This isn't specifically on the topic of GLAM, but is a follow up to one of the discussions that we had at last weekend's GLAM wiki bootcamp, and something I'm very interested in, and maybe others will be, too. I don't know a lot about this topic -- I'm hoping that others can provide me with some pointers to the communities and discussions on the mediawikis, where I might learn more.
Jarek, during his presentation, talked about the problems with categories on Wikimedia Commons, using the example, "Painted portraits of men of France". The main problem he described had to do with all of the possible permutations of subcategories, and the difficulty of consistently maintaining that subcategory tree.
A related problem also applies to a category we've been hearing a lot about recently, "American women writers". In this case, there are (at least) two problems that have been discussed: that this is an asymmetric category (there is no "American men writers"); and that people who are in this category are not also in "American writers", although they should be.
Another problem with this method of categorization is that it doesn't allow easy access to lists that might not correspond to a direct category, but might be interesting, and could be derived from the other categories. For example, all women writers who are *not* American.
IMO, this is a fundamentally flawed way of adding semantic information to articles. Jarek suggested that these should be tags, and I agree that that would be simpler. So, for example, instead of having a category "American women writers", there would be separate tags for "American", "female", and "writer". Then, the original category would be the union of these three. That would also solve the problem of the asymmetry in the way male writers and female writers are categorized, which is part of what led to the recent uproar.
But even better, IMO, would be true semantic tagging, in the sense of the Semantic Web. (I'm not an expert in this topic, but have read just enough to be dangerous.) Semantic linking lets you express simple truths about things, such as, "this is a person", "this is female", "this person is the author of Wuthering Heights", etc. Furthermore, ''ontologies'' allow people to express relationships among relationships. For example, "anyone who is the author of x is a writer", "all authors are also humans", etc.
Having heard a little bit about the Semantic MediaWiki and Wikidata, I just dug a little bit to see if there is work afoot to try to re-implement Wikipedia categories in some kind of scheme like this. The Semantic MediaWiki is a MediaWiki extension that's designed to allow this kind of tagging, but it was never integrated with any of the Wikipedias. Instead, Wikidata is being developed and integrated. There's some info on the relationships among Wikipedia, SMW, and Wikidata on the Wikipedia entry for SMW [1] and on the SMW FAQ [2].
I know Wikidata has tackled inter-language links first, and next on the agenda are infoboxes, but I'm not sure if anyone anywhere is planning on reimplementing categories with this kind of scheme. Of course it would be an enormous undertaking, and wouldn't happen anytime soon. But, it does seem to me there's the potential of a much more robust system. If anyone had any pointers to where I might learn more, or join in some of those discussions, I'd be very interested. I just posted a question to the wikidata-l mailing list.
---- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki#Semantic_MediaWiki_and_Wikid... [2] http://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/FAQ#What_is_the_relationship_between_...
----
Cheers! Chris
Chris,
I think that there is broad consensus that the category problem is one of the worst problems with Mediawiki software and that all projects suffer major harm in many ways because of it. I do not think that there is anyone who defends the current system except to say that it is what we have now and fixing the problem is a major undertaking which will take a lot of time for many developers.
I do not think GLAM could really solve this problem, but it would be nice for GLAM to support the development of community infrastructure wherein community members get more opportunity to express concerns to developers. Another problem is that while many surveys show that the community supports WMF efforts to do software development, there is a huge amount of bad blood between developers and anyone who participates in the community processes around developing. Just recently in IRC meetings and other efforts there have been complaints about echo, for example. I am sure that you all saw that you have a notification box by your names now, but when developers rolled this out, they also removed the orange "You have new messages" box that used to appear. This caused problems, like for example for IP users who really need an orange alert to know that they are doing something wrong, and for other people who just do not know to look at the new box. I am in favor of change but developers can be heavy-handed, and for them to do work they need community support.
The way things ought to be is that there should be a layman discussion space for projects which gives explanations of what is proposed and where we are in the process of fixing things. This would link to developer discussions. Chris, in answer to your question about where to find more info, I think that such a place does not exist and that the archives are mostly a mess. This category problem is a big issue that lots of people notice but no one knows where to put their energy. There are other big problems, but from my perspective, the category issue is one of the biggest. I do not understand Wikidata but it seems to me that the solution should come from there, because I also think that categories should transcend each language and by default be uniform cross-Wikipedia.
We did not talk about this much at the boot camp, but our category system just got attention because it inherently seems prejudiced and there is not a good way to make it clean. http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/apr/29/wikipedia-women-problem/ It would be great and empowering for women if any user could immediately, for example, get a list of women authors or X demographic who work in Y field. It seems hateful to some people to have categories for "women writers", but having tags for "women" and tags for "writers" is exactly analogous from the Wikipedians' perspective but not hateful.
If anyone wanted to organize an effort to schedule development then I think it would be well-received by the community, external protesting organizations, the WMF, the developers, all organizations like GLAM, and all other stakeholders.
yours,
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Chris Maloney voldrani@gmail.com wrote:
This isn't specifically on the topic of GLAM, but is a follow up to one of the discussions that we had at last weekend's GLAM wiki bootcamp, and something I'm very interested in, and maybe others will be, too. I don't know a lot about this topic -- I'm hoping that others can provide me with some pointers to the communities and discussions on the mediawikis, where I might learn more.
Jarek, during his presentation, talked about the problems with categories on Wikimedia Commons, using the example, "Painted portraits of men of France". The main problem he described had to do with all of the possible permutations of subcategories, and the difficulty of consistently maintaining that subcategory tree.
A related problem also applies to a category we've been hearing a lot about recently, "American women writers". In this case, there are (at least) two problems that have been discussed: that this is an asymmetric category (there is no "American men writers"); and that people who are in this category are not also in "American writers", although they should be.
Another problem with this method of categorization is that it doesn't allow easy access to lists that might not correspond to a direct category, but might be interesting, and could be derived from the other categories. For example, all women writers who are *not* American.
IMO, this is a fundamentally flawed way of adding semantic information to articles. Jarek suggested that these should be tags, and I agree that that would be simpler. So, for example, instead of having a category "American women writers", there would be separate tags for "American", "female", and "writer". Then, the original category would be the union of these three. That would also solve the problem of the asymmetry in the way male writers and female writers are categorized, which is part of what led to the recent uproar.
But even better, IMO, would be true semantic tagging, in the sense of the Semantic Web. (I'm not an expert in this topic, but have read just enough to be dangerous.) Semantic linking lets you express simple truths about things, such as, "this is a person", "this is female", "this person is the author of Wuthering Heights", etc. Furthermore, ''ontologies'' allow people to express relationships among relationships. For example, "anyone who is the author of x is a writer", "all authors are also humans", etc.
