Hoi. Many items were created for Wikimania talks. They were created because Wikimania talks represent the best practices of the Wikimedia projects. All these talks were selected in a process to bring out the best our movement has to offer in the many years Wikimania was held. All the persons who gave these presentation are known by either their nick or their name as they themselves identified them at the time of offering the presentation for consideration/
For whatever reasons a Wikidata admin removed these items without any discussion. In the discussion that followed other people presented the arguments why there are no valid arguments for this deletion. A request was made repeatedly to undelete the items involved.
Given the current state of affair there is little option but to recreate these items. It must be noted that the current situation is problematic on many levels. Among them it became clear that admins do as they wish and are not held accountable for their actions. The only thing asked is for the undeletion of items and some sober thought on what may be expected of a Wikidata admin. Thanks, GerardM
Due to the way deletion works in MediaWiki, discussing undeletion is rarely successful. Often it's easier and more effective to propose a deflag (sigh).
Nemo
Hoi, Never heard about a "deflag". What is it and what does it do?
NB Wikidata is in many ways different from MediaWiki. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 12:59, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Due to the way deletion works in MediaWiki, discussing undeletion is rarely successful. Often it's easier and more effective to propose a deflag (sigh).
Nemo
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Konyol mu lah Pada 31 Jul 2016 18.09, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com menulis:
Hoi, Never heard about a "deflag". What is it and what does it do?
NB Wikidata is in many ways different from MediaWiki. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 12:59, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Due to the way deletion works in MediaWiki, discussing undeletion is rarely successful. Often it's easier and more effective to propose a deflag (sigh).
Nemo
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Which items, which admin, etc.
A little context would help.
If the items were appropriate, wait for the community to agree with you before recreating them.
On 31 Jul 2016 17:50, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. Many items were created for Wikimania talks. They were created because Wikimania talks represent the best practices of the Wikimedia projects. All these talks were selected in a process to bring out the best our movement has to offer in the many years Wikimania was held. All the persons who gave these presentation are known by either their nick or their name as they themselves identified them at the time of offering the presentation for consideration/
For whatever reasons a Wikidata admin removed these items without any discussion. In the discussion that followed other people presented the arguments why there are no valid arguments for this deletion. A request was made repeatedly to undelete the items involved.
Given the current state of affair there is little option but to recreate these items. It must be noted that the current situation is problematic on many levels. Among them it became clear that admins do as they wish and are not held accountable for their actions. The only thing asked is for the undeletion of items and some sober thought on what may be expected of a Wikidata admin. Thanks, GerardM
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hoi, John it was documented on the Administrators noticeboard. The "discussion" ran for over two weeks. I feel no need to identify the admin, he is typically the kind of person I greatly admire. If anything I object to the way admins do not take responsibility for what happens. If anything the way this whole controversy transpired proves how little of a community we are.
I have started and added a few items. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 14:28, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Which items, which admin, etc.
A little context would help.
If the items were appropriate, wait for the community to agree with you before recreating them.
On 31 Jul 2016 17:50, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. Many items were created for Wikimania talks. They were created because Wikimania talks represent the best practices of the Wikimedia projects. All these talks were selected in a process to bring out the best our movement has to offer in the many years Wikimania was held. All the persons who gave these presentation are known by either their nick or their name as they themselves identified them at the time of offering the presentation for consideration/
For whatever reasons a Wikidata admin removed these items without any discussion. In the discussion that followed other people presented the arguments why there are no valid arguments for this deletion. A request was made repeatedly to undelete the items involved.
Given the current state of affair there is little option but to recreate these items. It must be noted that the current situation is problematic on many levels. Among them it became clear that admins do as they wish and are not held accountable for their actions. The only thing asked is for the undeletion of items and some sober thought on what may be expected of a Wikidata admin. Thanks, GerardM
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
I looked quickly at AN and it seems the issue is about creating items about Wikimedians who dont clearly meet the notability criteria. Recreating items about users after they haved objected, is dangerous ground to be walking on
Wikidata needs an accepted and enforced BLP.
I assume these items in question would fail the proposed BLP due to lack of reliable source, if it was anything like reliable sources is defined on Wikipedia.
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Living_people
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:47 Gerard Meijssen, gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, John it was documented on the Administrators noticeboard. The "discussion" ran for over two weeks. I feel no need to identify the admin, he is typically the kind of person I greatly admire. If anything I object to the way admins do not take responsibility for what happens. If anything the way this whole controversy transpired proves how little of a community we are.
I have started and added a few items. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 14:28, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Which items, which admin, etc.
A little context would help.
If the items were appropriate, wait for the community to agree with you before recreating them.
On 31 Jul 2016 17:50, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. Many items were created for Wikimania talks. They were created because Wikimania talks represent the best practices of the Wikimedia projects. All these talks were selected in a process to bring out the best our movement has to offer in the many years Wikimania was held. All the persons who gave these presentation are known by either their nick or their name as they themselves identified them at the time of offering the presentation for consideration/
For whatever reasons a Wikidata admin removed these items without any discussion. In the discussion that followed other people presented the arguments why there are no valid arguments for this deletion. A request was made repeatedly to undelete the items involved.
Given the current state of affair there is little option but to recreate these items. It must be noted that the current situation is problematic on many levels. Among them it became clear that admins do as they wish and are not held accountable for their actions. The only thing asked is for the undeletion of items and some sober thought on what may be expected of a Wikidata admin. Thanks, GerardM
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hoi Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What was done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion. There is a policy about that and as a policy it failed miserably. The admins failed to take the existing policy seriously and consequently the notions of community are devalued. Why should this be any different for BLP and why would we expect the arbitrary execution to be any different?
When people are notable because of their relation to other items, we create items for them. Why should we have an exception for this. What has not happened is that people were "outed". When an author of a talk was only know by a nick, it was the nick that was used. Meta is a source, the Wikimania website is a source so yes, there are credible sources. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 15:44, jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
I looked quickly at AN and it seems the issue is about creating items about Wikimedians who dont clearly meet the notability criteria. Recreating items about users after they haved objected, is dangerous ground to be walking on
Wikidata needs an accepted and enforced BLP.
I assume these items in question would fail the proposed BLP due to lack of reliable source, if it was anything like reliable sources is defined on Wikipedia.
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Living_people
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:47 Gerard Meijssen, gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, John it was documented on the Administrators noticeboard. The "discussion" ran for over two weeks. I feel no need to identify the admin, he is typically the kind of person I greatly admire. If anything I object to the way admins do not take responsibility for what happens. If anything the way this whole controversy transpired proves how little of a community we are.
I have started and added a few items. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 14:28, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Which items, which admin, etc.
A little context would help.
If the items were appropriate, wait for the community to agree with you before recreating them.
On 31 Jul 2016 17:50, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. Many items were created for Wikimania talks. They were created because Wikimania talks represent the best practices of the Wikimedia projects. All these talks were selected in a process to bring out the best our movement has to offer in the many years Wikimania was held. All the persons who gave these presentation are known by either their nick or their name as they themselves identified them at the time of offering the presentation for consideration/
For whatever reasons a Wikidata admin removed these items without any discussion. In the discussion that followed other people presented the arguments why there are no valid arguments for this deletion. A request was made repeatedly to undelete the items involved.
Given the current state of affair there is little option but to recreate these items. It must be noted that the current situation is problematic on many levels. Among them it became clear that admins do as they wish and are not held accountable for their actions. The only thing asked is for the undeletion of items and some sober thought on what may be expected of a Wikidata admin. Thanks, GerardM
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
the wikimania site is not a reliable source reflecting on what happened. The published proceedings of Wikimania would be an RS.
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:00 Gerard Meijssen, gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What was done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion. There is a policy about that and as a policy it failed miserably. The admins failed to take the existing policy seriously and consequently the notions of community are devalued. Why should this be any different for BLP and why would we expect the arbitrary execution to be any different?
