Taha Yasseri|title=The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics|journal=EPJ Data Science|publisher=Springer Publishing|volume=3|issue=1|year=2014|doi=10.1140/epjds20|arxiv=1310.8508 }} {{open access}} For example, around 30% of Fellows elected before 2012, have no wiki-biography at all. Lots of notable scientists in the wider scientific community who aren't fellows have no biography either, especially women.{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jul/24/academic-writes-270-wikipedia-pages-year-female-scientists-noticed|title=Academic writes 270 Wikipedia pages in a year to get female scientists noticed|last=Devlin|first=Hannah|authorlink=Hannah Devlin|year=2018|website=theguardian.com|publisher=The Guardian|location=London|language=en|access-date=2018-07-24}}{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/25/girls-female-scientists-jess-wade-wikipedia-stem-role-models|title=Five amazing female scientists you’ve probably never heard of|first=Suw|last=Charman-Anderson|authorlink=Suw Charman-Anderson|publisher=The Guardian|website=theguardian.com|location=London|year=2018}}{{cite journal|last1=Tesh|first1=Sarah|last2=Wade|first2=Jess|authorlink2=Jess Wade|title=Look happy dear, you've just made a discovery|journal=Physics World|volume=30|issue=9|year=2017|pages=31–33|issn=0953-8585|doi=10.1088/2058-7058/30/9/35}} {{closed access}}{{cite journal|last1=Fyfe|first1=Aileen|authorlink1=Aileen Fyfe|last2=Røstvik|first2=Camilla Mørk|title=How female fellows fared at the Royal Society|journal=Nature|volume=555|issue=7695|year=2018|pages=159–161|issn=0028-0836|doi=10.1038/d41586-018-02746-z|pmid=29517005}}{{cite journal|title=Female scholars need to achieve more for equal public recognition|arxiv=1904.06310|first1=Menno H.|journal=arxiv |last1=Schellekensa|first2=Floris|last2=Holstegeb|first3=

Taha|last3=Yasseria|authorlink3=Taha Yasseri|year=2019}} If you want a Wikibiography, there are several steps you can take to improve your chances of having one:

1. Uploading a picture of you after creating an account. You can upload images using the [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard Upload Wizard] with an appropriate license. Images will often spur editors to create articles{{cite web |url=https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/11/new-images-released-are-quickly-put-to-use/ |title=New images released are quickly put to use |website=wikimedia.org|location=San Francisco, California|last1=Byrne|first1=John |date=2014 |publisher=Wikimedia Foundation |archivedate=2014-10-21|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141021145940/http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/11/new-images-released-are-quickly-put-to-use/}}{{cite web|url=https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/07/25/met-open-access-initiative/|first=Richard|last=Knipel|year=2017|title=The Metropolitan Museum of Art: 375,000 windows on art history, and that’s just the beginning|website=wikimedia.org|location=San Francisco, California|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170726001219/https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/07/25/met-open-access-initiative/|archivedate=2017-07-26}} because pictures are a key ingredient of good articles and are usually a significant improvement to an article with no picture at all, adding significant value.{{cite journal|last1=Erickson|first1=Kristofer|last2=Perez|first2=Felix Rodriguez|last3=Perez|first3=Jesus Rodriguez|ssrn=3206188|title=What is the Commons Worth? Estimating the Value of Wikimedia Imagery by Observing Downstream Use|journal=Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Open Collaboration: OpenSym '18, August 22–24, 2018, Paris, France |year=2018|url=http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/132898|pages=1–6|doi=10.1145/3233391.3233533|publisher=Association for Computing Machinery|location=New York, NY, USA}}
2. Requesting a biography by adding your name to the requested biographies by profession pages. Note that demand for biographies typically outstrips supply.
3. Updating information about you online to avoid the typical academic homepage of “everything you ever wanted to know about your Professor from ten years ago”.{{cite web |url=http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1487|title=The Academic Homepage: everything you ever wanted to know about your Professor from ten years ago |last1=Cham |first1=Jorge |date=2012 |publisher=Piled Higher and Deeper|website=phdcomics.com |archivedate=2014-04-07|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140407134638/http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1487|authorlink=Jorge Cham}}
4. Opening access {{open access}} to your scientific literature allows verification of facts by editors because primary sources that are open access can be more widely read and cited. If your publications are locked {{closed access}} behind a paywall most editors won't be able to read them as they are unlikely to have access to libraries that can afford scientific journal subscriptions.
5. Identifying yourself by clearly and persistently distinguishing your work using an Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID){{cite q|Q30512726}}{{cite q|Q30513139}} in your grants and publications. Your ORCID profile can be populated automatically from the publications in your Scopus record, saving you the tedious job of re-entering all your publication data again.{{cite web|author=Anon|year=2017|url=https://orcid.scopusfeedback.com|website=orcid.scopusfeedback.com|title=Send Scopus Author details and publication list to ORCID|publisher=Elsevier|location=Amsterdam, Netherlands}} If you haven't done so already you should also consider creating a Google Scholar profile{{cite web|url=https://scholar.google.co.uk/intl/en/scholar/citations.html#setup|website=scholar.google.co.uk|title=Google Scholar Citations: Setting up your profile|author=Anon|year=2017|location=Mountain View, California|publisher=Alphabet Inc.}} and claim your ResearcherID because they make your work more Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR data){{cite q|Q27942822}} to the wider world.{{cite q|Q21092568}} All this metadata will also help editors to write better articles about you.
6. Communicating with the public about your work using mainstream media, social media and other platforms for public engagement that increase public awareness of science. This will create secondary sources about you and your research that add significant value to primary sources of scientific literature and enables editors (who are probably not subject experts) to understand and write about your research.
7. Contributing data,{{cite q|Q18507561}} pictures{{cite web|url=https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/29/announcing-the-official-commons-app-for-ios-and-android/|title=Announcing the official Commons app for iOS and Android|year=2013|first=Maryana |last=Pinchuk|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170427160336/https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/29/announcing-the-official-commons-app-for-ios-and-android/|archivedate=2017-04-27}} and requested articles because Wikipedia is arguably the “[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rockpocket/Training greatest ever opportunity for public engagement]”{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rockpocket/Training|title=Why Wikipedia is important in Science|last1=Logan|first1=Darren W.|authorlink1=User:Rockpocket|last2=Gardner|first2=Paul P.|authorlink2=User:Ppgardne|last3=Manske|first3=Magnus|authorlink3=Magnus Manske|last4=Bateman|first4=Alex|authorlink4=Alex Bateman|year=2010|publisher=Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute|location=Cambridge, UK}} sanger.ac.uk that would benefit from your expertise. As John F. Kennedy might have said: {{centered pull quote|Ask not what Wikipedia can do for you; ask what you can do for Wikipedia.}}