Having heard a little bit about the Semantic MediaWiki and Wikidata, I just dug a little bit to see if there is work afoot to try to re-implement Wikipedia categories in some kind of scheme like this. The Semantic MediaWiki is a MediaWiki extension that's designed to allow this kind of tagging, but it was never integrated with any of the Wikipedias. Instead, Wikidata is being developed and integrated. There's some info on the relationships among Wikipedia, SMW, and Wikidata on the Wikipedia entry for SMW [1] and on the SMW FAQ [2].
I know Wikidata has tackled inter-language links first, and next on the agenda are infoboxes, but I'm not sure if anyone anywhere is planning on reimplementing categories with this kind of scheme. Of course it would be an enormous undertaking, and wouldn't happen anytime soon. But, it does seem to me there's the potential of a much more robust system. If anyone had any pointers to where I might learn more, or join in some of those discussions, I'd be very interested. I just posted a question to the wikidata-l mailing list.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki#Semantic_MediaWiki_and_Wikid... [2] http://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/FAQ#What_is_the_relationship_between_...
Cheers! Chris
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
Jarekt, Are you aware of a place this is currently being discussed? maybe on the commons listserv? I've found a few snippets I could link to but nothing more.
Reading https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/08/breaking-through-walls-of-text-richer-... and talking to some devs, I think this group is out in front of this issue, which is somewhat problematic since it's way beyond scope.
I suggest we create a page on meta, summarize both the discussion at the Boot Camp (much of which I unfortunately missed) and the issues raised below and link out to all relevant discussions and, if we can find any, bug reports. Then solicit robla and erik to post the current thinking from the wmf engineer side. I was about to start "//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Beyond categories" but nemo thought it might not be provocative/informative enough. Moreover, not having been there for Jarekt's presentation, I find it difficult to summarize. ;-)
Doug
On 5/4/13 10:53 AM, Lane Rasberry wrote:
Chris,
I think that there is broad consensus that the category problem is one of the worst problems with Mediawiki software and that all projects suffer major harm in many ways because of it. I do not think that there is anyone who defends the current system except to say that it is what we have now and fixing the problem is a major undertaking which will take a lot of time for many developers.
I do not think GLAM could really solve this problem, but it would be nice for GLAM to support the development of community infrastructure wherein community members get more opportunity to express concerns to developers. Another problem is that while many surveys show that the community supports WMF efforts to do software development, there is a huge amount of bad blood between developers and anyone who participates in the community processes around developing. Just recently in IRC meetings and other efforts there have been complaints about echo, for example. I am sure that you all saw that you have a notification box by your names now, but when developers rolled this out, they also removed the orange "You have new messages" box that used to appear. This caused problems, like for example for IP users who really need an orange alert to know that they are doing something wrong, and for other people who just do not know to look at the new box. I am in favor of change but developers can be heavy-handed, and for them to do work they need community support.
The way things ought to be is that there should be a layman discussion space for projects which gives explanations of what is proposed and where we are in the process of fixing things. This would link to developer discussions. Chris, in answer to your question about where to find more info, I think that such a place does not exist and that the archives are mostly a mess. This category problem is a big issue that lots of people notice but no one knows where to put their energy. There are other big problems, but from my perspective, the category issue is one of the biggest. I do not understand Wikidata but it seems to me that the solution should come from there, because I also think that categories should transcend each language and by default be uniform cross-Wikipedia.
We did not talk about this much at the boot camp, but our category system just got attention because it inherently seems prejudiced and there is not a good way to make it clean. http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/apr/29/wikipedia-women-problem/ It would be great and empowering for women if any user could immediately, for example, get a list of women authors or X demographic who work in Y field. It seems hateful to some people to have categories for "women writers", but having tags for "women" and tags for "writers" is exactly analogous from the Wikipedians' perspective but not hateful.
If anyone wanted to organize an effort to schedule development then I think it would be well-received by the community, external protesting organizations, the WMF, the developers, all organizations like GLAM, and all other stakeholders.
yours,
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Chris Maloney <voldrani@gmail.com mailto:voldrani@gmail.com> wrote:
This isn't specifically on the topic of GLAM, but is a follow up to one of the discussions that we had at last weekend's GLAM wiki bootcamp, and something I'm very interested in, and maybe others will be, too. I don't know a lot about this topic -- I'm hoping that others can provide me with some pointers to the communities and discussions on the mediawikis, where I might learn more. Jarek, during his presentation, talked about the problems with categories on Wikimedia Commons, using the example, "Painted portraits of men of France". The main problem he described had to do with all of the possible permutations of subcategories, and the difficulty of consistently maintaining that subcategory tree. A related problem also applies to a category we've been hearing a lot about recently, "American women writers". In this case, there are (at least) two problems that have been discussed: that this is an asymmetric category (there is no "American men writers"); and that people who are in this category are not also in "American writers", although they should be. Another problem with this method of categorization is that it doesn't allow easy access to lists that might not correspond to a direct category, but might be interesting, and could be derived from the other categories. For example, all women writers who are *not* American. IMO, this is a fundamentally flawed way of adding semantic information to articles. Jarek suggested that these should be tags, and I agree that that would be simpler. So, for example, instead of having a category "American women writers", there would be separate tags for "American", "female", and "writer". Then, the original category would be the union of these three. That would also solve the problem of the asymmetry in the way male writers and female writers are categorized, which is part of what led to the recent uproar. But even better, IMO, would be true semantic tagging, in the sense of the Semantic Web. (I'm not an expert in this topic, but have read just enough to be dangerous.) Semantic linking lets you express simple truths about things, such as, "this is a person", "this is female", "this person is the author of Wuthering Heights", etc. Furthermore, ''ontologies'' allow people to express relationships among relationships. For example, "anyone who is the author of x is a writer", "all authors are also humans", etc. Having heard a little bit about the Semantic MediaWiki and Wikidata, I just dug a little bit to see if there is work afoot to try to re-implement Wikipedia categories in some kind of scheme like this. The Semantic MediaWiki is a MediaWiki extension that's designed to allow this kind of tagging, but it was never integrated with any of the Wikipedias. Instead, Wikidata is being developed and integrated. There's some info on the relationships among Wikipedia, SMW, and Wikidata on the Wikipedia entry for SMW [1] and on the SMW FAQ [2]. I know Wikidata has tackled inter-language links first, and next on the agenda are infoboxes, but I'm not sure if anyone anywhere is planning on reimplementing categories with this kind of scheme. Of course it would be an enormous undertaking, and wouldn't happen anytime soon. But, it does seem to me there's the potential of a much more robust system. If anyone had any pointers to where I might learn more, or join in some of those discussions, I'd be very interested. I just posted a question to the wikidata-l mailing list. ---- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki#Semantic_MediaWiki_and_Wikidata [2] http://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/FAQ#What_is_the_relationship_between_Semantic_MediaWiki_and_Wikidata.3F ---- Cheers! Chris _______________________________________________ GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us-- Lane Rasberry 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com mailto:lane@bluerasberry.com
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
Thanks for all that background, Lane, it is very interesting!
