According to the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias, "The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia (1) is male, (2) is technically-inclined, (3) is formally educated, (4) speaks English to an extent, (5) is White , (6) is aged 15-49, (7) is from a predominantly Christian country, (8) is from an industrialized nation, and (9) is more likely to be employed in intellectual pursuits than in practical skills or physical labor."
The problem with this is the unfortunate gap in coverage that results from a lack of interest from the typical demographic of Wikipedians described above. While this demographic is definitely interested in contributing to a free, online encyclopedia, that doesn't mean the others aren't. One particular problem is that in order to contribute to Wikipedia, you'll need to use a computer. There are others who would probably be interested in contributing to our global effort, too, but don't understand technology. We need to allow them to contribute.
For that purpose, I would like to start a project where people without access to computers (or people who voluntarily choose not to use them) can -write- their own Wikipedia entries and mail them in. The first phase of this plan, of course, would be spreading the word. The least expensive way would probably be distributing fliers in frequented areas. People could then write their own articles, and mail them in to the Wikimedia Office. Someone at the office (maybe Monica?) could open the letters, scan them in, and email them to an offline submissions mailing list. From there, people interested in the project would transcribe the article into Wikipedia (if applicable, see below) and mail back a corresponding letter featuring a print-out of the new article. Very simple process, plus it would allow people from non-typical-of-Wikipedia-editor backgrounds to put in their word.
What if their entry is redundant? Not to worry. If the written submission has content the Wikipedia article doesn't, we add it in. If it doesn't, that's okay. We don't necessarily have to tell them what made it in and what didn't, but either way, a reply will be sent to the writer with a print-out of the article.
----
I'm passing the above on for en:User:Messedrocker, since he's not subscribed to the list. My thoughts:
a) This has certainly been done before on a local level with minor languages - was it in West Africa somewhere? My mind is failing me, but I've certainly seen it mentioned on wikipedia-l before - the writing was done by a local elder, transcribed and put online by a volunteer.
b) It might well work, but would probably require careful thought and planning - who are we targeting? what sort of articles are we targeting them for? how do we deal with unwanted and inappropriate submissions without causing more badwill than we started with?
c) Copyrights. This might get fun.
On 6/25/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
For that purpose, I would like to start a project where people without access to computers (or people who voluntarily choose not to use them) can -write- their own Wikipedia entries and mail them in. The first phase of this plan, of course, would be spreading the word. The least
IMHO, there are so many people out there with so much to contribute who fall outside our other key demographics but *do* have access to email that deliberately targeting the most difficult hurdle for us is just making extra work. Simply targeting the right people (retired academics stand out as ideal: intelligent, educated, experts in obscure fields, and with time on their hands) and motivating them to write an article would already reap benefits. Why pick out the few people left who have zero access to the internet (not even 10 minutes a week, not even sending an email on their grandkid's computer)? And how is such a person going to write an article anyway? Writing it by hand? On a typewriter? It seems a little bit fanciful...
I know I sound like a wet blanket, but I really do believe in expanding our reach, and deliberately advertising for new contributors. Aiming for those without email access sounds like making life difficult for ourselves though.
Steve
Andrew Gray wrote:
According to the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias, "The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia (1) is male, (2) is technically-inclined, (3) is formally educated, (4) speaks English to an extent, (5) is White , (6) is aged 15-49, (7) is from a predominantly Christian country, (8) is from an industrialized nation, and (9) is more likely to be employed in intellectual pursuits than in practical skills or physical labor."
The problem with this is the unfortunate gap in coverage that results from a lack of interest from the typical demographic of Wikipedians described above. While this demographic is definitely interested in contributing to a free, online encyclopedia, that doesn't mean the others aren't. One particular problem is that in order to contribute to Wikipedia, you'll need to use a computer. There are others who would probably be interested in contributing to our global effort, too, but don't understand technology. We need to allow them to contribute.
For that purpose, I would like to start a project where people without access to computers (or people who voluntarily choose not to use them) can -write- their own Wikipedia entries and mail them in. The first phase of this plan, of course, would be spreading the word. The least expensive way would probably be distributing fliers in frequented areas. People could then write their own articles, and mail them in to the Wikimedia Office. Someone at the office (maybe Monica?) could open the letters, scan them in, and email them to an offline submissions mailing list.
