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.
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.
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.
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.
1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels andreengels@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@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@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@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@mikepeel.net
wrote:
On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske <
magnusmanske@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe