thank you everybody in the room with me and thank you to everyone
attending today.  I get excited when I see all of you virtual people in the room, in
the virtual room with us.  This is Betha Gutsche speaking right now.  You will hear
from Emily jack from Chapel Hill.  A lot to cover today as you can see from this
rather full agenda.  We are basically.  Our key agenda is to illuminate the inner
workings of Wikipedia for you all so that you will come away from this webinar
confident at your ability to add a citation and participate in the #1lib1ref annual
event.  I know there's some controversy.  Some people say 1-lieeb and some say 1lib. 
We do a white screen activity where you will be granted annotation tools.  We'd like
to take this time for you to practice with a checkmark.  To find the check mark,
first find that it will be a gray marker at the top left corner of your presentation
screen.  When you click on it, it turns blue.  A lot of you are there already.  If
you go down and find that open square on your vertical tool box, click the teeny tiny
arrow to the right to open the menu and choose the check model.  It is a three-step
process.  I am really happy.  This makes me happy seeing the screen filled with check
marks and some of them get exuberant.  Great.  I think you have got it.  If  can hold your check marks for now.  We are heading to the next screen. 
Hoping to get an idea of what your level with experience with Wikipedia is, and
there's no judgment here.  I am brand new to editing but now I think I can -- I have
not yet participatedded in a #1lib1ref campaign but I can check everything but the
last box.   Actually it is exciting to see how many of you here are brand new to
editing.  We are going to turn off the tool and guide in to what we want to talk
about today.  We at OCLC and WebJunction, we have been doing this project a year
or so now.  It is about strengthening the ties between public lie  -- libraries and Wikipedia so we can serve the public libraries diverse
communities.  There are many ways we can do that.  We are here because of the
funding, generous funding from the Knight Foundation and the Wikimedia Foundation and
always very valuable ongoing support of OCLC.  So thank you to all of those.  As part
of the overall project, WebJunction offered a nine-week course and it ran
September 13th to November 15th.  We had 283 library staff enrolled in the
course, which was really great response.  We surveyed that group in the beginning. 
This is very important to know before we go to the next slide that 70% of those
enrolled in the course had never edited Wikipedia before.  Then, by the end of the
course, this is -- the effectiveness of
understanding Wikipedia.  5600 edits and these numbers are dynamic.  Probably even
higher now because our cohort of library staff came out of that course so
enthusiastic.  They are still editing and will probably continue to edit. 
There are a small number of new articles, only six but that is a big leap.  So huge
kudos to those six who actually created new articles from scratch.  So this is what
it looks like by the numbers, but we also got a flood of testimonials, which really
are the things that speak to me.  I love this.  I'm a changed librarian now.  We
heard this in many forms from many people how their perceptions of Wikipedia were
transformed as a matter of fact of going through this course and that is why we are
here today because librarians and just broadly library staff you have the power to
make Wikipedia better and more reliable.  Be bold is a Wikipedia mantra we adopted in
the course.  A lot of participants echoed that just be bold and just do it.  That's
what led to all of that activity that you saw in the numbers.  So I think beginning
to understand what role librarians can play in Wikipedia is important to note there
is community behind each of them.  There are faces and real people behind -- we know
there's a very strong, cohesive community in the library world.  There's that very
similar community behind Wikipedia.  So this is a large, international community of
users, and they are dedicated to building and supporting the tool.  We have shared
missions.  The missions statement for Wikimedia Foundation is something that
resonates with the mission of libraries.  Although the picture is two separate
images, they aren't necessarily two distinct communities because there are many, many
librarians who have immersed themselves in Wikipedia and become librarians who
Wikipedia or why not full Wikipedians.  I like this quotation from Andrea Davis of
the San Francisco Public Library.  After she had become a librarian, she said that
Wikipedia was no longer this thing that they do, those people.  You do it.  You have
agency or we do it.  So, we are here to change your perceptions, if you are not there
already.  If you participated in the course, you're there with us.  This is another
affirmation from one of our participants, the idea that there is really this
community that devotes a lot of time putting authentic attention in to this resource.