When people are notable because of their relation to other items, we create items for them. Why should we have an exception for this. What has not happened is that people were "outed". When an author of a talk was only know by a nick, it was the nick that was used. Meta is a source, the Wikimania website is a source so yes, there are credible sources. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 15:44, jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
I looked quickly at AN and it seems the issue is about creating items about Wikimedians who dont clearly meet the notability criteria. Recreating items about users after they haved objected, is dangerous ground to be walking on
Wikidata needs an accepted and enforced BLP.
I assume these items in question would fail the proposed BLP due to lack of reliable source, if it was anything like reliable sources is defined on Wikipedia.
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Living_people
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:47 Gerard Meijssen, gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, John it was documented on the Administrators noticeboard. The "discussion" ran for over two weeks. I feel no need to identify the admin, he is typically the kind of person I greatly admire. If anything I object to the way admins do not take responsibility for what happens. If anything the way this whole controversy transpired proves how little of a community we are.
I have started and added a few items. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 14:28, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Which items, which admin, etc.
A little context would help.
If the items were appropriate, wait for the community to agree with you before recreating them.
On 31 Jul 2016 17:50, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. Many items were created for Wikimania talks. They were created because Wikimania talks represent the best practices of the Wikimedia projects. All these talks were selected in a process to bring out the best our movement has to offer in the many years Wikimania was held. All the persons who gave these presentation are known by either their nick or their name as they themselves identified them at the time of offering the presentation for consideration/
For whatever reasons a Wikidata admin removed these items without any discussion. In the discussion that followed other people presented the arguments why there are no valid arguments for this deletion. A request was made repeatedly to undelete the items involved.
Given the current state of affair there is little option but to recreate these items. It must be noted that the current situation is problematic on many levels. Among them it became clear that admins do as they wish and are not held accountable for their actions. The only thing asked is for the undeletion of items and some sober thought on what may be expected of a Wikidata admin. Thanks, GerardM
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hoi, Really? It is a source for the talks that were given. It contains the papers that were the basis for granting a spot on the program. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 16:11, jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
the wikimania site is not a reliable source reflecting on what happened. The published proceedings of Wikimania would be an RS.
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:00 Gerard Meijssen, gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What was done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion. There is a policy about that and as a policy it failed miserably. The admins failed to take the existing policy seriously and consequently the notions of community are devalued. Why should this be any different for BLP and why would we expect the arbitrary execution to be any different?
When people are notable because of their relation to other items, we create items for them. Why should we have an exception for this. What has not happened is that people were "outed". When an author of a talk was only know by a nick, it was the nick that was used. Meta is a source, the Wikimania website is a source so yes, there are credible sources. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 15:44, jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
I looked quickly at AN and it seems the issue is about creating items about Wikimedians who dont clearly meet the notability criteria. Recreating items about users after they haved objected, is dangerous ground to be walking on
Wikidata needs an accepted and enforced BLP.
I assume these items in question would fail the proposed BLP due to lack of reliable source, if it was anything like reliable sources is defined on Wikipedia.
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Living_people
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:47 Gerard Meijssen, gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, John it was documented on the Administrators noticeboard. The "discussion" ran for over two weeks. I feel no need to identify the admin, he is typically the kind of person I greatly admire. If anything I object to the way admins do not take responsibility for what happens. If anything the way this whole controversy transpired proves how little of a community we are.
I have started and added a few items. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 14:28, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Which items, which admin, etc.
A little context would help.
If the items were appropriate, wait for the community to agree with you before recreating them.
On 31 Jul 2016 17:50, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. Many items were created for Wikimania talks. They were created because Wikimania talks represent the best practices of the Wikimedia projects. All these talks were selected in a process to bring out the best our movement has to offer in the many years Wikimania was held. All the persons who gave these presentation are known by either their nick or their name as they themselves identified them at the time of offering the presentation for consideration/
For whatever reasons a Wikidata admin removed these items without any discussion. In the discussion that followed other people presented the arguments why there are no valid arguments for this deletion. A request was made repeatedly to undelete the items involved.
Given the current state of affair there is little option but to recreate these items. It must be noted that the current situation is problematic on many levels. Among them it became clear that admins do as they wish and are not held accountable for their actions. The only thing asked is for the undeletion of items and some sober thought on what may be expected of a Wikidata admin. Thanks, GerardM
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Am 31.07.2016 um 16:28 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
Hoi, Really? It is a source for the talks that were given. It contains the papers that were the basis for granting a spot on the program.
To clarify - would the same apply for any talk at any conference? Or do you think Wikimania schould be especially relevant to Wikidata, because it's a Wikimedia thing?
Hoi, I am not to judge what conferences will be deemed relevant for an item in Wikidata. When a conference is relevant, it is the talks and particularly the registrations of the talks, the papers and the presentations that make the conference relevant after the fact.
Is Wikimania relevant? Absolutely. Do the Wikimanias have their own items; they do and nothing changed there.Is it relevant because of it being a Wikimedia "thing"? That it is as well and as I have said on a different mailing list as a community we are exceedingly bad in recognising what we do and have done. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 16:33, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
Am 31.07.2016 um 16:28 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
Hoi, Really? It is a source for the talks that were given. It contains the
papers
that were the basis for granting a spot on the program.
To clarify - would the same apply for any talk at any conference? Or do you think Wikimania schould be especially relevant to Wikidata, because it's a Wikimedia thing?
-- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer
Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Am 31.07.2016 um 17:04 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
Hoi, I am not to judge what conferences will be deemed relevant for an item in Wikidata. When a conference is relevant, it is the talks and particularly the registrations of the talks, the papers and the presentations that make the conference relevant after the fact.
So you think that for every relevant conference, all talks and speakers should automatically be considered relevant? Does the same aregument apply to all courses and theachers at all relevant universities and schools?
I'm trying to understand your point. To me it's a question of granularity. We can't manage arbitrarily fine grained information, so we have to stop at some point. What do you think, where should that point be for Wikimania, for other (relevant) conferences, for universities, for schools?
I normally don't (and probably should not) get into this little squabbles, but I am getting a bit weary always reading through me... so let me see if I can help bring this all together in the spirit of goodwill...
I think that instead of using the term 'relevant' that Wikidata should instead begin to adopt a policy of 'useful'. Just a slight tweak to its policy with this one word change and it opens borders and collaboration and less debates like in this thread.
My thoughts....
Wikimania's site was useful to me. Yes. The information it has could be added or copied to Wikidata. Yes. Or the information could stay where it is... on Wikimania's site. Yes or No.
So the question for all to decide is one of...
"is it useful to copy some of Wikimania's information data into Wikidata" "will doing so make the data more useful to everyone"
Questions like those should hold the highest court above all others, and I think that is where Gerard is trying to help ask.
Thad +ThadGuidry https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry
IMO Wikidata is less concerned about individual notability and more with overall usefulness already. WD:N already allows items to be included if they fill a structural need, ie can be included in statements on other, notable items. To me this is fine, and my personal opinion is that these items are fine as well. But (and here's the important thing), it's not a big deal either way. The site will continue, and this especially should not be a time for trying to force an opinion one way or the other onto the community. :-)
On Jul 31, 2016 8:38 AM, "Thad Guidry" thadguidry@gmail.com wrote:
I normally don't (and probably should not) get into this little squabbles, but I am getting a bit weary always reading through me... so let me see if I can help bring this all together in the spirit of goodwill...
I think that instead of using the term 'relevant' that Wikidata should instead begin to adopt a policy of 'useful'. Just a slight tweak to its policy with this one word change and it opens borders and collaboration and less debates like in this thread.
My thoughts....
Wikimania's site was useful to me. Yes. The information it has could be added or copied to Wikidata. Yes. Or the information could stay where it is... on Wikimania's site. Yes or No.
So the question for all to decide is one of...
"is it useful to copy some of Wikimania's information data into Wikidata" "will doing so make the data more useful to everyone"
Questions like those should hold the highest court above all others, and I think that is where Gerard is trying to help ask.
Thad +ThadGuidry https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On 31 July 2016 at 16:43, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com wrote:
my personal opinion is that these items are fine as well. But (and here's the important thing), it's not a big deal either way. The site will continue, and this especially should not be a time for trying to force an opinion one way or the other onto the community. :-)
The big deal is about how we decide how Wikidata policies are applied - do we seek to obtain community consensus, or do we allow involved admins to decide by fait accompli?