Hello,
Just for the record, Monica is no more working for us. That let's Danny to open the letters and scan the content. Then an automatic machine could change it at least partially to electronic format. And others will have the fix what should be fixed.
I am a bit perplex you call this the least expensive way... Of course, Danny frankly has no time to do this at all. I suppose we would have to hire students to be the interface... in all honesty, I think it is very unpractical, in particular in a language where there is already so much content. Most of the time, the article would have changed and the new content would need to be integrated to the online version. This would be very unpractical.
It has much more chance to work locally, in a rather little developped language. Yes, your memory is good, it has been done, by Guaka, in Bambara, a bit over a year ago. Guaka directly visited some elders and picked up notes.
One of the reasons the editing system works is that it is very simple and very quick.
From there, people interested in the project would
transcribe the article into Wikipedia (if applicable, see below) and mail back a corresponding letter featuring a print-out of the new article. Very simple process, plus it would allow people from non-typical-of-Wikipedia-editor backgrounds to put in their word.
What if their entry is redundant? Not to worry. If the written submission has content the Wikipedia article doesn't, we add it in. If it doesn't, that's okay. We don't necessarily have to tell them what made it in and what didn't, but either way, a reply will be sent to the writer with a print-out of the article.
Additional costs. Who would support that ?
I'm passing the above on for en:User:Messedrocker, since he's not subscribed to the list. My thoughts:
a) This has certainly been done before on a local level with minor languages - was it in West Africa somewhere? My mind is failing me, but I've certainly seen it mentioned on wikipedia-l before - the writing was done by a local elder, transcribed and put online by a volunteer.
Yes. Btw, Guaka will be at Wikimania in Boston. If you go, you may discuss this experience with him.
b) It might well work, but would probably require careful thought and planning - who are we targeting? what sort of articles are we targeting them for? how do we deal with unwanted and inappropriate submissions without causing more badwill than we started with?
c) Copyrights. This might get fun.
Maybe I'm the only one here, but I say "Who cares?"
If they don't have a computer they don't have the time to write an encyclopedia. They are trying to hold up two jobs and feed their kids. There's a reason they don't edit: they don't care enough and I don't blame them.
mboverload
On 6/25/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
According to the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias, "The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia (1) is male, (2) is technically-inclined, (3) is formally educated, (4) speaks English to an extent, (5) is White , (6) is aged 15-49, (7) is from a predominantly Christian country, (8) is from an industrialized nation, and (9) is more likely to be employed in intellectual pursuits than in practical skills or physical labor."
The problem with this is the unfortunate gap in coverage that results from a lack of interest from the typical demographic of Wikipedians described above. While this demographic is definitely interested in contributing to a free, online encyclopedia, that doesn't mean the others aren't. One particular problem is that in order to contribute to Wikipedia, you'll need to use a computer. There are others who would probably be interested in contributing to our global effort, too, but don't understand technology. We need to allow them to contribute.
For that purpose, I would like to start a project where people without access to computers (or people who voluntarily choose not to use them) can -write- their own Wikipedia entries and mail them in. The first phase of this plan, of course, would be spreading the word. The least expensive way would probably be distributing fliers in frequented areas. People could then write their own articles, and mail them in to the Wikimedia Office. Someone at the office (maybe Monica?) could open the letters, scan them in, and email them to an offline submissions mailing list.
Hello,
Just for the record, Monica is no more working for us. That let's Danny to open the letters and scan the content. Then an automatic machine could change it at least partially to electronic format. And others will have the fix what should be fixed.
I am a bit perplex you call this the least expensive way... Of course, Danny frankly has no time to do this at all. I suppose we would have to hire students to be the interface... in all honesty, I think it is very unpractical, in particular in a language where there is already so much content. Most of the time, the article would have changed and the new content would need to be integrated to the online version. This would be very unpractical.
It has much more chance to work locally, in a rather little developped language. Yes, your memory is good, it has been done, by Guaka, in Bambara, a bit over a year ago. Guaka directly visited some elders and picked up notes.