Doug, I agree this issue is out of scope for GLAM, but on the other hand, I'm not convinced we're out in front -- maybe just don't know where the action is. If you do find a place where it's being discussed, or if you do start a meta page, let me know (post back to the list) and I'll definitely help with filling in some background from our discussions.
Cheers! Chris
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Doug wikipediadoug@googlemail.com wrote:
Jarekt, Are you aware of a place this is currently being discussed? maybe on the commons listserv? I've found a few snippets I could link to but nothing more.
Reading https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/08/breaking-through-walls-of-text-richer-... and talking to some devs, I think this group is out in front of this issue, which is somewhat problematic since it's way beyond scope.
I suggest we create a page on meta, summarize both the discussion at the Boot Camp (much of which I unfortunately missed) and the issues raised below and link out to all relevant discussions and, if we can find any, bug reports. Then solicit robla and erik to post the current thinking from the wmf engineer side. I was about to start "//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Beyond categories" but nemo thought it might not be provocative/informative enough. Moreover, not having been there for Jarekt's presentation, I find it difficult to summarize. ;-)
Doug
On 5/4/13 10:53 AM, Lane Rasberry wrote:
Chris,
I think that there is broad consensus that the category problem is one of the worst problems with Mediawiki software and that all projects suffer major harm in many ways because of it. I do not think that there is anyone who defends the current system except to say that it is what we have now and fixing the problem is a major undertaking which will take a lot of time for many developers.
I do not think GLAM could really solve this problem, but it would be nice for GLAM to support the development of community infrastructure wherein community members get more opportunity to express concerns to developers. Another problem is that while many surveys show that the community supports WMF efforts to do software development, there is a huge amount of bad blood between developers and anyone who participates in the community processes around developing. Just recently in IRC meetings and other efforts there have been complaints about echo, for example. I am sure that you all saw that you have a notification box by your names now, but when developers rolled this out, they also removed the orange "You have new messages" box that used to appear. This caused problems, like for example for IP users who really need an orange alert to know that they are doing something wrong, and for other people who just do not know to look at the new box. I am in favor of change but developers can be heavy-handed, and for them to do work they need community support.
The way things ought to be is that there should be a layman discussion space for projects which gives explanations of what is proposed and where we are in the process of fixing things. This would link to developer discussions. Chris, in answer to your question about where to find more info, I think that such a place does not exist and that the archives are mostly a mess. This category problem is a big issue that lots of people notice but no one knows where to put their energy. There are other big problems, but from my perspective, the category issue is one of the biggest. I do not understand Wikidata but it seems to me that the solution should come from there, because I also think that categories should transcend each language and by default be uniform cross-Wikipedia.
We did not talk about this much at the boot camp, but our category system just got attention because it inherently seems prejudiced and there is not a good way to make it clean. http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/apr/29/wikipedia-women-problem/ It would be great and empowering for women if any user could immediately, for example, get a list of women authors or X demographic who work in Y field. It seems hateful to some people to have categories for "women writers", but having tags for "women" and tags for "writers" is exactly analogous from the Wikipedians' perspective but not hateful.
If anyone wanted to organize an effort to schedule development then I think it would be well-received by the community, external protesting organizations, the WMF, the developers, all organizations like GLAM, and all other stakeholders.
yours,
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Chris Maloney voldrani@gmail.com wrote:
This isn't specifically on the topic of GLAM, but is a follow up to one of the discussions that we had at last weekend's GLAM wiki bootcamp, and something I'm very interested in, and maybe others will be, too. I don't know a lot about this topic -- I'm hoping that others can provide me with some pointers to the communities and discussions on the mediawikis, where I might learn more.
Jarek, during his presentation, talked about the problems with categories on Wikimedia Commons, using the example, "Painted portraits of men of France". The main problem he described had to do with all of the possible permutations of subcategories, and the difficulty of consistently maintaining that subcategory tree.
A related problem also applies to a category we've been hearing a lot about recently, "American women writers". In this case, there are (at least) two problems that have been discussed: that this is an asymmetric category (there is no "American men writers"); and that people who are in this category are not also in "American writers", although they should be.
Another problem with this method of categorization is that it doesn't allow easy access to lists that might not correspond to a direct category, but might be interesting, and could be derived from the other categories. For example, all women writers who are *not* American.
IMO, this is a fundamentally flawed way of adding semantic information to articles. Jarek suggested that these should be tags, and I agree that that would be simpler. So, for example, instead of having a category "American women writers", there would be separate tags for "American", "female", and "writer". Then, the original category would be the union of these three. That would also solve the problem of the asymmetry in the way male writers and female writers are categorized, which is part of what led to the recent uproar.
But even better, IMO, would be true semantic tagging, in the sense of the Semantic Web. (I'm not an expert in this topic, but have read just enough to be dangerous.) Semantic linking lets you express simple truths about things, such as, "this is a person", "this is female", "this person is the author of Wuthering Heights", etc. Furthermore, ''ontologies'' allow people to express relationships among relationships. For example, "anyone who is the author of x is a writer", "all authors are also humans", etc.
Having heard a little bit about the Semantic MediaWiki and Wikidata, I just dug a little bit to see if there is work afoot to try to re-implement Wikipedia categories in some kind of scheme like this. The Semantic MediaWiki is a MediaWiki extension that's designed to allow this kind of tagging, but it was never integrated with any of the Wikipedias. Instead, Wikidata is being developed and integrated. There's some info on the relationships among Wikipedia, SMW, and Wikidata on the Wikipedia entry for SMW [1] and on the SMW FAQ [2].
I know Wikidata has tackled inter-language links first, and next on the agenda are infoboxes, but I'm not sure if anyone anywhere is planning on reimplementing categories with this kind of scheme. Of course it would be an enormous undertaking, and wouldn't happen anytime soon. But, it does seem to me there's the potential of a much more robust system. If anyone had any pointers to where I might learn more, or join in some of those discussions, I'd be very interested. I just posted a question to the wikidata-l mailing list.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki#Semantic_MediaWiki_and_Wikid... [2] http://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/FAQ#What_is_the_relationship_between_...
