email: jorlowitzgmail.com twitter: JakeOrlowitz - WikiLibrary - WikiAdventure - WikiProjectMed
I founded The Wikipedia Library but don't manage it anymore! Reach out to wikipedialibrarywikimedia.org or ping User:Samwalton9 (WMF).
Play to learn: The Wikipedia Adventure * Do research: The Wikipedia Library * About editing: Wikipedia:Plain and simple
Editing with a company: Plain and simple COI guide * Get help: In the Teahouse * Need a break: Listen to Wikipedia
I work with mission-aligned organizations and companies to help improve open knowledge, open access, public education, media literacy, and Wikipedia.
My current clients include:
Internet Archive (advancing deadlink fixing using Internet Archive Bot)
Annual Reviews (publisher) (overseeing a Wikipedian in Residence)
Anti-Defamation League (basic editing training)
|noob||involved||been around||veteran||seen it all||older than the Cabal itself||where did my life go? oh, have to go check my watchlist...|
Jake Orlowitz (User:Ocaasi) founded The Wikipedia Library and ran it from 2011-2019. By the time he left the program at the Wikimedia Foundation, TWL had a half-million dollar budget and 6-person team on 4 continents. Through The Wikipedia Library, Jake developed partnerships with 70 leading scholarly publishers to provide free access to 100,000 scholarly journals and reference texts. 25,000 editors now have access to those sources through the Wikipedia Library Card Platform. Jake created the viral #1Lib1Ref and #1Bib1Ref citation campaigns, which now add 10-20 thousand new references each year from librarians around the world to Wikipedia. He started the Wikipedia Visiting scholar program, the Books & Bytes newsletter, the Wikipedia + Libraries facebook group, the Wikimedia and Libraries Usergroup, and the @WikiLibrary Twitter account.
Jake negotiated the collaboration with Turnitin to fix copyright violations on Wikipedia, started collaboration with Internet Archive to rescue 10 million dead citation links, integrated OCLC ISBN citation data into Wikipedia's reference autogeneration interface, and began a project to add Citoid to Wikidata. He developed the OAbot web app, and is a founding member of the Open Scholarship Initiative. He co-released a dataset of Wikipedia's most cited sources and the proportion of free-to-read sources on Wikipedia. Jake created The Wikipedia Adventure interactive guided tutorial and facilitated the first-ever for-credit Wikipedia editing course at Stanford Medical School. He is an English Wikipedia Administrator. 2-time Wikimedia Foundation grantee, former Individual Engagement Grants Committee member, founding board member of Wiki Project Med Foundation, former Organizing Committee member for Wikicite, Linked Data 4 Libraries Program Committee member, and founder of the Wikimedia Foundation's Knowledge Integrity Program.
Jake has presented about Wikipedia, citations, and reliability at five Wikimanias, Stanford University, Internet Librarian, the American Library Association, OCLC, and IFLA. He is a primary author of "The Plain and Simple Conflict of Interest Guide", "Conflict of Interest editing on Wikipedia", "Librarypedia: The future of Libraries, and Wikipedia", "The New Media Coalition Horizon Report for Libraries", "The Wikipedia Adventure: Field Evaluation", "Writing an open access encyclopedia in a closed access world", "The Wikipedia Library: The world's largest encyclopedia needs a digital library, and we are building it", "You're a researcher without a library: what do you do?", the Wikipedia "Research Help" portal, "Why Medical Schools Should Embrace Wikipedia", and the forthcoming Wikipedia @20 chapter "How Wikipedia Drove Professors Crazy, Made Me Sane, and Almost Saved the Internet." He has been interviewed by Publishers weekly in "Discovery Happens Here", Tow Journalism School for "Public Record Under Threat", and was featured in the documentary "Paywall: The Business of Scholarship".
- "I call this Revolution 2.0. Revolution 2.0 is, is - I say that our revolution is like Wikipedia, OK? Everyone is contributing content. You don't know the names of the people contributing the content ... This is exactly what happened... Everyone was contributing small pieces, bits and pieces. We drew this whole picture. We drew this whole picture of a revolution. And that picture - no one is the hero in that picture."
— Activist Wael Ghonim
- "I'd like to say out loud that I really liked the atmosphere, that I enjoy more and more the simple fact that when we are together (chapters, WMF, affiliates, user groups, everyone) we feel like a movement, we act like a movement, we work and eat and drink and dance together and we argue much less than when we are online, typing in front of screens. I learned a lot about the ongoing transformation of the Wikimedia Foundation: many things are changing, they are working a lot, and very often we as affiliates do not notice these things. I saw many changes towards a better, more open and more collaborative Foundation, and I don't know many times I heard WMF employees asking for feedback and help."
— Aubrey, President of Wikimedia Italia, on Wikimedia-l after the 2015 Wikimedia conference in Berlin
- "And when people did help they were given a flattering name. They weren’t called “Wikipedia’s little helpers,” they were called “editors.” It was like a giant community leaf-raking project in which everyone was called a groundskeeper. Some brought very fancy professional metal rakes, or even back-mounted leaf-blowing systems, and some were just kids thrashing away with the sides of their feet or stuffing handfuls in the pockets of their sweatshirts, but all the leaves they brought to the pile were appreciated. And the pile grew and everyone jumped up and down in it having a wonderful time. And it grew some more, and it became the biggest leaf pile anyone had ever seen anywhere, a world wonder."
