Thanks for the reply.
Anders Wennersten, 15/01/2013 12:15:
> Federico Leva (Nemo) skrev 2013-01-15 11:02:
>> Anders Wennersten, 12/01/2013 12:20:
>>
>> Could you elaborate on this "evolution of the concept"? I'm not able
>> to see what's new, from the "titles" in parentheses.
>>
> This bot puts a template in all generated articles clearly stating it is
> botgenerated and text stating "/This article has been created by Lsjbot
> and can have language errors and/or a mildly confusing setup of
> illustrations. This template can be deleted after checks of content has
> been done/" For the botgenerated articles for birds more then half have
> afterward been manually reviewed. This was our major concern, that
> botgenerated articles must not by a reader be given the impression they
> are manually created.
>
> Example
> http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthochitona_arragonites
Oh, sure, such warnings are customary on most bot creations nowadays.
>
> The bot does a major effort translating English text, like the
> geographical name of the area of inhabitance for the specie. In the
> balance of making these translation table too big, and to skip
> translation when complicated, the bot now puts the complicated text on
> the talkpage. In the example above it is for Gulf of California. In this
> way the reader or the one doing the manual afterfix find the info and
> can make use of it.
I don't know if talk page is better than a central wikiproject page with
task subpages which are usually used for such cases, but yes this is useful.
>
> The set of categories that all bot generated articles will have, even if
> and after it is manually checked/corrected, is partly for general
> keeping track but also to be able to initiate automatic
> check/corrections of a special set of botgenerated articles, if a
> problem/error is found some time after the generating time.
This is very useful, I liked it in particular for the geograph
bot-uploads on Commons by multichill.
>
> Also there are processes set up for the inspectors of the articles in
> order to easy report any questions, and get feedback it is been taken
> care of. If a backlog occurs of reported problems, the bot generation
> stops, until all is fixed (very few thing being reported by this stage).
> On sv:wp there are around 6-8 frequest contributers in the zoological
> area with 10-15 more infrequent contributers. These are very competent
> and are all supporting this effort with inspecting etc. Without the
> support of these the project would never have got off the ground
I agree, the success of such initiatives lie in how much human work
they're able to instigate and be supported from.
6-8 editors is much better than nothing. It's still a drop in the ocean
for such an amount of articles, of course: at least on it.wiki we
usually have a similar amount of checkers for something like three
orders of magnitude less articles (asteroids in recent years; Italian
municipalities in the ~2005 golden age).
Nemo
Dear all,
Wikimedia CH is looking for 2 positions of 0.5 FTE, one for Italian communities and one for German communities (percentage can be discussed).
The Community Manager is a person who works actively with the communities to support it accomplishing projects and get in touch with Wikimedia entities and officials. It helps the communities by gathering requests and ideas, communicating them to all relevant parties and translating information wherever needed. This includes support to bring formal requests and motions to WMCH by helping to prepare them, translate them and present them to the board.
In the same manner the Community Manager communicates activities of the Wikimedia entities to the communities by writing reports, blog posts and mails, translating information from WMCH to the community's language.
It's her/his responsibility to make sure the communities voices are heard inside the association and that activities and communications of Wikimedia movement entities are also replicated into the communities.
The positions will remain open until successfully filled. Please apply in English at info(a)wikimedia.ch or by postal mail: Wikimedia CH, 8008 Zürich with a motivation letter and usual documents. A short summary on how you imagine the job will be appreciated. Please add English translations of your resume and short summary.
Sincerely
Charles
___________________________________________________________
I use this email for mailing list only.
Charles ANDRES, Chairman
"Wikimedia CH" – Association for the advancement of free knowledge –
www.wikimedia.ch
Skype: charles.andres.wmch
IRC://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-ch
Hi James,
Firstly kudos for trying to get an alternate revenue stream going as
opposed to donations. I'd be surprised if you could get merchandising to
the point where it funds core operations, but it is certainly worth trying.
If you are facing high international transport costs then I'd suggest
working out which countries the USPS does work well for and only using
fedex where post doesn't work, and also trialling the sort of small high
value items like cufflinks and memory sticks where transport costs are less
important.
But if you really want me to get excited about the shop, try stocking flip
flops with modified soles. I'm sure I'm not the only person who'd like to
walk along the beach leaving a trail of [citation needed] tracks.
WSC
*I sent this to the staff list and am sending it to wikimedia-l now as
well. I didn’t know Aaron Swartz, but many friends and colleagues that I
respect and admire were influenced and impacted, by both his life and
death. I’m sad for those who knew him, and I carry the sense that the
world is a worse place for his absence.
I’m worried that other talented, smart people who see what is wrong with
this world and try to change it against overwhelming odds will see this as
one more thing that tips the scales towards the “this isn’t worth it” or “I
can’t exist like this”, slide a little further down the slippery slope into
their own abyss. I’m worried about people in pain and confusion, who may
not have the people in their lives who are able to handle explicit or
implicit expressions of pain and grief, who may feel isolated or sad and
not able to reach out for help, or don’t believe they can be helped.
