I cant believe this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/The_World_C... has got WMF funding, the idea of trying to create 100,000 stub articles on english wikipedia without any thought to how it'll impact on the community.
I find it ironic that a competition is being funded to encourage current contributors to do what we wont accept from new editors. If a new editor was to create an article it wouldnt pass through the Articles for Creation process because its half the size of the minimum set there. Many of the competition articles will just get tagged CSD - A1, A7, A9 even G2
While there is a nice bot that will count the size of the prose, there is no automated process for checking copyright violations, checking for notability and most importantly checking for BLP with the aim of 100,000 the community will years to clean up the mess that is about to be created.
we are 15 days from this disaster commencing
Hoi, When you read the article you link to, it is explicitly about destubification and not about new stubs.
Given this intend, I do not see it as a problem. Actually I do not mind more women entries in Wikidata.. But hey, that is my thing :_ Thanks, GerardM
On 15 October 2017 at 16:02, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I cant believe this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_ in_Red/The_World_Contest has got WMF funding, the idea of trying to create 100,000 stub articles on english wikipedia without any thought to how it'll impact on the community.
I find it ironic that a competition is being funded to encourage current contributors to do what we wont accept from new editors. If a new editor was to create an article it wouldnt pass through the Articles for Creation process because its half the size of the minimum set there. Many of the competition articles will just get tagged CSD - A1, A7, A9 even G2
While there is a nice bot that will count the size of the prose, there is no automated process for checking copyright violations, checking for notability and most importantly checking for BLP with the aim of 100,000 the community will years to clean up the mess that is about to be created.
we are 15 days from this disaster commencing
-- G nangarra _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Correction:
There is a tool that automatically checks for copyright infringement. It is called CopyPatrol
https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en
James
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I cant believe this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/The_World_C... has got WMF funding, the idea of trying to create 100,000 stub articles on english wikipedia without any thought to how it'll impact on the community.
I find it ironic that a competition is being funded to encourage current contributors to do what we wont accept from new editors. If a new editor was to create an article it wouldnt pass through the Articles for Creation process because its half the size of the minimum set there. Many of the competition articles will just get tagged CSD - A1, A7, A9 even G2
While there is a nice bot that will count the size of the prose, there is no automated process for checking copyright violations, checking for notability and most importantly checking for BLP with the aim of 100,000 the community will years to clean up the mess that is about to be created.
we are 15 days from this disaster commencing
-- G nangarra _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
"The nerve of these women, to think that they can write encyclopedia articles on women who must inherently be non-notable! There's nothing to write about here."
That's basically what your email says. No complaints when the subject is anything else from you, when these thematic editing are held on other subjects.
This looks like a wondeful initiative, not a disaster.
There are still over 2,700 known notable women scientists without stubs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Missing_art...
And those are just the women scientists who made it on to Wikidata but not Wiktionary somehow. The old ISI/Thompson Reuters Web of Science list was a lot longer. I don't think 100,000 stubs is an unreasonable number.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
"The nerve of these women, to think that they can write encyclopedia articles on women who must inherently be non-notable! There's nothing to write about here."
That's basically what your email says. No complaints when the subject is anything else from you, when these thematic editing are held on other subjects.
This looks like a wondeful initiative, not a disaster. _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
"The nerve of these women, to think that they can write encyclopedia articles on women who must inherently be non-notable! There's nothing to write about here."
That's basically what your email says. No complaints when the subject is anything else from you, when these thematic editing are held on other subjects.
Please avoid personal attacks based on hidden motivations you assume other parties to have; it's contrary to the Wikimedia movement's social best practices [1] and bound to take discussions in unproductive directions. When criticizing what someone said, stick to what they actually said. Especially so if your accusation of bad faith would be essentially content-free.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Gergő Tisza gtisza@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
"The nerve of these women, to think that they can write encyclopedia articles on women who must inherently be non-notable! There's nothing to write about here."
That's basically what your email says. No complaints when the subject is anything else from you, when these thematic editing are held on other subjects.
Please avoid personal attacks based on hidden motivations you assume other parties to have; it's contrary to the Wikimedia movement's social best practices [1] and bound to take discussions in unproductive directions. When criticizing what someone said, stick to what they actually said. Especially so if your accusation of bad faith would be essentially content-free.