So, citations are needed.  That is what the #1lib1ref campaign is.  It happens
annually.  Although you can add citations anytime of the day or night or year.  We
can do this and we are going to do this and at this point I will turn it over to
Monika, who's going to open the door and let us get a glimpse of how wick Wikipedia
works behind the scenes.
>> Thank you so much, Betha.  I love that sign.  It fit perfectly with our webinar
today and I'm thrilled to see everyone with us.  I have been editing and thinking of
Wikipedia since about 2012.  Since Wikipedia started in 2001, for a long time I
thought myself similar to you newcomers as a new bee but now I have six years of
experience there.  So today my aim is to give you an inside perspective on the
volunteer community behind Wikipedia and kind of the unique policy that bring this
on-line alive and make it happen.  For those that are just getting started with
this campaign, what we are going to do is give you context and answer two basic
questions -- what is Wikipedia and how does it work?  And what is Wikipedia is in one
sense really easy to answer.  It is a part of the fabric of our regular internet
life.  This -- the popularity of Wikipedia as a reference was thrown in to release
for me when the numbers of pages that had the highest views in 2017 was recently
released.  At the top of the list was an article on Queen Elizabeth II suggesting a
strong population of shows such as Netflix "The Crown" and people's interest in those
topics.  People clicked on Queen Elizabeth's article close to 20 million times.  I
know as an educator and for information professionals, like yourselves, I think the
question we have is when people are accessing Wikipedia with these reference
questions, what's the quality of that information?  What are they getting there? 
Let's dig in.  This is a screen shot of Queen Elizabeth, II's Wikipedia article.  I'm
not logged in.  So this is a default view that anyone would get when they look at an
internet browser.  As a Wikipedia editor, I have a clue as to the quality that I can
check at a glance, without even looking at the references.  That is over on the right
side.  There's a big, blue arrow pointing to a gold star.  That means this article is
a featured article.  That is one of Wikipedia's best articles, considered
distribution ready.  Basically that means that editors can sleep at night knowing
that all the viewers who are watching the show and want information about the Queen,
are getting accurate a information.  There is also a lock on the page that it will be
difficult for a new editor to vandalize the page.  It's locked unless you have had
regular edits made elsewhere on Wikipedia and gained the trust of other editors you
would be unable to edit this.  As a reader you are not going to see anything that is
not supposed to be there.  And the broadcast similar bobble on the far right at the
top of the page shows you can actually listen to a recording of this article of
someone reading it out loud which is nice.  These clouds can tell you, straight up,
without looking very hard, that this is a great piece.  When you look further on the
page, if you do read this, it is excellent, as well.  Let's dig a little deeper. 
Behind every article page there's an editorial back channel talked "Talk."  This is
where you would get more information on how something like that featured article came
to be.  Link to any other discussions that are happening about this article or
project that is connected to.  Talk is a place where you can go and get more
information about the article.  That is what the screen shot here shows you.  It is
the behind the scenes process.  And then there's the view history page.  So this is a
screen shot of the history of this article.  Now, this is an excellent article in
2018, but it didn't start out that way.  In fact, most articles on Wikipedia don't
start out as excellent articles.  I think unlike other reference sources where when
they are published they are published in their final form, Wikipedia articles
generally start out in an early form.  They are just getting started.  Those kinds of
articles are called starter articles or sub articles.  This started out with, believe
it or not, four sentences in November of 2001, and you can actually click on what
that article looks like by going to the revision history page.  It will show you
every single it ration of this article as it is developed and you can use it to get
information about its reliability.  If you look at the revision history statistics,
you can see the bulk of the article was 2001 to 2007.  Since then it has
been relatively stable.  Just small updates here and there.  There was a bunch of
work done in 2012.  But that stability in edits and contributions is also a really
good indicator it's going to be a high-quality article.  So if these clues about how
to read an article and what the editorial process of Wikipedia is like, having you
scratch your head and are new to you and might be a little strange, trust me, you are
not alone.  Wikipedia may be ubiquitous and popular but unlike other population
processes and editorial processes and even like other social media, the way that the
community works can seem really opaque.  That's what I'm trying to do for you today
is just illuminate how that works.  Really what Wikipedia has come to be about is
five fundamental principles or rules that editors early on decided would be the
foundation of what this project should be about.  So the first one is really basic,
which is that this is an encyclopedia project.  That sounds simple but, in fact, I
find myself scratching my head as to what is really an encyclopedia.  And the
definition by Wikipedians is it is a source.  It is captured in
secondary sources.  Sometimes there is a blurry line between primary and secondary
source.  And believe it or not, the professional Wikipedians are keen to be debating
the quality of references and how they work.  Now Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia is an
old project.  Its tag line is adopted from an encyclopedia brittanica's tag line. 