- "What are we going to do tonight, Brain? Same thing we do every night, Pinky, try and take over the world."
- "Silly is you in a natural state, and serious is something you have to do until you can get silly again."
You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
*You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
*You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
*Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
1. We are a community of very real people with deep emotions and human complexities.
2. We are deeply invested in our project, so much so it hurts us at times even if it is also a passion or refuge for many.
3. You never know what someone has been through, or is going through.
4. We all need help at some point. There is no shame in needing help, asking for help, or receiving help.
5. If you are ever feeling completely hopeless: Wait. Things really can get better. Talk to someone about it.
6. Mental health carries a powerful stigma. The more we are open about it, the less that weighs all of us down.
7. If we listen, we can learn from each other.
8. We need to be kind. This is a higher calling than civility, and entirely compatible with achieving our goals.
9. Our movement depends on its people. We are our most valuable resource.
10. We are not finished products. With time, space, support, and practice — people can, and do, grow and change.
- "You see, Wikipedia brings people together. It brought me together. It just takes some time for everyone to get their heads on straight, before they can see that their lives too have a mission, and an  button."
- "So, does all this mean Wikipedia is perfect? Heck, no! What I mean is that it’s an excellent place not just to soak up the sum of all human knowledge, but also to learn how to conduct oneself in a society riven with conflict and ambiguity, where might sometimes seems to make right and in the end all one can really be certain about having the power to safeguard is one’s own integrity. Maybe that’s a dim view of the world, but when you consider all the bad things that happen every day, you know, getting into (and out of) an edit war on Wikipedia is a relatively safe and surprisingly practical way to learn some key lessons about life."
- "The more radical the person is, the more fully he or she enters into reality so that, knowing it better, he or she can transform it. This individual is not afraid to confront, to listen, to see the world unveiled. This person is not afraid to meet the people or to enter into a dialogue with them. This person does not consider himself or herself the proprietor of history or of all people, or the liberator of the oppressed; but he or she does commit himself or herself, within history, to fight at their side."
- "So there was this exhilarating sense of mission—of proving the greatness of the Internet through an unheard-of collaboration. Very smart people dropped other pursuits and spent days and weeks and sometimes years of their lives doing “stub dumps,” writing ancillary software, categorizing and linking topics, making and remaking and smoothing out articles—without getting any recognition except for the occasional congratulatory barnstar on their user page and the satisfaction of secret fame. Wikipedia flourished partly because it was a shrine to altruism—a place for shy, learned people to deposit their trawls."
- "It worked and grew because it tapped into the heretofore unmarshaled energies of the uncredentialed. The thesis procrastinators, the history buffs, the passionate fans of the alternate universes of Garth Nix, Robotech, Half-Life, P.G. Wodehouse, Battlestar Galactica, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Charles Dickens, or Ultraman—all those people who hoped that their years of collecting comics or reading novels or staring at TV screens hadn’t been a waste of time—would pour the fruits of their brains into Wikipedia, because Wikipedia added up to something. This wasn’t like writing reviews on Amazon, where you were just one of a million people urging a tiny opinion and a Listmania list onto the world—this was an effort to build something that made sense apart from one’s own opinion, something that helped the whole human cause roll forward."
- "In fact what Wikipedia presages is a change in the nature of authority. Prior to Britannica, most encyclopaedias derived their authority from the author. Britannica came along and made the relatively radical assertion that you could vest authority in an institution. You trust Britannica, and then we in turn go out and get the people to write the articles. What Wikipedia suggests is that you can vest authority in a visible process. As long as you can see how Wikipedia's working, and can see that the results are acceptable, you can come over time to trust that. And that is a really profound challenge to our notions of what it means to be an institution, what it means to trust something, what it means to have authority in this society."
— Gauntlett, D. (2009). Case study: Wikipedia.
Wikipedia works because of how many people participate in creating and checking its pages. All changes go through a virtual filter--a gauntlet--of intelligent computer and human review. Thousands of people are constantly scouring new changes, and millions of readers keep an eye out for anything that seems off.
Because of this process, research studies have shown that Wikipedia is just as accurate as traditional encyclopedias, but its errors get fixed faster. We are living proof of the coders' motto that "With enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". In other words, many hands make anything possible!
1. Edit filter (automatic pattern rejection)
2. CBNG (machine-learning artificial neural network bot)
4. STiki (cbng residual feed, missed vandalism, subtle vandalism--human assisted metadata and pattern based review)
5. Article watchlists, selective page and topic monitoring by users
6. Pending changes, live version delay, reviewed by autoconfirmed users
7. Semi-protection, prevents non-autoconfirmed users from editing
8. Full protection, prevents non-admins from editing
9. Official readers, journalists and subjects of articles who report mistakes in the news (not good!)
10. Random readers, millions of individuals who fix errors when they come upon them
Admin stuff to do