What different projects and success stories do we have for adding geographic coordinates to existing articles in various languages of Wikipedia? In some languages there are WikiProjects, but I think they were more active some years ago.
I tried to count now, and I think the Swedish language Wikipedia has 32,600 geographic coordinates for its 404,000 articles or one coordinate per 12.4 articles. Is that reasonable or is it far below the average?
I need a success story to learn from.
In french the success story is a combination of different process: *a very active french heritage project, with the creation of all the articles about historical monuments in france *the developpment of the tools on toolserver for the visualization of geolocated articles on maps like google maps *some peoples fall in love of this tools and start to add kml template on each categories of articles that could be visualized this way *categorization of the articles laking geolocalization in hidden cats "articles lacking geolocalisation", very efficient !
Obviously there is more parametrer like the creation of the list of all the heritage site per canton in switzerland, it makes a strong example for other wikipedian.
Cheers
Charles
Le 30 juil. 2011 à 09:29, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se a écrit :
What different projects and success stories do we have for adding geographic coordinates to existing articles in various languages of Wikipedia? In some languages there are WikiProjects, but I think they were more active some years ago.
I tried to count now, and I think the Swedish language Wikipedia has 32,600 geographic coordinates for its 404,000 articles or one coordinate per 12.4 articles. Is that reasonable or is it far below the average?
I need a success story to learn from.
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
In the Netherlands we had the luck that the RCE provided all the coordinates - that means that we have roughly a coverage of 100%. The good thing about that is that you can build upon that with your toolings and enable people to find monuments nearby easily.
The part I like most is actually where people start correcting the mistaken coordinates, which were previously for example on the southern hemisphere :P
Lodewijk
2011/7/30 Charles Andrès charles.andres@wikimedia.ch
In french the success story is a combination of different process: *a very active french heritage project, with the creation of all the articles about historical monuments in france *the developpment of the tools on toolserver for the visualization of geolocated articles on maps like google maps *some peoples fall in love of this tools and start to add kml template on each categories of articles that could be visualized this way *categorization of the articles laking geolocalization in hidden cats "articles lacking geolocalisation", very efficient !
Obviously there is more parametrer like the creation of the list of all the heritage site per canton in switzerland, it makes a strong example for other wikipedian.
Cheers
Charles
Le 30 juil. 2011 à 09:29, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se a écrit :
What different projects and success stories do we have for adding geographic coordinates to existing articles in various languages of Wikipedia? In some languages there are WikiProjects, but I think they were more active some years ago.
I tried to count now, and I think the Swedish language Wikipedia has 32,600 geographic coordinates for its 404,000 articles or one coordinate per 12.4 articles. Is that reasonable or is it far below the average?
I need a success story to learn from.
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
In Germany we're running a side-project to WLM in a small town where the local organizers ask a geo-caching group to provide the coordinates. Also, a cooperation with OpenStreetMap might be helpful to obtain the data.
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
In the Netherlands we had the luck that the RCE provided all the coordinates - that means that we have roughly a coverage of 100%. The good thing about that is that you can build upon that with your toolings and enable people to find monuments nearby easily.
The part I like most is actually where people start correcting the mistaken coordinates, which were previously for example on the southern hemisphere :P
Lodewijk
2011/7/30 Charles Andrès charles.andres@wikimedia.ch
In french the success story is a combination of different process: *a very active french heritage project, with the creation of all the articles about historical monuments in france *the developpment of the tools on toolserver for the visualization of geolocated articles on maps like google maps *some peoples fall in love of this tools and start to add kml template on each categories of articles that could be visualized this way *categorization of the articles laking geolocalization in hidden cats "articles lacking geolocalisation", very efficient !
Obviously there is more parametrer like the creation of the list of all the heritage site per canton in switzerland, it makes a strong example for other wikipedian.
Cheers
Charles
Le 30 juil. 2011 à 09:29, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se a écrit :
What different projects and success stories do we have for adding geographic coordinates to existing articles in various languages of Wikipedia? In some languages there are WikiProjects, but I think they were more active some years ago.
I tried to count now, and I think the Swedish language Wikipedia has 32,600 geographic coordinates for its 404,000 articles or one coordinate per 12.4 articles. Is that reasonable or is it far below the average?
I need a success story to learn from.
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
On 07/30/2011 10:29 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
In the Netherlands we had the luck that the RCE provided all the coordinates - that means that we have roughly a coverage of 100%.
Once you had a list of coordinates, and, -- what? Object names? Place names? Descriptions of each object? How did you match these to existing articles? Did you create stub articles for the non-existing ones?
