I found this read from the University of Illinois at Chicago Journal
interesting about the featured article process and how it does lack in
certain areas, including a need for more subject-matter experts to look
at these FAs:
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2721/2482
-MuZemike
Hi,
A quick reminder that this year's Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) is
taking place in London on 24th April 2010 - in 10 days time! There are
still tickets left - and you can register at the following link:
http://www.okfn.org/okcon/register/
Speakers and sessions include:
* 'State of the Nation' Keynotes:
- Matthias Schindler, Wikimedia (Germany) on 'Bibliographic Data
and the Public Domain'
- Glyn Moody, on the 'Post-Analogue World'
- Peter Murray-Rust, on 'Recent Developments in Open Science'
- Chris Taggart, on 'Open Local Government Data'
- Sören Auer, on 'Linked Open Data'
- Jordan Hatcher, on 'Open Licensing for Data'
* Ideas and Culture with talks on analyzing 'Dickens Letters' and
'Making the Physical from the Digital'
* Open Bibliographic Information with talks on 'The Itinerant Poetry
Library' and the 'Journal Commons'
* Community Driven Research with talks on 'Climate data' and 'Open
Archaeology'
* Civic Information with talks on 'Using Open Government Data to
Profile Politicians' and the 'Straight Choice'
* Open Government Data and PSI in the EU which looks at the current
state of play in France, Norway, Germany, the UK and elsewhere
* Tools with talks on 'Large-scale data handling and revisioning'
with the Genome, Ontowiki, CKAN and more
* Open Data and the Semantic Web with talks about South Korean
DBPedia and Thesaurus Management Tool ‘Pool Party’
* Open Data in International Development including talks from
PublishWhatYouFund and on OpenStreetMap in Haiti
Further details are available at:
http://blog.okfn.org/2010/04/14/okcon-2010-nearly-here-24th-april-2010-in-l…http://www.okfn.org/okcon/programme
More information:
* Main conference page: http://www.okfn.org/okcon/
* FAQ: http://www.okfn.org/okcon/faq
If you have any questions please email Sara Wingate-Gray at sara.gray(a)okfn.org.
We look forward to seeing people there!
All the best,
--
Jonathan Gray
Community Coordinator
The Open Knowledge Foundation
http://blog.okfn.orghttp://twitter.com/jwyghttp://identi.ca/jwyg
Hi everyone,
The next strategic planning office hours are:
Tuesday, 6 April, from 20:00-21:00 UTC, which is:
-Tuesday (1-2pm PDT)
-Tuesday (4-5pm EDT)
Office hours will be a great opportunity to discuss the work that's
happened as well as the work to come.
As always, you can access the chat by going to
https://webchat.freenode.net and filling in a username and the channel
name (#wikimedia-strategy). You may be prompted to click through a
security warning. It's fine. More details at:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
Thanks! Hope to see many of you there.
____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Facilitator, Strategy Project
Wikimedia Foundation
philippe(a)wikimedia.org
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> A common way to stifle discussion about nuance in any situation is to refer
> to old discussions on similar ideas and say "we already discussed this and
> got consensus". Keeping an ancient history of all past debates could cause a
> single discussion to echo forward in time indefinitely. I don't think we
> should feel bound by previous arguments, and there is never a point where
> discussion cannot be re-opened.
Many times something that's already has been concluded/proven can and
should be used in future discussions. For example, if we've reached a
consensus that there's no oxygen on the surface on the moon, we can
bring that point up next time someone suggests sending astronauts to
the moon without oxygen-carrying space suits. Other times, an existing
conclusion should not be used and an exception should be made. The
ideagraph accommodates both of these situations - you can reuse
existing statements, but you can also refute a particular reuse of a
statement. And no debate is ever closed - if you have more information
to contribute, you can jump into an exiting debate at any time.
> Also, keeping track of percentages in "voting" has a way of obscuring the
> actual arguments as not everyone's opinion is simply "up or down" on any
> issue. For example, this is why we don't simply count votes in an AFD (at
> least, we're not supposed to): We want to consider the weight of the
> arguments and get a more abstract 'feel' for what consensus is, rather than
> compiling a simple tally, because tallies aren't very informative.