One of the reasons the editing system works is that it is very simple and very quick.
From there, people interested in the project would
transcribe the article into Wikipedia (if applicable, see below) and mail back a corresponding letter featuring a print-out of the new article. Very simple process, plus it would allow people from non-typical-of-Wikipedia-editor backgrounds to put in their word.
What if their entry is redundant? Not to worry. If the written submission has content the Wikipedia article doesn't, we add it in. If it doesn't, that's okay. We don't necessarily have to tell them what made it in and what didn't, but either way, a reply will be sent to the writer with a print-out of the article.
Additional costs. Who would support that ?
I'm passing the above on for en:User:Messedrocker, since he's not subscribed to the list. My thoughts:
a) This has certainly been done before on a local level with minor languages - was it in West Africa somewhere? My mind is failing me, but I've certainly seen it mentioned on wikipedia-l before - the writing was done by a local elder, transcribed and put online by a volunteer.
Yes. Btw, Guaka will be at Wikimania in Boston. If you go, you may discuss this experience with him.
b) It might well work, but would probably require careful thought and planning - who are we targeting? what sort of articles are we targeting them for? how do we deal with unwanted and inappropriate submissions without causing more badwill than we started with?
c) Copyrights. This might get fun.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
mboverload wrote:
Maybe I'm the only one here, but I say "Who cares?"
If they don't have a computer they don't have the time to write an encyclopedia.
Wow, that says a *lot* about your attitude.
Do even contribute to Wikipedia, or are you just another troll?
On 6/26/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
mboverload wrote:
Maybe I'm the only one here, but I say "Who cares?"
If they don't have a computer they don't have the time to write an encyclopedia.
Wow, that says a *lot* about your attitude.
Do even contribute to Wikipedia, or are you just another troll?
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
Thank you for the kind words. I'll be sure to censor any thoughts that don't conform to your views in the future.
mboverload
mboverload wrote:
On 6/26/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
mboverload wrote:
Maybe I'm the only one here, but I say "Who cares?"
If they don't have a computer they don't have the time to write an encyclopedia.
Wow, that says a *lot* about your attitude.
Do even contribute to Wikipedia, or are you just another troll?
Thank you for the kind words. I'll be sure to censor any thoughts that don't conform to your views in the future.
How about you stop and think before you make such harsh judgements on people? You said, "If they don't have a computer they don't have the time to write an encyclopedia" - come to think of it, why should we let people who don't have computers READ the encyclopedia either? After all, if they don't have a computer, they OBVIOUSLY don't have time to read an encylopedia!
What about people with plenty of time who don't have computers? As you said, "Maybe I'm the only one here, but I say "Who cares?"". So, you write them off as worthless. Lesser persons than yourself? Subhuman? Godwin help me...
Now answer me again: do you actually contribute to Wikipedia? Why do you contribute to Wikipedia? Where do you see Wikipedia in five years time? It's very hard to assume good faith (that you're not a troll) when such evidence to the contrary is being presented.
hi, I am not sure the current wikipedia administrative system is geared towards addressing this "According to the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias, "The average
Wikipedian on English Wikipedia (1) is male, (2) is technically-inclined, (3) is formally educated, (4) speaks English to an extent, (5) is White , (6) is aged 15-49, (7) is from a predominantly Christian country, (8) is from an industrialized nation, and (9) is more likely to be employed in intellectual pursuits than in practical skills or physical labor."
"
If you go to the muslim guild on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild and you look at all the entrents, everyone is currently under threat of an indefinate ban or idefinately banned. I think the idea of having a greater participation is lip service.
From: mboverload mboverload@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Offline submissions? Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:14:08 -0700
Maybe I'm the only one here, but I say "Who cares?"
If they don't have a computer they don't have the time to write an encyclopedia. They are trying to hold up two jobs and feed their kids. There's a reason they don't edit: they don't care enough and I don't blame them.
mboverload
On 6/25/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
According to the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias, "The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia (1) is male, (2) is technically-inclined, (3) is formally educated, (4) speaks English to an extent, (5) is White , (6) is aged 15-49, (7) is from a predominantly Christian country, (8) is from an industrialized nation, and (9) is more likely to be employed in intellectual pursuits than in practical skills or physical labor."