File:Wikipediashop.jpg

If you do have a biography in Wikipedia it might be incomplete, inaccurate, badly written and have plenty of other “issues”. Although tempting, it is a bad idea to edit your autobiography on Wikipedia and any edits you make are likely to be speedily reverted due to your obvious conflicts of interest (COI). Getting your friends, colleagues or students to write or edit your Wikibiography is also not recommended, because it is difficult for them to have a Neutral Point of View. Leaving a comment on the the talk page of the article in question is usually the best way to make corrections and the Help Pages of the Biographies of Living Persons explain this in more detail. The notable person survival kit is also useful.

Remember that anyone can edit Wikipedia including vandals, bots, practical jokers, your students, collaborators, abusers and other enemies (assuming you have enemies). So it is a good idea to track changes of your Wikibiography by subscribing to the syndicated feed of the article using your favourite news aggregator. Point your aggregator at the atom feed which can be found on the "view history > tools > Atom" link to receive automatic notifications of edits to that page. Data from new Wikibiographies appears in the Google Knowledge Graph within a week or two of their publication, with both Wikipedia articles and the KG appearing prominently in search results, should you ever indulge in a spot of egosurfing.

File:Engelbert Humperdinck (singer).jpg the singer Engelbert Humperdinck is gutted that there isn't a better openly licensed portrait of him in Wikimedia Commons. If you've got a higher quality one with an appropriate license [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard please upload it], then maybe he'll stop crooning]]

If you're not feeling the Wikilove and want your Wikibiography deleted, read the how to delete a page guide and the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. You may have the right to be forgotten or may want to protect your data using the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Before you request deletion from wikipedia, bear in mind that:

