Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/Where experts and amateurs meet: the ideological hobby of medical volunteering on Wikipedia
WikiJournal of Medicine
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review • Wikipedia-integrated
This article has been through public peer review.
First submitted:
Accepted:
Article text
PDF: Download
DOI: 10.15347/WJM/2023.005
QID: Q115703462
XML: Download
Share article
Email
| 
Facebook
| 
Twitter
| 
LinkedIn
| 
Mendeley
| 
ResearchGate
Suggested citation format:
Piotr Konieczny (20 July 2023). "Where experts and amateurs meet: the ideological hobby of medical volunteering on Wikipedia". WikiJournal of Medicine 10 (1). doi:10.15347/WJM/2023.005. Wikidata Q115703462. ISSN 2002-4436. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/en/6/6e/Where_experts_and_amateurs_meet_the_ideological_hobby_of_medical_volunteering_on_Wikipedia.docx.pdf.
License: 
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited.
Athikhun Suwannakhan 
contact
James Heilman
Article information
Pass. Report from WMF copyvios tool run with Turnitin: 0% plagiarism detected Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 11:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Editorial note
Submitted request to technical editors to create a wikidata item (QID) Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
First peer review
Review by anonymous peer reviewer ,
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
I generally support the publication of the manuscript. The work provides an insider perspective supported by 2021 survey data of medical volunteering in English Wikipedia. Readers of the journal will benefit from the work better if presentation and style are improved as per the following observations and recommendations. (oldid=2454145 24 November 2022 at 15:52)
- Abstract
Please add some details on statistics and/or methodology such as
- the year of survey 2021
- number of respondents 74 / (115+132)
Abstract has been updated in this diff.
- Introduction
- “medical Internet” -> medical internet”
Typo has been fixed.
- Theoretical framing
- I felt that “voluntourism” is irrelevant here at my first glance but I later found that it is mentioned again later in RQ5 and discussion. Please revise so that a person reading your work from beginning till the end in linear order does not feel uneasy at this point.
I am afraid I am unsure how to address this as I am not seeing how this can make the readers uneasy?
- “semi-formal organization” is ambiguous. Can it be elaborated further? For example, I guess from your writing in the paragraphs below that… WPMEDF is legally registered and XXX is socially recognized as delegates from the organization(s) are welcome at profession forum(s) and conference(s) – WHO, NIH etc.
I've expanded/clarified this term per request in this diff
- After reading the two subsections Volunteering in medicine and WikiProject Medicine, I wonder…
What is the quantitative fraction of volunteers/article/article views of the medicine project? If you can provide brief recent statistics, the scope and scale of the project would be much clearer. It also emphasizes if the project is (under/over) resourced/subscribed in comparison to other sectors/segment of the Wikimedia movement.
I've expanded/clarified this in the following edit.
- Under the subsection “Volunteering on Wikipedia”, I wonder if other segments of Wikimedia/Wikipedia other than medicine were studied before. Why or why not? If there are studies, please elaborate. This may be relevant to 2nd paragraph under “Limitations”
I've addressed this in this edit.
- Under the subsection “Volunteering on Wikipedia”, readers would benefit from a summary of the dimensions of VFI in tabular or graphical form(s). I see that it was mentioned before in previous subtopic and later presented in Table 1. This is related to the main finding and you can spend time preparing the best presentation for the key message.
I've addressed this in this edit.
- Data and methods
- Google form is not the best way to present supplementary information. Please deposit your form in an acceptable repository including commons.
Agreed. Relevant content has been uploaded to Common and linked in this edit.
- Timeframe should be clearly specified. The start date is 14 Dec 2021 but there is no end date.
Addressed in this edit.
- Ethical approval or exemption should be clarified here and/or under Ethics statement. It should be made clear what best practices (institutional or otherwise) were followed. All participants were >= certain ages? Informed consent etc.
Addressed in those two edits.
- Findings
- Please do not start a sentence with number such as 90% and 80%.
Relevant sentences have been reworded.
- Please clarify if doctorate includes MD, MBBS and dental degrees (BDS, BDSc, BDent). Please also clarify if allied health professionals are counted as medical professionals.
Addressed in this edit.
- “ex. from\” -> “e.g. from”
Relevant sentences have been reworded.
- Discussion
- Remove one dot from ‘ailment’s article.”.’
Typo fixed.
- “volontourism” -> “voluntourism”
Typo fixed.
- After Konieczny 2016, you can add Suwannakhan & Limpanuparb 2017 https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/hbds/article/view/182401 before Weinner et al 2019.
Reference added in this diff.
- Competing interests
For anthropology studies, a mention inside the article that it is emic viewpoint is probably sufficient. However, for a biomedical context – which may be the case for this journal, you may want to reiterate again that you are part of the volunteer group and receive grant/funding from WMF or similar organization in the past. Your views do not necessarily reflect that of funder(s) etc. There is standard text to be used. Please consult the editor to see what is appropriate. The aim is to make sure that our readers see the expected standard and take the message in your article seriously.
Clarification added in this edit.
Second peer review
Review by James Heilman 
, MD, Wikipedian
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
- Theoretical framing
- There are many WPMEDs within various languages of Wikipedia as well as MDWiki.org. Wiki Project Med Foundations supports all of these. When discussing stats would be useful to clarify if you are referring to the EN WPMED or all groups.
Clarification added in this edit.
- With respect to the number of articles, I would tend to subtract redirects, diambigs, and files.
Good catch, thank you. Fixed in this edit.
- There have been successful efforts to make Wikipedia's medical content more readable for a general audience.[1] There was however been push back from some within the community regarding these efforts and a number of those involved have move to other sites.
Thank you for pointing out that relevant paper, added clarification and citation in this edit.
- Readership of Wikipedia's medical content on Wikipedia has been decreasing over the last number of years despite the amount of content increasing.[2] It no longer appears to be the most used medical resource online, having been surpassed by a site of much lower quality (in my opinion) known as Healthline.
Interesting point, but as the reference is to a yet unpublished analysis that does not yet appear to be written up (I see just graphs and links to underlying data), I am unsure how to add this information / cite it in the article. I do think it is a very interesting topic for a future paper.
- Discussion
- With only 30% of folks responding, it makes it difficult to claim with any certainty that demographics have changed. Maybe women Wikipedias are more inclined to answer surveys than male ones.
Clarification added in this edit.
- We surveyed the top medical editors back in 2014 and also found that most had at least a university education, indicating that they are older.[3]
Clarified/expanded in this edit.
- The medical editors are unlikely to be typical of the wider community.
Clarified/expanded in this edit.
Doc James (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for revising your submission
Dear Dr. Konieczny,
Thank you for revising your submission according to the comments raised by the two reviewers. I will notify the editorial board to make a final decision on your submission shortly. However, before I do so, please include your point-by-point response to all the comments raised. Here is an example from another submission. I look forward to hearing back from you. --Athikhun.suw (discuss • contribs) 23:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Athikhun.suw Thank you. I've added the point-by-point responses above as requested; please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Piotrus (discuss • contribs) 04:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Piotrus Thank you. I have notified the editorial board to make a final decision on your paper. Note that this process may take 1-2 weeks. We will keep you updated. --Athikhun.suw (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Athikhun.suw Just checking if I didn't miss anything, we are now in the timeframe of 1-2 months, not weeks? Piotrus (discuss • contribs) 08:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Piotrus Thank you. I have notified the editorial board to make a final decision on your paper. Note that this process may take 1-2 weeks. We will keep you updated. --Athikhun.suw (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)