They were part of the database we got from them - it combined many fields of which we could use a few in Wikipedia at that time including address, identifier, coordinates and architect (if available). A part of this was available already online, and a part only after further contacts.
Lodewijk
2011/7/30 Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se
On 07/30/2011 10:29 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
In the Netherlands we had the luck that the RCE provided all the coordinates - that means that we have roughly a coverage of 100%.
Once you had a list of coordinates, and, -- what? Object names? Place names? Descriptions of each object? How did you match these to existing articles? Did you create stub articles for the non-existing ones?
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
We had found a database on the web with coordinates, object descriptions (type of object. whether its a church or a house etc.), city name. We also had a link to all good object descriptions in the list (from 1 line to 200 lines of text per object). In the beginning we mainly focused on manualy translating these descriptions into short one or few word descriptions. In this process we also added links to the allready existing articles, and we added the allready existing pictures. There are 60.000 objects in the Netherlands 5.000-7.000 allready had a picture or article. A huge part (30.000+) are just regular "grachtenpanden" (homes), not all that special, and not much information about those. In the past 2 years, since I project started we've made over 20.000 pictures of monuments, currently 47% has a picture, description is there for 90%. Articles only for 10-20% I believe, but not all objects are suitable for an own article, so this will just go slowly with the list and take pretty much years. Currently most of the special buildings: churches, stations, castles, bridges are getting an article, must of the regular houses don't have an article yet. The addresses from all monuments we got 1 year ago from the RCE before the WLM 2010. We have statistics about all our list (see bottem of this e-mail) this has proven very usefull, this way people got motivated to make parts of the monumentslist 100% complete. Statistics have proven a good motivator. Another important thing I would like to point out here for the WLM-competition in your country is the use of Flickr (or comparable sites), last year we've used Flickr as an allternative place to upload pictures. This was mainly for 2 reasons: 1: in 2009 we had Wiki loves art which was 100% on Flickr, 2. Many people have allready a big set of pictures on Flickr, allowing upload on flickr means they only have to add an identifier (monumentnumber) and switch the license. We've got over 2000 from the pictures througt Flickr. This means 10-15% of the pictures (from which we would've missed a big part if we hadn't allowed the use of Flickr. We had a little bot which took all pictures from Flickr to commons, and we hand approved them before they could end up in the Flickr Pool (checking own work, license and identifier). Mvg, Bas
About the statistics:
On http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Erfgoed/Nederlandse_Erfgo... (look at the bottem) you can find statistics about all our list, and the overview is at the bottem. Provincie=departmentRecords=number of monumentsobjectnaam=object namebouwjaar=building yearadres=adressgps=coordinatesfoto=picturearchitect=architect (most of the buildings dont have an architect)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:01:59 +0200 From: lars@aronsson.se To: wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Coordinates
On 07/30/2011 10:29 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
In the Netherlands we had the luck that the RCE provided all the coordinates - that means that we have roughly a coverage of 100%.
Once you had a list of coordinates, and, -- what? Object names? Place names? Descriptions of each object? How did you match these to existing articles? Did you create stub articles for the non-existing ones?
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
In addition to tools with popular services like Google or OSM, a partnership with a local map service provider [1] has proved attractive to local users. The map service has provided an access with Geohack parameters and showing it prominently as regional service at [[Template:GeoTemplate]] encorages local users to check coordinates and to add missing ones. Following this way, we are working another partnership with a large city map server.
Vicenç
From: charles.andres@wikimedia.ch Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 10:22:42 +0200 To: wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org CC: maps-l@lists.wikimedia.org; wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Coordinates
In french the success story is a combination of different process: *a very active french heritage project, with the creation of all the articles about historical monuments in france *the developpment of the tools on toolserver for the visualization of geolocated articles on maps like google maps *some peoples fall in love of this tools and start to add kml template on each categories of articles that could be visualized this way *categorization of the articles laking geolocalization in hidden cats "articles lacking geolocalisation", very efficient !
Obviously there is more parametrer like the creation of the list of all the heritage site per canton in switzerland, it makes a strong example for other wikipedian.
Cheers
Charles
Le 30 juil. 2011 à 09:29, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se a écrit :
What different projects and success stories do we have for adding geographic coordinates to existing articles in various languages of Wikipedia? In some languages there are WikiProjects, but I think they were more active some years ago.
I tried to count now, and I think the Swedish language Wikipedia has 32,600 geographic coordinates for its 404,000 articles or one coordinate per 12.4 articles. Is that reasonable or is it far below the average?
I need a success story to learn from.
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org