On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:45 PM Jens Best <best.jens(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Magnus,
thanks for bringing yourself into the discussion.
I agree on several aspects you point out in the first half of your mail
about improvements, expectations and "prominent subgroups".
When it comes to re-emphasize this "castle"-narrative, I had the feeling
you wanna connect reasonable ideas of other ways into the future with all
the nay-sayers you described so detailed before. Same goes for the
"Wikidata is killing Wikipedia"-statement. Nobody in this
mailinglist-thread used this word "killing" or similiarly hard analogies.
So, what's again is the mission? You say: Dissemination of free knowledge.
Well, who would disagree on that. Nobody. But wait, isn't the whole
strategic debate about *HOW *to disseminate free knowledge? And assuming
that a simple "the more third parties use the Wikiprojects knowledge the
more we fulfill our mission"-answer is…wrong.
Really? So we started with a free license (GFDL) to allow reuse by third
parties, switched to a /different/ free license to make it /even easier/ to
reuse our content, provide APIs without even requiering a login, data
dumps, etc. and that's all wrong, because you say so?
May I point you to
https://www.wikimedia.org/ where it says:
"Wikimedia is a global movement whose mission is to bring free educational
content to the world."
Nupedia was a means to an end (an ineefective one, in hindsight). So is
Wikipedia. So are Commons, Wikidata, and all the other projects. They allow
us to create and collect free content. And they are also a way to
disseminate this content, but they are not the only one.
We prefer people to read Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia, because a few of
them will turn into editors, which they cannot do on any other site
(without forking). But as long as a reader gets knowledge from our content,
it does not matter if it is on Wikipedia or on
https://www.wikiwand.com/ or
some other site.
Even if 400 million of the 500 million (or so) readers would visit the
Wikipedia just to look up the birthday of Elvis Presley, it is *the
*characteristic
feature of an encylopedia in general and Wikipedia in special that you can
discover more knowledge about Elvis even without asking or even knowing
that you wanna know more about Elvis.
Knowledge unequals information. Knowledge is information plus culture, plus
personal interests, plus serendipity. That's why the same article has
different arrangements in different languages. That's why it is not only
about the facts, but also about the overview of the possible
classifications around the facts a good article is presenting.
Knowledge is about discovering and not about checking some facts with a
Q&A-mobile app. So the question is surely not about should we disseminate
free knowledge, but how can this be done with a spirit that comes from the
idea of an encyclopedia. Information is in the machine. Knowledge is in the
people. Without the (editing, programming, linking) people as an integral
part of the "dissemination procedure" the mission isn't the mission of
Wikipedia.
Again, you obviously have missed the mission statement. I can't see
"editing" anywhere in there. Yes, I would prefer people to read and edit on
Wikipedia. Having at least the /option/ to edit is good; but it is by no
means a requirement to get content to the reader.
I don't know how you come up with "no linking", but I certainly have not
suggested such a thing. Not sure what you mean by "programming" in this
context.
You might also gave glimpsed all the icons on the Wikimedia site that are
/not/ Wikipedia, but still "educational content". We have focused on
Wikipedia since the beginning, and it has become a great thing indeed.
There are others that have vast, as of yet unfulfilled, potential.
This idea might be not that fashionably going together with the recent
trends in web tech business developments, but it is surely not
"conservative" or castle-wall-building as some people try to frame it.
It is also not easy. It is even more complicate than good writing good
code, because it is about involving more people in this not so trendy, not
so quick'n'dirty, not so infotainmental, mobile app-stylish way of
"knowledge dissemination".
Everyone who has met me in person can confirm that I do not care about
fashion, and that remains true in tech as well. But dissing every new
approach as "trendy" is exactly the attitude that prevents change to the
system. What is that trendy "tech business development" of the printing
press, after all, when compared to beautiful, hand-illuminated manuscripts?
Out with that new "infotainmental" stuff!
So the debate is not about castle-building, but about how we together
re-shaping the ship called Wiki(pedia) to sail a daily demanding longterm
mission and not following every techbubble-trends just because "more is
better".
And this paragraph here proves that you haven't actually read anything I
wrote in the last few days. It also serves as a prefect example for the
self-righteous, get-off-my-lawn, stagnant spirit I criticize. "Following
every techbubble-trends just because 'more is
better'."? What have you been smoking?
I hope that the upcoming strategic debate is as open
as it needs to be.
I also wish for that. Sadly, judging from your previous statements, by
"open as it needs to be" will mean "closed to anything new".
A strategic debate which framework is already decided upon would only
increase the distance created also by recent events.
I, for one, have not decided on any such framework.
I hope this clarifies my POV, and doesn't offend too many people ;-)
What a witty and original remark!