• Every month, Wikipedia is viewed more than 15 billion times by over 1.5 billion unique devices. That amounts to over 500 million visits per day, or about 6000 visits per second.{{cite web|first1=Kate|last1=Zimmerman|first2=Tilman|last2=Bayer|first3=Neil Patel|last3=Quinn|year=2019|url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Audiences_Metrics_%26_Insights_Q1_2018-19.pdf|title=Audiences: Core Metrics & Insights Through Q1 of FY 2018/19|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation|website=wikimedia.org|location=San Francisco, California}} To put it another way, every month, people spend ~60,000 years reading Wikipedia articles. For better or worse, Wikipedia is one of the first places the general public go to find out about science.
• According to Alexa Internet, {{As of|2019}} Wikipedia is the [http://www.alexa.com/topsites tenth most visited website on the entire web] alongside internet behemoths like the Big Four tech companies Google, Amazon, Facebook etc. It's also the [https://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/GB seventh most visited website from the UK]
• According to Crossref, in 2016 Wikipedia was the sixth largest referrer to scholarly articles via Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), only bettered by major publishers like Elsevier, Thomson Reuters, Ex Libris Group, EBSCO Information Services and ProQuest.{{cite web|url=https://www.crossref.org/blog/where-do-doi-clicks-come-from/|title=Where do DOI clicks come from?|first=Joe|last=Wass|year=2016|website=crossref.org|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170817094656/https://www.crossref.org/blog/where-do-doi-clicks-come-from/|archivedate=2017-08-17|publisher=CrossRef}} People click on the [http://chronograph.labs.crossref.org millions of DOIs]{{cite web|url=http://chronograph.labs.crossref.org|website=chronograph.labs.crossref.org|title=Chronograph analyzes which websites people come from when they click on a DOI|author=Anon|year=2017}}{{cite web|url=http://www.doi.org/factsheets/DOIKeyFacts.html|website=doi.org|title=Key Facts on Digital Object Identifier System|author=Anon|year=2017}} in Wikipedia directly to the primary scientific literature.
• Consequently, having a Wikibiography is likely to increase the impact of your work inside and outside of academia. You can see your personal Wikipedia:Pageview statistics using the handy [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews Pageviews Analysis] tool.{{cite web|url=https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews|website=tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews|author1=MusikAnimal|author2=Kaldari|author3=Marcel Ruiz Forns |year=2017|title=Pageviews Analysis}}
• The tax-payers, government agencies and charities who have funded your work want to maximise their investment in your research. Having it cited in Wikipedia is one small step to achieving this.
• As a scientist you are already a public figure and much of your work is already in the public domain and even wikidata,{{cite journal|last1=Schiermeier|first1=Quirin|title=Initiative aims to break science’s citation paywall: Publishers agree to release proprietary data on references in millions of papers|journal=Nature|year=2017|issn=1476-4687|doi=10.1038/nature.2017.21800}} Wikipedia is a logical extension to that.
• Methods for evaluating research impact may change in the future.{{cite web|url=http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/year/2015/metrictide/|website=hefce.ac.uk|publisher=Higher Education Funding Council for England|year=2015|title=The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management|isbn= 9781473973060 |doi= 10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363|first=James|last=Wilsdon|first2=Liz|last2=Allen|display-authors=1|oclc=1002030907}} For example, initiatives like ImpactStory, Altmetric.com, Clarivate Analytics and Plum Analytics are already measuring online mentions of peer reviewed papers using so-called alternative metrics (altmetrics).{{cite web|first1=Jason|last1= Priem|first2=Dario|last2= Taraborelli|first3=Paul|last3=Groth|first4=Cameron|last4=Neylon|authorlink4=Cameron Neylon|year=2010|url=http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/|title=

altmetrics: a manifesto|website=altmetrics.org/manifesto}}{{cite q|Q21560746}}{{cite q|Q22978859}}{{cite q|Q21133507}} These newer metrics all include estimates of how much literature is mentioned in Wikipedia,{{cite web|url=https://www.altmetric.com/top100/2019/|website=altmetric.com|title=Top 100 articles of 2019|year=2019|author=Anon}} so having your research in the worlds biggest encyclopedia will improve your altmetric(s) score(s). That might come in handy some day.

• Last but not least, do you really want your work to be excluded from the “sum of all knowledge”?

If you're wondering about my conflict of interests, I am not funded, paid or employed by the Royal Society and never have been. I started WikiProject Royal Society in 2012 with help from Paul Nurse{{cite web|first=Duncan|last=Hull|year=2012|title=An Open Letter to the Royal Society: Please employ a Wikipedian in Residence|location=Manchester|website=duncan.hull.name|url=https://duncan.hull.name/2012/06/01/fellowiki/}} and John Byrne. The aim of the project is to improve the coverage of scientists (and their science) in Wikipedia, Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons using the resources of the Royal Society. Like I've already said above, I avoid writing biographies of people I know personally or professionally.

I have been an active member of the amazing Wikipedia community since my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Botany&oldid=3149516 first edit to this article on Botany in 2004], {{Time ago| April 10, 2004|spellout=yes}}. Since 2007, I have used my real name (the one my parents gave me) rather than my interwebs pen name, dullhunk which I used for edits prior to 2007.

{{notice|small=no|header=Disclaimer|My contributions are made in an individual, personal capacity and so do not represent the official views of my employer or any other organisation to which I am affiliated.}}

The best way to contact me about wikistuff is via the talk pages of an article or on my personal talk page. If you add the text {{ping|Duncan.Hull}} to your comment, I'll get automagically notified. If you want to contact me off-wiki in less than 140 characters, you can tweet me or email me mytwitterhandle@gmail.com (where mytwitterhandle = wikiscientists). For more urgent or serious problems, you should email Wikimedia volunteers using the ticketing system (OTRS) so that your issue gets properly logged and dealt with.

File:Women in War and Peace, learning to edit Wikipedia.pdf for new editors co-organised with the Imperial War Museum North in June 2020.{{cite web|first=Duncan|last=Hull|year=2020|title=Women in War and Peace: Training event for new Wikipedia editors|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3D3gVVHrNk|website=youtube.com}}]]

File:Wikipedia_at_the_Royal_Society_The_Good,_the_Bad_and_the_Ugly.pdf in London in 2017 about the wikibiographies of living scientists.]]

File:Improving the troubled relationship between Scientists and Wikipedia.pdf at the [https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Wikipedia_Science_Conference Wikipedia Science Conference (#wikisci)] in London in 2015 about the Wikipedian in residence scheme at the Royal Society.]]

File:Wikimedia Foundation Audiences Metrics & Insights Q1 2018-19.pdf

{{reflist|35em}}

{{WMUK}}

{{Authority control|qid=Q47012855}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hull, Duncan}}

Duncan Hull