And it has a unique way of working.  It is a Wiki made out of a content
management system designed to aid collaborative authorship which means like unlike
other encyclopedias like Britainica, that stopped being updated in 2010, Wikipedia is
constantly updated.  It is like a virtual newsroom but it is not a newsroom.  It is
an encyclopedia.  They are concerned with developing articles collaboratively and
created a system for classifying the development of the articles.  Earlier we saw
that there's a featured article class.  There's a number of classes, and anytime you
are looking at an article you can go and check to see what editors have determined
the class of an article to be at.  Sometimes these are very up-to-date
classifications and sometimes out of date.  You can always keep that in mind.  The
second pillar of Wikipedia is it is written from a neutral point of view.  This is
basically a style guide that aims to help people understand how to summarize the
existing information.  It is not a space for promotion.  Summaries of
secondary references may themselves have biases or frame history in a particular way.
Wikipedians are sensitive to this and this can lead to having conversations about how
to appropriately represent a topic.  The third pillar of Wikipedia is probably the
thing that differentiates it the most from other encyclopedias.  And that it is free
to use, edit and share.  When it says use and share, the content is free to be
reproduced anywhere else on the internet.  It is an open license and open access. 
The end game is free in that it is open to all.  If you are following the spirit and
principles of the encyclopedia and authorship is shared among all of the editors. 
The fourth principle is a treasured principle by library staff, our course
participants earlier this year really valued the fact that civility is one of the
most important parts of editing Wikipedia.  In part this is necessary to have the
principle of Wikipedia because volunteer contributors often use pseudonyms.  So it is
important to create an atmosphere of trust by the way that you act on Wikipedia, not
just because of who you are.  So actions speak louder than words.  I think
Wikipedians are really keen to always be sharing and thanking each other for their
contributions by giving gifts of Wiki love like virtual coffee or a virtual strop
waffle to show your respect with others and there is the option to thank an editor
for their edit.  If you look at someone's contribution on history you can do that. 
In general, Wikipedians realize it is difficult to see the humans behind the
pseudonyms, but all are encouraged to always assume good faith in the actions of
others.  The fifth pillar is wonderful and strange for all of us.  That's there is no
firm rules.  These are rules and guidelines and policies and there's probably more
pages about how Wikipedia works and maybe they are article pages and they that's a
lot because there are 5.3 growing articles on English, Wikipedia alone.  But at the
same time I think what Wikipedians realize is this is an ongoing project that is
always under development.  So in aiming to have open rules that means as the project
unfolds we may need to change the ways we work.  And the strategic direction of the
Wikimedia Foundation for 2030 and going forward is to advance in a way that results
in knowledge equity and knowledge service.  That is a wonderful kind of direction to
go that I think may lead to new practices evolving in the process.  That's why it is
exciting for library staff interested in getting involved.  There's an overlap of
agreement that knowledge belongs to all of us.  That leads me to why
#1lib1ref is a great way to get started.  The campaign here, I'm going to shift gears
from that context in overview of the encyclopedia to giving you a little background
on this particular campaign.  The #1lib1ref campaign started as a global initiative
by the Wikipedia library.  There's a library on Wikipedia which is great and I think
some of the Wikipedia library folks are here today.  In 2015, there was this idea
that, hey, if every librarian helped attend to some of the missing citations on
articles, wow, what a contribution that would be.  I think there's about 300,000
citation needed tags and about 300,000 library staff if the United States according
to the ALA fact sheet.  It sounded like a natural alignment there.  The project was
small, but it just kicked in to gear really quickly.  The campaign has grown and
there's been thousands of citations that have been added.  In fact, I think that is
in part because it is so simple.  How do you participate?  You add a citation to
Wikipedia.  And there are actually some really concrete step-by-step instructions
that I will give later in the presentation today and there they are also in the
learner guide.  So you can look there.  Adding citations is a great way to build your
staff community at your libraries.  It is a way -- I have had conversations with
dozens of Wikipedia editors who are library staff, and they have all shared how
Wikipedia, as a topic and activity, really lends itself to expansive and innovative
thinking and I think having that as a reason to get together will inevitably, not
just improve the encyclopedia but help you think of why Wikipedia matters to your
library and your community.  There are tools that you can use to measure your impact
that I just want to briefly mention such as programs and event dashboard.  If you
decide to scale up your participation, #1lib1ref and want to measure your impact,
there's definitely ways to do that.  I think at the end of the day what's so great
about Wikipedia is it is about doing something that is so important together and that
leads me to introduce a librarian with a lot of experience in doing that.  Emily Jack
is a library at university of North Carolina Chapel Hill libraries.  She has a
wonderful story to share about running a #1lib1ref activity at her library.  So I'm
just delighted to welcome her today.  She also participated in our course in the
fall.  So thank you so much for that, Emily, and for being with us today.