The problem with this is the unfortunate gap in coverage that results from a lack of interest from the typical demographic of Wikipedians described above. While this demographic is definitely interested in contributing to a free, online encyclopedia, that doesn't mean the others aren't. One particular problem is that in order to contribute to Wikipedia, you'll need to use a computer. There are others who would probably be interested in contributing to our global effort, too, but don't understand technology. We need to allow them to contribute.
For that purpose, I would like to start a project where people without access to computers (or people who voluntarily choose not to use them) can -write- their own Wikipedia entries and mail them in. The first phase of this plan, of course, would be spreading the word. The least expensive way would probably be distributing fliers in frequented areas. People could then write their own articles, and mail them in to the Wikimedia Office. Someone at the office (maybe Monica?) could open the letters, scan them in, and email them to an offline submissions mailing list.
Hello,
Just for the record, Monica is no more working for us. That let's Danny to open the letters and scan the content. Then an automatic machine could change it at least partially to electronic format. And others will have the fix what should be fixed.
I am a bit perplex you call this the least expensive way... Of course, Danny frankly has no time to do this at all. I suppose we would have to hire students to be the interface... in all honesty, I think it is very unpractical, in particular in a language where there is already so much content. Most of the time, the article would have changed and the new content would need to be integrated to the online version. This would be very unpractical.
It has much more chance to work locally, in a rather little developped language. Yes, your memory is good, it has been done, by Guaka, in Bambara, a bit over a year ago. Guaka directly visited some elders and picked up notes.
One of the reasons the editing system works is that it is very simple and very quick.
From there, people interested in the project would
transcribe the article into Wikipedia (if applicable, see below) and mail back a corresponding letter featuring a print-out of the new article. Very simple process, plus it would allow people from non-typical-of-Wikipedia-editor backgrounds to put in their word.
What if their entry is redundant? Not to worry. If the written submission has content the Wikipedia article doesn't, we add it in. If it doesn't, that's okay. We don't necessarily have to tell them what made it in and what didn't, but either way, a reply will be sent to the writer with a print-out of the article.
Additional costs. Who would support that ?
I'm passing the above on for en:User:Messedrocker, since he's not subscribed to the list. My thoughts:
a) This has certainly been done before on a local level with minor languages - was it in West Africa somewhere? My mind is failing me, but I've certainly seen it mentioned on wikipedia-l before - the writing was done by a local elder, transcribed and put online by a volunteer.
Yes. Btw, Guaka will be at Wikimania in Boston. If you go, you may discuss this experience with him.
b) It might well work, but would probably require careful thought and planning - who are we targeting? what sort of articles are we targeting them for? how do we deal with unwanted and inappropriate submissions without causing more badwill than we started with?
c) Copyrights. This might get fun.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters
On 6/26/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:
If you go to the muslim guild on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild and you look at all the entrents, everyone is currently under threat of an indefinate ban or idefinately banned. I think the idea of having a greater participation is lip service.
That would be terrible if it were true. However a quick glance down this list of 27 active members makes me suspect that you are over exaggerating here. Do you have any evidence to back such a claim up?
Theresa
Theresa Knott wrote:
On 6/26/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:
If you go to the muslim guild on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild and you look at all the entrents, everyone is currently under threat of an indefinate ban or idefinately banned. I think the idea of having a greater participation is lip service.
That would be terrible if it were true. However a quick glance down this list of 27 active members makes me suspect that you are over exaggerating here. Do you have any evidence to back such a claim up?
It's also worth noting that members of "The Muslim Guild" are only a self-selecting subset of Muslim Wikipedians. I'd imagine if we had a self-selecting Christian group dedicated to "making sure the Christian viewpoint is represented in Wikipedia articles" (let's call them "The Jesus Brigade"), they would be banned more often than the average Christian Wikipedian is.
-Mark
On 6/28/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Theresa Knott wrote:
On 6/26/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:
If you go to the muslim guild on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild and you look at all the entrents, everyone is currently under threat of an indefinate ban or idefinately banned. I think the idea of having a greater participation is lip service.