I started my career studying depression treatment and prevention because
I’ve seen what it does to people - whether they’re beautifully ordinary
people you’d meet on the street or whether they’re great shining lights
whose loss makes you want to rail at an unfair universe - and because I
have my own history of major depressive episodes and my own sit-down with a
bottle of pills one dark night and I’ve grieved suicide in my own family
system and lived with its consequences. For the living, different kinds of
death leave different kinds of wounds, and I think suicide leaves the most
jagged, livid ones. If you’ve had a loved one pass from illness or old age,
the wound is just different than that of suicide. As an illness,
depression is painful and inherently isolating, and it makes people feel
terrible about themselves - and isolation is a major factor for suicide.
Depression slams blinders on possibility, when people most need to be able
to see the options and paths before and around them, and when people need
to have access. The state inherently robs someone of their ability - and
even of the belief that help is possible and available.
My favorite author
<http://www.amazon.com/Night-Falls-Fast-Understanding-Suicide/dp/0375701478>on
this topic, Kay Redfield Jamison, wrote “When people are suicidal, their
thinking is paralyzed, their options appear spare or nonexistent, their
mood is despairing, and hopelessness permeates their entire mental domain.
The future cannot be separated from the present, and the present is painful
beyond solace.”
The factors that generally lead to depression and suicide are complex,
though people keep trying to find the one tipping point thing, the one
cause. At the end of the day, death forces the living to sit with the
unknowns. I think anecdotally that if you live long enough, you develop a
certain resiliency and a greater capacity - but that’s if you get to that
point in the first place.
So here’s your public service announcement - communities where there is
exposure to suicide via media/internet carry greater risks. It’s called suicide
contagion <http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031539.htm>. As a
community, it’s worth it to be informed and to be extra care-full of those
we interact with, and to take increased care of your mental health. (Take
a walk. Call a friend.)
Major risk factors
<http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/riskprotectivefactors.html>for
suicide include mental disorders, especially mood disorders, hopelessness,
impulsive/aggressive tendencies, family history or previous attempts,
physical illness, job/financial loss, relationship loss, lack of social
support and isolation, stigma associated with asking for help, cultural
beliefs, and exposure to others who have committed suicide (via internet as
a form of transmission).
If someone you know is suicidal (and especially if they have a plan), get
help. Don’t try to talk them out of suicide. Don’t tell them their family
will miss them or that they’ll be a huge loss, even though both of those
are true. Listen to them. Tell them what they’re going through is
temporary, even if they’ve lived with it for awhile, and that It’s
treatable. It will pass. And for the love of anything you consider holy,
get professional help. They’ll often believe they can’t be helped. If it’s
you, please ask for it. I will find you help. You are not alone. If you
have or had suicidal thoughts, you’re not crazy. It’s okay - or at least,
it’s not yet but it will be. It’s a signal flare that it’s time to get aid.
Rilke wrote, “I am not yet wise in my grief so this great darkness makes me
small” and I’ve thought often of that line because I needed it to remind me
that I had to learn to be wiser, especially in my grief. I think the other
thing to remember are the words of Mary Oliver, that “To live in this
world, you must be able to do three things: to love what is mortal; to hold
it against your bones knowing your own life depends on it; and, when the
time comes to let it go, to let it go.” For the living, grieving Aaron and
letting him go without making more or less than the fullness of his life
and passing, is part of our individual and collective task.*
Gayle
--
Gayle Karen K. Young
Chief Talent and Culture Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
p. 415.839.6885 x6691
c. 415.310.8416
www.wikimediafoundation.org
I read the official blog [1] about it, but it doesn't have rationale.
And I am too lazy to analyze it.
So, may someone give us the reasons why this fundraising finished so quickly.
I have to say that I'm very positively surprised by this fact, as I
was much more pessimistic in relation to the future fundraising.
The main question -- which could be just guessed if we have accurate
rationale for this fundraising record -- is how sustainable is the
growth (or even the stagnation with this amount of money)?
In relation to the question above, I'd be much more happy to hear that
this is the product of staff's work, than the product of some global
social changes. Although it would be great if the world is changing so
quickly, it's much more unpredictable variable than work inside of the
organization.
[1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/12/27/wikimedia-foundation-raises-25-million…
Numerous Wikipedians are leaving memorials on AaronSw's user talk page on English Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AaronSw
I've also added a link to there from Aaron's entry in WP:RIP.
Pine
Ziko,
Thanks for these thoughtful posts, it's always good to consider the long
term and what we might learn from our experience on other projects. Of
course, it's up to the Wikivoyagers themselves to decide how they want to
run their project, but a bit of advice and insight never hurts!
The Australian businessman Kerry Packer once quipped that before Parliament
made a law, they should be required to first repeal one. While we cannot
make this a requirement on Wikimedia projects, it's a good rule of thumb to
live by. On English Wikipedia, we have a dense tangle of rules, policies
and essays that has raised the bar for entry to new users. This tangle has
developed over the years as a result of kneejerk reactions to things like
the Siegenthaler incident and the Essjay controversy. With a relatively
clean slate upon which to write, the Wikivoyagers can consider the
structure of their project in a holistic way, being proactive in thinking
about how they will manage such incidents before they actually arise, and
avoid choking their project up with hundreds of rules created as a reaction
to unfortunate incidents that could have been avoided by deciding on a
simple set of rules to start with, and then consistently enforcing them.
Not being a travel writer, I don't have the foggiest on where the lines
should be drawn, that should be left to the experts on the projects (with
input and assistance from the WMF legal department, ideally). But it
sounds like they're already off to a good start if the project "still a
rather limited set of rules, and wishes to remain so."
Kind Regards,
Craig Franklin