Thanks Andy for helping focus these developing process questions. What role could the new head of the WMF play here in positive regards?
Regards, Scott
On Jul 31, 2016 10:09 AM, "Andy Mabbett" andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 31 July 2016 at 16:43, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com wrote:
my personal opinion is that these items are fine as well. But (and here's the important thing), it's not a big deal either way. The site will continue, and this especially should not be a
time
for trying to force an opinion one way or the other onto the community.
:-)
The big deal is about how we decide how Wikidata policies are applied
- do we seek to obtain community consensus, or do we allow involved
admins to decide by fait accompli?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hello,
Sorry, but what has "the new head of the WMF" to do with the community matters of Wikidata?
Greetings,
Sjoerd de Bruin sjoerddebruin@me.com
Op 31 jul. 2016, om 19:18 heeft Info WorldUniversity info@worlduniversityandschool.org het volgende geschreven:
Thanks Andy for helping focus these developing process questions. What role could the new head of the WMF play here in positive regards?
Regards, Scott
On Jul 31, 2016 10:09 AM, "Andy Mabbett" <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk mailto:andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: On 31 July 2016 at 16:43, Adrian Raddatz <ajraddatz@gmail.com mailto:ajraddatz@gmail.com> wrote:
my personal opinion is that these items are fine as well. But (and here's the important thing), it's not a big deal either way. The site will continue, and this especially should not be a time for trying to force an opinion one way or the other onto the community. :-)
The big deal is about how we decide how Wikidata policies are applied
- do we seek to obtain community consensus, or do we allow involved
admins to decide by fait accompli?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk http://pigsonthewing.org.uk/
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hi Sjoerd,
I'm just asking about unfolding Wikidata community process - and in relation too to WMF.
Greetings, Scott
On Jul 31, 2016 10:20 AM, "Sjoerd de Bruin" sjoerddebruin@me.com wrote:
Hello,
Sorry, but what has "the new head of the WMF" to do with the community matters of Wikidata?
Greetings,
Sjoerd de Bruin sjoerddebruin@me.com
Op 31 jul. 2016, om 19:18 heeft Info WorldUniversity < info@worlduniversityandschool.org> het volgende geschreven:
Thanks Andy for helping focus these developing process questions. What role could the new head of the WMF play here in positive regards?
Regards, Scott
On Jul 31, 2016 10:09 AM, "Andy Mabbett" andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 31 July 2016 at 16:43, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com wrote:
my personal opinion is that these items are fine as well. But (and here's the important thing), it's not a big deal either way. The site will continue, and this especially should not be a
time
for trying to force an opinion one way or the other onto the community.
:-)
The big deal is about how we decide how Wikidata policies are applied
- do we seek to obtain community consensus, or do we allow involved
admins to decide by fait accompli?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
The WMF does not engage in such matters, this is a community issue. And given the unwillingness of admins to act in this case, I think a discussion on the project chat on whether or not these items are notable makes a lot more sense than continued discussion on the administrators' noticeboard (or here). Admins have an easier time implementing consensus than making decisions themselves, and if some don't want to undelete the items then it would cause quite some conflict if others did.
Adrian Raddatz
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Info WorldUniversity < info@worlduniversityandschool.org> wrote:
Hi Sjoerd,
I'm just asking about unfolding Wikidata community process - and in relation too to WMF.
Greetings, Scott
On Jul 31, 2016 10:20 AM, "Sjoerd de Bruin" sjoerddebruin@me.com wrote:
Hello,
Sorry, but what has "the new head of the WMF" to do with the community matters of Wikidata?
Greetings,
Sjoerd de Bruin sjoerddebruin@me.com
Op 31 jul. 2016, om 19:18 heeft Info WorldUniversity < info@worlduniversityandschool.org> het volgende geschreven:
Thanks Andy for helping focus these developing process questions. What role could the new head of the WMF play here in positive regards?
Regards, Scott
On Jul 31, 2016 10:09 AM, "Andy Mabbett" andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 31 July 2016 at 16:43, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com wrote:
my personal opinion is that these items are fine as well. But (and here's the important thing), it's not a big deal either way. The site will continue, and this especially should not be
a time
for trying to force an opinion one way or the other onto the
community. :-)
The big deal is about how we decide how Wikidata policies are applied
- do we seek to obtain community consensus, or do we allow involved
admins to decide by fait accompli?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hoi, There are several things at play. First, Wikimania and its talks will find its place in Wikidata because typically much of the papers, presentations and registrations will be found in Commons. So they will be registered anyway. Second, this thread is also about the way our policies are maintained. This is done in an arbitrary way and consequently much of the arguments based on policies have lost much of their validity. Third, the number of items involved is so low that it not even registers. When other conferences like TED find their way, it is not a problem so why should granularity be a problem now?
When people want to know about how we think about what we do, the Wikimania talks is a prime resource. Papers are published about what we do. We could easily refer people to Wikimania and other talks. We could and should because it makes sense to do so. In the end it is our history. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 17:25, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
Am 31.07.2016 um 17:04 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
Hoi, I am not to judge what conferences will be deemed relevant for an item in Wikidata. When a conference is relevant, it is the talks and
particularly the
registrations of the talks, the papers and the presentations that make
the
conference relevant after the fact.
So you think that for every relevant conference, all talks and speakers should automatically be considered relevant? Does the same aregument apply to all courses and theachers at all relevant universities and schools?
I'm trying to understand your point. To me it's a question of granularity. We can't manage arbitrarily fine grained information, so we have to stop at some point. What do you think, where should that point be for Wikimania, for other (relevant) conferences, for universities, for schools?
-- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer
Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Gerard's point that the items are typically found in Wikimedia Commons I think is key. If the item is part of a sister project to Wikidata then it has a corresponding place on Wikidata. Unless I misunderstand the interoperability and mission of Wikidata.
Also: I am not a fan of deleting content -- especially content that is curated, focused, captures a time and place, incorporates hard work on projects especially as it relates to a Wikimedia project. To me this is not defensible. So deleting entries seems similar to my experience with Wikipedia editors hostile to added content focused on deletionism -- of course to a notable women's page where I as an editor am trying to establish said notability -- who characterize the information as yes, "too encyclopedic." #Ridiculous I wish this wasn't true.
So I agree with Gerard and others here.
- Erika
On Jul 31, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There are several things at play. First, Wikimania and its talks will find its place in Wikidata because typically much of the papers, presentations and registrations will be found in Commons. So they will be registered anyway. Second, this thread is also about the way our policies are maintained. This is done in an arbitrary way and consequently much of the arguments based on policies have lost much of their validity. Third, the number of items involved is so low that it not even registers. When other conferences like TED find their way, it is not a problem so why should granularity be a problem now?
When people want to know about how we think about what we do, the Wikimania talks is a prime resource. Papers are published about what we do. We could easily refer people to Wikimania and other talks. We could and should because it makes sense to do so. In the end it is our history. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 17:25, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote: Am 31.07.2016 um 17:04 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
Hoi, I am not to judge what conferences will be deemed relevant for an item in Wikidata. When a conference is relevant, it is the talks and particularly the registrations of the talks, the papers and the presentations that make the conference relevant after the fact.
So you think that for every relevant conference, all talks and speakers should automatically be considered relevant? Does the same aregument apply to all courses and theachers at all relevant universities and schools?
I'm trying to understand your point. To me it's a question of granularity. We can't manage arbitrarily fine grained information, so we have to stop at some point. What do you think, where should that point be for Wikimania, for other (relevant) conferences, for universities, for schools?
-- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer
Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikimedia Commons will have its own structured data repository soon, and it will need to tackle this BLP problem also. Wikidata really needs a BLP policy; then it is easier to trust Wikidata with the grey area. Wikimedians will be worried that while Gerard's intention is noble, when they have an item about them there is nothing to someone with less noble intentions from adding more intrusive information to the item. The result will be less people willing to speak at Wikimania.
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 01:07 Brill Lyle, wp.brilllyle@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard's point that the items are typically found in Wikimedia Commons I think is key. If the item is part of a sister project to Wikidata then it has a corresponding place on Wikidata. Unless I misunderstand the interoperability and mission of Wikidata.