>> Thank you so much, Monika and thank you to the WebJunction team for putting this
together and inviting me to participate.  I'm Emily Jack, I'm a library at university
of North Carolina Chapel Hill.  I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2007.  I didn't
really start to engage deeply with Wikipedia until I hosted UNC's first in 2012. 
With some of my colleagues we hold several editing events each year.  This slide,
skip that one.  This shows a list at UNC along with those at Duke University which is
ten miles down the road.  We have a great community of librarians that engage in
Wikipedia.  I'm a cofounder of a local Wikipedia group and a research triangle of
North Carolina which consists of Durham, Raleigh and Chapel Hill.  There's a lot of
Wikipedia activity in our region and a strong overlap between the activity and the
work we have been doing at UNC and Duke.  I belong in the principles of Wikipedia and
the way they resonate with the principles of librarianship.  I believe
understanding how it works makes us better librarians because it helps to understand
the information that our patrons navigate every day.  When the #1lib1ref campaign
rolled around last year, I saw it as an opportunity to bring more local librarians in
to the Wikipedia orbit and to facilitate opportunities for my colleagues to
experience those areas of overlapping areas.  Because of the #1lib1ref is about
librarians adding citations to Wikipedia in a way that is visible on social media it
is a way to model practices for our patrons.  How do you get a staff full of
librarians, most of whom never edited Wikipedia before and all of them have enough
work in their day, how do you get them to participate in a project like #1lib1ref and
how do you make it fun and engaging?  I had a lot of doubts whether we could get
movement from our busy staff.  In the end, the UNC library contributed 200 citations
last year.  I will share secrets to our success and nut and bolts advice.  Number
one.  My first piece of advice is raise the stakes.  How do you get a bunch of
librarians to do something they have never done before, isn't part of their core
duties, if you want people to change their behavior it helps to think something is at
stake.  At my library and university not everyone cares about Wikipedia citations but
everyone cares about this.  So there's this storied rivalry between the UNC
basketball team and the Duke University basketball team.  We raised the stakes by
initiating a #1lib1ref competition to see which library would contribute the most
citations.  The losing library had to praise the winning library on twit
Twitter so the stakes were high.  Most students aren't likely to follow #1lib1ref on
social media but a lot of them pay attention to UNC versus Duke.  So you can raise
the stakes to tying #1lib1ref in to something people are invested in.  I happen to be
in a large university but there are a lot of ways to raise the stakes in a small or
rural library.  The simplist way is to have a competition in your staff with an
incentive for racking up the highest number of edits or find another institution of
your same size, via social media perhaps and have a competition with them.  Another
idea would be to set an ambitious challenge goal for your library and see if you can
meet or beat it.  You can even hang a board in your office or public space in your
library to make it more visible.  My second peels of advice, lower the barriers.  Our
library staff, like library staff everywhere can feel overstretched.  We want to
convey the barriers to participating in this were low.  Thanks to our director of
communications, I was able to get on the agenda at a staff meeting for the beginning
of the project last year.  At that staff meeting, I did a presentation that
introduced #1lib1ref in a competition with Duke University's library.  During that I
gave a brief two-minute demonstration where I accessed a Wikipedia citation in front
of a live audience, which sounds boring from an audience perspective but asked them
to time me to see how long it would take.  Showing it takes a minute or two helps to
show it is not a huge imposition.  Number three, don't just tell them how, tell them
why.  You can demonstrate how easy and quick it is but
it is best to speak to their hearts.  This is how it is when you tell people how to
do something.  They may participate but just go through the motions.  This is what
happens when you tell them why.  They are far more likely to be inspired.  When I
presented at the staff meeting, I didn't just say this is what #1lib1ref is.  We are