That would be terrible if it were true. However a quick glance down this list of 27 active members makes me suspect that you are over exaggerating here. Do you have any evidence to back such a claim up?
It's also worth noting that members of "The Muslim Guild" are only a self-selecting subset of Muslim Wikipedians. I'd imagine if we had a self-selecting Christian group dedicated to "making sure the Christian viewpoint is represented in Wikipedia articles" (let's call them "The Jesus Brigade"), they would be banned more often than the average Christian Wikipedian is.
-Mark
From what I can tell, *none* of the 58 members of this guild are
currently under an indefinite ban, or under the threat of an indefinite ban.
Jay.
Baby steps! This is quite a proposal, but the worst part is that it signifigantly increases the ammount of work required to get something done. I think a better first step would be to set up a method to have emailed in articles added, perhaps automagically to a queue.
xaosflux
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 5:31 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Offline submissions?
According to the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias, "The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia (1) is male, (2) is technically-inclined, (3) is formally educated, (4) speaks English to an extent, (5) is White , (6) is aged 15-49, (7) is from a predominantly Christian country, (8) is from an industrialized nation, and (9) is more likely to be employed in intellectual pursuits than in practical skills or physical labor."
The problem with this is the unfortunate gap in coverage that results from a lack of interest from the typical demographic of Wikipedians described above. While this demographic is definitely interested in contributing to a free, online encyclopedia, that doesn't mean the others aren't. One particular problem is that in order to contribute to Wikipedia, you'll need to use a computer. There are others who would probably be interested in contributing to our global effort, too, but don't understand technology. We need to allow them to contribute.
For that purpose, I would like to start a project where people without access to computers (or people who voluntarily choose not to use them) can -write- their own Wikipedia entries and mail them in. The first phase of this plan, of course, would be spreading the word. The least expensive way would probably be distributing fliers in frequented areas. People could then write their own articles, and mail them in to the Wikimedia Office. Someone at the office (maybe Monica?) could open the letters, scan them in, and email them to an offline submissions mailing list. From there, people interested in the project would transcribe the article into Wikipedia (if applicable, see below) and mail back a corresponding letter featuring a print-out of the new article. Very simple process, plus it would allow people from non-typical-of-Wikipedia-editor backgrounds to put in their word.
What if their entry is redundant? Not to worry. If the written submission has content the Wikipedia article doesn't, we add it in. If it doesn't, that's okay. We don't necessarily have to tell them what made it in and what didn't, but either way, a reply will be sent to the writer with a print-out of the article.
I'm passing the above on for en:User:Messedrocker, since he's not subscribed to the list. My thoughts:
a) This has certainly been done before on a local level with minor languages - was it in West Africa somewhere? My mind is failing me, but I've certainly seen it mentioned on wikipedia-l before - the writing was done by a local elder, transcribed and put online by a volunteer.
b) It might well work, but would probably require careful thought and planning - who are we targeting? what sort of articles are we targeting them for? how do we deal with unwanted and inappropriate submissions without causing more badwill than we started with?
c) Copyrights. This might get fun.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/26/06, xaosflux xaosflux@gmail.com wrote:
Baby steps! This is quite a proposal, but the worst part is that it signifigantly increases the ammount of work required to get something done. I think a better first step would be to set up a method to have emailed in articles added, perhaps automagically to a queue.
If they don't have access to the web, how will they know what the current article says in order to email in their modifications?
Theresa
On 6/26/06, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
If they don't have access to the web, how will they know what the current article says in order to email in their modifications?
I think the suggestion only applied to brand new articles.
Steve
On 26/06/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/26/06, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
If they don't have access to the web, how will they know what the current article says in order to email in their modifications?
I think the suggestion only applied to brand new articles.
Yeah, that's one of the issues I've thought woul be a problem - figuring out what to ask for. It's almost easier in languages with little or no coverage, where we still have real demand for first-level or second-level topics like "history of music" or "Fishing", and the potential for conflict is less.
If you're going to do this in English, a good and near-inexhaustible target would be biographies of locally-significant historical figures, or local history generally, I guess, but then you run into notability or verifiability issues.