Cheers! Chris
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
-- Lane Rasberry 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
Started, but only barely: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Beyond_categories
I'm gathering more links but a lot more is needed.
Nemo is [[User:Nemo_bis]] and they are an en.ws editor and a dev; also active on IRC in the #wikisource channel.
Doug
On 5/5/13 12:30 AM, Chris Maloney wrote:
Thanks for all that background, Lane, it is very interesting!
Doug, I agree this issue is out of scope for GLAM, but on the other hand, I'm not convinced we're out in front -- maybe just don't know where the action is. If you do find a place where it's being discussed, or if you do start a meta page, let me know (post back to the list) and I'll definitely help with filling in some background from our discussions.
Cheers! Chris
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Doug wikipediadoug@googlemail.com wrote:
Jarekt, Are you aware of a place this is currently being discussed? maybe on the commons listserv? I've found a few snippets I could link to but nothing more.
Reading https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/08/breaking-through-walls-of-text-richer-... and talking to some devs, I think this group is out in front of this issue, which is somewhat problematic since it's way beyond scope.
I suggest we create a page on meta, summarize both the discussion at the Boot Camp (much of which I unfortunately missed) and the issues raised below and link out to all relevant discussions and, if we can find any, bug reports. Then solicit robla and erik to post the current thinking from the wmf engineer side. I was about to start "//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Beyond categories" but nemo thought it might not be provocative/informative enough. Moreover, not having been there for Jarekt's presentation, I find it difficult to summarize. ;-)
Doug
On 5/4/13 10:53 AM, Lane Rasberry wrote:
Chris,
I think that there is broad consensus that the category problem is one of the worst problems with Mediawiki software and that all projects suffer major harm in many ways because of it. I do not think that there is anyone who defends the current system except to say that it is what we have now and fixing the problem is a major undertaking which will take a lot of time for many developers.
I do not think GLAM could really solve this problem, but it would be nice for GLAM to support the development of community infrastructure wherein community members get more opportunity to express concerns to developers. Another problem is that while many surveys show that the community supports WMF efforts to do software development, there is a huge amount of bad blood between developers and anyone who participates in the community processes around developing. Just recently in IRC meetings and other efforts there have been complaints about echo, for example. I am sure that you all saw that you have a notification box by your names now, but when developers rolled this out, they also removed the orange "You have new messages" box that used to appear. This caused problems, like for example for IP users who really need an orange alert to know that they are doing something wrong, and for other people who just do not know to look at the new box. I am in favor of change but developers can be heavy-handed, and for them to do work they need community support.
The way things ought to be is that there should be a layman discussion space for projects which gives explanations of what is proposed and where we are in the process of fixing things. This would link to developer discussions. Chris, in answer to your question about where to find more info, I think that such a place does not exist and that the archives are mostly a mess. This category problem is a big issue that lots of people notice but no one knows where to put their energy. There are other big problems, but from my perspective, the category issue is one of the biggest. I do not understand Wikidata but it seems to me that the solution should come from there, because I also think that categories should transcend each language and by default be uniform cross-Wikipedia.
We did not talk about this much at the boot camp, but our category system just got attention because it inherently seems prejudiced and there is not a good way to make it clean. http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/apr/29/wikipedia-women-problem/ It would be great and empowering for women if any user could immediately, for example, get a list of women authors or X demographic who work in Y field. It seems hateful to some people to have categories for "women writers", but having tags for "women" and tags for "writers" is exactly analogous from the Wikipedians' perspective but not hateful.
If anyone wanted to organize an effort to schedule development then I think it would be well-received by the community, external protesting organizations, the WMF, the developers, all organizations like GLAM, and all other stakeholders.
yours,
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Chris Maloney voldrani@gmail.com wrote:
This isn't specifically on the topic of GLAM, but is a follow up to one of the discussions that we had at last weekend's GLAM wiki bootcamp, and something I'm very interested in, and maybe others will be, too. I don't know a lot about this topic -- I'm hoping that others can provide me with some pointers to the communities and discussions on the mediawikis, where I might learn more.
Jarek, during his presentation, talked about the problems with categories on Wikimedia Commons, using the example, "Painted portraits of men of France". The main problem he described had to do with all of the possible permutations of subcategories, and the difficulty of consistently maintaining that subcategory tree.
A related problem also applies to a category we've been hearing a lot about recently, "American women writers". In this case, there are (at least) two problems that have been discussed: that this is an asymmetric category (there is no "American men writers"); and that people who are in this category are not also in "American writers", although they should be.
Another problem with this method of categorization is that it doesn't allow easy access to lists that might not correspond to a direct category, but might be interesting, and could be derived from the other categories. For example, all women writers who are *not* American.
IMO, this is a fundamentally flawed way of adding semantic information to articles. Jarek suggested that these should be tags, and I agree that that would be simpler. So, for example, instead of having a category "American women writers", there would be separate tags for "American", "female", and "writer". Then, the original category would be the union of these three. That would also solve the problem of the asymmetry in the way male writers and female writers are categorized, which is part of what led to the recent uproar.
But even better, IMO, would be true semantic tagging, in the sense of the Semantic Web. (I'm not an expert in this topic, but have read just enough to be dangerous.) Semantic linking lets you express simple truths about things, such as, "this is a person", "this is female", "this person is the author of Wuthering Heights", etc. Furthermore, ''ontologies'' allow people to express relationships among relationships. For example, "anyone who is the author of x is a writer", "all authors are also humans", etc.
Having heard a little bit about the Semantic MediaWiki and Wikidata, I just dug a little bit to see if there is work afoot to try to re-implement Wikipedia categories in some kind of scheme like this. The Semantic MediaWiki is a MediaWiki extension that's designed to allow this kind of tagging, but it was never integrated with any of the Wikipedias. Instead, Wikidata is being developed and integrated. There's some info on the relationships among Wikipedia, SMW, and Wikidata on the Wikipedia entry for SMW [1] and on the SMW FAQ [2].
I know Wikidata has tackled inter-language links first, and next on the agenda are infoboxes, but I'm not sure if anyone anywhere is planning on reimplementing categories with this kind of scheme. Of course it would be an enormous undertaking, and wouldn't happen anytime soon. But, it does seem to me there's the potential of a much more robust system. If anyone had any pointers to where I might learn more, or join in some of those discussions, I'd be very interested. I just posted a question to the wikidata-l mailing list.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki#Semantic_MediaWiki_and_Wikid... [2] http://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/FAQ#What_is_the_relationship_between_...
