Hi all,
A speculative question: what's the most novel, thought-provoking, or
otherwise interesting piece of research you've seen, either
a) using information from Wikipedia (ie extracted text), or
b) looking at Wikipedia itself as a subject?
I'm giving a talk next month which will cover research about/with WP
and other WM projects, and I'm curious to know what people think would
be most interesting as examples. I've a few, but the things I find
interesting are often unusual :-)
Suggestions appreciated!
Thanks,
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
Hi all,
Do content policies still get discussed on this list? I'm a bit out of touch.
Anyway, I seem to keep running afoul of the "image use policy".
Several galleries that I've added to articles have been removed. (And
see this response to my second attempt to gallerise one article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevage&action=edit&sec…
)
The key parts of the policy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IG#Image_galleries) are:
* "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are
discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of
images."
-- it's not clear whether this includes articles that currently lack
text (as opposed to articles that could never be much more than a
gallery)
* "However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a
tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of
an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should
generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or
moved to Wikimedia Commons."
-- It's not clear what "moving...a gallery...to Wikimedia Commons"
means. It sounds like this was intended for cases where the images
existed only in Wikipedia itself, rather than being linked from
Commons.
On the other hand:
* "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value
and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a
gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both
to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery"
So, here's my thinking in response to the above:
1) "Wikipedia is not for images, Commons is for images" is just bad
logic. Commons is a dumping ground for *all* images. Wikipedia is an
encyclopaedia, and should illustrate its articles with as many or as
few images as appropriate. (It's not like duplicated storage is a
problem.)
2) The Commons links are incredibly obscure, and I don't think the
average punter ever sees or visits them. It's like telling someone to
ring the hotline for more information - they just don't. The link
doesn't give any indication whether there are 2 images on Commons on
200.
3) Galleries let you illustrate a much wider range of the subject
matter than by simply placing images in the margins. For example, in
the contentious [[Lamington National Park]], we could illustrate all
the waterfalls, most of the important flora, fauna, and geological
features.
4) An image of captioned animals under a section entitled "fauna" (and
likewise for flora etc) seems perfectly in keeping with the guideline
under ("on the other hand") above.
Thoughts? Comments? Am I on the fringe? Are guidelines like this still
subject to debate and change?
Steve
COMPREHENSIBLE TEMPLATES!!!!!!!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rob Lanphier <robla(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: 15 February 2013 20:33
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Lua rollout to en.wikipedia.org and a few others
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>,
wikitech-ambassadors(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Hi everyone,
We're planning to deploy Lua to a long list of wikis on Monday,
February 18, 23:00-01:00 UTC (stretching into Tuesday UTC), including
English Wikipedia.
Details here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lua
Jan Kučera (User:Kozuch) has placed notifications on many of the
wikis. Those notifications and general communications listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kozuch/Lua
This is a really exciting deployment for the projects. We're really
looking forward to seeing the great things that people do with this,
and looking forward to making editing and previewing more responsive
for template-heavy pages.
Rob
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hey :)
Guillaume just reminded me that I have not yet posted this here but
only on the village pump and Signpost. Sorry. I'll fix that now with
this email.
Later today (evening UTC) we'll deploy the first phase of Wikidata on
the English language Wikipedia. We've already deployed the first
phase on the Hungarian, Hebrew and Italian Wikipedias and things there
went rather smoothly. We hope this is the case here too.
What is going to happen exactly?
* Language links in the sidebar will come from Wikidata if they exist there.
* Existing language links in the wiki text will continue to work and
overwrite links from Wikidata.
* For individual articles language links from Wikidata can be
supressed completely with the noexternallanglinks magic word.
* Changes on Wikidata that relate to articles on this Wikipedia will
show up in Recent Changes if the option is enabled by the user
* At the bottom of the language links list you will see a link to edit
the language links that leads you to the corresponding page on
Wikidata.
* You can see an example of how it works at
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie
* The second phase of Wikidata (which is about Infoboxes was started
on Wikidata but can't yet be used on any Wikipedia. This will follow
later.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Cheers
Lydia
--
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Community Communications for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Obentrautstr. 72
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Anyone else using Chrome notice that the interface looks very 90s right
now? Looks fine in Firefox, wonder if its related to something arcane in
the banners?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
Date: 12 February 2013 08:14
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Victorian-era Dictionary of National
Biography digitised on Wikisource
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list <wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
On 11 February 2013 20:24, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> On 11 February 2013 18:25, Charles Matthews
> <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> WP:WP DNB, the WikiProject devoted to quarrying out the
>> good stuff from the DNB,
>
> Excellent job.
>
> Is there a template for linking from Wikipedia articles to the
> corresponding DNB entry on Wikisource?
Yes, {{cite DNB|wstitle =}}, in which you place the Wikisource title,
such as Darwin, Charles Robert (DNB00), without the suffix. So {{cite
DNB|wstitle = Darwin, Charles Robert}}. That's for citations: plain
{{DNB}} works the same way for attribution of copied text.
Charles
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org