Todd, Gnangarra, Gergő,
My intention, as I touched on earlier, was not to make a personal attack but to address the tone in which I perceived the email to be written. I don't believe Gnangarra is actually sexist. I certainly stand by my position that the content of the initial post is unhelpful criticism and mostly hyperbole, but I'm more than willing to apologize if my language came across as a personal attack. I could have written it differently. So, sorry about that.
No worries Keegan I read it as sarcastic, given the amount of noise on here I chose my tone intentionally to draw attention to the competition, yes it looks like a wonderful idea until to look at the mechanics of comeptition given it has a start time in 2 weeks, people are being encourage to start now in sandboxes, its being advertised on banners yet it has very obvious under lying issues
- unrealistic targets - quantity not quality - an expectation that competitors are required to do half of what is expected from new editors , we should hold ourselves and expect of higher standards than that we expect from new comers - no methodology for notability. blp, copyright issues arent weeded out during the event or judging - judging is done by a bot just doing a count
To win this event all you need is a list, a script, and reliable internet connection, despite having so many signed up well experience good editors on the list. <sarcasm> Sadly one person using a Wikidata script to create articles could be the winner, just imagine the unimaginable frankenstienian horror that would create </sarcasm>
Any competition that relies on numbers alone is fraught with danger, the big international events all succeed not because of numbers but because of large teams(this run by one person alone) focused on quality with the whole processes divided into manageable opt-in regional sections. All the initiatives to focus on under represented topics need to be careful few thousands of poor quality stubs about women is more harmful than having nothing as people will perceive Wikipedia to be paying lip service to women.
On 16 October 2017 at 07:18, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Gergő Tisza gtisza@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Keegan Peterzell <
keegan.wiki@gmail.com>
wrote:
"The nerve of these women, to think that they can write encyclopedia articles on women who must inherently be non-notable! There's nothing
to
write about here."
That's basically what your email says. No complaints when the subject
is
anything else from you, when these thematic editing are held on other subjects.
Please avoid personal attacks based on hidden motivations you assume
other
parties to have; it's contrary to the Wikimedia movement's social best practices [1] and bound to take discussions in unproductive directions. When criticizing what someone said, stick to what they actually said. Especially so if your accusation of bad faith would be essentially content-free.
Todd, Gnangarra, Gergő,
My intention, as I touched on earlier, was not to make a personal attack but to address the tone in which I perceived the email to be written. I don't believe Gnangarra is actually sexist. I certainly stand by my position that the content of the initial post is unhelpful criticism and mostly hyperbole, but I'm more than willing to apologize if my language came across as a personal attack. I could have written it differently. So, sorry about that.
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Emily (User:Keilana) is having some trouble getting mails through to this list, so I'm forwarding this on her behalf in case it's an issue with her email address.
"This is some sexist bullshit. You really think we can't handle some stubs? And do you really, really think that people won't try to AFD everything that comes out of this contest as it is?
I'm sick and tired of this idea that we have to hold shit about women to a higher standard than literally anything else. The encyclopedia isn't going to break because, god forbid, some inexperienced newbies write a bunch of stubs.
And so what if people think we're paying lip service to women? It's better than being seen as being actively hostile to women, which, as I shouldn't have to remind you, is our reputation as it currently stands."
– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
No worries Keegan I read it as sarcastic, given the amount of noise on here I chose my tone intentionally to draw attention to the competition, yes it looks like a wonderful idea until to look at the mechanics of comeptition given it has a start time in 2 weeks, people are being encourage to start now in sandboxes, its being advertised on banners yet it has very obvious under lying issues
- unrealistic targets
- quantity not quality
- an expectation that competitors are required to do half of what is
expected from new editors , we should hold ourselves and expect of higher standards than that we expect from new comers
- no methodology for notability. blp, copyright issues arent weeded out
during the event or judging
- judging is done by a bot just doing a count
To win this event all you need is a list, a script, and reliable internet connection, despite having so many signed up well experience good editors on the list. <sarcasm> Sadly one person using a Wikidata script to create articles could be the winner, just imagine the unimaginable frankenstienian horror that would create </sarcasm>
Any competition that relies on numbers alone is fraught with danger, the big international events all succeed not because of numbers but because of large teams(this run by one person alone) focused on quality with the whole processes divided into manageable opt-in regional sections. All the initiatives to focus on under represented topics need to be careful few thousands of poor quality stubs about women is more harmful than having nothing as people will perceive Wikipedia to be paying lip service to women.
On 16 October 2017 at 07:18, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Gergő Tisza gtisza@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Keegan Peterzell <
keegan.wiki@gmail.com>
wrote:
"The nerve of these women, to think that they can write encyclopedia articles on women who must inherently be non-notable! There's nothing
to
write about here."