Cheers! Chris
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
-- Lane Rasberry 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
I was thinking exactly the same thing, Lane - that Wikipedia should get rid of all the categorization and stick to tags - but then MediaWiki would need to have some kind of search mechanism for multiple tags.
Maybe it's unfeasible at this time to do anything to Wikipedia, but why can't we make a concerted effort to realize this on Commons for GLAM contributions?
Bob
Bob,
As hard as it is to fix technology, it is harder still to teach a community to act in opposition to the user experience they are getting. If you have a proposal for best practices in categorizing which you would like to teach, then I would support that. But people instinctively and repeatedly act in opposition to all "best practices" yet developed because they get so many benefits from doing so.
With reference to the recent negative press, it is unfair both for there to be categories for women writers and for people who want a list of women writers to be denied that list. Having better GLAM practices cannot fix a problem when all outcomes are equally bad. I do not think it makes sense to develop this system beyond what the community has already done because it will continue to generate negative press in any case. I would advise GLAM contributors to follow existing guidelines and if they are interested beyond that, then to watch the "beyond categories" proposal on meta. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Beyond_categories
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Bob Kosovsky bobkosovsky@nypl.org wrote:
I was thinking exactly the same thing, Lane - that Wikipedia should get rid of all the categorization and stick to tags - but then MediaWiki would need to have some kind of search mechanism for multiple tags.
Maybe it's unfeasible at this time to do anything to Wikipedia, but why can't we make a concerted effort to realize this on Commons for GLAM contributions?
Bob
-- Bob Kosovsky, Ph.D. -- Curator, Rare Books and Manuscripts, Music Division, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts blog: http://www.nypl.org/blog/author/44 Twitter: @kos2 Listowner: OPERA-L ; SMT-TALK ; SMT-ANNOUNCE ; SoundForge-users
- My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my institutions -
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.comwrote:
Chris,
I think that there is broad consensus that the category problem is one of the worst problems with Mediawiki software and that all projects suffer major harm in many ways because of it. I do not think that there is anyone who defends the current system except to say that it is what we have now and fixing the problem is a major undertaking which will take a lot of time for many developers.
I do not think GLAM could really solve this problem, but it would be nice for GLAM to support the development of community infrastructure wherein community members get more opportunity to express concerns to developers. Another problem is that while many surveys show that the community supports WMF efforts to do software development, there is a huge amount of bad blood between developers and anyone who participates in the community processes around developing. Just recently in IRC meetings and other efforts there have been complaints about echo, for example. I am sure that you all saw that you have a notification box by your names now, but when developers rolled this out, they also removed the orange "You have new messages" box that used to appear. This caused problems, like for example for IP users who really need an orange alert to know that they are doing something wrong, and for other people who just do not know to look at the new box. I am in favor of change but developers can be heavy-handed, and for them to do work they need community support.
The way things ought to be is that there should be a layman discussion space for projects which gives explanations of what is proposed and where we are in the process of fixing things. This would link to developer discussions. Chris, in answer to your question about where to find more info, I think that such a place does not exist and that the archives are mostly a mess. This category problem is a big issue that lots of people notice but no one knows where to put their energy. There are other big problems, but from my perspective, the category issue is one of the biggest. I do not understand Wikidata but it seems to me that the solution should come from there, because I also think that categories should transcend each language and by default be uniform cross-Wikipedia.
We did not talk about this much at the boot camp, but our category system just got attention because it inherently seems prejudiced and there is not a good way to make it clean. < http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/apr/29/wikipedia-women-problem/
It would be great and empowering for women if any user could immediately, for example, get a list of women authors or X demographic who work in Y field. It seems hateful to some people to have categories for "women writers", but having tags for "women" and tags for "writers" is exactly analogous from the Wikipedians' perspective but not hateful.
If anyone wanted to organize an effort to schedule development then I think it would be well-received by the community, external protesting organizations, the WMF, the developers, all organizations like GLAM, and all other stakeholders.
yours,
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Chris Maloney voldrani@gmail.comwrote:
This isn't specifically on the topic of GLAM, but is a follow up to one of the discussions that we had at last weekend's GLAM wiki bootcamp, and something I'm very interested in, and maybe others will be, too. I don't know a lot about this topic -- I'm hoping that others can provide me with some pointers to the communities and discussions on the mediawikis, where I might learn more.
Jarek, during his presentation, talked about the problems with categories on Wikimedia Commons, using the example, "Painted portraits of men of France". The main problem he described had to do with all of the possible permutations of subcategories, and the difficulty of consistently maintaining that subcategory tree.
A related problem also applies to a category we've been hearing a lot about recently, "American women writers". In this case, there are (at least) two problems that have been discussed: that this is an asymmetric category (there is no "American men writers"); and that people who are in this category are not also in "American writers", although they should be.
Another problem with this method of categorization is that it doesn't allow easy access to lists that might not correspond to a direct category, but might be interesting, and could be derived from the other categories. For example, all women writers who are *not* American.
IMO, this is a fundamentally flawed way of adding semantic information to articles. Jarek suggested that these should be tags, and I agree that that would be simpler. So, for example, instead of having a category "American women writers", there would be separate tags for "American", "female", and "writer". Then, the original category would be the union of these three. That would also solve the problem of the asymmetry in the way male writers and female writers are categorized, which is part of what led to the recent uproar.
But even better, IMO, would be true semantic tagging, in the sense of the Semantic Web. (I'm not an expert in this topic, but have read just enough to be dangerous.) Semantic linking lets you express simple truths about things, such as, "this is a person", "this is female", "this person is the author of Wuthering Heights", etc. Furthermore, ''ontologies'' allow people to express relationships among relationships. For example, "anyone who is the author of x is a writer", "all authors are also humans", etc.
Having heard a little bit about the Semantic MediaWiki and Wikidata, I just dug a little bit to see if there is work afoot to try to re-implement Wikipedia categories in some kind of scheme like this. The Semantic MediaWiki is a MediaWiki extension that's designed to allow this kind of tagging, but it was never integrated with any of the Wikipedias. Instead, Wikidata is being developed and integrated. There's some info on the relationships among Wikipedia, SMW, and Wikidata on the Wikipedia entry for SMW [1] and on the SMW FAQ [2].
I know Wikidata has tackled inter-language links first, and next on the agenda are infoboxes, but I'm not sure if anyone anywhere is planning on reimplementing categories with this kind of scheme. Of course it would be an enormous undertaking, and wouldn't happen anytime soon. But, it does seem to me there's the potential of a much more robust system. If anyone had any pointers to where I might learn more, or join in some of those discussions, I'd be very interested. I just posted a question to the wikidata-l mailing list.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki#Semantic_MediaWiki_and_Wikid... [2] http://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/FAQ#What_is_the_relationship_between_...
Cheers! Chris
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
-- Lane Rasberry 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Bob Kosovsky bobkosovsky@nypl.org wrote:
I was thinking exactly the same thing, Lane - that Wikipedia should get rid of all the categorization and stick to tags - but then MediaWiki would need to have some kind of search mechanism for multiple tags.
Maybe it's unfeasible at this time to do anything to Wikipedia, but why can't we make a concerted effort to realize this on Commons for GLAM contributions?
If we stick to multiple "single" categories (as opposed to intersections), something like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CatScan
makes it easy to re-create the intersections of any of them on demand without having to pre-create the intersection cats. That's pretty close to tagging.
There are already several approaches to searchable-metadata (persondata, chembox index fields, etc.) that are easily searchable by external engines. All we need to have is agreed-upon unique tokens for these things. Er, I guess, "All" we need, and that's a stumbling-block.
Hi Lane, I just wanted to check a couple of things with you, if you don't mind.
1: for copyright tags in Wikipedia Commons, am I right that the preferred/best practise tagging for a pre-1923 publication with a known author's death date of 1922 would be {{PD/1923|1922}} rather than using the {{PD-old-80-1923}} convention?
2: For images being published under CC BY-SA which belong to the Chemical Heritage Foundation (e.g. a photograph of the front of the building, taken by someone on staff) would the appropriate tag be {{PD-self}} ?
3. Is there a chance I could talk to you about how categorizing works?
I have some questions about how the chemistry project tracks articles in the Wikiproject Chemistry page you recommended: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry%3E Does the table somehow aggregate articles tagged [Category: Chemistry] with articles tagged as [Category: Women chemists] or other related categories?
4. Do you use categories in tracking the effect of your WiR effort? What's useful to you?
Thanks for the slide suggestions, btw; I gave the first talk yesterday, and it went over well.
Also, CHF would be happy to send me to the following event: do you think it would be useful for me to attend? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/May_2013http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/May_2013
Best wishes, Mary
G'day!
We'd love to see you on Tuesday and it will be worthwhile. Don't know why Lane says it's going to be boring: I think it's going to be awesome fun! ;)
Hilda Bastian (on the NLM / NIH side of next week's events at the National Library of Medicine)
On 5/22/13 4:19 PM, "Mary Mark Ockerbloom" celebration.women@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Lane, I just wanted to check a couple of things with you, if you don't mind.
1: for copyright tags in Wikipedia Commons, am I right that the preferred/best practise tagging for a pre-1923 publication with a known author's death date of 1922 would be {{PD/1923|1922}} rather than using the {{PD-old-80-1923}} convention?
2: For images being published under CC BY-SA which belong to the Chemical Heritage Foundation (e.g. a photograph of the front of the building, taken by someone on staff) would the appropriate tag be {{PD-self}} ?
- Is there a chance I could talk to you about how categorizing works?
I have some questions about how the chemistry project tracks articles in the Wikiproject Chemistry page you recommended: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistryhttp://en.w ikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry> Does the table somehow aggregate articles tagged [Category: Chemistry] with articles tagged as [Category: Women chemists] or other related categories?
- Do you use categories in tracking the effect of your WiR effort?
What's useful to you?
Thanks for the slide suggestions, btw; I gave the first talk yesterday, and it went over well.
Also, CHF would be happy to send me to the following event: do you think it would be useful for me to attend? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/May_2013http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/May_2013
Best wishes, Mary
Mary Mark Ockerbloom http://members.verizon.net/~vze48qpu/ Celebration of Women Writers celebration.women@gmail.com "To make books is to time travel, to magically acquire the ability to be in many places at once." -- Audrey Niffenegger
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
Mary and others,
The meetup at the National Library of Medicine was was going to be boring when it was not broadly for the public and when no one was invited to it. Now that there is an editathon it would be fun for anyone who wanted to come, and I took out the "boring" warning a few days ago. Hilda is teasing me.
Yes, it would be awesome if you came. Thanks for your interest.
About your copyright questions -
1. I do not know the best practices. I can look with you but I think it is best to ask at the Commons Village Pump. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump I looked at these templates and would want to ask you some more questions to understand.
2. PD-self would work. CC-0 is considered to be best practice because not all countries accept public domain declarations. I do not think this matters much but I would use CC-0 tags if that was my intent. However - if your organization would like to retain the right to promote itself, then the most customary of the easiest-to-use licensing on Wikipedia is CC-BY, which would mean that anyone who reused the images would have to give your organization attribution. Note that CC-BY-SA is the most common imaging license on Wikipedia, but I find the "share alike" provision to be restrictive for reuse and almost no one understands it.
3. That table is generated from the WikiProject tags on the talk page, and those come with categories which one is not supposed to insert otherwise. Yes, you should talk to me about how project article counts work because it is a pain to learn anything on Wikipedia through reading the documentation and it is better to have voice chats with someone. There is almost no documentation on this anyway.
4. On Wikipedia the use of sorting categories for personal projects would not be allowed, but yes, I am using such categories on Commons and many other people do as well. We should talk about this. I recommend it in some situations and in other situations I do other things. There is no documentation on doing this.
yours,
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Bastian, Hilda (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] < hilda.bastian@nih.gov> wrote:
G'day!
We'd love to see you on Tuesday and it will be worthwhile. Don't know why Lane says it's going to be boring: I think it's going to be awesome fun! ;)
Hilda Bastian (on the NLM / NIH side of next week's events at the National Library of Medicine)
On 5/22/13 4:19 PM, "Mary Mark Ockerbloom" celebration.women@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Lane, I just wanted to check a couple of things with you, if you don't mind.
1: for copyright tags in Wikipedia Commons, am I right that the preferred/best practise tagging for a pre-1923 publication with a known author's death date of 1922 would be {{PD/1923|1922}} rather than using the {{PD-old-80-1923}} convention?
2: For images being published under CC BY-SA which belong to the Chemical Heritage Foundation (e.g. a photograph of the front of the building, taken by someone on staff) would the appropriate tag be {{PD-self}} ?
- Is there a chance I could talk to you about how categorizing works?
I have some questions about how the chemistry project tracks articles in the Wikiproject Chemistry page you recommended: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry
ikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry> Does the table somehow aggregate articles tagged [Category: Chemistry] with articles tagged as [Category: Women chemists] or other related categories?
- Do you use categories in tracking the effect of your WiR effort?
What's useful to you?
Thanks for the slide suggestions, btw; I gave the first talk yesterday, and it went over well.
