Authoring and editing Wikipedia articles as a social justice and open educational practice

Since its inception in 2001, Wikipedia has grown, evolved and been widely studied. Zachary McDowell and Matthew Vetter focus on information literacy and Wikipedia-based pedagogy in “Wikipedia as Open Educational Practice: Experiential Learning, Critical Information Literacy, and Social Justice,” an article published open access in Social Media & Society. Specifically, they use the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education as a metacognition and metaliteracy tool to examine social justice in the pedagogical practice of teaching with Wikipedia.

The authors interlace the six common stages of learning to contribute to Wikipedia – Learning to evaluate the article; Selecting an article to contribute to; Researching the topic; Annotating and summarizing the research; Drafting the article; Editing and responding to feedback – with the six frames of information literacy – Authority Is Constructed and Contextual; Information Creation as a Process; Information Has Value; Research as Inquiry; Scholarship as Conversation; Searching as Strategic Exploration. Through the process of contributing to Wikipedia, some of what students learn concerns:

  • becoming authoritative voices themselves and the associated responsibilities;
  • that information has value as a commodity, a means of influence and a way of making sense of the world;
  • copyright, intellectual property, plagiarism and licensing;
  • what Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) policy means for representing a range of secondary sources without prioritizing one over another;
  • how information is constructed from other sources; and
  • how to participate in diversifying the world’s information landscape.

Wikipedia authoring and editing teaches people to engage critically with social, political and economic issues, and the skills learned empower people from minority groups to create authoritative sources to counter misinformation that has been directed at them. Authors from Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) communities have an opportunity to meaningfully engage with audiences and to address gaps in information about topics of interest to them. While working with Wikipedia has a learning curve and gatekeeping issues of its own, McDowell and Vetter encourage investigators, students and educators to find mentors or newbies, depending on their alignment, to support each other to “…utilize Wikipedia to engage, learn, and promote these broad issues of social justice. One edit at a time.”

Association for Computing Machinery opens 1951-2000 back files

The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) has made its backfile of articles published between 1951 through 2000 openly available. This constitutes a collection of 117,000 articles and associated data sets, software, slides, audio recordings, and videos. These materials are available through the ACM Digital Library. Use the Advanced Search to limit by date.

ACM has made a commitment to publishing all its materials open access within the next five years. UMass Amherst Libraries pays for the subscribed content. Affiliated users with a NetID can search the complete ACM Digital Library.

Journal prices and “value”

The Periodicals Price Survey 2022 has been released by Library Journal and per usual for this annual survey, it offers a lot of data to interpret. The survey gives number of journals and their average costs by subject between 2020 – 2022 as categorized by the Library of Congress, Clarivate, and Ebsco’s Academic Search Ultimate, and the numbers vary by source. Overall, journal prices have increased by 5.5% between 2021 and 2022 for U.S. titles, 6.7% for non-U.S. titles. These price increases are placed in the context of growing general fund spending in states but declining higher education enrollments and library budgets. It paints a bleak landscape.

Open access publishing mandates have sought to disrupt the higher subscription price trend, and open access journals are projected to account for 50% of publications by 2024 and 50% of revenue by 2039. However, publishing costs have not levelled off. Large commercial publishers (Elsevier, SpringerNature, Taylor & Francis, Wiley) are dominating the open access market and expanding their services to researchers throughout the research life cycle (and employing surveillance technologies to monetize data). Society publishers and university presses are also experimenting with different revenue streams and open access publishing models to remain relevant and viable. Considerable uncertainty looms as library budgets continue to constrict.

The survey ends with an examination of journal value as determined by the intersection of price and citation metrics (Impact Factor and Eigenfactor). The data is presented by ranges of journal cost and by subject area. Higher priced journals do tend to receive more citations, but the increase in citations is far less than the price increase. “The average price ($8,539) for the most expensive journals was 24 times higher than the least expensive ($361) journals, while the Impact Factor slightly more than doubled.” The cost per citation varies by discipline, with chemistry journals providing a low relative cost and philosophy journals a high cost. This also reflects the journal citation tendencies of the different disciplines. Commercial journal publishers are profiting from the reputation economy. “Commercial publishers showed a cost per citation of 31¢ and an average price of $2,646, while university presses showed 12¢ and an average price of $718, and societal publishers showed 6¢ and an average price of $1,620.” It is university publishers and society publishers who provide far better value for the investments libraries and other funders make in them.