There is no voting on the graph - the percentages you see represent
the fraction of the past 24 hours that the statement was green. This
merely shows if there is a "lean" in a debate. A percentage of 100%,
however, is a good indication that a consensus has been reached or is
close to being reached. The decision not to have voting built into the
software came directly from the Wikipedian philosophy you mentioned
above - i.e. tallies do not prove a logical argument right or wrong.
More info: http://thegraph.org/about
> Finally, and most importantly, sometimes we need to go over topics again to
> address evolving editorial experience and new circumstances. It doesn't
> bother me if that means occasionally re-inventing the wheel, because every
> time we invent the wheel it might be a bit better or more well-suited to the
> situation than last time. It's good to archive past discussion for later
> reference (or to "catch up" new people who joined the conversation late),
> but not because we don't want people to have to think, use their reasoning,
> and engage in discussion on topics that someone else has discussed in the
> past; we want that because the process of discussion itself is
> enlightenment, even when the topic has been discussed in the past.
Very true. Which is why anyone can jump into an old debate at any time
and refute something that was previously thought to be true. It's
important to note that the ideagraph is very much UNLIKE an online
forum - it is a network (directed graph) of logical statements that
refute one another. Refuting one statement has somewhat of a ripple
effect. Each user can focus on the local debate surrounding a
particular issue and the software calculates the truth values of
everything that's connected (which I guess one day can be billions of
other statements).
Thanks for all the feedback guys!
On 14 April 2010 13:00, <wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
> wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikien-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>
> 1. Re: Cuil launches CPedia.com, the robotically generated
> "encyclopedia". (MuZemike)
>
> Here's an example article from Cpedia about Barack Obama (basically,
> read and weep):
>
> http://www.cpedia.com/wiki?q=Barack+Obama
>
> After skimming over it really quickly (especially read the end), words
> cannot describe it as far as the tone of the article is concerned.
>
> -MuZemike
>
> On 4/13/2010 11:18 AM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Ryan Delaney<ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:31 PM, David Gerard<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Remember Cuil, the worst search engine of last decade? This is what
>>>> they've done with the left over hardware: an automated encyclopedia.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cpedia.com/
>>>>
>>>> It's like Wikipedia read by Mark V. Shaney.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - d.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Lmao.
>>>
At least they got the idea that he was an American Politician.
Try comparing this:
http://www.cpedia.com/wiki?q=Bo%20Dog&disambig=Bo%20Obama%20Dog
With http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_%28dog%29
There's a future for AI's on the Internet, I even tried to spark
discussions at the beginning of the month
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_…
But it would seem the technology is still some way off.
WereSpielChequers
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
Thanks to the developer meetup in Germany and mid-term exams for Aaron,
there has been no significant change since last week. However, the lack
of new requests suggests we're pretty close to something releasable.
If you'd like to verify that for yourself, start here:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
To see the upcoming work, it's listed in our tracker, under Current and
Backlog:
http://www.pivotaltracker.com/projects/46157
We expect to release to labs again next week, and each week thereafter
until this goes live on the English Wikipedia
William
Remember Cuil, the worst search engine of last decade? This is what
they've done with the left over hardware: an automated encyclopedia.
http://www.cpedia.com/
It's like Wikipedia read by Mark V. Shaney.
- d.
Hi everyone -
This is a project presented at Wikipedia Day 2010 at NYU in New York
last January..http://ideagra.ph
We presented this as a way to discuss a few of the most
complicated/controversial Wikimedia-related issues that haven't yet
garnered a consensus. It was specifically designed to fix the current
problems with Wikipedia's discuss pages (arguments get very long,
complex, and messy).
What makes a debate here different from one on a standard discuss page?
Statements have a color (green/red) which represents their current
state of consensus (something that's been refuted, for instance, is
red). You can also re-use facts concluded in other debates by other
people - thus allowing the work of debating/reasoning to be
distributed among (potentially) billions of people.
We've created a Wikipedia category for issues surrounding Wikipedia:
http://ideagra.ph/1870
We need your feedback...
-Peter
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ideagraph
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Ideagraph/319390481771