having a competition with Duke, go forth and edit.  I talked about why it is
important to care about and contribute to Wikipedia.  I talked about our mission to
connect people with information, how contributing to Wikipedia is a tremendously
effective way to do that because of Wikipedia's popularity.  I also connected it to
our library's open access initiative and the deeply held belief that information just
wants to be free.  In the days after that meeting I had several colleagues tell me
the presentation had helped them to see Wikipedia in a new way.  Maybe they had been
skeptical before but that motivated them to for tas pate.  Make sure people
understand why you are asking them to take part in the project and do that gut check
and ask yourself, why is this important?  Number four, make it easy.  With my
counterpart at duke, I shared a Google doc on how to do a citation and we created a
spreedsheet for tracking citations and at UNC I had three drop-in sessions where I
walked people through the process of adding citations.  30 people attended and it was
good for people who liked more guidance.  And a number of colleagues said I wouldn't
have done it on my own but with guidance it was easy.  Making drop in sessions where
people can stop in, make an edit and leave made it feel like not a big invest of
time.  Some use it as a starting point, they add one there and continued to add them
over time.  All of them appreciated we had made it as easy as possible to
participate.  Number five, make it fun.  I send regular updates to our staff with our
number of edits and posted on social media staff members editing on Wikipedia.  We
take a photo of the person editing and putting it side by side with a screen shot of
the article they were working on.  That gave con tech to the photograph and helped to
give a glimpse in the interest or expertise of the staff member.  Here's a tweet of
my colleague editing the article about Phyrne Fisher which I now realize I
misspelled.  Here's one of another colleague who translated something from German to
do the citation.  This is one of the most delightful, unexpected outcomes of the
project last year.  Based on the articles people chose I thought I got to know my
colleagues more, I saw what they are interested in and what they have expertise in
outside of what I see day-to-day in the library.  We arranged a final photo shoot.  I
don't know how many are sports fans, but you may have seen sports teams that take
photos like this, where they are lined up and looking tough, trying to intimidate
people.  To play up the UNC and Duke competition, we staged a photo of UNC librarians
looking tough, or trying to look tough because you ask librarians for a mean face
this is what you get.  I will plead guilty to not having a mean face.  That's me in
the middle.  Even though we were silly, the updates on the social media posts, it
made people feel part of the team.  Give people an opportunity to have fun with the
project.  It will encourage more participation.  Let's talk about outcomes.  We
didn't go in to in the project with the goal of winning the competition and I hope my
counterparts at Duke would say the same thing because UNC was 204 and Duke 29.  They
juxtaposed our team so they are poking fun at themselves.  The tone of the tweet
emphasizes this wasn't about the competition.  The real winner is Wikipedia.  Unlike
the basketball team, the libraries at UNC and Duke, at both we see each other as
colleagues and collaborators.  This is a fun way to elevate the visibility of a
project that may have gone unnoticed outside of a small circle of people.  In terms
of the goal of getting more librarians and library staff to participate is very
successful.  We had 267 participate at UNC alone.  Most added one or two citations,
which is fantastic.  Handful of people contributed a lot of citations, which is
amazing one person contributed 38 citations.  We got some good staff feedback. 
People feel excited initially about the competition and the chance to beat Duke.  And
many became enthusiastic about contributing to Wikipedia.  Realizing it is live on a
website with global audience of tens of millions of users is excite and empowering. 
I saw that live in our sessions over and over, that feeling of delight upon saving an
edit.  I heard from a lot of people who said they never would have edited Wikipedia
without the incentive of this competition, but felt glad they had.  I think we all
understand how the mission of Wikipedia aligned with the mission of libraries.  There
is something about creating an edit that brings it to light in a tangible way. 
