I like this for the interface, and as you said for the screen reading
function. I hear WMF is working on some TTS thing now?
Not sure it would significantly alter my ratios at the moment, especially
given its rather low takeup (i presume). In your example, it would actually
make the ratio worse for Wikipedia, providing evidence for more than one
statement per sentence ;-)
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:53 PM Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ugh. This:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2#Example
Anthony Cole
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ugh.I just edited the page and now it's not
working. Try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2/Example
Anthony Cole
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically
> discern what a <ref> refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph." Check
> out the first paragraph and its references here:
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral.
>
> Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your
> MediaWiki preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what each
> reference is supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting the
> supported text on the page, rather than having it appear in a tool tip.
>
> I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that
screen
> readers can read it.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske <
> magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those at
>> the
>> > end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of references
>> at
>> > the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my point.
>> Many
>> > editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
>> > paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences
after
>> the
>> > last footnote marker.
>> >
>> > There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
>> >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote
>> marker
>> > supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the sentences at the
>> > beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be counted as
unsourced
>> > statements.
>> >
>>
>> Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern
>> what
>> a <ref> refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As described, my
>> "one
>> sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound of statement numbers.
So
>> is my <ref> count, then. I am
certain you can find an article where my
>> statement-to-reference ratio is off against WIkipedia; but I believe I
>> could find more instances where it is in favour of Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just
>> doesn't
>> > matter which project is more poorly referenced.
>> >
>>
>> Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care
:-)
>>
>> My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one
>> can't
>> "sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor referencing.
>> Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things). That
>> is
>> all.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Magnus
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Anthony Cole
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > 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
>> > > paragraphs.
>> > >
>> > > 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
>> > > article leads.
>> > >
>> > > 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
>> > > appalling.
>> > >
>> > > 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.
>> > >
>> > > Anthony Cole
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Magnus Manske <
>> > > magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole <
ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > Hi Magnus.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me
to an
>> essay
>> > >> [1]
>> > >> > earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that
you were
>> > >> addressing
>> > >> > me.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here.
You
>> > describe
>> > >> a
>> > >> > formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by
reliable
>> > >> sources.
>> > >> > Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each
>> sentence
>> > >> > contains one statement of fact and compare the number of
sentences
>> > with
>> > >> the
>> > >> > number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the
>> references
>> > >> per
>> > >> > 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.
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >> Correct.
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio
>> because
>> > >> whole
>> > >> > 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
>> > >>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams
>> > >> This sentence alone contains nine statements (first names, last
>> name,
>> > >> birth
>> > >> date, death date, nationality, the fact he's human, and three
>> > >> occupations).
>> > >> 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
>> > >> should
>> > >> > be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not
really very
valid
>> > >> > arguments.
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >> I agree. Which is why I never made such arguments. Please don't
put
>> them
>> > >> in
>> > >> 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
>> > >> one
>> > >> 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)
>> > >>
>> > >> Cheers,
>> > >> Magnus
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 1.
http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Anthony Cole
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels <
>> andreengels(a)gmail.com>
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > 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
>> > >> do
>> > >> > > well
>> > >> > > > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early
incarnation,
>> was not
>> > >> > quite
>> > >> > > up
>> > >> > > > to the job.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on
some
>> technical
>> > >> or
>> > >> > > > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing
worthless,
>> even
>> > >> > > > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This
behaviour, I
>> have
>> > >> seen
>> > >> > > time
>> > >> > > > 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
>> > >> > Made
>> > >> > > > 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
>> > >
>> > >> > > wrote:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >> Magnus, you've missed the point of the
visual editor
revolt.
>> A
>> > >> couple
>> > >> > of
>> > >> > > >> 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.
>> > >> The
>> > >> > > >> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not
veteran
editors.
>> Not
>> > >> > > newbies.
>> > >> > > >> Newbies who used it were less likely to
successfully
>> complete an
>> > >> edit.
>> > >> > > It
>> > >> > > >> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use
it.
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> The second part of the problem was arrogance.
Yes, a few
>> editors
>> > >> were
>> > >> > > >> unnecessarily rude about the product and the
developers.
But
>> then
>> > >> most
>> > >> > > of
>> > >> > > >> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the
community
>> > >> arrogantly
>> > >> > > >> characterised *anyone* who complained about the
product as
an
>> > >> > ignorant,
>> > >> > > >> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with
that
>> characterisation
>> > >> now.
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from
that, and
>> they
>> > have
>> > >> > > >> fostered a much healthier relationship between
the
>> developers and
>> > >> the
>> > >> > > >> community. You clearly haven't learned all
you might have.
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you
here and
in
>> the
>> > >> > > concurrent
>> > >> > > >> thread titled "How to disseminate free
knowledge," and from
>> Denny
>> > >> in
>> > >> > > >> earlier threads addressing criticism of
WikiData, it seems
>> to me
>> > >> there
>> > >> > > is
>> > >> > > >> still a significant arrogance problem that needs
addressing,
>> at
>> > >> least
>> > >> > > over
>> > >> > > >> at WikiData.
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe
even
>> insultingly,
>> > >> about
>> > >> > > an
>> > >> > > >> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified
in talking
>> down
>> > to
>> > >> > > them or
>> > >> > > >> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.).
But if you
>> can't
>> > >> > > distinguish
>> > >> > > >> them from those who approach you with genuine
concerns and
>> > >> > well-founded
>> > >> > > >> criticisms, then no matter how clever you think
your
>> technical
>> > >> > solutions
>> > >> > > >> are, you will soon find you're no more
welcome here than
>> those
>> > WMF
>> > >> > > staffers
>> > >> > > >> who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a
good
career
>> > move.
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid
criticisms of his
>> > project,
>> > >> and
>> > >> > > your
>> > >> > > >> contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms
of the early
>> > visual
>> > >> > > editor
>> > >> > > >> 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
>> > >> basic
>> > >> > > >> > functions easily and intuitively, and
looked shiny at the
>> same
>> > >> time.
>> > >> > > We
>> > >> > > >> do
>> > >> > > >> > not charge a price; our "win"
comes by people using our
>> > product.
>> > >> If
>> > >> > we
>> > >> > > >> can
>> > >> > > >> > present the product in such a way that more
people use
it,
>> it
>> > is
>> > >> a
>> > >> > > >> success
>> > >> > > >> > for us.
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> > I do stand by my example :-)
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael
Peel <
>> > >> email(a)mikepeel.net>
>> > >> > > >> wrote:
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> > >
>> > >> > > >> > > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus
Manske <
>> > >> > > magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> > > wrote:
>> > >> > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >> > > > As one can be overly
conservative, one can also be
>> overly
>> > >> > > >> > enthusiastic. I
>> > >> > > >> > > > would hope the Foundation by now
understands better
>> how to
>> > >> > handle
>> > >> > > new
>> > >> > > >> > > > software releases. Apple here
shows the way: Basic
>> > >> > functionality,
>> > >> > > but
>> > >> > > >> > > > working smoothly first.
>> > >> > > >> > >
>> > >> > > >> > > But at a huge cost premium? I'm
not sure that's a good
>> > example
>> > >> to
>> > >> > > make
>> > >> > > >> > > 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:
>> > >> > >
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>
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > --
>> > >> > > André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.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:
>> >
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>
_______________________________________________
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>