Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and
don't see mention of you only
counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of
And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a paragraph if,
as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph often
supports all statements in the paragraph?
Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in his
response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because,
provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source in the
body of an article, citations are not expected or required in en.Wikipedia
Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating Wikipedia's
lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is
Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is worse".
You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's true but
still an invalid argument.
It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument.
Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding references is
difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it is easy
to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more difficult than adding
them to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will you?
You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the media viewer
and visual editor was the stoopid power users.
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Magnus Manske <
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole
I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay
earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at
the time that you were
Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe
formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is
supported by reliable
Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you
presume that each sentence
contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with
number of footnote markers. That ratio is what
you call the references
statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula
for arriving at the RPS
ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because
paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose
footnote marker appears
only once at the end of the paragraph.
Which is why I am counting reference markers within the paragraphs, not
references at the end. Every <ref> is sacred ;-)
Actually, I think my statement count for entire Wikipedia articles is low
(and thus, favourable to Wikipedia). Take jsut the first sentence at
This sentence alone contains nine statements (first names, last name,
date, death date, nationality, the fact he's human, and three
But I would only count that as one statement, as it is one sentence. This
reduces the number of statements I count in the article, but the number of
references (btw, only one in the entire lead section) remains constant,
thus pushing the RPS ratio in favour of Wikipedia.
But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it
be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is
worse" are not really very valid
I agree. Which is why I never made such arguments. Please don't put them
my mouth; I don't know you well enough for that.
The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If
that is so, you should fix that.
Actually, it is easy to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more
difficult than adding them to Wikipedia. I have written bots and
drag'n'drop scripts to make it even easier. It is a little fiiddly to add
book references, but still reasoably possible.
What /is/ difficult is to do this automatically, by bot. But pick a random
Wikidata entry, and with a little googling, many statements can be
referenced to URLs. But this takes time.
Which brings me back to my blog post: Even after ~3 years, Wikidata is
referenced not too badly, compared to Wikipedia. And if we have learned
thing from Wikipedia, it is that the state in general, and references in
particular, will improve over time.
So to everyone who disses Wikidata because of "missing references", I say:
1. You're wrong (it's already OK)
2. Patience (it will get even better)
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com>
> The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
> new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
> exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
> as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
> had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
> editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to
> be, because I know you have done many good things.
> And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
> Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering
> skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did,
> they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
> term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
> it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
> disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
> etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.
> I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
> in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
> see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
> large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
> resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
> forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the
> issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is
> instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
> resistance against the product as a whole.
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
> <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this
> thread. I
> > have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I
> remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not
> > to the job.
> > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical
> > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the
entire thing worthless, even
> > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have
> and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
> It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
> It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not
> > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com>
> >> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A
> >> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
> >> persisting with your idée fixe.
> >> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually.
> >> product wasn't ready for anyone
to use. Not veteran editors. Not
> >> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an
> >> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
> >> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors
> >> unnecessarily rude about the
product and the developers. But then
> >> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community
characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an
> >> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation
> >> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have
> >> fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and
> >> community. You clearly haven't
learned all you might have.
> >> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the
> >> thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny
> >> earlier threads addressing
criticism of WikiData, it seems to me
> >> still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at
> >> at WikiData.
> >> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly,
>> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down to
>> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't
>> them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and
>> criticisms, then no matter how clever
you think your technical
> >> are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than those WMF
> >> who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career move.
> >> Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his project,
> >> contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early visual
> >> and its launch are both very disappointing.
> >> Anthony Cole
> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske <
> >> magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do the
> >> > functions easily and
intuitively, and looked shiny at the same
> >> do
> >> > not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our
> >> can
> >> > present the product in such a way that more people use it, it is
> >> success
> >> > for us.
> >> >
> >> > I do stand by my example :-)
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael Peel <
>> > >
>> > > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske <
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > As one can be overly conservative, one can also be overly
>> > enthusiastic. I
>> > > > would hope the Foundation by now understands better how to
>> > > > software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic
> >> > > > working smoothly first.
> >> > >
> >> > > But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's a good
>> > > here. :-/
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Mike
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > Unsubscribe:
>> > > <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe:
>> > <mailto:email@example.com
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe:
> >> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
> André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org