That's basically what your email says. No complaints when the subject
is
anything else from you, when these thematic editing are held on other subjects.
Please avoid personal attacks based on hidden motivations you assume
other
parties to have; it's contrary to the Wikimedia movement's social best practices [1] and bound to take discussions in unproductive directions. When criticizing what someone said, stick to what they actually said. Especially so if your accusation of bad faith would be essentially content-free.
Todd, Gnangarra, Gergő,
My intention, as I touched on earlier, was not to make a personal attack but to address the tone in which I perceived the email to be written. I don't believe Gnangarra is actually sexist. I certainly stand by my position that the content of the initial post is unhelpful criticism and mostly hyperbole, but I'm more than willing to apologize if my language came across as a personal attack. I could have written it differently.
So,
sorry about that.
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
address
is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Also, in case it's not clear from my forwarding of Emily's/Keilana's message, I endorse it completely and am glad she made her points.
I agree fully with Keegan and Sydney. I don't think the concerns that this will be overtaken by bots are well-founded; that was planned for in the document outlining the competition, and editors involved in this project will be subject to all expectations of normal editors (including not mass-producing poor-quality content).
As for Keegan's original post, there is a major difference between describing an email as sexist versus labeling the sender as a sexist. I believe Keegan meant the former, and I'm not sure anything he's said can be described as an attack on the sender so much as a valid criticism of poor wording.
– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:44 PM, GorillaWarfare <gorillawarfarewikipedia@ gmail.com> wrote:
Emily (User:Keilana) is having some trouble getting mails through to this list, so I'm forwarding this on her behalf in case it's an issue with her email address.
"This is some sexist bullshit. You really think we can't handle some stubs? And do you really, really think that people won't try to AFD everything that comes out of this contest as it is?
I'm sick and tired of this idea that we have to hold shit about women to a higher standard than literally anything else. The encyclopedia isn't going to break because, god forbid, some inexperienced newbies write a bunch of stubs.
And so what if people think we're paying lip service to women? It's better than being seen as being actively hostile to women, which, as I shouldn't have to remind you, is our reputation as it currently stands."
– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
No worries Keegan I read it as sarcastic, given the amount of noise on here I chose my tone intentionally to draw attention to the competition, yes it looks like a wonderful idea until to look at the mechanics of comeptition given it has a start time in 2 weeks, people are being encourage to start now in sandboxes, its being advertised on banners yet it has very obvious under lying issues
- unrealistic targets
- quantity not quality
- an expectation that competitors are required to do half of what is
expected from new editors , we should hold ourselves and expect of higher standards than that we expect from new comers
- no methodology for notability. blp, copyright issues arent weeded out
during the event or judging
- judging is done by a bot just doing a count
To win this event all you need is a list, a script, and reliable internet connection, despite having so many signed up well experience good editors on the list. <sarcasm> Sadly one person using a Wikidata script to create articles could be the winner, just imagine the unimaginable frankenstienian horror that would create </sarcasm>
Any competition that relies on numbers alone is fraught with danger, the big international events all succeed not because of numbers but because of large teams(this run by one person alone) focused on quality with the whole processes divided into manageable opt-in regional sections. All the initiatives to focus on under represented topics need to be careful few thousands of poor quality stubs about women is more harmful than having nothing as people will perceive Wikipedia to be paying lip service to women.
On 16 October 2017 at 07:18, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Gergő Tisza gtisza@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Keegan Peterzell <
keegan.wiki@gmail.com>
wrote:
"The nerve of these women, to think that they can write encyclopedia articles on women who must inherently be non-notable! There's
nothing
to
write about here."
That's basically what your email says. No complaints when the
subject
is
anything else from you, when these thematic editing are held on
other
subjects.
Please avoid personal attacks based on hidden motivations you assume
other
parties to have; it's contrary to the Wikimedia movement's social best practices [1] and bound to take discussions in unproductive
directions.
When criticizing what someone said, stick to what they actually said. Especially so if your accusation of bad faith would be essentially content-free.
Todd, Gnangarra, Gergő,
My intention, as I touched on earlier, was not to make a personal attack but to address the tone in which I perceived the email to be written. I don't believe Gnangarra is actually sexist. I certainly stand by my position that the content of the initial post is unhelpful criticism and mostly hyperbole, but I'm more than willing to apologize if my language came across as a personal attack. I could have written it differently.