Also, CHF would be happy to send me to the following event: do you think it would be useful for me to attend? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/May_2013 http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/May_2013
Best wishes, Mary
Mary Mark Ockerbloom http://members.verizon.net/~vze48qpu/ Celebration of Women Writers celebration.women@gmail.com "To make books is to time travel, to magically acquire the ability to be in many places at once." -- Audrey Niffenegger
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
Mary,
About your question 4 - you asked if it was okay to use categories to track the work of some external organization on Wikipedia. I found an example of this done by the World Digital Library through Sarah Stierch. I am not sure of the guidelines around this so I asked here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:World_Digital_Library_related
What you asked would be very useful for organizations but I am not sure of the guidelines around doing this. I asked there.
yours,
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.comwrote:
Mary and others,
The meetup at the National Library of Medicine was was going to be boring when it was not broadly for the public and when no one was invited to it. Now that there is an editathon it would be fun for anyone who wanted to come, and I took out the "boring" warning a few days ago. Hilda is teasing me.
Yes, it would be awesome if you came. Thanks for your interest.
About your copyright questions -
- I do not know the best practices. I can look with you but I think it is
best to ask at the Commons Village Pump. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump I looked at these templates and would want to ask you some more questions to understand.
- PD-self would work. CC-0 is considered to be best practice because not
all countries accept public domain declarations. I do not think this matters much but I would use CC-0 tags if that was my intent. However - if your organization would like to retain the right to promote itself, then the most customary of the easiest-to-use licensing on Wikipedia is CC-BY, which would mean that anyone who reused the images would have to give your organization attribution. Note that CC-BY-SA is the most common imaging license on Wikipedia, but I find the "share alike" provision to be restrictive for reuse and almost no one understands it.
- That table is generated from the WikiProject tags on the talk page, and
those come with categories which one is not supposed to insert otherwise. Yes, you should talk to me about how project article counts work because it is a pain to learn anything on Wikipedia through reading the documentation and it is better to have voice chats with someone. There is almost no documentation on this anyway.
- On Wikipedia the use of sorting categories for personal projects would
not be allowed, but yes, I am using such categories on Commons and many other people do as well. We should talk about this. I recommend it in some situations and in other situations I do other things. There is no documentation on doing this.
yours,
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Bastian, Hilda (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] < hilda.bastian@nih.gov> wrote:
G'day!
We'd love to see you on Tuesday and it will be worthwhile. Don't know why Lane says it's going to be boring: I think it's going to be awesome fun! ;)
Hilda Bastian (on the NLM / NIH side of next week's events at the National Library of Medicine)
On 5/22/13 4:19 PM, "Mary Mark Ockerbloom" celebration.women@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Lane, I just wanted to check a couple of things with you, if you don't mind.
1: for copyright tags in Wikipedia Commons, am I right that the preferred/best practise tagging for a pre-1923 publication with a known author's death date of 1922 would be {{PD/1923|1922}} rather than using the {{PD-old-80-1923}} convention?
2: For images being published under CC BY-SA which belong to the Chemical Heritage Foundation (e.g. a photograph of the front of the building, taken by someone on staff) would the appropriate tag be {{PD-self}} ?
- Is there a chance I could talk to you about how categorizing works?
I have some questions about how the chemistry project tracks articles in the Wikiproject Chemistry page you recommended: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry
ikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry> Does the table somehow aggregate articles tagged [Category: Chemistry] with articles tagged as [Category: Women chemists] or other related categories?
- Do you use categories in tracking the effect of your WiR effort?
What's useful to you?
Thanks for the slide suggestions, btw; I gave the first talk yesterday, and it went over well.
Also, CHF would be happy to send me to the following event: do you think it would be useful for me to attend? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/May_2013 http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/May_2013
Best wishes, Mary
Mary Mark Ockerbloom http://members.verizon.net/~vze48qpu/ Celebration of Women Writers celebration.women@gmail.com "To make books is to time travel, to magically acquire the ability to be in many places at once." -- Audrey Niffenegger
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
-- Lane Rasberry 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com
Hi Lane, I knew you wouldn't be able to make the edit-a-thon, but we'll miss you. Feel free to promote it to other Wikipedians.
Is it likely you'll be able to visit before the end of June? I'm guessing not, but you might like to put September 27-28th in your calendar; Jeff and I are talking about doing some sort of education/edit-a-thon event for ThatCamp Philly, which will be happening here at CHF on those dates. Hope you're having a good spring/summer, and will have fun travelling, Mary
Hi Lane, I hope you won't mind a quick question: I've put together a possible invitation box for the Edit-a-Thon in my sandbox, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mary_Mark_Ockerbloom/sandbox and I just want to check out the etiquette for putting it up on people's pages, since I haven't done that before.
Is it appropriate for me to put it on : 1) user talk pages 2) project talk pages 3) project pages
Any advice is welcome, always happy to be able to improve things, Thanks again, Mary
G'day!
I work on a resource called PubMed Health, at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), a division of the US National Library of Medicine. We're part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland.
Several years ago, the NIH held a Wikipedia Academy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academy/NIH_2009 ). Guidelines for participation in Wikipedia were developed for NIH staff: http://www.nih.gov/icd/od/ocpl/resources/wikipedia/index.htm
The NCBI has been collaborating with WikiProject Medicine for a few months. We're delighted that Doc James (James Heilman from Project Medicine) and Blue Rasberry (Lane Rasberry, Wikipedian-in-Residence at Consumer Reports) are spending most of next week with us to further both our collaboration, and We're having meetings and edit-a-thons next week at the NIH campus in Bethesda - but you can also register to participate in webinars of the edit-a-thons on Tuesday afternoon and Thursday morning next week, US EST. Here's our project page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/May_2013
Email to register either in reply to this email or to pmhmeet@gmail.com
Apologies for the short notice - but we hope it's not too late to stir up interest in participation.
Best wishes
Hilda Bastian (Editor, PubMed Health) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/
Hilda, It's nice to read this - good luck with the edit-a-thons! Jane On May 23, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Bastian, Hilda (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote:
G'day!
I work on a resource called PubMed Health, at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), a division of the US National Library of Medicine. We're part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland.
Several years ago, the NIH held a Wikipedia Academy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academy/NIH_2009 ). Guidelines for participation in Wikipedia were developed for NIH staff: http://www.nih.gov/icd/od/ocpl/resources/wikipedia/index.htm
The NCBI has been collaborating with WikiProject Medicine for a few months. We're delighted that Doc James (James Heilman from Project Medicine) and Blue Rasberry (Lane Rasberry, Wikipedian-in-Residence at Consumer Reports) are spending most of next week with us to further both our collaboration, and We're having meetings and edit-a-thons next week at the NIH campus in Bethesda - but you can also register to participate in webinars of the edit-a-thons on Tuesday afternoon and Thursday morning next week, US EST. Here's our project page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/May_2013
Email to register either in reply to this email or to pmhmeet@gmail.com
Apologies for the short notice - but we hope it's not too late to stir up interest in participation.
