Thanks for sharing this news, Rob. This is certainly a good news.
Regards,
Isaac
On Jul 17, 2018 8:14 PM, "Robert Fernandez" <wikigamaliel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Wikimedia District of Columbia is proud to be the recipient of $50,000 in
support from the Knight Prototype Fund, an initiative of the John S. and
James L. Knight Foundation. Wikimedia DC will collaborate with the
Smithsonian Institution on a project called the "Wiki Art Depiction
Explorer", an effort to create an interface for museum visitors and other
art enthusiasts to crowdsource metadata about visual depictions in museum
artworks. Making this data more accurate and robust will allow further and
deeper discovery of these works by anyone in the world.
The project was created by three longtime Wikimedia DC volunteers: Andrew
Lih, author of The Wikipedia Revolution, Effie Kapsalis, Chief of Content &
Communications Strategy at the Smithsonian Institution Archives, and Robert
Fernandez, member of the board of directors of Wikimedia DC. Andrew Lih
is currently in South Africa for Wikimania and looks forward to talking to
other Wikimedia volunteers about this project.
The aim of the Knight Prototype Fund is to support the development of
innovative ideas to use technology to engage people with the arts and
cultural institutions. The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation has
previously supported organizations and projects related to Wikimedia,
including the Wikimedia Foundation.
For the announcement from the Knight Foundation, see
https://knightfoundation.org/press/releases/knight-prototype-fund-awards-
projects-that-explore-avenues-for-connecting-people-with-
the-arts-through-tech
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia District of Columbia is proud to be the recipient of $50,000 in
support from the Knight Prototype Fund, an initiative of the John S. and
James L. Knight Foundation. Wikimedia DC will collaborate with the
Smithsonian Institution on a project called the "Wiki Art Depiction
Explorer", an effort to create an interface for museum visitors and other
art enthusiasts to crowdsource metadata about visual depictions in museum
artworks. Making this data more accurate and robust will allow further and
deeper discovery of these works by anyone in the world.
The project was created by three longtime Wikimedia DC volunteers: Andrew
Lih, author of The Wikipedia Revolution, Effie Kapsalis, Chief of Content &
Communications Strategy at the Smithsonian Institution Archives, and Robert
Fernandez, member of the board of directors of Wikimedia DC. Andrew Lih
is currently in South Africa for Wikimania and looks forward to talking to
other Wikimedia volunteers about this project.
The aim of the Knight Prototype Fund is to support the development of
innovative ideas to use technology to engage people with the arts and
cultural institutions. The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation has
previously supported organizations and projects related to Wikimedia,
including the Wikimedia Foundation.
For the announcement from the Knight Foundation, see
https://knightfoundation.org/press/releases/knight-prototype-fund-awards-pr…
Can we move the Department of Health and Human Services' National
Guideline Clearinghouse to Wikisource? Do we have contacts in HHS to
help?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/hhs-plans-to-delete-20-years-of-critical-medi…
"The Trump Administration is planning to eliminate a vast trove of
medical guidelines that for nearly 20 years has been a critical
resource for doctors, researchers and others in the medical community.
"Maintained by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [AHRQ],
part of the Department of Health and Human Services, the database is
known as the National Guideline Clearinghouse [NGC], and it’s
scheduled to “go dark,” in the words of an official there, on July
16.\\
https://www.ahrq.gov/gam/about/index.htmlhttps://www.ahrq.gov/gam/updates/index.html
Greetings from Russia!
This is to let you know that beginning with this Wikimania broadcasts
https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Program#Remote_attendance
we'll try to volunteer-interpret all Wikimedia live events (or recordings thereof) into Russian.
Last night we tested with a smartphone & tablet using Wikimedia Research Showcase - July 2018 as a source & it seems to be working well enough. We observed 5-7 sec. delay, speaker speed above 120 words per minute & audio quality affecting my delivery results, but that's quite bearable for the economy class ticket. As a qualified conference interpreter with some experience of helping international groups over the web, I can pull this through in my free time.
The idea came about seeing the leaked version of the video-address by our middle-aged & older Wikimedians from Wikipedias in the languages of Russia community recorded for Wikimania-2018 participants (I understand total collection is on the way to Cape Town with Oleg Abarnikov of Wikimedia Russia from Moscow). It seemed to hint our elders from among participants of our 33 Active Wikipedias & other projects https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Languages_of_Russia_Community_Use…
would actually also like to be exposed to whatever the English-speaking youngsters are learning via YouTube broadcasts. These local & Russian bilinguals are core contributors into local language Wikis, so respecting the request of our language guardians seemed important.
Regards,
farhad
--
Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 / skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan
Hoi,
Wikidata is a reflection of all the Wikimedia projects, particularly the
Wikipedias. Both Wikidata and Wikipedia are secondary sources and when two
Wikipedias have opposing information on singular information, it is a cop
out to state both "opinions" on Wikidata and leave it at that.
Given that Wikidata largely reflects what a Wikipedia indicates, it is
important to curate such differences. The first thing to consider is are we
interested at all in knowing about "false facts" and then how we can
indicate differences to our editing and reading community.
