I was asked by a volunteer for help getting stats on the gender gap in
content on a certain Wikipedia, and came up with simple Wikidata Query
Service queries that pulled the total number of articles on a given
Wikipedia about men and about women, to calculate *the proportion of
articles about women out of all articles about humans*.
Then I was curious about how that wiki compared to other wikis, so I ran
the queries on a bunch of languages, and gathered the results into a table,
(please see the *caveat* there.)
I don't have time to fully write-up everything I find interesting in those
results, but I will quickly point out the following:
1. The Nepali statistic is simply astonishing! There must be a story
there. I'm keen on learning more about this, if anyone can shed light.
2. Evidently, ~13%-17% seems like a robust average of the proportion of
articles about women among all biographies.
3. among the top 10 largest wikis, Japanese is the least imbalanced. Good
job, Japanese Wikipedians! I wonder if you have a good sense of what
drives this relatively better balance. (my instinctive guess is pop culture
4. among the top 10 largest wikis, Russian is the most imbalanced.
5. I intend to re-generate these stats every two months or so, to
eventually have some sense of trends and changes.
6. Your efforts, particularly on small-to-medium wikis, can really make a
dent in these numbers! For example, it seems I am personally
responsible for almost 1% of the coverage of women on Hebrew Wikipedia!
7. I encourage you to share these numbers with your communities. Perhaps
you'd like to overtake the wiki just above yours? :)
8. I'm happy to add additional languages to the table, by request. Or you
can do it yourself, too. :)
 Yay #100wikidays :) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/100wikidays
Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
Being put together by Eliezer Yudkowsky of LessWrong. Content is
cc-by-sa 3.0, don't know about the software.
Rather than the "encyclopedia" approach, it tries to be more
pedagogical, teaching the reader at their level.
Analysis from a sometime Yudkowsky critic on Tumblr:
(there's a pile more comments linked from the notes on that post,
mostly from quasi-fans; I have an acerbic comment in there, but you
should look at the site yourself first.)
No idea if this will go anywhere, but might be of interest; new
approaches generally are. They started in December, first publicised
it a week ago and have been scaling up. First day it collapsed due to
load from a Facebook post announcement ... so maybe hold off before
announcing it everywhere :-)
(this is an announcement in my capacity as a volunteer.)
Inspired by a lightning talk at the recent CEE Meeting by our colleague
Lars Aronsson, I made a little command-line tool to automate batch
recording of pronunciations of words by native speakers, for uploading to
Commons and integration into Wiktionary etc. It is called *pronuncify*, is
written in Ruby and uses the sox(1) tool, and should work on any modern
Linux (and possibly OS X) machine. It is available here, with
I was then asked about a Windows version, and agreed to attempt one. This
version is called *pronuncify.net <http://pronuncify.net>*, and is a .NET
gooey GUI version of the same tool, with slightly different functions. It
is available here, with instructions.
Both tools require word-list files in plaintext, with one word (or phrase)
per line. Both tools name the files according to the standard established
in [[commons:Category:Pronunciation]], and convert them to Ogg Vorbis for
you, so they are ready to upload.
In the future, I may add OAuth-based direct uploading to Commons. If you
run into difficulties, please file issues on GitHub, for the appropriate
tool. Feedback is welcome.
Hi, how about a wikipedia about objects?
Instead of generic articles of , for example, "Ballpoint pen" or "Bic
cristal" it would be "Ballpoint pen Bic cristal 2014"
Doing these for millions of objects would allow people to have an open,
free, universal and central place to refer specific objects.
*Some possible applications:*
- Creating neutral and standard lists:
Nowadays if anyone create, for example, a tutorial for building
something (DIY projects, receipts, ...) they have to link all items to a
comercial or no-neutral web which could change its url in the future or
redirect it to adds or whatever.
Lists could be created in external webpages linking wikimedia objects
webpage or/and could be created as category pages in Wikipedia. For
example, currently, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_of_the_Year
article lists cars which won COTY award but not links to the specific car
(AUDI A3 Hatchback 2012 - Present) but generic serie (Audi A3).
The good thing at this point it's that to start creating object
lists only item name is necessary, no infoboxes or description needed.
- Universal repository for inventories:
Lot of business fill their inventories again and again with same data
("cardboard box 50x30x15", "step by step nema motor 17", ... ) they should
be able to import this data from a open website with their corresponding
info like GTIN , SKU , Barcode... and more in the future weight, size,
- Encourage Recycling and Reutilitation:
Imagine if we use wikidata properties (
"has part" and "part of" , people will find other uses for objects, or
discover were to find
- Social activism and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Companies have info and metrics about their costumers (habits, location,
...) why not costumers have info about companies products, who manufacture
what?, what products have a good carbon footprint
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint>?, what products have
been retired from some problem?, what are Fair Trade?. This also can moved
companies do better.
