Wikimedia-l August 2010

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

140 participants
80 discussions

[Foundation-l] Research Committee launched
by Erik Moeller 26 Aug '10

26 Aug '10

Hello all, I'm pleased to announce the launch of the Wikimedia Foundation research committee, with 11 initial members. You can find more information and bios here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_Committee The purpose of the committee is to help organize policies, practices and priorities around Wikimedia-related research. Thanks to everyone who applied to join the committee. We're using a publicly archived mailing list as our primary means of communication, if you're interested in following what's going on: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l We'll also begin working on the pages on meta.wikimedia.org to make them more useful, and we'll have a first IRC meeting soon. All best, Erik -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Page eliminators at ptwiki
by GoEthe.wiki 26 Aug '10

26 Aug '10

> > In the ptwiki case, members of the group eliminate the page themselves. >

1 0

[Foundation-l] Controversial Content Study Update
by R M Harris 26 Aug '10

26 Aug '10

Robert Harris here again, the consultant looking at the issues surrounding controversial content on Wikimedia projects. I wanted first of all to thank all of you who have taken the trouble to once again weigh in on a subject I know has been debated many times within the Wikimedia community. It has been very valuable for me, a newcomer to these questions, to witness the debate first-hand for several reasons. The first is to remind me of the thinking behind various positions, rather than simply to be presented with the results of those positions. And the second is as a reminder to myself to remember my self-imposed rule of "do no harm” and to reflect on how easy it is to break that rule, even if unintentionally. So far, the immediate result for me of the dialogue has been to recognize that the question of whether there is any problem to solve at all is a real question that will need a detailed and serious response, as well as a recognition that the possibility of unintended consequence in these matters is high, so caution and modesty is a virtue. Having said that, I will note that I'm convinced that if there are problems to be solved around questions of controversial content, the solutions can probably best be found at the level of practical application. (and I’ll note that several of you have expressed qualified confidence that a solution on that level may be findable). That's not to say that the intellectual and philosophical debate around these issues is not valuable -- it is essential, in my opinion. It's just to note that not only is the "devil" in the details as a few of you have noted, but that the "angel" may be in the details as well -- that is -- perhaps -- questions insoluble on the theoretical level may find more areas of agreement on a practical level. I'm not sure of that, but I'm presenting it as a working hypothesis at this point. My intended course of action over the next month or so is the following. I'm planning to actually write the study on a wiki, where my thinking as it develops, plus comments, suggestions, and re-workings will be available for all to see. I was planning to begin that perhaps early in September. (A presentation to the Foundation Board is tentatively scheduled for early October). Between now and then, I would like to continue the kind of feedback I've been getting, all of it so valuable for me. I have posted another set of questions about controversy in text articles on the Meta page devoted to the study, (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_C…) because my ambit does not just include images, and text and image, in my opinion, are quite different forms of content. As well, I will start to post research I've been collecting for information and comment. I have some interesting notes about the experience of public libraries in these matters (who have been struggling with many of these same questions since the time television, not the Internet, was the world’s new communications medium), as well as information on the policies of other big-tent sites (Google Images, Flickr, YouTube, eBay,etc.) on these same issues. I haven't finished collecting all the info I need on the latter, but will say that the policies on these sites are extremely complex (although not always presented as such) and subject within their communities to many of the same controversies that have arisen in ours. We are not them, by any means, but it is interesting to observe how they have struggled with many of the same issues with which we are struggling. The time is soon coming when I will lose the luxury of mere observation and research, and will have to face the moment where I will enter the arena myself as a participant in these questions. I’m looking forward to that moment, with the understanding that you will be watching what I do with care, concern, and attention. Robert Harris

8 10

Re: [Foundation-l] A proposal of partnership between Wikimedia Foundation and Internet Archive
by Gregory Kohs 25 Aug '10

25 Aug '10

emijrp says: "I want to make a proposal about external links preservation. Many times, when you check an external link or a link reference, the website is dead or offline. This websites are important, because they are the sources for the facts showed in the articles. Internet Archive searches for interesting websites to save in their hard disks, so, we can send them our external links sql tables (all projects and languages of course). They improve their database and we always have a copy of the sources text to check when needed." I would want to see the Internet Archive behave in a more ethically accountable manner before any strong alliance is built with them on any Wikimedia function. Namely, for the past 3 months, I have been working with an attorney to appeal to the Internet Archive to remove a page from their database that contains libelous information that has been expunged on the "current" page on the original domain. The Internet Archive has been entirely unresponsive to these mailed letters of request. I think the Wikimedia Foundation shouldn't be lining up to cooperated with organizations that don't even respond to important matters of defamation and libel. Gregory Kohs

2 1

Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 77, Issue 59
by Mardetanha 25 Aug '10

25 Aug '10

Thanks Gerard :) we are waiting for our wikinews Mardetanha On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:30 PM, <foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>wrote: > Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Farsi wikipedia has reached 100 K article (Gerard Meijssen) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:46:37 +0200 > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Farsi wikipedia has reached 100 K article > Hoi, > Congratulations.. > > It is also an auspicious moment as the localisation for the Persian > language > is now complete. This completes the localisation requirement for the > requested Wikinews. At the language committee we are considering if it is > ready to move on... I hope and expect a Wikinews in the not to distant > future :) > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 25 August 2010 09:31, Mardetanha <mardetanha.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Farsi wikipedia has reached 100 K articles . > > > > Mardetanha > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >

1 0

[Foundation-l] data centralization for the benefit of small (and also bigger) projects
by Marcus Buck 25 Aug '10

25 Aug '10

Several wikis have used bots to increase their article count in the past. Examples are the Volapük Wikipedia (vo) with 118,000 articles of which about 117,000 are bot-created stubs or the Aromanian Wikipedia (roa-rup) with 61,000 articles at the moment and less than 10,000 before the bot run. Why do they use bots? Because they have a small userbase and want to cover as much topics as possible with small effort. Most of the languages that use bots are small languages without much written literature especially when it comes to non-fiction reference literature. There are no Aromanian encyclopedias, no or few reference books, no databases etc. An Aromanian either has to learn and use foreign languages or he will never be able to get informations about places in China or in America. The bot operator tried to change this by creating stubs about places in China, America and elsewhere. (Geographic objects are the easiest method to cover large numbers of topics without much effort.) But he did a horrible job with really bad and uninformative articles. I assume the reason for the bad articles is not any bad intent but just lack of technical skills to program a more useful bot. The easiest reaction to this is to just let them do their thing and don't care about it. The second easiest reaction is running a delete bot and removing the bad articles because of their negative effects. But both methods do not address the original motivation of the bot operator: the wish to have information about a large range of entities available in the wiki's language. How can this be addressed? We need a datawiki. That's not a new proposal, proposals for datawikis have a long history. But there never was a specific reason not to implement it, it was just that nobody cared about it so much that it was implemented until now. Here's my idea about it: When a search does not yield any matching articles on the local wiki, the software will look up the name in the central datawiki. If the central datawiki contains a matching entry, this entry will be loaded. It will contain an instance of a template filled with information about the entity. E.g.: {{Town |name=Fab City |country=Awesomia |pop=89042 |lat=42.0 |lon=42.0 |elevation=12 |mayor=Adam Sweet }} The software will now look for a template called "Town" on the local wiki. The local template [[Template:Town]] will for example look like this: {| class="infobox" |- ! Name | {{{name|}}} |- ! Country | {{{country|}}} |- ! Population | {{{pop|}}} |- ! Mayor | {{{mayor|}}} |- ! Elevation | {{{elevation|}}} above sea level |- ! Geographic position | {{latlon| {{{lat|}}} | {{{lon|}}} }} |} '''{{{name|}}}''' is a place in [[{{countryname| {{{country|}}} }}]] with a population of {{{pop|}}}. [[Category:{{countryname| {{{country|}}} }}]] [[Category:Towns]] Of course this template will be localized in the language of the local wiki. This information will now be shown to the user who entered the name in the search. (The above examples are just, well, examples. Real entries would most likely contain much more data.) The datawiki can be filled with information about any entity that has a certain set of recurring features (almost anything that has a infobox on Wikipedia), especially geographic objects. These objects also have the advantage that their names usually are international (at least among Latin script languages). The advantages are: - when the central datawiki is filled with info (most of which can be bot-extracted from existing Wikipedia infoboxes), every Wikipedia - how small the userbase may be - has instant access to information about hundreds of thousands or millions of objects, they just need to implement some infobox templates - this solution also erases problems with outdated information in infoboxes (a problem even en.wp is suffering from). The data only needs to be updated in one single place instead of every single Wikipedia separately With the work done by Nikola Smolenski on the Interlanguage extension (<http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Interlanguage>) it shouldn't be too hard to implement. In view of the potential usefulness I cannot think of any argument that speaks against this in general. The prospect of providing at least basic information about millions of objects in all the different languages seems really great to me. Many native speakers of smaller languages use foreign language wikis as their default wiki because the chance that their native wiki has an article on the topic is small. If the number of topics where a search on the native wiki yields results raises from "some thousands" to "millions", there is a chance that users will finally accept their native wiki as their default wiki. The entries will be basic, but if interwikis (of existing articles not generated from the datawiki) will be included in the info obtained from the datawiki, the more extensive data is just one click away, while an unsuccessful search on the local wiki (as you will get it as of now) is a dead end. It certainly is worth putting some resources into it. What do you think? Marcus Buck User:Slomox

5 8

[Foundation-l] The Signpost – Volume 6 Issue 34 – 23 August 2010
by Wikipedia Signpost 24 Aug '10

24 Aug '10

News and notes: Pending changes poll, Public policy classes, Payment schemes debate, and more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-23/News_a… In the news: Zionist editing courses, newspaper denies editing candidate, net neutrality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-23/In_the… WikiProject report: WikiProject Cryptozoology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-23/WikiPr… Features and admins: The best of the week http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-23/Featur… Arbitration report: Proposed decision of climate change case posted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-23/Arbitr… Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-23/Techno… Single page view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single PDF version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-23 http://identi.ca/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost -- Wikipedia Signpost Staff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost

1 0

[Foundation-l] WMF Chapter Development Director job posting
by Barry Newstead 24 Aug '10

24 Aug '10

I am pleased to share the position description for the new Chapter Development Director position [1] with the Wikimedia Foundation. We are now open for applications and aim to fill this position with an outstanding candidate by November. Thank you to those who shared perspectives on the Chapter Development role on the Meta page [2] that was set up a few weeks back. The process of defining ways for chapters and WMF to work together effectively is an ongoing one that I look forward to continuing with all of you and with our new staff member. Please do forward on the posting and suggest candidates. It would be great to find candidates from within the Wikimedia movement. The position description draws from the input received on Meta as well as informal discussions and input received from various sources. [3] The description provides a window into how I am thinking about the relationship between chapters and WMF. Let me share some of my thoughts in the interest of openness and transparency. These are just preliminary thoughts and I welcome ongoing feedback about where I'm on point and where I might be off-base. Let me start by saying that I am very committed to the chapter mission to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally"[4] In my analysis (and I think most share this conclusion), we are still a long way from realizing this mission, even in our largest chapters. We, in the Global Development team, are investing in Chapter Development roles (we plan to add to the team in the future) to support the realization of the mission. For me, success in five years would be to be in a position where 75% of chapters would be rated “effective” and over 50% would be rated “very effective” based on an objective set of mission-focused metrics I would like to develop collaboratively with chapters over the next year. In addition, I would like there to be at least 60 chapters that are reasonably [5] representative of the global population. It would be great if we generate some shared goals in the coming months. I have designed the WMF role as articulated in the position description with success metrics in mind and with an orientation toward mutual cooperation and a strong respect for the fact that virtually all of the chapter participants today are volunteers and that our future strength will remain in the initiative, commitment and creativity of volunteers, even as we add staff and spend money in chapters and at WMF. I expect that the WMF staff (as well as capacity building support on organizational development) will help make voluntary action easier, more scalable and more sustainable, particularly for the leaders who have expressed a certain level of fatigue in carrying the full weight of their chapters. It is important to be clear that I see the Foundation and chapters as independent organizations who are both ultimately accountable to the Wikimedia movement. In my team's work, I would like to earn our role by demonstrating our value. We do and should have clear agreements about the work we do together along with our financial relationships. These may require some trade-offs; however, these should lay out mutual expectations that encourage positive, productive work that supports the Wikimedia mission. As such, I would expect that we are able to negotiate and abide by contractual agreements that help us all do our work. A final word on openness. This note is an attempt to be open about how I'm thinking now. I want my team's (and our) work to be open and transparent to the movement. We should share publicly our thinking, reports on our activities, evaluations of our successes and failures and a standard report card of our effectiveness. I don't see this as a mechanism for reward or punishment, but as a way to open us up to the movement at large and most importantly to enable us to be a learning community where we can critically assess our work and adapt. I hope this note is a reasonable start. I look forward to working with you all, to having your feedback and to bringing a strong Chapter Development Director on board soon. Barry [1] See http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Chapter_Development_Direct… [2] See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter_development [3] Berlin Chapters meeting discussions, strategy project, Wikimania discussions, generous proactive input from Delphine Menard reflecting on her prior experience, thoughts provided by Sebastian Moleski and an email exchange with Bence Domokos [4] See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters [5] Added “Reasonably” caveat as we might not be in a position to have chapters in places such as the People's Republic of China for policy reasons

10 13

[Foundation-l] Proteopedia
by Amir E. Aharoni 24 Aug '10

24 Aug '10

Thought that some of you may find this interesting: In the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, there's a MediaWiki-based project called Proteopedia: http://proteopedia.org/ . It is a Wikipedia-inspired database of proteins and other molecules. The project is supervised by professors from the institute, so the data is supposed to be reliable. Most of the data is CC-BY-SA / GFDL, so it can be reused in Wikipedia (there are some exceptions; see Terms of Service at the bottom of the page). Note that the images of the molecules are animated; you can click them and then move them to see them at different angles and zoom in and out using the mouse wheel. Also, try clicking the green links under the images - it shows you different views of the molecule (i'm a linguist, so i don't know what it actually means, but if you're into Biology or Chemistry, you'll probably understand). This is done using Jmol, an LGPL-licensed Java applet, so maybe it can be used in Wikipedia in the future. -- אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com "We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace." - T. Moore

4 3

[Foundation-l] ru-Wikiversuty
by Yaroslav M. Blanter 23 Aug '10

23 Aug '10

Today, I have been blocked for half a year on ru.wikiversity by an admin, SergeyJ http://ru.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%… despite the fact that I have never edited Russian Wikiversity. Is this a normal practice? I remember the story of Russian Wikisource, when an admin, Ramir, has been speedily desysopped by stewards for blocking users arbitrarily. But at least these users made some edits. I am not sure what should I do now since my SUL shows a block in one of the projects. Note that SergeyJ has been placed by the Arbitration Committee of Russian Wikipedia under editing limitations for gross violations. I am currently serving as a member of Arbitration Committee (I was not involved in the decision on his editing limitations). Cheers Yaroslav

10 13

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l August 2010