Afterward my colleagues at Duke said even though they never caught us on the numbers
they recruited a few Wikipedia enthusiasts.  A handful of other nuts and bolts tips
for a successful project.  They didn't rise to top five level but worth mentioning. 
First, try to seek out the support of library's administration.  Being able to get on
the agenda of the staff meeting made a huge difference.  Our interim director at the
time, she also showed up to one of our drop-in sessions.  Knowing there is an
endorsement gives weight to the project.  Recruit allies early in the project.  The
more people that spread the word about in the better.  One intretion avenue, get
catalogers on board.  Our top contributors were from the cataloging department. 
Catalogers know the ins and outs of citations and have raised bibliography to an art
form.  They were at drop-in sessions asking next-level questions that were way beyond
my knowledge level.  So much respect for these folks.  I think they could do this
with their eyes close.  Fortunately Wikipedia makes it easy for anyone, even me. 
That is a great place to go when you are looking for allies.  If you want a
competition, agree on the terms up front.  If unexpected questions come up, make sure
to communicate with other people in the competition.  That way there are no
surprises.  Finally, be prepared to answer most frequently asked question, which is
how do I find an article to add a citation to.  Monika will talk about tools and
strategies for this but my favorite response to that question is just to find an
article in your own area of interest.  Look especially in narrow areas of interest
where there's less likely to be thorough coverage in Wikipedia.  For example, the
Wikipedia article about marathons probably doesn't need a lot of citation help but
the article about your town's marathon may need help.  Another way to find them is to
start with the source.  If you are reading a fiction book or article, start there and
see if there are any facts in there that would be cited in Wikipedia.  I have had a
lot of people to add a new fact to an article and citation.  The answer is
absolutely.  Encourage everyone to tag theirs with #1lib1ref.  That's how our efforts
are tracked in Wikipedia.  Those are my last-minute tips.  Our plans for this year
are shaping up.  We will have a rematch with Duke.  I think the UNC School of Library
Science will face off with us in a three-way competition.  So we are eager to see how
it happens.  To sum up, I will say that #1lib1ref is a great first effort.  And
minimal effort is magnified by the knowledge that you are part of a project involving
librarians all over the world and pretty powerful feeling.  Thanks, again and I'm
happy to answer your questions.
>> Thank you so much, Emily.  There's been just a really lively chat conversation
going on during your presentation with your example of the competition just inspiring
a lot of folks here to potentially stage similar competitions of their own.  I also
really appreciate that you got the suggestions on how to have a competition
internally, as well.  We have had a lot of inspiration here and a request that you
share out the links that you had in the screen shot on your four steps to a citation.
Is that something we could share out later?
>> Yeah, absolutely.
.  I'm pretty sure it was linked to the #1lib1ref ref page but I will double check
and make sure there is nothing else I could share.
>> As a reminder to our participants, when we have the screen shots on the webinar
page here, in fact they are just that, they are images.  That's why you can't link on
them.  But it is deceivingly tempting to want to click and I know how exciting this
is.  The #1lib1ref campaign is for everyone.  We are so glad to have everyone here. 
There was a question -- I'm so glad to hear your experience with this.  That is for
university librarians, catalogers, it is a global campaign and inanyone is welcome to
participate even if you are not a library staff member.  Thank you for that.  And
thank you, Emily.   ?
thank you, Emily for your presentation.  I'm going to move in now to getting in to
the nitty-gritty.  That's how to add a citation.  Now you are ready to stage your
competition, what is it that you are going to be doing?  I saw a number of you have
added citations before, so this should be a review for you but it looks like there
are a number of you who are new.  Emily said she timed herself adding a citation in
her presentation and this should take me less than six minutes to share with you how
to add a citation.  I'm going to annotate my conversations first.  So the first step
would be to choose a discovery pathway.  I'm going to give you some context here.  In
the learner guide that you have, which is your go-to reference coming out of this
webinar on how to add a citation, I have laid out five steps for you.  Those first
three steps are really about establishing trust in the Wikipedia community.  So you
don't actually need to start a user contact and create a user page to add a citation.