*Very rough roadmap*:
1. At the very begining, using wikidata infrestructure, objects would
only have common info like "name", " image", "related links"
First use cases could be doing lists or grouping objects by categories.
2. Step by step new fields could be added like "manufacturer" , "tags",
3. A separated website could be created. wikiobject.org isn't availiabe
so url could be something like objects.wikpedia.org
4. In a long-term in order to explote all the possibilities of this
project more complex fields and relations would have to be managed, like
for example "fridges with energy class A+++ and width less than 80 cm",
which could be easy if all always were similar but nothing further from
A friend of mine and me tried to build a demo version in an home-made
apache cassandra cluster four years ago, but we don't have enough resources
and knowledge for that.
In my humble opinion, problem with wikipedia funding It's that most part of
its users don't see culture as a need (sorry for that, I am a sporadic
donor). In Wikiobject case I think it could rather be different.
If part of companies business lies on this project, companies will be very
inclined to donate to improve performace, usability, etc.. maybe similar to
what happens in Linux.
Where came this need from? Data needed for some software to run, product
vissibility, costumer requests, etc ... , no advertisement needed, It could
be a need and standart.
I trully believe that world need something like this, and the correct
people to do it, to warranty openness and independence, are you.
thanks for your time and attention,
Back in February of 2015, the fundraising team engaged Lake Research
Partners (LRP) to conduct a detailed survey of English language Wikimedia
we look to continue to improve our efforts fundraising in non-EN languages
we decided to conduct a similar fact finding exercise in one of our larger
fundraising countries. Japan, being an affluent country with a large
population and where our projects have had a large reach, has in some ways
under-performed and seemed ripe to deliver the greatest impact for such
With that in mind we again partnered with Lake Research Partners to run two
focus groups consisting of readers and donors, and an online survey of 1000
Wikipedia readers and I am pleased to provide the findings of these
We found the results show mostly favorable attitudes toward Wikipedia, with
positive ratings on quality, look and feel, and readability, while accuracy
is rated lower and mentioned as a concern among focus groups participants.
We found a more urgent, direct translation was perceived as better than a
more natural translation. This may be because Japanese readers are less
likely to donate spontaneously than some of our Western audiences; donors
are generally motivated by significant events like natural disasters. We
will have to balance an urgent tone with frank politeness when crafting our
appeals, and are still working to find the right balance of direct and
natural translation. Soon there will be a follow up survey of
the Japanese Wikimedia community to help further our understanding and one
of several means by which we are improving and strengthening the community
involvement in movement fundraising.
Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)
Dear members of the Wikimedia community,
As you know the board passed a resolution allowing for the creation of a
standing Elections Committee in November of last year . Per the
implementing resolution, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) has appointed
the initial members from the recommendation of the Executive Director and
her staff. We will be starting with 6 committee members:
They will be joined by two official advisors from the Wikimedia Foundation:
James Alexander (Manager, Trust & Safety) from Community Engagement
Stephen LaPorte (Senior Legal Counsel) from the WMF Legal team
They will also be working closely with the BGC as a whole and especially
Nataliia and me. Because I may consider applying as a candidate in the
upcoming community-selection process I will be recusing for any discussions
involving that election.
The new committee, along with the BGC, will, of course, be able to choose
how many members and advisors they truly need and how to recruit the best
candidates. One of the first orders of business for the committee will be
to decide on a process for expanding its membership through some form of
open call. While there is an enormous amount of work for the committee to
do, it can be expected that they will begin looking at:
The selection of a committee Chair
The dates and process for the upcoming community selection process (and
consider shortening the terms and having community elections in early 2017,
so that the elected members would join the Board at April meeting).
The method of voting for that process both for the upcoming selection
and the future and
The composition of the board and how to ensure a steady supply of good
candidates (in particular, making sure that the candidates have the
skills and expertise matching the Board skill matrix while making sure that
the process is still owned by the community).
Just as the BGC is committed to greater transparency (see for example our
recent minutes), the committee will likely consult with the wider
Wikimedia community in developing and revising election procedures within
the scope of this charter to the greatest extent possible.
This day has been a long time coming and is the result of requests made by
multiple different temporary election committees over the years. I'm glad
to finally see it come to fruition and hope that it will allow our
selection process to continue to expand and improve well beyond the
record-breaking election we had in 2015.