Theresa Knott wrote:
On 6/26/06, xaosflux xaosflux@gmail.com wrote:
Baby steps! This is quite a proposal, but the worst part is that it signifigantly increases the ammount of work required to get something done. I think a better first step would be to set up a method to have emailed in articles added, perhaps automagically to a queue.
If they don't have access to the web, how will they know what the current article says in order to email in their modifications?
Being able to retrieve articles via email would be nice...
On 26/06/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
If they don't have access to the web, how will they know what the current article says in order to email in their modifications?
Being able to retrieve articles via email would be nice...
There is someone who offers such a service - directed at the .za market, I believe, but don't quote me on that. It seems to be quite popular, certainly popular enough we had to make sure his page-retrieval software didn't get blocked.
On 6/26/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/06/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
If they don't have access to the web, how will they know what the current article says in order to email in their modifications?
Being able to retrieve articles via email would be nice...
There is someone who offers such a service - directed at the .za market, I believe, but don't quote me on that. It seems to be quite popular, certainly popular enough we had to make sure his page-retrieval software didn't get blocked.
--
- Andrew Gray
Y'know, Google used to offer such a service- they'd reply with a link to a cached and compressed copy on their servers.
~maru
On 6/26/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
Y'know, Google used to offer such a service- they'd reply with a link to a cached and compressed copy on their servers.
A link? What's the point?
Steve
On 6/26/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/26/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
Y'know, Google used to offer such a service- they'd reply with a link to a cached and compressed copy on their servers.
A link? What's the point?
Steve
The idea was that certain people could not afford to spend all the time on their crappy dialups to actually run a manual web search, checking out the various links and such; so they composed a search query offline as an email, then set up their software to briefly connect online and fire off the query. A while later, Google would send an email back with the results, and instead of connecting to the actual servers for the various links, the user would connect to Google's servers, which compressed and filtered the web page concerned so that far less information had to be actually transmitted. I don't know if it was very popular; I only heard of it once, and years ago.
~maru
I havent much read on this thread, but I think I like the idea of being able to shoot simple notes (via email, or various messaging protocols) to articles. I dont know what form that would take but, suffice it to say it shouldnt be appended to the article itself. And probably not the talk page either.
It would be easy to envision it as a kind of ticket system, where in addition to talk pages, articles have an associated list of "tickets" which are like extended comments not attached to a particular edit. By 'simple notes' I mean a quick means to push off that we think about including in a particular article but dont have time to actually dig in and work it in ourselves.
The ticket would show up in a list, and based on the actual content, editors can choose to stick it wherever it is they like to stick such things. Maybe just appending to the bottom of the talk would be a first incarnation, but it might get out of hand, and we want talk comments to be responsive to previous comments.
Accreditation in history would be a problem if the one who submitted the ticket wants credit. Some may not though. I imagine this being clicking on the ticket, and the script opens up the edit window and appends the ticket text to the article. In the edit comment field, the ticket poster's name will show up as the source. In the edit window, its a simple matter of just shoving things around artfully and calling it "good writing." (The onus for accuracy is on the ticket sender ;)
-Svertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 6/26/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
I havent much read on this thread, but I think I like the idea of being able to shoot simple notes (via email, or various messaging protocols) to articles. I dont know what form that would take but, suffice it to say it shouldnt be appended to the article itself. And probably not the talk page either.
Why not the talk page? In the beginning at least, it seems quite feasible simply to append tags like:
==Incoming email 26/6/06== From: <some mangling of email address> <text.............>
Then people could deal with that text in the normal ways, adding comments as to whether they think it's worth including etc. What's the downside?
Accreditation in history would be a problem if the one who submitted the ticket wants credit. Some may not
True. Maybe at first simply deny them that opportunity? Or you know, in the edit summary you could always put the source so it's not *totally* lost.
Steve
--- Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Why not the talk page? In the beginning at least, it seems quite feasible simply to append tags like:
...
Then people could deal with that text in the normal ways, adding comments as to whether they think it's worth including etc. What's the downside?
IMHO its just not the place to put discrete chunks of material which are designed for inclusion in the article. Plus, talk pages can get overloaded with nonsense or offtopic comments this way that have to be pruned by hand. Using a ticket system will let people use them, ignore them, otherwise file them to /dev/null.