Also: I am not a fan of deleting content -- especially content that is curated, focused, captures a time and place, incorporates hard work on projects especially as it relates to a Wikimedia project. To me this is not defensible. So deleting entries seems similar to my experience with Wikipedia editors hostile to added content focused on deletionism -- of course to a notable women's page where I as an editor am trying to establish said notability -- who characterize the information as yes, "too encyclopedic." #Ridiculous I wish this wasn't true.
So I agree with Gerard and others here.
- Erika
On Jul 31, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There are several things at play. First, Wikimania and its talks will find its place in Wikidata because typically much of the papers, presentations and registrations will be found in Commons. So they will be registered anyway. Second, this thread is also about the way our policies are maintained. This is done in an arbitrary way and consequently much of the arguments based on policies have lost much of their validity. Third, the number of items involved is so low that it not even registers. When other conferences like TED find their way, it is not a problem so why should granularity be a problem now?
When people want to know about how we think about what we do, the Wikimania talks is a prime resource. Papers are published about what we do. We could easily refer people to Wikimania and other talks. We could and should because it makes sense to do so. In the end it is our history. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 17:25, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
Am 31.07.2016 um 17:04 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
Hoi, I am not to judge what conferences will be deemed relevant for an item
in
Wikidata. When a conference is relevant, it is the talks and
particularly the
registrations of the talks, the papers and the presentations that make
the
conference relevant after the fact.
So you think that for every relevant conference, all talks and speakers should automatically be considered relevant? Does the same aregument apply to all courses and theachers at all relevant universities and schools?
I'm trying to understand your point. To me it's a question of granularity. We can't manage arbitrarily fine grained information, so we have to stop at some point. What do you think, where should that point be for Wikimania, for other (relevant) conferences, for universities, for schools?
-- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer
Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Isn't Wikimania a public conference that includes much live streaming? If an editor wishes to be anonymous and not filmed or photographed the event organizers can provide red dots etc. and their presentation and appearance can be adjusted accordingly.
But this is a public event with a mission of outreach and connectivity, unless I misunderstand completely.
BLP is a problem everywhere not just on Wiki projects.
If the owner of the data objects that's one thing. But I think to delete all content for the conference is overzealous and works against the idea of encyclopedic and semantic information.
Erika
On Jul 31, 2016, at 2:15 PM, jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia Commons will have its own structured data repository soon, and it will need to tackle this BLP problem also. Wikidata really needs a BLP policy; then it is easier to trust Wikidata with the grey area. Wikimedians will be worried that while Gerard's intention is noble, when they have an item about them there is nothing to someone with less noble intentions from adding more intrusive information to the item. The result will be less people willing to speak at Wikimania.
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 01:07 Brill Lyle, wp.brilllyle@gmail.com wrote: Gerard's point that the items are typically found in Wikimedia Commons I think is key. If the item is part of a sister project to Wikidata then it has a corresponding place on Wikidata. Unless I misunderstand the interoperability and mission of Wikidata.
Also: I am not a fan of deleting content -- especially content that is curated, focused, captures a time and place, incorporates hard work on projects especially as it relates to a Wikimedia project. To me this is not defensible. So deleting entries seems similar to my experience with Wikipedia editors hostile to added content focused on deletionism -- of course to a notable women's page where I as an editor am trying to establish said notability -- who characterize the information as yes, "too encyclopedic." #Ridiculous I wish this wasn't true.
So I agree with Gerard and others here.
- Erika
On Jul 31, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There are several things at play. First, Wikimania and its talks will find its place in Wikidata because typically much of the papers, presentations and registrations will be found in Commons. So they will be registered anyway. Second, this thread is also about the way our policies are maintained. This is done in an arbitrary way and consequently much of the arguments based on policies have lost much of their validity. Third, the number of items involved is so low that it not even registers. When other conferences like TED find their way, it is not a problem so why should granularity be a problem now?
When people want to know about how we think about what we do, the Wikimania talks is a prime resource. Papers are published about what we do. We could easily refer people to Wikimania and other talks. We could and should because it makes sense to do so. In the end it is our history. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 17:25, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote: Am 31.07.2016 um 17:04 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
Hoi, I am not to judge what conferences will be deemed relevant for an item in Wikidata. When a conference is relevant, it is the talks and particularly the registrations of the talks, the papers and the presentations that make the conference relevant after the fact.
So you think that for every relevant conference, all talks and speakers should automatically be considered relevant? Does the same aregument apply to all courses and theachers at all relevant universities and schools?
I'm trying to understand your point. To me it's a question of granularity. We can't manage arbitrarily fine grained information, so we have to stop at some point. What do you think, where should that point be for Wikimania, for other (relevant) conferences, for universities, for schools?
-- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer
Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
That's a fair assessment of the situation. I can understand the other side of the conversation as well; it is somewhat debatable whether or not the items actually fill a structural need for the conference page, though I would suggest that any data that can be included on an item presents a need to be kept.
But as I said above, if people want to really move forward with this, a general discussion on the project chat is probably the best way to go. I'd be glad to organise it! Something that asks about whether items for presentations and presenters at notable conferences in general satisfy the notability policy by being identifiable entities and filling a structural need. I think it fits under both myself.
Adrian Raddatz
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Brill Lyle wp.brilllyle@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't Wikimania a public conference that includes much live streaming? If an editor wishes to be anonymous and not filmed or photographed the event organizers can provide red dots etc. and their presentation and appearance can be adjusted accordingly.
But this is a public event with a mission of outreach and connectivity, unless I misunderstand completely.
BLP is a problem everywhere not just on Wiki projects.
If the owner of the data objects that's one thing. But I think to delete all content for the conference is overzealous and works against the idea of encyclopedic and semantic information.
Erika
On Jul 31, 2016, at 2:15 PM, jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia Commons will have its own structured data repository soon, and it will need to tackle this BLP problem also. Wikidata really needs a BLP policy; then it is easier to trust Wikidata with the grey area. Wikimedians will be worried that while Gerard's intention is noble, when they have an item about them there is nothing to someone with less noble intentions from adding more intrusive information to the item. The result will be less people willing to speak at Wikimania.
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 01:07 Brill Lyle, wp.brilllyle@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard's point that the items are typically found in Wikimedia Commons I think is key. If the item is part of a sister project to Wikidata then it has a corresponding place on Wikidata. Unless I misunderstand the interoperability and mission of Wikidata.
Also: I am not a fan of deleting content -- especially content that is curated, focused, captures a time and place, incorporates hard work on projects especially as it relates to a Wikimedia project. To me this is not defensible. So deleting entries seems similar to my experience with Wikipedia editors hostile to added content focused on deletionism -- of course to a notable women's page where I as an editor am trying to establish said notability -- who characterize the information as yes, "too encyclopedic." #Ridiculous I wish this wasn't true.
So I agree with Gerard and others here.
- Erika
On Jul 31, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There are several things at play. First, Wikimania and its talks will find its place in Wikidata because typically much of the papers, presentations and registrations will be found in Commons. So they will be registered anyway. Second, this thread is also about the way our policies are maintained. This is done in an arbitrary way and consequently much of the arguments based on policies have lost much of their validity. Third, the number of items involved is so low that it not even registers. When other conferences like TED find their way, it is not a problem so why should granularity be a problem now?
When people want to know about how we think about what we do, the Wikimania talks is a prime resource. Papers are published about what we do. We could easily refer people to Wikimania and other talks. We could and should because it makes sense to do so. In the end it is our history. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 17:25, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
Am 31.07.2016 um 17:04 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
Hoi, I am not to judge what conferences will be deemed relevant for an item
in
Wikidata. When a conference is relevant, it is the talks and
particularly the
registrations of the talks, the papers and the presentations that make
the
conference relevant after the fact.
So you think that for every relevant conference, all talks and speakers should automatically be considered relevant? Does the same aregument apply to all courses and theachers at all relevant universities and schools?
I'm trying to understand your point. To me it's a question of granularity. We can't manage arbitrarily fine grained information, so we have to stop at some point. What do you think, where should that point be for Wikimania, for other (relevant) conferences, for universities, for schools?
-- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer
Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On 31 July 2016 at 19:15, jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia Commons will have its own structured data repository soon, and it will need to tackle this BLP problem also.
This is a side issue, for this case.
The primary issue is that an involved admin has deleted some items, refused to restore them when challenged, and other admins are collectively unwilling (for reasons the vast majority of them have not expressed) to restore them so that the community can then discuss them, and reach a proper consensus, in the normal "requests for deletion" arena.
Wikimedians will be worried that while Gerard's intention is noble, when they have an item about them there is nothing to someone with less noble intentions from adding more intrusive information to the item.
This is speculative; but if it does come to pass, then there are methods of dealing with it (just as there are on Wikipedia) that do not involve deleting items - many of which were not about people - without discussion.
Again, the way to deal with it is *not* an involved admin deleting items without discussion, nor the backing or a policy arrived at by consensus
The result will be less people willing to speak at Wikimania.
Really? Wikidata (and Wikispecies) have items about anyone who has named a taxon. It is planned to create items about many scientific papers. Will fewer people will be willing to name taxa or write scientific papers?
On 31 July 2016 at 16:25, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
So you think that for every relevant conference, all talks and speakers should automatically be considered relevant? Does the same aregument apply to all courses and theachers at all relevant universities and schools?
I'm pretty sure Gerard can express what he thinks without anyone having to scribe it for him.
You will find the Wikidata notability policy at:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability
Should you wish to lobby for it to be revised, it has a talk page.
Daniel and All,
That would be wise of Wikipedia/WMF (and pretty easy for Wikidata too), j'pense.
Regards, Scott
On Jul 31, 2016 9:10 AM, "Andy Mabbett" andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 31 July 2016 at 16:25, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
So you think that for every relevant conference, all talks and speakers
should
automatically be considered relevant? Does the same aregument apply to
all
courses and theachers at all relevant universities and schools?
I'm pretty sure Gerard can express what he thinks without anyone having to scribe it for him.
You will find the Wikidata notability policy at:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability
Should you wish to lobby for it to be revised, it has a talk page.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On 31 July 2016 at 15:11, jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
the wikimania site is not a reliable source reflecting on what happened. The published proceedings of Wikimania would be an RS.
The videos *are* the published proceedings of Wikimania.
Hi!
Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What was done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion.
I wonder whether Wikidata is really the best platform to host Wikimania talks and information about it. While I have no doubt these are excellent talks of great interest to Wiki community, their notability in the larger world is a more difficult question. Specifically, would we create an item for every talk even for a major conference (not considering copyright etc. questions now)? We have a lot of conferences with much wider attendance than Wikimania happening each year.
Now, Wikimania is of course special - for Wiki movement. And having *some* repository for this content and knowledge would be completely appropriate. However, is that repository Wikidata - as purported to be repository of knowledge of general public interest? I am much less sure of it. Unless we take the wider mission of accepting data about talks on any conference of note - which may be possible, but I'm not sure whether it should be done... If yes, then of course clear policy statement to that effect may be helpful - so people who are not sure about it like me would know what the community consensus has arrived to.
Hoi, There were lists of Wikimania talks for the Wikimanias. So these items were not standing alone they were in context and THAT is what makes it attractive to have them. We do have Wikimanias as items and on there own they do not provide information. Looking at them from only WIkidata you do not get the picture. Thank <enter your deity> that Magnus has his fantastic tools that allow us to show the value of data. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 22:47, Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi!
Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What was done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion.
I wonder whether Wikidata is really the best platform to host Wikimania talks and information about it. While I have no doubt these are excellent talks of great interest to Wiki community, their notability in the larger world is a more difficult question. Specifically, would we create an item for every talk even for a major conference (not considering copyright etc. questions now)? We have a lot of conferences with much wider attendance than Wikimania happening each year.
Now, Wikimania is of course special - for Wiki movement. And having *some* repository for this content and knowledge would be completely appropriate. However, is that repository Wikidata - as purported to be repository of knowledge of general public interest? I am much less sure of it. Unless we take the wider mission of accepting data about talks on any conference of note - which may be possible, but I'm not sure whether it should be done... If yes, then of course clear policy statement to that effect may be helpful - so people who are not sure about it like me would know what the community consensus has arrived to. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
If, as Jimbo Wales' wrote the purpose of Wikipedia involves imagining "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.—Jimbo Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_Wales[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose#cite_note-3" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose ...
and the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation includes:
"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
In collaboration with a network of chapters https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:gratis, in perpetuity."
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement
I'd vote as a Wikidata community member for aggregating conferences and courses in all languages with machine and wiki (human) processes. Whether this is best done in Wikidata/Wikibase, or another related platform or elsewhere, may be worth exploring process-wise in a number of different Wikidata forums and discussions. This also seems wise, and relatively easy too I.T.-wise, given shared unfolding agreement among Wikidatans and Wikipedians.
Friendly regards, Scott
CC https://twitter.com/WorldUnivAndSch
On Jul 31, 2016 2:18 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There were lists of Wikimania talks for the Wikimanias. So these items were not standing alone they were in context and THAT is what makes it attractive to have them. We do have Wikimanias as items and on there own they do not provide information. Looking at them from only WIkidata you do not get the picture. Thank <enter your deity> that Magnus has his fantastic tools that allow us to show the value of data. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 22:47, Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi!
Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What was done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion.
I wonder whether Wikidata is really the best platform to host Wikimania talks and information about it. While I have no doubt these are excellent talks of great interest to Wiki community, their notability in the larger world is a more difficult question. Specifically, would we create an item for every talk even for a major conference (not considering copyright etc. questions now)? We have a lot of conferences with much wider attendance than Wikimania happening each year.
Now, Wikimania is of course special - for Wiki movement. And having *some* repository for this content and knowledge would be completely appropriate. However, is that repository Wikidata - as purported to be repository of knowledge of general public interest? I am much less sure of it. Unless we take the wider mission of accepting data about talks on any conference of note - which may be possible, but I'm not sure whether it should be done... If yes, then of course clear policy statement to that effect may be helpful - so people who are not sure about it like me would know what the community consensus has arrived to. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
[Note: I'm using the last message for a cumulative reply]
Wikidata has 16k active users, 66 admins, 3 'crats, with a pretty active community. This thread has turned into a weird mix of inclusionism vs. deletionism catfight + a request to undelete some contents in a specific project + a series of off-topics. The first part might fit the scope of this list (though is *so* boring), same for the third one. Instead, the second part must be discussed on Wikidata following local policies.
Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out of our mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete ^^), same for the staffers. No chances to overrule a community for such trivial reasons.
Vito
2016-08-01 0:36 GMT+02:00 Info WorldUniversity < info@worlduniversityandschool.org>:
If, as Jimbo Wales' wrote the purpose of Wikipedia involves imagining "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.—Jimbo Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_Wales[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose#cite_note-3" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose ...
and the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation includes:
"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
In collaboration with a network of chapters https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:gratis, in perpetuity."
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement
I'd vote as a Wikidata community member for aggregating conferences and courses in all languages with machine and wiki (human) processes. Whether this is best done in Wikidata/Wikibase, or another related platform or elsewhere, may be worth exploring process-wise in a number of different Wikidata forums and discussions. This also seems wise, and relatively easy too I.T.-wise, given shared unfolding agreement among Wikidatans and Wikipedians.
Friendly regards, Scott
CC https://twitter.com/WorldUnivAndSch
On Jul 31, 2016 2:18 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There were lists of Wikimania talks for the Wikimanias. So these items were not standing alone they were in context and THAT is what makes it attractive to have them. We do have Wikimanias as items and on there own they do not provide information. Looking at them from only WIkidata you do not get the picture. Thank <enter your deity> that Magnus has his fantastic tools that allow us to show the value of data. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 22:47, Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi!
Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What was done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion.
I wonder whether Wikidata is really the best platform to host Wikimania talks and information about it. While I have no doubt these are excellent talks of great interest to Wiki community, their notability in the larger world is a more difficult question. Specifically, would we create an item for every talk even for a major conference (not considering copyright etc. questions now)? We have a lot of conferences with much wider attendance than Wikimania happening each year.