I have been editing about Africa for a long time now and I find that the
content about Africa is woefully underdeveloped. Best Wikipedia practice
has it that cities and villages are linked to "administrative territorial
entities" like provinces and districts and I have added such relations from
primary to secondary entities. Adding such information to villages and
cities as well is too much for me. The basic principle is that I am being
bold in doing so. I do relate to existing items and I have curated a lot of
crap data so far. The result is that Wikidata in places differs
considerably from Wikipedias, particularly the English Wikipedia.
As topics like the ones about Africa are severely underdeveloped, just
adding new data is a 100% improvement even when arguably adding sources is
a good thing. By being bold, by starting from a Wikipedia as a base line,
it is important to note that not adding sources is established practice in
Wikidata.
The issue I raise is that when "another" Wikipedia considers its
information superior, it is all too easy to make accusations of adding
"fake facts" particularly when it is not obvious that the "other" Wikipedia
provides better information. To counter such insular behaviour, it becomes
relevant to consider how we can indicate discrepancies between stated facts
in any Wikimedia project vis a vis Wikidata. Obviously it would be
wonderful when the total of all our projects are considered in a
visualisation.
Particularly when a subject is of little interest to our current editor
community, the data in the Wikipedias and by inference in Wikidata is weak.
Many of the subjects, Africa just as one example, are relevant to a public,
both a reading and editing public, that we want to develop. Without tools
that help us curate our differences we will rely on insular opinions and
every project is only a part of what we aim to achieve in all our projects.
We will have a hard time growing our audience.
NB this is an old, old issue and it is not going away.
Thanks,
GerardM
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-fruit…
On behalf of the WikiConference North America organizing team, I'm pleased
to announce that proposal submissions and scholarship applications are now
open! Both are due by August 15.
WikiConference North America 2018 is taking place in Columbus, Ohio, from
October 18-21. Our host is the Ohio State University Libraries, which
provides a great opportunity to work with the local libraries and cultural
institutions.
For submissions, we are looking forward to seeing proposals for
presentations, workshops, roundtables, panels, and more. We also have an
academic peer review track this year.
Scholarship applications are open to Wikimedians who live in North America
and actively contribute to a Wikimedia project. Scholarship awards are $500
USD. The Wiki Education Foundation is also providing their own scholarships
for presenters participating in the academic peer review option.
Visit our website for more information and to submit:
https://wikiconference.org/wiki/2018/Main_Page
Thank you,
Kevin Payravi
SuperHamster on Wikimedia
Hi all,
Together with the Public Knowledge Workshop[1], a non-profit organization
whose mission is to release public information, we signed a Declaration of
Principles with the Israeli Parliament regarding the Open Law Book project
on Wikisource[2]. This project began in 2004 and is an initiative to make
all the laws and regulations passed by the parliament accessible to the
public in a clear and reliable manner. Recently, the Israeli Parliament
launched the National Legislation Database, which contains all information
and data regarding the state's laws. In the collaboration agreement signed
between the three stakeholders, it is agreed that the Nationals Legislation
Database will include links to the corresponding information in the Open
Law Book, while vice versa the database may freely use any information from
the Open Law Book. This collaboration will allow the public to have the
most up-to-date information in a clear and understandable way, and thus
also increase the transparency of legislation in Israel. This
groundbreaking achievement is an example to the kind of impact that open
knowledge initiatives can have on civil life.
*Michal Lester,*
*Executive DirectorWikimedia Israel*
*http://www.wikimedia.org.il <http://www.wikimedia.org.il/> *
* [1] http://www.hasadna.org.il/en/about/
<http://www.hasadna.org.il/en/about/>[2]
https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%98%D7%A7%D7%A1%D…
<https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%98%D7%A7%D7%A1%D…>
*
Hi,
I accidentally checked this meta page
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creation_of_separate_user_group_for_editing…>
today, when another editor forwarded me the link in Facebook. Here it has
been proposed that admins will be stripped off to edit js/css pages because
of security reasons. The way this is being handled is rather disturbing to
me.
1) Not all communities have been informed about this future change (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Distribution_list/Technical_Village_Pumps_d…
)
2) The comments in the meta talk page suggests that there is no intention
to get opinions from editor community members. Everything seems to be
pre-decided by the developer community and we dont have other options but
to accept the proposal without proper discussion.
(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Creation_of_separate_user_group_for_ed…
)
3) Many admins from smaller wikis have expressed their concerns that this
decision will severely affect the workflow of those wikis, but none of
these concerns are addressed.
4) Many editors have expressed concern over just 2 week short notice period
for this transition. But that concern is also not addressed.
Regards,
Bodhisattwa
Bengali community
Hi all,
As announced last month on this list[1], the Governance Assessment Report
by external auditors "Associés en gouvernance" has been published, and we
want to share it with you.
The auditors did a great work, first in their rather good understanding of
our movement complexity, and then in the numerous improvement suggestions
they delivered.
The consultation of our members – to fully associate them to the rebuilding
– is still in progress. Main changes will be submitted to a vote at next
General Assembly, by the end of the year.
The document has been translated in English and is now available on
Commons[2].
May these suggestions be useful not only for Wikimédia France, but also for
any other chapter or affiliate that would be in need of governance advice
or ideas.
Best regards,
Nadine Le Lirzin
*Wikimedia France Board Secretary*
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-June/090413.html
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_France_-_Governance_Asses…