Accreditation in history would be a problem if the
one
who submitted the ticket wants credit. Some may
not
True. Maybe at first simply deny them that opportunity? Or you know, in the edit summary you could always put the source so it's not *totally* lost.
WP is at the point where things are done only when they are and no sooner by the brilliant people who know how to do this stuff. It would be best left to them to decide what minimum specific level of sophistication is required. Wikidata seems like it was on this track IIRC, and this might be just repeating a part of that idea.
-S
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 6/26/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Why not the talk page? In the beginning at least, it seems quite feasible simply to append tags like:
==Incoming email 26/6/06== From: <some mangling of email address> <text.............>
Then people could deal with that text in the normal ways, adding comments as to whether they think it's worth including etc. What's the downside?
I like this idea a lot.
Accreditation in history would be a problem if the one who submitted the ticket wants credit. Some may not
True. Maybe at first simply deny them that opportunity? Or you know, in the edit summary you could always put the source so it's not *totally* lost.
Not hard to provide accreditatoin; it wouldn't show up in history, it's true. but there's a more general issue of user-login/validatoin-abstraction to be dealt with there. Edit summary is fine, for moral and gfdl purposes.
SJ
While this sounds like a nice, lofty, all-inclusive notion -- the sort which would be popular amongst white, male, technically-inclided, middle class, intellectual-pursuing English speakers -- I'm not so sure it would be worth the trouble to establish an infrastructure to accomodate it.
How are these participants supposed to know about Wikipedia, much less be able to read it and integrate their content into it in a useful way? How are we supposed to solicit their contributions? Do we have evidence that this is actually a problem that needs to be solved in a systematic way? Is this a problem looking for a solution or a solution looking for a problem?
I'm all for inclusivity and being aware of our biases and trying to encourage working around them.* I'm not sure this is really the best use of our (human) resources. I'll be frank and say it sounds a little half-baked to me.
FF
*I'll also say that I think the idea that content is necessarily determined by the demographics of your contributors is also a bit too reductionist, and mimics some of the really tragic movements in academia in the 1960s and 1970s which let in a lot of really bad scholarship and really wooly thinking under the banner of inclusivity. I think we should always take care to judge our contributors on the quality of what they actually produce, not on who they are as individuals or groups.
On 6/25/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
According to the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias, "The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia (1) is male, (2) is technically-inclined, (3) is formally educated, (4) speaks English to an extent, (5) is White , (6) is aged 15-49, (7) is from a predominantly Christian country, (8) is from an industrialized nation, and (9) is more likely to be employed in intellectual pursuits than in practical skills or physical labor."
The problem with this is the unfortunate gap in coverage that results from a lack of interest from the typical demographic of Wikipedians described above. While this demographic is definitely interested in contributing to a free, online encyclopedia, that doesn't mean the others aren't. One particular problem is that in order to contribute to Wikipedia, you'll need to use a computer. There are others who would probably be interested in contributing to our global effort, too, but don't understand technology. We need to allow them to contribute.
For that purpose, I would like to start a project where people without access to computers (or people who voluntarily choose not to use them) can -write- their own Wikipedia entries and mail them in. The first phase of this plan, of course, would be spreading the word. The least expensive way would probably be distributing fliers in frequented areas. People could then write their own articles, and mail them in to the Wikimedia Office. Someone at the office (maybe Monica?) could open the letters, scan them in, and email them to an offline submissions mailing list. From there, people interested in the project would transcribe the article into Wikipedia (if applicable, see below) and mail back a corresponding letter featuring a print-out of the new article. Very simple process, plus it would allow people from non-typical-of-Wikipedia-editor backgrounds to put in their word.
What if their entry is redundant? Not to worry. If the written submission has content the Wikipedia article doesn't, we add it in. If it doesn't, that's okay. We don't necessarily have to tell them what made it in and what didn't, but either way, a reply will be sent to the writer with a print-out of the article.