Now, Wikimania is of course special - for Wiki movement. And having *some* repository for this content and knowledge would be completely appropriate. However, is that repository Wikidata - as purported to be repository of knowledge of general public interest? I am much less sure of it. Unless we take the wider mission of accepting data about talks on any conference of note - which may be possible, but I'm not sure whether it should be done... If yes, then of course clear policy statement to that effect may be helpful - so people who are not sure about it like me would know what the community consensus has arrived to. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Thanks, Vito & All!
Scott
On Jul 31, 2016 5:05 PM, "Vi to" vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
[Note: I'm using the last message for a cumulative reply]
Wikidata has 16k active users, 66 admins, 3 'crats, with a pretty active community. This thread has turned into a weird mix of inclusionism vs. deletionism catfight + a request to undelete some contents in a specific project + a series of off-topics. The first part might fit the scope of this list (though is *so* boring), same for the third one. Instead, the second part must be discussed on Wikidata following local policies.
Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out of our mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete ^^), same for the staffers. No chances to overrule a community for such trivial reasons.
Vito
2016-08-01 0:36 GMT+02:00 Info WorldUniversity < info@worlduniversityandschool.org>:
If, as Jimbo Wales' wrote the purpose of Wikipedia involves imagining "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.—Jimbo Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_Wales[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose#cite_note-3" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose ...
and the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation includes:
"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
In collaboration with a network of chapters https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:gratis, in perpetuity."
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement
I'd vote as a Wikidata community member for aggregating conferences and courses in all languages with machine and wiki (human) processes. Whether this is best done in Wikidata/Wikibase, or another related platform or elsewhere, may be worth exploring process-wise in a number of different Wikidata forums and discussions. This also seems wise, and relatively easy too I.T.-wise, given shared unfolding agreement among Wikidatans and Wikipedians.
Friendly regards, Scott
CC https://twitter.com/WorldUnivAndSch
On Jul 31, 2016 2:18 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There were lists of Wikimania talks for the Wikimanias. So these items were not standing alone they were in context and THAT is what makes it attractive to have them. We do have Wikimanias as items and on there own they do not provide information. Looking at them from only WIkidata you do not get the picture. Thank <enter your deity> that Magnus has his fantastic tools that allow us to show the value of data. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 22:47, Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi!
Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What was done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion.
I wonder whether Wikidata is really the best platform to host Wikimania talks and information about it. While I have no doubt these are excellent talks of great interest to Wiki community, their notability in the larger world is a more difficult question. Specifically, would we create an item for every talk even for a major conference (not considering copyright etc. questions now)? We have a lot of conferences with much wider attendance than Wikimania happening each year.
Now, Wikimania is of course special - for Wiki movement. And having *some* repository for this content and knowledge would be completely appropriate. However, is that repository Wikidata - as purported to be repository of knowledge of general public interest? I am much less sure of it. Unless we take the wider mission of accepting data about talks on any conference of note - which may be possible, but I'm not sure whether it should be done... If yes, then of course clear policy statement to that effect may be helpful - so people who are not sure about it like me would know what the community consensus has arrived to. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On 1 August 2016 at 01:05, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out of our mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete ^^), same for the staffers. No chances to overrule a community for such trivial reasons.
There is no community action to overrule. The deletion was done by single, involved admin, with no discussion, and without any backing in policy.
Andy Mabbett писал 2016-08-04 22:45:
On 1 August 2016 at 01:05, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out of our mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete ^^), same for the staffers. No chances to overrule a community for such trivial reasons.
There is no community action to overrule. The deletion was done by single, involved admin, with no discussion, and without any backing in policy.
Really? And we, the admin cabal, just massively disregard policies?
May be you should learn to listen at some point. You have been provided with all necessary explanations, multiple times. You may agree or disagree, but repeatedly stating there were no explanations is IDONOTHEARIT.
Stop it.
Cheers Yaroslav
Hoi, You make a mistake. You are talking to one of the most influential Wikimedians. Andy is professional in the width and the breath and quality of what he does as a Wikimedian. He is quite capable of understanding policy and he is quite capable of expressing his well founded opinion. The controversy comes to light and does not go away because it is between an important admin who I highly regard for the work that he does and myself.It does not stop because the arguments are clear and obvious and contrary to what you indicate no arguments are given by any of the other admins except for "I do not have to do this". The point with arguments is you cannot deny them but you can ignore them or refute them. Only the ignore bit is present.
As to disregarding policy, let us just look at property 500 and see it for the example it is. Admins on Wikidata are not as relevant on Wikidata as they are on Wikipedia that is easily explained. As a group they do whatever, I have little interaction with them I do what I do and with over two million edits with many many manual edits in there I can safely say that I prefer it that way and, I know my Wikidata quite well. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 August 2016 at 08:42, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Andy Mabbett писал 2016-08-04 22:45:
On 1 August 2016 at 01:05, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out of
our mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete ^^), same for the staffers. No chances to overrule a community for such trivial reasons.
There is no community action to overrule. The deletion was done by single, involved admin, with no discussion, and without any backing in policy.
Really? And we, the admin cabal, just massively disregard policies?
May be you should learn to listen at some point. You have been provided with all necessary explanations, multiple times. You may agree or disagree, but repeatedly stating there were no explanations is IDONOTHEARIT.
Stop it.
Cheers Yaroslav
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
I never loved authority principle, nor I do in this context.
I didn't reply because I find this thread has turned into rant too many emails ago, while this list cannot produce consensus for any project.
But well, here's my reply: Wikidata has an active community, which has a series of means to rollback sysops' actions. If no one has yet rolled those deletions back we, stewards, won't *overrule the community*. Sorry for going against *one of the most influential wikimedians' *writ, but a series of mildly controversial deletions -the controversy wouldn't be "mild" if it would bring to a wheel-war- is so so far from the magnitude of trouble causing us to intervene.
Vito
2016-08-06 9:29 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, You make a mistake. You are talking to one of the most influential Wikimedians. Andy is professional in the width and the breath and quality of what he does as a Wikimedian. He is quite capable of understanding policy and he is quite capable of expressing his well founded opinion. The controversy comes to light and does not go away because it is between an important admin who I highly regard for the work that he does and myself.It does not stop because the arguments are clear and obvious and contrary to what you indicate no arguments are given by any of the other admins except for "I do not have to do this". The point with arguments is you cannot deny them but you can ignore them or refute them. Only the ignore bit is present.
As to disregarding policy, let us just look at property 500 and see it for the example it is. Admins on Wikidata are not as relevant on Wikidata as they are on Wikipedia that is easily explained. As a group they do whatever, I have little interaction with them I do what I do and with over two million edits with many many manual edits in there I can safely say that I prefer it that way and, I know my Wikidata quite well. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 August 2016 at 08:42, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Andy Mabbett писал 2016-08-04 22:45:
On 1 August 2016 at 01:05, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out of
our mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete ^^), same for the staffers. No chances to overrule a community for such trivial reasons.
There is no community action to overrule. The deletion was done by single, involved admin, with no discussion, and without any backing in policy.
Really? And we, the admin cabal, just massively disregard policies?
May be you should learn to listen at some point. You have been provided with all necessary explanations, multiple times. You may agree or disagree, but repeatedly stating there were no explanations is IDONOTHEARIT.
Stop it.
Cheers Yaroslav
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On 6 August 2016 at 07:42, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Andy Mabbett писал 2016-08-04 22:45:
On 1 August 2016 at 01:05, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
There is no community action to overrule. The deletion was done by single, involved admin, with no discussion, and without any backing in policy.
Really?
Really, You're welcome to provide evidence to the contrary (note: that's "evidence", not "assertion".)
And we, the admin cabal, just massively disregard policies?
Who said anything about a cabal?
May be you should learn to listen at some point. You have been provided with all necessary explanations, multiple times.
Poppycock.
You may agree or disagree, but repeatedly stating there were no explanations is IDONOTHEARIT.