Before I sign off I also wanted to call out the amazing work of the 2015
temporary Election Committee. They were put together in 2015 to do one
thing: run an election. They did that well (with almost 3x the
participation of the next largest year) but then they went well beyond the
call of duty in serving as an advisory body to the board, offering
invaluable feedback on how to fill the empty community selected seats we
saw this year. They did not have to do this, but they did it anyway, and I
hope that everyone can acknowledge the stress and courage that took.
Please join me in thanking the 2015 committee and welcoming the new
Dariusz Jemielniak ("pundit", current Board member)
-  https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Elections_Committee
-  See also my disclosure to the BGC on that matter:
Yesterday we participated in a TV program at Futura Channel (an important educational tv channel in Brasil) talking about collaboration and Wikipedia, including some information about our scientific event http://ccbwiki.wikimedia.org.br/.
The video is published online and listed in our site at http://www.wikimedia.org.br/participacao%20no%20canal%20futura (PT only)
That is the first Brazilian participation in a TV program with good local repercussion transmitted to the entire country.
Coordenador de Projetos
Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa
At the research mailing list two relevant activities were mentioned that do
not adequately take place.
* *Gamified interfaces for microcontributions à la Wikidata game*
** **Ubiquitous outreach, supported by dedicated technology*
The notion exists that it is possible to do all kind of technological
things to make things stand out more but the big problem is imho not
technological. It is not content, it is the awareness that marketing is
more than selling things.
A respected Wikimedian made the bold statement that "Wikipedia could
absolutely have 100x the number of editors it has now".I would argue that
this is correct
My question is not could marketing methods make a difference but what
objectives do we have that will benefit from a marketing approach. What
does it take to be more pro-active towards our objectives?
Interesting to see the drop in bytes sent to the Japan article and this
makes me think we should "fold up" article sections on desktop too for very
long articles, such as the Japan article. The benefits for mobile are
obvious, but this may be beneficial for slow desktop connections as well.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jon Robson <jrobson(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 5:20 PM
Subject: [WikimediaMobile] Mobile site is now lazy loading images
To: mobile-l <mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Wikimedia developers <
FYI after much experimentation, research and testing the mobile site has
been lazy loading images  since Thursday 18th August. This means if you
do not see an image you will not download it. We have taken care to ensure
barely notice the difference.
We are currently crunching the data this change has made and we plan to
write a blog post to reporting the results.
In our experiments on Japanese Wikipedia we saw a drop in image bytes per
page view by 54% On the Japanese Japan article bytes shipped to users
dropped from 1.443 MB to 142 kB.
This is pretty huge since bytes equate to money  and we expect this to
be significant on wikis where mobile data is more expensive. In a nutshell
Wikipedia mobile is cheaper.
As I said blog post to follow once we have more information, but please
report any bugs you are seeing with the implementation (we have already
found a few thanks to our community of editors).
Mobile-l mailing list
WikiConference North America 2016
7-10 October 2016, San Diego, CA, USA
SUBMISSIONS DEADLINE: August 31, 11:59pm Samoa Time!
WikiConference North America (formerly WikiConference USA) is the third
annual conference on the North American continent devoted to Wikipedia and
other Wikimedia projects. The weekend will feature both academic and casual
presentations on Wikimedia-related outreach activities, workshops to
improve the skills of grassroots organizers, and discussions on the past,
present, and future of the Wikimedia projects. The conference features
offerings about community outreach, online activity, partnerships with
institutions of knowledge, and technology.
Keynote speakers are scheduled to include Katherine Maher, Executive
Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, and Merrilee Proffitt, Senior Program
Officer of OCLC Research. The last day of the conference will feature
programming coinciding with Indigenous Peoples' Day.
Registration for the conference is now open. You can register at
Scholarships partially covering costs of travel and attendance are
available for active contributors to Wikimedia projects. Apply by August
23rd for scholarships at https://wikiconference.org/wiki/2016/Scholarships.
This is a volunteer run conference and volunteers are needed for any number
of tasks. If you are attending, please consider volunteering for at
We seek presentations addressing topics related to Wikipedia or open access
and culture. Presentations may be from any discipline regarding any
relevant topic. Please submit a description of your proposed presentation
using our online submission process at https://wikiconference.org/
wiki/Submissions. If you are interested in participating in the
peer-reviewed academic track, see our call for academic submissions at
- Sydney Poore (User:FloNight) and Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
(User:Rosiestep), conference organizers