Closed Daniel-Mietchen closed 6 years ago
I see the English Wikipedia articles on the basic topics as the highest profile, most influential media to lay the foundation for other experiences. Nearly all students, researchers, lobbyists, and change-makers will check relevant Wikipedia articles.
The relevant Wikipedia articles are all in poor shape. This is not a failing of Wikipedia, but rather a symptom that necessary basic information is not in circulation to cite and share from any source.
My idea would be
I favor a focus on Wikipedia because of its audience. Producing media is cheap and easy. Distributing it costs 10x more. The fate of most media is to never get attention, with Wikipedia articles and their contents being a consistent exception.
Regarding Wikipedia, you might also be interested in using (and perhaps extending?) the overview of Wikipedia entries on open science topics in various languages:
I just added some thoughts on that to a related Mozsprint project concerned with mapping the open landscapes (i.e. beyond open science): https://github.com/mrjohnc/Map-of-the-open-movement/issues/7 .
Here is a collection of papers relating to open hardware: https://channels.plos.org/open-source-toolkit .
Inspired by a Twitter background image, I was looking around a bit for maps of transportation networks. I'll leave some here for inspiration.
There's also https://transitmappingsymposium.org/ coming up in Montréal in June, and this ticket should probably be cross-linked with issue #11 and the related pull request #22 .
This issue was moved to OpenScienceRoadmap/roadmap#5
Whether this is a visualization, a sonification, a haptic experience, a game, a cartoon, a 3D print or something else, the important point here is to allow people — and perhaps machines as well — to explore certain aspects of the open science ecosystem or its evolution in an intuitive way that works at different levels of familiarity with the matter.