However, I think your experience will be a lot more enjoyable and you'll have a lot
more confidence going in if you take those additional steps.  When you select your
editing mode, which is step two in your learner guide, that's going to make adding a
citation super easy.  So I highly recommend that you go ahead and follow those steps.
Once you are ready and you have got your account and you have created your  user page it is time to figure out where you want to make your edit.  They
are in a variety of stages.  But my recommendation because this is the way that I
work best, as well as an editor has always been to start with what I know best and
what I'm most comfortable
I want to draw your attention to the value of bringing in off-line resources or
open-access resources but off-line resources in general on Wikipedia.  And I will
quote from a librarian that I interviewed a couple of months ago.  When I asked him
why he wanted to contribute to Wikipedia he said, well, here's the thing, yet another
patron came in and said to me, all information is on-line these days and I looked
around and I thought here I am in a room of off line information, how can people
assume that all information is on-line?  I decided -- he said I had to do what I had
to do to get more information on-line and he started to edit Wikipedia.  This is
something you can do, as well, is to start with what you know and what's already in
your libraries and then go in and look around on Wikipedia and see how well those
topics are covered.  Wikipedia seems vast but there are a lot of areas that
need further development.  Citations that are needed that are not park marked yet
with a template.  The next way to go in -- and the example I will use today when I
make my mock edit is by looking at high popularity low quality articles are.  This is
updated regularly and this will show you how the assessment of the article has been
according to what rubric I showed you and how popular it is.  Another fun way that's
recommended by the Wikipedia library to find a place to add a citation is to use
this -- almost like a trivia game tool called Citation hunt."  It is used by
collecting sentences that are unreferenced and have a citation and tag after them. 
There are 300,000 of these from many different categories.  You can go to the hunt. 
You can search for a topic.  You can click through and choose to narrow the results
that you get by category.  You can find a way to intervene that way.  And once you
decided where you are going to edit and what you are going to use as your reference,
then it is time to add your citation.  So the first step you take is you log in.  You
can see this is a screen shot of the article that I'm going to edit.  It is an
article that has high page views every month.  I'm logged in up here with my blue
arrow here and you go ahead and click on that tab called "edit."  This will bring up
a kind of what you see is what you get editor called visual editor.  This makes
editing really easy.  You'll see there's not actually a citation needed tag on the
article.  There's just a giant template that said this article needs citations and
there are only two in the article to begin
I am going in to edit and scrolled down here.  This is a screen shot of where I will
add my citation.  I'm going to improve the portion on Turkey.  So highlighted in the
screen shot is the sentence that I've added.  At the end of the sentence, I click on
the cite tool on the visual editor toolbar inside the red box.  I click on that tool
and up pops "add a citation" here highlighted.  There are three ways you can add a
citation.  You can do automatic, manual or reuse.  I will do automatic because this
is an easy way to automatically generate a beautiful citation.  You can do this with
references that are books, ISBN numbers, URLs, or a medical journal there is a
PMC/PMID number.  Insert that code and press generate.  This is what you get out of
that.  It generates a nice citation.  This is powered by World cat .  When you click
on the link it will bring you to World Cat and you can get more information.  Once
you press insert it will show you what it looks like.  If you want to make further
edit to that you can click on edit and it will pull a manual editor which is easy to
use and visit visual editor.  I added page 138 and then click publish
changes and a box will pop up asking you what did you do here?  Briefly describe your
changes.  This is where you add in what you did.  I wrote I added a citation for
#1lib1ref.  The edit summary's purpose, in addition to building community morning
#1lib1ref editors, is to help with version control.  When many people are editing an
article it is helpful to see what editors before you have done.  If you have added a
new section, if you are adding a citation, tell people who are looking at the page
what you did and it helps to understand the history of the page.  Then you press
publish changes and viola.  There it is.  There's my citation.  And now we are a
brand new reference over the reference section, a third reference.  So that is adding
a citation and I think in four minutes.  Now we will take a brief break and thank
you all for listening to this and see if there are any questions in chat.  I will
invite my colleague Betha here to join us for the final part of our session
>> Either you explain it so clearly because everyone is ready to run out and do a
citation or that's a lot to absorb.  In either case we don't have any questions right
now but I wonder if you can just mention you are going to do a live on-line event --
oh, okay, we are not going to talk about that yet.  But we are here to support you
when you engage in the #1lib1ref campaign to be successful because that's really the
heart of becoming immersed in Wikipedia is taking the first step, having it be
successful and then getting that electrical charge.  We heard that so much from our
course participants that once they made their first edit they were so excited.  It
really feels like stepping in to new, unknown territory and finding that it is
welcoming and thrilling to be there.