So,
sorry about that.
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
address
is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l 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
Dear All,
I can only agree with GorillaWarfare. I am also tired of having to proove anything concernig gender has to be perfect, when the whole principle of Wikipedia is that everything is always perfectible. I think we should assume good faith and avoid <sarcastic> comments. Doing nothing about the gender gap would not bring a positive image of our movement. The gap is huge and we do need quantity. Readers noticing mistakes sometimes become contributors (dont we need new contributors?). Chosing such a tone “intentionally” (citing Gnangarra) is something I find shocking. I think criticism is good to make progress, one does not need to fuel resentmemt by making it <sarcastic>.
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat / Natacha
Le 16 oct. 2017 à 05:51, GorillaWarfare gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com a écrit :
Also, in case it's not clear from my forwarding of Emily's/Keilana's message, I endorse it completely and am glad she made her points.
I agree fully with Keegan and Sydney. I don't think the concerns that this will be overtaken by bots are well-founded; that was planned for in the document outlining the competition, and editors involved in this project will be subject to all expectations of normal editors (including not mass-producing poor-quality content).
As for Keegan's original post, there is a major difference between describing an email as sexist versus labeling the sender as a sexist. I believe Keegan meant the former, and I'm not sure anything he's said can be described as an attack on the sender so much as a valid criticism of poor wording.
– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:44 PM, GorillaWarfare <gorillawarfarewikipedia@ gmail.com> wrote:
Emily (User:Keilana) is having some trouble getting mails through to this list, so I'm forwarding this on her behalf in case it's an issue with her email address.
"This is some sexist bullshit. You really think we can't handle some stubs? And do you really, really think that people won't try to AFD everything that comes out of this contest as it is?
I'm sick and tired of this idea that we have to hold shit about women to a higher standard than literally anything else. The encyclopedia isn't going to break because, god forbid, some inexperienced newbies write a bunch of stubs.
And so what if people think we're paying lip service to women? It's better than being seen as being actively hostile to women, which, as I shouldn't have to remind you, is our reputation as it currently stands."
– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
No worries Keegan I read it as sarcastic, given the amount of noise on here I chose my tone intentionally to draw attention to the competition, yes it looks like a wonderful idea until to look at the mechanics of comeptition given it has a start time in 2 weeks, people are being encourage to start now in sandboxes, its being advertised on banners yet it has very obvious under lying issues
- unrealistic targets
- quantity not quality
- an expectation that competitors are required to do half of what is
expected from new editors , we should hold ourselves and expect of higher standards than that we expect from new comers
- no methodology for notability. blp, copyright issues arent weeded out
during the event or judging
- judging is done by a bot just doing a count
To win this event all you need is a list, a script, and reliable internet connection, despite having so many signed up well experience good editors on the list. <sarcasm> Sadly one person using a Wikidata script to create articles could be the winner, just imagine the unimaginable frankenstienian horror that would create </sarcasm>
Any competition that relies on numbers alone is fraught with danger, the big international events all succeed not because of numbers but because of large teams(this run by one person alone) focused on quality with the whole processes divided into manageable opt-in regional sections. All the initiatives to focus on under represented topics need to be careful few thousands of poor quality stubs about women is more harmful than having nothing as people will perceive Wikipedia to be paying lip service to women.
On 16 October 2017 at 07:18, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Gergő Tisza gtisza@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Keegan Peterzell <
keegan.wiki@gmail.com>
wrote:
"The nerve of these women, to think that they can write encyclopedia articles on women who must inherently be non-notable! There's
nothing
to
write about here."
That's basically what your email says. No complaints when the
subject
is
anything else from you, when these thematic editing are held on
other
subjects.
Please avoid personal attacks based on hidden motivations you assume
other
parties to have; it's contrary to the Wikimedia movement's social best practices [1] and bound to take discussions in unproductive
directions.
When criticizing what someone said, stick to what they actually said. Especially so if your accusation of bad faith would be essentially content-free.
Todd, Gnangarra, Gergő,
My intention, as I touched on earlier, was not to make a personal attack but to address the tone in which I perceived the email to be written. I don't believe Gnangarra is actually sexist. I certainly stand by my position that the content of the initial post is unhelpful criticism and mostly hyperbole, but I'm more than willing to apologize if my language came across as a personal attack. I could have written it differently.
So,
sorry about that.
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
address
is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
This has nothing to do with Gender,
The issue is the standards required and the aim of the event not the subjects of the content....