I'm passing the above on for en:User:Messedrocker, since he's not subscribed to the list. My thoughts:
a) This has certainly been done before on a local level with minor languages - was it in West Africa somewhere? My mind is failing me, but I've certainly seen it mentioned on wikipedia-l before - the writing was done by a local elder, transcribed and put online by a volunteer.
b) It might well work, but would probably require careful thought and planning - who are we targeting? what sort of articles are we targeting them for? how do we deal with unwanted and inappropriate submissions without causing more badwill than we started with?
c) Copyrights. This might get fun.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Wait...what's wrong with white people? =D
On 6/30/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
While this sounds like a nice, lofty, all-inclusive notion -- the sort which would be popular amongst white, male, technically-inclided, middle class, intellectual-pursuing English speakers -- I'm not so sure it would be worth the trouble to establish an infrastructure to accomodate it.
How are these participants supposed to know about Wikipedia, much less be able to read it and integrate their content into it in a useful way? How are we supposed to solicit their contributions? Do we have evidence that this is actually a problem that needs to be solved in a systematic way? Is this a problem looking for a solution or a solution looking for a problem?
I'm all for inclusivity and being aware of our biases and trying to encourage working around them.* I'm not sure this is really the best use of our (human) resources. I'll be frank and say it sounds a little half-baked to me.
FF
*I'll also say that I think the idea that content is necessarily determined by the demographics of your contributors is also a bit too reductionist, and mimics some of the really tragic movements in academia in the 1960s and 1970s which let in a lot of really bad scholarship and really wooly thinking under the banner of inclusivity. I think we should always take care to judge our contributors on the quality of what they actually produce, not on who they are as individuals or groups.
On 6/25/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
According to the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias, "The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia (1) is male, (2) is technically-inclined, (3) is formally educated, (4) speaks English to an extent, (5) is White , (6) is aged 15-49, (7) is from a predominantly Christian country, (8) is from an industrialized nation, and (9) is more likely to be employed in intellectual pursuits than in practical skills or physical labor."
The problem with this is the unfortunate gap in coverage that results from a lack of interest from the typical demographic of Wikipedians described above. While this demographic is definitely interested in contributing to a free, online encyclopedia, that doesn't mean the others aren't. One particular problem is that in order to contribute to Wikipedia, you'll need to use a computer. There are others who would probably be interested in contributing to our global effort, too, but don't understand technology. We need to allow them to contribute.
For that purpose, I would like to start a project where people without access to computers (or people who voluntarily choose not to use them) can -write- their own Wikipedia entries and mail them in. The first phase of this plan, of course, would be spreading the word. The least expensive way would probably be distributing fliers in frequented areas. People could then write their own articles, and mail them in to the Wikimedia Office. Someone at the office (maybe Monica?) could open the letters, scan them in, and email them to an offline submissions mailing list. From there, people interested in the project would transcribe the article into Wikipedia (if applicable, see below) and mail back a corresponding letter featuring a print-out of the new article. Very simple process, plus it would allow people from non-typical-of-Wikipedia-editor backgrounds to put in their word.
What if their entry is redundant? Not to worry. If the written submission has content the Wikipedia article doesn't, we add it in. If it doesn't, that's okay. We don't necessarily have to tell them what made it in and what didn't, but either way, a reply will be sent to the writer with a print-out of the article.
I'm passing the above on for en:User:Messedrocker, since he's not subscribed to the list. My thoughts:
a) This has certainly been done before on a local level with minor languages - was it in West Africa somewhere? My mind is failing me, but I've certainly seen it mentioned on wikipedia-l before - the writing was done by a local elder, transcribed and put online by a volunteer.
b) It might well work, but would probably require careful thought and planning - who are we targeting? what sort of articles are we targeting them for? how do we deal with unwanted and inappropriate submissions without causing more badwill than we started with?
c) Copyrights. This might get fun.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/1/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
Wait...what's wrong with white people? =D
I didn't say or imply there was anything wrong with them. I just find it ironic that the same people who are supposedly responsible for the systemic bias at Wikipedia (middle class, technically proficient, intellectual white males in English speaking countries) are also the ones who are most likely to be overly concerned about systemic bias to the point of woolly thinking and lots of nervous hand-wringing. ;-)
I say this of course as a middle class, technically proficient, intellectual white male in an English speaking country.
FF