Best wishes
Hilda Bastian (Editor, PubMed Health) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
Hi Hilda, I'm a nurse manager and I teach computer science to students in nursing at University of Milan (Italy). Most of my lectures are devoted to the advanced use of Pubmed for EBN :-) On April I started a new experience for my students where the aim is to put Wikipedia, and "nursing related voice" published on IT.WP, in the center of the thesis dissertation to obtain nursing degrees (see http://wiki.wikimedia.it/wiki/Wikimedia_news/numero_51/en and some photo here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Raduni/Fondazione_IRCCS_Istituto_Nazi...). For the next academic year I want to organize an edit-a-thons for nursing's students of my course.
Kind regards and good luck with the edit-a-thons
Francesco (aka Franciaio)
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: wikimedia-medicine-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia- medicine-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] Per conto di Jane Darnell Inviato: giovedì 23 maggio 2013 20.11 A: Wikimedia & GLAM collaboration [Public] Cc: libraries@lists.wikimedia.org; wikimedia-dc@lists.wikimedia.org; wikimedia-medicine@lists.wikimedia.org; North American Cultural Partnerships; wikimediadc@lists.wikimedia.org Oggetto: Re: [Wiki-Medicine] [GLAM] Next week: Wikipedia Project Medicine & National Library of Medicine/NIH
Hilda, It's nice to read this - good luck with the edit-a-thons! Jane On May 23, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Bastian, Hilda (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote:
G'day!
I work on a resource called PubMed Health, at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), a division of the US National Library of Medicine. We're part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland.
Several years ago, the NIH held a Wikipedia Academy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academy/NIH_2009 ). Guidelines for participation in Wikipedia were developed for NIH staff: http://www.nih.gov/icd/od/ocpl/resources/wikipedia/index.htm
The NCBI has been collaborating with WikiProject Medicine for a few months. We're delighted that Doc James (James Heilman from Project Medicine) and Blue Rasberry (Lane Rasberry, Wikipedian-in-Residence at Consumer Reports) are spending most of next week with us to further both our collaboration, and We're having meetings and edit-a-thons next week at the NIH campus in Bethesda - but you can also register to participate in webinars of the edit-a-thons on Tuesday afternoon and Thursday morning next week, US EST. Here's our project page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/May_2013
Email to register either in reply to this email or to pmhmeet@gmail.com
Apologies for the short notice - but we hope it's not too late to stir up interest in participation.
Best wishes
Hilda Bastian (Editor, PubMed Health) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
Wikimedia-Medicine mailing list Wikimedia-Medicine@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine
**************** Il 5 x mille alla nostra Università è un investimento sui giovani, sui loro migliori progetti.
Sostiene la libera ricerca. Alimenta le loro speranze nel futuro.
Investi il tuo 5 x mille sui giovani.
Università degli Studi di Milano codice fiscale 80012650158
This is wonderful! Would you be willing to write an article about this in the Wiki education newsletter? http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education_Portal/Newsletter The newsroom is here http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education_Portal/Newsletter/Newsroom
From: francesco.tarantini@unimi.it To: wikimedia-medicine@lists.wikimedia.org; glam@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 17:10:57 +0200 CC: libraries@lists.wikimedia.org; wikimedia-dc@lists.wikimedia.org; glam-us@lists.wikimedia.org; wikimediadc@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [GLAM-US] R: [Wiki-Medicine] [GLAM] Next week: Wikipedia Project Medicine & National Library of Medicine/NIH
Hi Hilda, I'm a nurse manager and I teach computer science to students in nursing at University of Milan (Italy). Most of my lectures are devoted to the advanced use of Pubmed for EBN :-) On April I started a new experience for my students where the aim is to put Wikipedia, and "nursing related voice" published on IT.WP, in the center of the thesis dissertation to obtain nursing degrees (see http://wiki.wikimedia.it/wiki/Wikimedia_news/numero_51/en and some photo here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Raduni/Fondazione_IRCCS_Istituto_Nazi...). For the next academic year I want to organize an edit-a-thons for nursing's students of my course.
Kind regards and good luck with the edit-a-thons
Francesco (aka Franciaio)
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: wikimedia-medicine-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia- medicine-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] Per conto di Jane Darnell Inviato: giovedì 23 maggio 2013 20.11 A: Wikimedia & GLAM collaboration [Public] Cc: libraries@lists.wikimedia.org; wikimedia-dc@lists.wikimedia.org; wikimedia-medicine@lists.wikimedia.org; North American Cultural Partnerships; wikimediadc@lists.wikimedia.org Oggetto: Re: [Wiki-Medicine] [GLAM] Next week: Wikipedia Project Medicine & National Library of Medicine/NIH
Hilda, It's nice to read this - good luck with the edit-a-thons! Jane On May 23, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Bastian, Hilda (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote:
G'day!
I work on a resource called PubMed Health, at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), a division of the US National Library of Medicine. We're part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland.
Several years ago, the NIH held a Wikipedia Academy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academy/NIH_2009 ). Guidelines for participation in Wikipedia were developed for NIH staff: http://www.nih.gov/icd/od/ocpl/resources/wikipedia/index.htm
The NCBI has been collaborating with WikiProject Medicine for a few months. We're delighted that Doc James (James Heilman from Project Medicine) and Blue Rasberry (Lane Rasberry, Wikipedian-in-Residence at Consumer Reports) are spending most of next week with us to further both our collaboration, and We're having meetings and edit-a-thons next week at the NIH campus in Bethesda - but you can also register to participate in webinars of the edit-a-thons on Tuesday afternoon and Thursday morning next week, US EST. Here's our project page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/May_2013
Email to register either in reply to this email or to pmhmeet@gmail.com
Apologies for the short notice - but we hope it's not too late to stir up interest in participation.
Best wishes
Hilda Bastian (Editor, PubMed Health) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
Wikimedia-Medicine mailing list Wikimedia-Medicine@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-medicine
Il 5 x mille alla nostra Università è un investimento sui giovani, sui loro migliori progetti.
Sostiene la libera ricerca. Alimenta le loro speranze nel futuro.
Investi il tuo 5 x mille sui giovani.
Università degli Studi di Milano codice fiscale 80012650158
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us