The event set a minimum standard at 0.75k per article created, new editors going through articles for creation are required to have 1.5k of prose which is twice the requirement for this competition.
I'll repeat we should not expect more from new editors than we do from existing editors, regardless of the subject. With any competition we should be expecting a higher amount than the minimum from existing community members, mass creation of stubs is not the best way to address to encourage those editors to take an interest in developing subjects.
Any competition of this magnitude should also have the resources to ensure that in the process we dont do more damage
On 16 October 2017 at 13:57, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com wrote:
Dear All,
I can only agree with GorillaWarfare. I am also tired of having to proove anything concernig gender has to be perfect, when the whole principle of Wikipedia is that everything is always perfectible. I think we should assume good faith and avoid <sarcastic> comments. Doing nothing about the gender gap would not bring a positive image of our movement. The gap is huge and we do need quantity. Readers noticing mistakes sometimes become contributors (dont we need new contributors?). Chosing such a tone “intentionally” (citing Gnangarra) is something I find shocking. I think criticism is good to make progress, one does not need to fuel resentmemt by making it <sarcastic>.
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat / Natacha
Le 16 oct. 2017 à 05:51, GorillaWarfare <gorillawarfarewikipedia@
gmail.com> a écrit :
Also, in case it's not clear from my forwarding of Emily's/Keilana's message, I endorse it completely and am glad she made her points.
I agree fully with Keegan and Sydney. I don't think the concerns that
this
will be overtaken by bots are well-founded; that was planned for in the document outlining the competition, and editors involved in this project will be subject to all expectations of normal editors (including not mass-producing poor-quality content).
As for Keegan's original post, there is a major difference between describing an email as sexist versus labeling the sender as a sexist. I believe Keegan meant the former, and I'm not sure anything he's said can
be
described as an attack on the sender so much as a valid criticism of poor wording.
– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:44 PM, GorillaWarfare
<gorillawarfarewikipedia@
gmail.com> wrote:
Emily (User:Keilana) is having some trouble getting mails through to
this
list, so I'm forwarding this on her behalf in case it's an issue with
her
email address.
"This is some sexist bullshit. You really think we can't handle some stubs? And do you really, really think that people won't try to AFD everything that comes out of this contest as it is?
I'm sick and tired of this idea that we have to hold shit about women
to a
higher standard than literally anything else. The encyclopedia isn't
going
to break because, god forbid, some inexperienced newbies write a bunch
of
stubs.
And so what if people think we're paying lip service to women? It's
better
than being seen as being actively hostile to women, which, as I
shouldn't
have to remind you, is our reputation as it currently stands."
– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
No worries Keegan I read it as sarcastic, given the amount of noise on here I chose my tone intentionally to draw attention to the competition,
yes it
looks like a wonderful idea until to look at the mechanics of
comeptition
given it has a start time in 2 weeks, people are being encourage to
start
now in sandboxes, its being advertised on banners yet it has very
obvious
under lying issues
- unrealistic targets
- quantity not quality
- an expectation that competitors are required to do half of what is
expected from new editors , we should hold ourselves and expect of higher standards than that we expect from new comers
- no methodology for notability. blp, copyright issues arent weeded
out
during the event or judging
- judging is done by a bot just doing a count
To win this event all you need is a list, a script, and reliable
internet
connection, despite having so many signed up well experience good
editors
on the list. <sarcasm> Sadly one person using a Wikidata script to create articles could be the winner, just imagine the unimaginable frankenstienian horror that would create </sarcasm>
Any competition that relies on numbers alone is fraught with danger,
the
big international events all succeed not because of numbers but
because
of large teams(this run by one person alone) focused on quality with the whole processes divided into manageable opt-in regional sections. All the initiatives to focus on under represented topics need to be careful few thousands of poor quality stubs about women is more harmful than having nothing as people will perceive Wikipedia to be paying lip service to women.
On 16 October 2017 at 07:18, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Gergő Tisza gtisza@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Keegan Peterzell <
keegan.wiki@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "The nerve of these women, to think that they can write encyclopedia > articles on women who must inherently be non-notable! There's
nothing
to
> write about here." > > That's basically what your email says. No complaints when the
subject
is
> anything else from you, when these thematic editing are held on
other
> subjects.
Please avoid personal attacks based on hidden motivations you assume
other
parties to have; it's contrary to the Wikimedia movement's social
best
practices [1] and bound to take discussions in unproductive
directions.