>> That is so exciting.  I'm really excited to see how many of you in chat are saying
that you are ready to get started.  Now, I did see a question about creating your
user names.  I think creating a user name is a great idea.  It is a social
encyclopedia so it is helpful to create a name that people can identify you with. 
Unlike other social media platforms, Wikipedia allows you to function well using a
pseudonym but if you choose to cosh your account with your personal name, I
think the risks would be the same as if you chose to use your real name on your
Twitter or Facebook account and have it be public.  All information on Wikipedia is
always public.  That's part of the pillar three of free to share, use and edit.  We
give resources you can look to.  If you have questions about creating your user name
or writing your account.  Another thing to think about is Wikipedia is made up of
individual volunteer editors.  If organizations create an account and there is an
infamous story of Burger King corporation editing the article on the Whopper, that's
a red flag that they may not be editing in the interest of the encyclopedia.  Use
your individual name or user name of your choice that conveys your best intentions
and not the name of your organization or library.  It may potentially lead editors to
thinking that you are an organization and not an individual.
>> I will add to that.  It is interesting to look at a talk page and look at other
people's user names.  Some are very creative and unconventional.  There's a range of
possibilities in creating a user name.
>> That's right.  I will pop my volunteer user name in here and you can find me on
Wikipedia.  There's my one of my user names.  I have an account as the OCLC
Wikipedian in residence.  You can submit a request to change a user name if you had
one a long time ago and need a new one or if you made a lot of edits but you want to
associate it with your professional identity which I heard happens in many cases. 
You can have it switched over, as well.  There's a request form you can put in.  You
can reach me at anytime if you have questions about this.  And the lrners
 -- learners guide, as well.  Editors are very familiar with all of
the different spaces on the internet.  There's a healthy community of Wikipedians on
Twitter and Facebook as well as the Wikipedia platform itself so we can find you
there.  So glad to hear that this has been an informative presentation and we can't
wait to hear all of the things that you get to, both in terms of adding citations and
running events.
>> Another question.
>> This was a question whether or not Wikipedia automatically renumbers citations if
you add or subtract one in a series?
>> Yeah, it does.  It will automatically add it to the reference section when you
press save.  If you add a citation to an article that does not have any references,
which someone in our course did earlier this year, or in 2017, what you have to do is
insert the reference section.  There's a second step for that.  These are great
questions and as you go through and look at the changes that you are making, you can
always preview to see what it is doing.  If you run in to hiccups or questions on the
learners guide there is a link to tea house, this is a warm, friendly place where you
can go and ask your editing questions if you have a stumbling block or want to learn
more.  That is a great place where somebody will respond to you quickly.  Some pages
on Wikipedia are heavily edited, very popular and others may be quieter.  So tea
house is a great place to hear from someone right away.  You can always ask me, too. 
I shared out my user name and I'm always happy to hear from people.  Any other
questions?  Oh, good.  This has been a really great session.  Thank you for having
all of us -- all of you thank you for listening with us today and for gearing up for
the campaign.  It launches in five days.  So we are on the eve of it.  It takes place
over three weeks.  So the citations added will be counted based on putting that
#1lib1ref in that edit summary.  Make sure you put it in there.  Otherwise no one
will know you added a citation.  Wikipedia is so vast and there's so many edits that
take place all the time that it will be great to see what librarians have done with
it by looking at the contributions and getting that hashtag.  You can share on
Twitter or Facebook group.  Share with us here on WebJunction on our Facebook page. 
We want to create a nice community of librarians supporting each other and we
participate in this campaign on Wikipedia -- I think it is their 17th birthday.  Am
I doing my math right?  17th birthday.  Born January 15th, 2001.  So, you know,
adolescence.  Teenager years.  Thank you so much, everyone.  We are happy to have you
here.  This session was recorded and we'll be sharing that out and we will let you go
on to your days.  Thank you.