Should we lock StrategyWiki as historical?
A) Prevent all editing and keep content at current address.
B) Restrict editing to admins and keep content at current address.
C) Move content to Meta and mark as historical, lock editing.
D) Move content to Meta and leave it open.
E) Do nothing.
It's been more than two years since the new Wikipedia logo has been
produced, but dozens of wikis are still using the old one (sometimes not
even a localised version at all), see
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia/2.0> for the missing pieces.
Without Cary and Casey, moreover, nobody is actually available to
produce the logos even when users show up with translations and fonts to
When will someone reach out to the missing wikis and offer help to
create the new logo and deploy it?
On 7/28/12 5:58 AM, Tilman Bayer wrote:
> Hi all,
> the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at
> accompanied by a Q&A:
> The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in
> Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the
> Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff
> meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video
> recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical
> difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon.
Slide 8 : "How are we doing against the 2012 targets"
I was stopped by
"The Global Education Program is now the largest-ever systematic effort
of the Wikimedia mouvement to boost high quality content creation, with
a projected addition of 19 million characters to Wikipedia through
student assignements 2011-2012"
OF COURSE, we all know that WMF needs to glorify what it is actually
initiating/in charge of. And that's fair enough.
But seriously... I would feel fine with us trying to claim that the GEP
is the largest system effort to INCREASE the number of articles. It is
But we all know that the result is... so and so. Possibly good content,
but also lot's of crap being reverted and deleted afterwards. Claiming
it is the largest effort to boost high quality content is not only
disingenous... but I actually find it counter productive and a tiny bit
offensive toward the actual community.
High quality content simply does NOT come from newbie students.
I think there is fair reason to raise questions about the benefit of paywalled sources, despite my optimism about the partnerships. I don't totally share the concerns, but they are surely worth addressing:
First off, we are not handled any ideal choices here. Either our editors do not have access to paywalled information from which to add to our articles, or, our readers will likely not have access to those paywalled sources from which content was added.
An approach to better weigh the balance here is to consider the relative percentage of our users who will *read* article content versus those who *source-check* it. I think I can comfortably say that readers far outnumber source-checkers. That means that whatever the cost to readers, it is likely several times less than the benefit to them, at least in aggregate.
There are secondary considerations, still. For example, will having an increasing number of paywalled sources make things difficult for fellow *editors* to do verification work? While this is already a problem to a degree, it's not necessarily one we want to worsen. My approach to mitigating that concern is to try and make sure that *enough* of our readers do have access to these paywalled sources. For example, there will soon be '1000' editors with access to HighBeam (some of our most active for sure), and then there's always Wikiproject Resource Exchange for what falls in the gap.
Will the public lose faith in Wikipedia if the content cannot be easily verified? I wish the answer wasn't so easy for me, but I think it's almost definitely that they will not lose faith. Because the average reader cares not where the information came from as long as it is presented to them in a seemingly accurate, thorough, and unbiased fashion. And I can't really imagine a great revolt in the press or elsewhere because Wikipedia is suddenly taking advantage of the best available resources that serious scholars use in their own practice.
There is indeed a sea change happening with open access, and perhaps we are benefiting in part from databases trying to 'open-wash' their reputations. I think there are more primary reasons they have made these donations, however, such as receiving linkbacks, attention and good will among editors, and altruistic intentions to improve Wikipedia. In time, perhaps, we won't have to make these kinds of difficult choices...
Thanks for your thoughts on this. We should continue the discussion, particularly as efforts to build a 'Wikipedia Library' of sorts go forward.
Wikipedia editor: Ocaasi
The quest for get Wikipedia editors the sources they need is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for ''right now'':
* '''[[WP:Credo|Credo Reference]]''' provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are '''125''' full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up [[Wikipedia:Credo#Sign-up sheet|here]].
* '''[[WP:HighBeam|HighBeam Research]]''' has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are '''250''' full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up [[Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications|here]].
* '''[[WP:Questia|Questia]]''' is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be '''1000''' full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up [[Wikipedia:Questia#Apply here: Round 1|here]].
In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central '''Wikipedia Library''' where approved editors would have access to ''all'' participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wiki… Community Fellowship proposal] to start developing the project. Drop by my talk page if you have any questions. Now, go sign up!
Thanks for a fascinating read. You managed to capture the crazy, chaotic, collaborative world we sometimes inhabit, especially during events like the Egyptian Revolution. In all, it was a truly fascinating and consuming event to be a part of, and it got me briefly hooked on the rush of working articles on 'current events', an area I've many editors avoid due to the flood of attention they receive and the challenge of finding seasoned secondary sources. Working on that article with EgyptianLiberal and Lihaas and Abrahzame and SilverSeren and others truly felt like we were relaying messages to the rest of the world as events unfolded. That might be slightly grandiose but I think it's not that far off given how often the Wikipedia article was used as a go-to source for information about what was happening.
I'm very much interested by your page 50 chart on using social media as primary and secondary sources, respectively. The notion that--a re-tweet by a journalist, a photo of a political cartoon in a rally, or amateur video footage on NYTimes website--will probably rub many editors the wrong way. What is lacking in the mere republishing of that type of primary content is an indication that it has been vetted, fact-checked, or otherwise investigated through the typical channels which work towards ensuring reliable media reports. If a journalist retweets a message from the ground, did he confirm that the original poster was where and who he said he was (if we know either of those details). Perhaps the retweeter is just acting in that sense as only an amplifier rather than a journalist. The picture of a political cartoon in a rally could be considered a secondary source, but for what exactly? That the cartoon was present in at least one protest?
A true secondary source would be able to make a broader claim that, for example, a particular photo was an 'iconic' image of the protests. Merely capturing one instance does not provide the benefits that we expect from secondary sources, namely fact-checking, and perspective. I think the same concerns would apply to an NYTimes republishing of an amateur video. Mainstream news media wants to social these days, yet I do not think they have yet solved the puzzle of what their role should be with respect to ireports, tweets, on-the-ground cellphone footage, etc.
Last, I just want to acknowledge the particular vulnerability one feels from having an ethnographer evaluate their heat-of-the-moment comments. You were indeed fair, but even with Wikipedia's wide-open transparency, it's a little uncomfortable to be the *subject* of the reports rather than the one who summarizes them ;)
Wikipedia editor: Ocaasi