Cheers,
Magnus
Best regards,
Jens Best
2016-01-18 21:33 GMT+01:00 Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>om>:
OK, long thread, I'll try to answer in one
here...
* I've been writing code for over thirty years now, so I'm the first to
say
that technology in not "the" answer to
social or structural issues. It
can,
however, mitigate some of those issues, or at
least show new ways of
dealing with them
* New things are not necessarily good just because they are new. What
seems
to be an improvement, especially for a technical
mind, can be a huge step
backwards for the "general population". On the other hand, projects like
the Visual Editor can make work easier for many people, but few of them
will realize what a daunting undertaking such a project is. The
complexity
of getting this right is staggering. Expectations
of getting it all
perfect, all feature-complete, on the initial release, are unrealistic to
say the least. And many of the details can not be tested between a few
developers; things need to be tested under real-world conditions, and
testing means they can break. Feedback about problems with a software
release are actually quite welcome, but condemning an entire product
forever because the first version didn't do everything 100% right is just
plain stupid. If Wikipedia had been judged by such standards in 2001,
there
would be no Wikipedia today, period. Technology
improves all the time, be
it Visual Editor, Media Viewer, or Wikidata; but in the community, there
is
a sense of "it was bad, it must be still
bad", and I have a feeling that
this is extended to new projects by default these days.
* In summary, what I criticize is that few people ask "how can we make
this
better"; all they ask is "how can we
get rid of it". This attitude
prevents
the development of just about any new approach.
If the result of a long,
thorough analysis is "it's bad, and it can't possibly be made better",
/then/ is the time to scrap it, but no sooner.
* Of course, "the community" is an ill-defined construct to begin with.
When I use that phrase above, I do mean a small but prominent subgroup in
that demographic, mostly "old hands" of good editors, often with a "fan
club" of people repeating the opinions of the former on talk pages,
without
really investigating on their own. After all,
they are good editors, so
they must know what they are talking about, right?
* As I tried to say in the interview, I do understand such a conservative
approach all to well. We worked hard for Wikipedia to get where it is
now,
and with trolls, on the left, vandals on the
right, and half-done tech
experiments in front, retreating into the safety of the castle seems
like a
good choice. And sometimes it is. But while we
can defend the castle
comfortably for some years to come, we will never grow beyond its walls.
I
think we are already seeing the first fallout
from this stagnation, in
terms of dropping page views (not to mention editors). If people stop
coming to a Wikipedia with 5 million articles, 10 million articles would
not make much difference by themselves; more content is good, but it will
not turn this supertanker around on its own. We do have some time left to
change things, without undue haste, but we won't have forever.
* Just to make sure, I am NOT saying to throw away all the things that
have
proven to work for us; I'm just saying we
shouldn't restrict us to them.
* As for this "Wikidata is killing Wikipedia" sentiment - bullshit. (I
would like to be more eloquent here, but for once, this is the perfect
word.) Wikipedia and Wikidata are two very different beasts, though they
do
have an overlap. And that overlap should be used
on Wikipedia, where it
can
help, even in the gigantic English Wikipedia,
which covers but a third of
Wikidata items. Transcluded data in infoboxes; automatically generated
lists; a data source for timelines. Those are functions that will improve
Wikipedia, and will help especially the hundreds of smaller language
editions that are just getting towards critical mass. And there,
automatically generated descriptions can help get to that mass, until
someone writes an actual article in that language.
* So Google is using Wikidata in their search results? Good! In case you
have forgotten, our mission is not to have a nice article about your pet
topic, or have humans write articles that are little better than
bot-generated stubs, or have your name in ten thousand article histories;
the mission is the dissemination of free knowledge. And the more third
parties use the knowledge we assemble, even (or especially!) if it is
that
other 800 pound gorilla on the web, the better we
fulfil that mission.
I hope this clarifies my POV, and doesn't offend too many people ;-)
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:10 PM Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I cannot speak for Magnus, but there’s a
distinction that needs to be
made:
Writing, “… all have been resisted by vocal groups of editors, not
because
they are a problem, but because they represent
change” is not maligning
all
editors who complain.
It simply says that those who resist innovation because it is a change
from
the status quo, and without solid reasoning,
should reconsider. The
detailed analysis of Jonathan Cardy and Risker criticizing VE’s
suboptimal
> 2013 launch are well-informed and legit. But many, unfortunately, don’t
> apply such high standards for analysis.
>
> -Andrew
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > After the assertion "From the Media Viewer, the Visual Editor, to
> Wikidata
> > transclusion, all have been resisted by vocal groups of editors, not
> > because they are a problem, but because they represent change," I
would
> > suggest a very large "citation
needed" tag.
> >
> > Pine
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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>