Where have I stated that there were "no explanations"? Sadly, the very few that have been offered have been easily refuted, both here and on Wikidata's admin noticeboard, as they include logical fallacies, make claims made with no evidence, do not address the concerns raised and are not based in any policy.
Stop it.
On the basis of your authority?
Why were we even talking about stewards overruling local admins? I don't see that suggested in any of the emails above, and obviously it would be totally inappropriate.
But on the whole I agree, Vito. There are more productive ways of dealing with this.
Adrian Raddatz
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 6 August 2016 at 07:42, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Andy Mabbett писал 2016-08-04 22:45:
On 1 August 2016 at 01:05, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
There is no community action to overrule. The deletion was done by single, involved admin, with no discussion, and without any backing in policy.
Really?
Really, You're welcome to provide evidence to the contrary (note: that's "evidence", not "assertion".)
And we, the admin cabal, just massively disregard policies?
Who said anything about a cabal?
May be you should learn to listen at some point. You have been provided
with
all necessary explanations, multiple times.
Poppycock.
You may agree or disagree, but repeatedly stating there were no explanations is IDONOTHEARIT.
Where have I stated that there were "no explanations"? Sadly, the very few that have been offered have been easily refuted, both here and on Wikidata's admin noticeboard, as they include logical fallacies, make claims made with no evidence, do not address the concerns raised and are not based in any policy.
Stop it.
On the basis of your authority?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hoi, What is trivial. I find that the disappointment in what our policies bring us amounts to a lot. Effectively it is only who you are that determines what you get away with. The quality of arguments are easily dismissed with "I have a different opinion" (that is NOT an argument.
When you look at my credentials you will agree that I have been involved heavily in our project and for all the wrong reasons I am disengaging. I object to the way conflicts are handled. I object to the collective shrug of not caring, not wanting to be involved of our admins. In the end it does not matter.
Wikidata is a very important project that is underserved in attention to its community. It just sort of happens and the statistics are so good that we do not even look at the relative health of Wikidata as a community.
It is one thing for stewards to say what they say, it is one thing for individual administrators to say what they say but when the situation goes rogue, when arguments presented by others do not get the collective attention of the administrative processes that are in place. When the allegation that admins do as they please is just a determination it becomes obvious to raise the question what is the function of all the policies when they so obviously are hardly worth the bits they consist of. Thanks, GerardM
On 1 August 2016 at 02:05, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
[Note: I'm using the last message for a cumulative reply]
Wikidata has 16k active users, 66 admins, 3 'crats, with a pretty active community. This thread has turned into a weird mix of inclusionism vs. deletionism catfight + a request to undelete some contents in a specific project + a series of off-topics. The first part might fit the scope of this list (though is *so* boring), same for the third one. Instead, the second part must be discussed on Wikidata following local policies.
Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out of our mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete ^^), same for the staffers. No chances to overrule a community for such trivial reasons.
Vito
2016-08-01 0:36 GMT+02:00 Info WorldUniversity <info@ worlduniversityandschool.org>:
If, as Jimbo Wales' wrote the purpose of Wikipedia involves imagining "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.—Jimbo Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_Wales[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose#cite_note-3" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose ...
and the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation includes:
"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
In collaboration with a network of chapters https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:gratis, in perpetuity."
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement
I'd vote as a Wikidata community member for aggregating conferences and courses in all languages with machine and wiki (human) processes. Whether this is best done in Wikidata/Wikibase, or another related platform or elsewhere, may be worth exploring process-wise in a number of different Wikidata forums and discussions. This also seems wise, and relatively easy too I.T.-wise, given shared unfolding agreement among Wikidatans and Wikipedians.
Friendly regards, Scott
CC https://twitter.com/WorldUnivAndSch
On Jul 31, 2016 2:18 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There were lists of Wikimania talks for the Wikimanias. So these items were not standing alone they were in context and THAT is what makes it attractive to have them. We do have Wikimanias as items and on there own they do not provide information. Looking at them from only WIkidata you do not get the picture. Thank <enter your deity> that Magnus has his fantastic tools that allow us to show the value of data. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 22:47, Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi!
Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What was done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion.
I wonder whether Wikidata is really the best platform to host Wikimania talks and information about it. While I have no doubt these are excellent talks of great interest to Wiki community, their notability in the larger world is a more difficult question. Specifically, would we create an item for every talk even for a major conference (not considering copyright etc. questions now)? We have a lot of conferences with much wider attendance than Wikimania happening each year.
Now, Wikimania is of course special - for Wiki movement. And having *some* repository for this content and knowledge would be completely appropriate. However, is that repository Wikidata - as purported to be repository of knowledge of general public interest? I am much less sure of it. Unless we take the wider mission of accepting data about talks on any conference of note - which may be possible, but I'm not sure whether it should be done... If yes, then of course clear policy statement to that effect may be helpful - so people who are not sure about it like me would know what the community consensus has arrived to. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
what is the function of all the policies when they so obviously are
hardly worth the bits they consist of.
Policies are not commands that have to be blindly obeyed. They are a general framework for the admins and users to approach the blurry or defined limits, but of course some autonomy is needed to decide in edge or uncertain cases. That means to take decisions that eventually will make some people (like you in this case) unhappy.
I generally prefer to have admins with more autonomy than with less, more specifically because when there are less regulations the type of people involved tend to create in general a more amiable climate, and I think that has been the case so far for Wikidata. If you are complaining about the health of the community, then you should be careful with the things you seem to wish for (regulations, processes, etc), because it can backfire and have the opposite effect.
OTOH, if Commons is going to have its own structured database and those items might qualify there with less opposition, why to make such a big deal about it?
Regards, Micru
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What is trivial. I find that the disappointment in what our policies bring us amounts to a lot. Effectively it is only who you are that determines what you get away with. The quality of arguments are easily dismissed with "I have a different opinion" (that is NOT an argument.
When you look at my credentials you will agree that I have been involved heavily in our project and for all the wrong reasons I am disengaging. I object to the way conflicts are handled. I object to the collective shrug of not caring, not wanting to be involved of our admins. In the end it does not matter.
Wikidata is a very important project that is underserved in attention to its community. It just sort of happens and the statistics are so good that we do not even look at the relative health of Wikidata as a community.
It is one thing for stewards to say what they say, it is one thing for individual administrators to say what they say but when the situation goes rogue, when arguments presented by others do not get the collective attention of the administrative processes that are in place. When the allegation that admins do as they please is just a determination it becomes obvious to raise the question what is the function of all the policies when they so obviously are hardly worth the bits they consist of. Thanks, GerardM
On 1 August 2016 at 02:05, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
[Note: I'm using the last message for a cumulative reply]
Wikidata has 16k active users, 66 admins, 3 'crats, with a pretty active community. This thread has turned into a weird mix of inclusionism vs. deletionism catfight + a request to undelete some contents in a specific project + a series of off-topics. The first part might fit the scope of this list (though is *so* boring), same for the third one. Instead, the second part must be discussed on Wikidata following local policies.
Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out of our mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete ^^), same for the staffers. No chances to overrule a community for such trivial reasons.
Vito
2016-08-01 0:36 GMT+02:00 Info WorldUniversity < info@worlduniversityandschool.org>:
If, as Jimbo Wales' wrote the purpose of Wikipedia involves imagining "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.—Jimbo Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_Wales[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose#cite_note-3" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose ...
and the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation includes:
"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
In collaboration with a network of chapters https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:gratis, in perpetuity."
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement
I'd vote as a Wikidata community member for aggregating conferences and courses in all languages with machine and wiki (human) processes. Whether this is best done in Wikidata/Wikibase, or another related platform or elsewhere, may be worth exploring process-wise in a number of different Wikidata forums and discussions. This also seems wise, and relatively easy too I.T.-wise, given shared unfolding agreement among Wikidatans and Wikipedians.
Friendly regards, Scott
CC https://twitter.com/WorldUnivAndSch
On Jul 31, 2016 2:18 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There were lists of Wikimania talks for the Wikimanias. So these items were not standing alone they were in context and THAT is what makes it attractive to have them. We do have Wikimanias as items and on there own they do not provide information. Looking at them from only WIkidata you do not get the picture. Thank <enter your deity> that Magnus has his fantastic tools that allow us to show the value of data. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 22:47, Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi!
Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What was done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion.
I wonder whether Wikidata is really the best platform to host Wikimania talks and information about it. While I have no doubt these are excellent talks of great interest to Wiki community, their notability in the larger world is a more difficult question. Specifically, would we create an item for every talk even for a major conference (not considering copyright etc. questions now)? We have a lot of conferences with much wider attendance than Wikimania happening each year.
Now, Wikimania is of course special - for Wiki movement. And having *some* repository for this content and knowledge would be completely appropriate. However, is that repository Wikidata - as purported to be repository of knowledge of general public interest? I am much less sure of it. Unless we take the wider mission of accepting data about talks on any conference of note - which may be possible, but I'm not sure whether it should be done... If yes, then of course clear policy statement to that effect may be helpful - so people who are not sure about it like me would know what the community consensus has arrived to. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hoi, I do not care for "policies" that are only there for some and not for others. I do not care to be told that I am wrong because of the policy and at the same time to notice that policies are arbitrarily enforced. This is not one such situation. One person who has the power deleted many items and might proves right.
This is NOT about wishing for policies. It is to indicate that as it is policies are not for everyone. THAT is what is wrong because it removes the legitimacy of any and all policies and it removes any reason to accept what an administrator has to say. To make things worse arguments are not what makes for this situation, the arguments have not been mine. It is what other people had to say. My question I am left with is plain, why respect administrators, why respect policies? Thanks, GerardM
On 11 August 2016 at 13:57, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
what is the function of all the policies when they so obviously are
hardly worth the bits they consist of.
Policies are not commands that have to be blindly obeyed. They are a general framework for the admins and users to approach the blurry or defined limits, but of course some autonomy is needed to decide in edge or uncertain cases. That means to take decisions that eventually will make some people (like you in this case) unhappy.
I generally prefer to have admins with more autonomy than with less, more specifically because when there are less regulations the type of people involved tend to create in general a more amiable climate, and I think that has been the case so far for Wikidata. If you are complaining about the health of the community, then you should be careful with the things you seem to wish for (regulations, processes, etc), because it can backfire and have the opposite effect.
OTOH, if Commons is going to have its own structured database and those items might qualify there with less opposition, why to make such a big deal about it?
Regards, Micru
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, What is trivial. I find that the disappointment in what our policies bring us amounts to a lot. Effectively it is only who you are that determines what you get away with. The quality of arguments are easily dismissed with "I have a different opinion" (that is NOT an argument.
When you look at my credentials you will agree that I have been involved heavily in our project and for all the wrong reasons I am disengaging. I object to the way conflicts are handled. I object to the collective shrug of not caring, not wanting to be involved of our admins. In the end it does not matter.
Wikidata is a very important project that is underserved in attention to its community. It just sort of happens and the statistics are so good that we do not even look at the relative health of Wikidata as a community.
It is one thing for stewards to say what they say, it is one thing for individual administrators to say what they say but when the situation goes rogue, when arguments presented by others do not get the collective attention of the administrative processes that are in place. When the allegation that admins do as they please is just a determination it becomes obvious to raise the question what is the function of all the policies when they so obviously are hardly worth the bits they consist of. Thanks, GerardM
On 1 August 2016 at 02:05, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
[Note: I'm using the last message for a cumulative reply]
Wikidata has 16k active users, 66 admins, 3 'crats, with a pretty active community. This thread has turned into a weird mix of inclusionism vs. deletionism catfight + a request to undelete some contents in a specific project + a series of off-topics. The first part might fit the scope of this list (though is *so* boring), same for the third one. Instead, the second part must be discussed on Wikidata following local policies.
Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out of our mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete ^^), same for the staffers. No chances to overrule a community for such trivial reasons.
Vito
2016-08-01 0:36 GMT+02:00 Info WorldUniversity < info@worlduniversityandschool.org>:
If, as Jimbo Wales' wrote the purpose of Wikipedia involves imagining "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.—Jimbo Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_Wales[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose#cite_note-3" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose ...
and the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation includes:
"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
In collaboration with a network of chapters https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:gratis, in perpetuity."
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement
I'd vote as a Wikidata community member for aggregating conferences and courses in all languages with machine and wiki (human) processes. Whether this is best done in Wikidata/Wikibase, or another related platform or elsewhere, may be worth exploring process-wise in a number of different Wikidata forums and discussions. This also seems wise, and relatively easy too I.T.-wise, given shared unfolding agreement among Wikidatans and Wikipedians.
Friendly regards, Scott
CC https://twitter.com/WorldUnivAndSch
On Jul 31, 2016 2:18 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There were lists of Wikimania talks for the Wikimanias. So these items were not standing alone they were in context and THAT is what makes it attractive to have them. We do have Wikimanias as items and on there own they do not provide information. Looking at them from only WIkidata you do not get the picture. Thank <enter your deity> that Magnus has his fantastic tools that allow us to show the value of data. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 22:47, Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi!
> Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What > was done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion.
I wonder whether Wikidata is really the best platform to host Wikimania talks and information about it. While I have no doubt these are excellent talks of great interest to Wiki community, their notability in the larger world is a more difficult question. Specifically, would we create an item for every talk even for a major conference (not considering copyright etc. questions now)? We have a lot of conferences with much wider attendance than Wikimania happening each year.
Now, Wikimania is of course special - for Wiki movement. And having *some* repository for this content and knowledge would be completely appropriate. However, is that repository Wikidata - as purported to be repository of knowledge of general public interest? I am much less sure of it. Unless we take the wider mission of accepting data about talks on any conference of note - which may be possible, but I'm not sure whether it should be done... If yes, then of course clear policy statement to that effect may be helpful - so people who are not sure about it like me would know what the community consensus has arrived to. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
I kindly ask to stop this discussion here, and to discuss the relevant topics in the relevant places - on Wikidata, on Meta, or wherever you feel like it, just not here.
Thank you.
L.
On 11 August 2016 at 12:57, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
what is the function of all the policies when they so obviously are hardly worth the bits they consist of.
Policies are not commands that have to be blindly obeyed. They are a general framework for the admins and users to approach the blurry or defined limits, but of course some autonomy is needed to decide in edge or uncertain cases. That means to take decisions that eventually will make some people (like you in this case) unhappy.
That is all well and good, but when an admin is challenged over an inappropriate use of their tools, by members of the community in good standing, and acting in good faith, and asked to reinstate unilaterally- and speedily- deleted items and nominate them for a deletion discussion involving the wider community, they should not refuse to do unless there is a policy that gives support for their actions.
In this case, there is none, and furthermore none has even been claimed.
On 31 July 2016 at 14:44, jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
I looked quickly at AN and it seems the issue is about creating items about Wikimedians who dont clearly meet the notability criteria.
No; the deleted items include:
* Items about talks given at Wikimania * Items about the people who gave those talks, after agreeing that the talks could be videoed and made available publicly; using only the names or nicknames (usernames) by which they identified on the publicly-viewable web pages about Wikimania
Note that some of the deleted items about talks were for talks given by people about whom we had, and still have, Wikidata items.
Recreating items about users after they haved objected, is dangerous ground to be walking on
Poppycock. What if other people about whom we have items object? What about people whom we have Wikipedia articles? Why should "users" be a special category?
Wikidata needs an accepted and enforced BLP.
Probably, What it does not need is /involved/ admins deleting items when no policy allows them to do so, and then refusing to recreate them so that a proper deletion discussion can take place, when their deletion is challenged.
I assume these items in question would fail the proposed BLP due to lack of reliable source, if it was anything like reliable sources is defined on Wikipedia.
It is Wikidata, not Wikipedia, notability policy - and certainly not an ill-conceived, draft Wikidata policy which has attracted little support - which applies. The items in question (both those about talks, and the speakers) satisfy that.
However, the inability of the Wikidata community at large to see and discuss these deleted items prevents that community from coming to consensus about that.
On 31 July 2016 at 13:28, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Which items, which admin, etc.
Prior discussion is at:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Wikiman...