When criticizing what someone said, stick to what they actually said. Especially so if your accusation of bad faith would be essentially content-free.
Todd, Gnangarra, Gergő,
My intention, as I touched on earlier, was not to make a personal
attack
but to address the tone in which I perceived the email to be written.
I
don't believe Gnangarra is actually sexist. I certainly stand by my position that the content of the initial post is unhelpful criticism
and
mostly hyperbole, but I'm more than willing to apologize if my
language
came across as a personal attack. I could have written it differently.
So,
sorry about that.
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
address
is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Based on my own experience on en.wn, I believe copyright/plagiary detection cannot be fully automated without introducing horrific errors, for the same reason translation can't be: doing the task properly requires knowing what the text means.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:47 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Correction:
There is a tool that automatically checks for copyright infringement. It is called CopyPatrol
https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en
James
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I cant believe this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_
in_Red/The_World_Contest
has got WMF funding, the idea of trying to create 100,000 stub articles on english wikipedia without any thought to how it'll impact on the community.
I find it ironic that a competition is being funded to encourage current contributors to do what we wont accept from new editors. If a new editor was to create an article it wouldnt pass through the Articles for
Creation
process because its half the size of the minimum set there. Many of the competition articles will just get tagged CSD - A1, A7, A9 even G2
While there is a nice bot that will count the size of the prose, there is no automated process for checking copyright violations, checking for notability and most importantly checking for BLP with the aim of 100,000 the community will years to clean up the mess that is about to be
created.
we are 15 days from this disaster commencing
-- G nangarra _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I cant believe this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_ in_Red/The_World_Contest has got WMF funding, the idea of trying to create 100,000 stub articles on english wikipedia without any thought to how it'll impact on the community.
I find it ironic that a competition is being funded to encourage current contributors to do what we wont accept from new editors. If a new editor was to create an article it wouldnt pass through the Articles for Creation process because its half the size of the minimum set there. Many of the competition articles will just get tagged CSD - A1, A7, A9 even G2
While there is a nice bot that will count the size of the prose, there is no automated process for checking copyright violations, checking for notability and most importantly checking for BLP with the aim of 100,000 the community will years to clean up the mess that is about to be created.
we are 15 days from this disaster commencing
Here's another unsolicited thought:
Instead of complaining and writing seemingly sexist screeds about attempts to broaden the breadth of knowledge within Wikipedia, why don't you help?
I'm sure copyediting, referencing, infoboxes, and all the other general wiki work will need some assistance. You have years of experience editing the wikis. Seems like a win/win.
Keegan, calling people names isn't helpful here.
We've already had horrible projects to write tons of stubs before, like the "place" bots. And in those cases, we'd know at least roughly what they would do and how.
This project is going for 100k articles. There are as of this writing 118 editors signed up. That is, even if we presume 100% participation (which is generally wildly optimistic), nearly 1000 articles per editor to reach that goal. If somehow that does happen, there are four judges who would need to review, if the goal is reached, 25000 articles each. Those are not realistic numbers.
Add into that financial incentives for being the most prolific, and we're setting up for a very foreseeable disaster.
I have no problems with editing initiatives focused on underrepresented areas. But they need to have realistic goals, numbers actually run during planning, and most importantly, no financial rewards. This project is not a good idea.
Todd
On Oct 15, 2017 11:53 AM, "Keegan Peterzell" keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I cant believe this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_ in_Red/The_World_Contest has got WMF funding, the idea of trying to create 100,000 stub articles on english wikipedia without any thought to how it'll impact on the community.
I find it ironic that a competition is being funded to encourage current contributors to do what we wont accept from new editors. If a new editor was to create an article it wouldnt pass through the Articles for
Creation
process because its half the size of the minimum set there. Many of the competition articles will just get tagged CSD - A1, A7, A9 even G2
While there is a nice bot that will count the size of the prose, there is no automated process for checking copyright violations, checking for notability and most importantly checking for BLP with the aim of 100,000 the community will years to clean up the mess that is about to be
created.
we are 15 days from this disaster commencing
Here's another unsolicited thought:
Instead of complaining and writing seemingly sexist screeds about attempts to broaden the breadth of knowledge within Wikipedia, why don't you help?
I'm sure copyediting, referencing, infoboxes, and all the other general wiki work will need some assistance. You have years of experience editing the wikis. Seems like a win/win.
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Keegan, calling people names isn't helpful here.
I didn't. I'm calling out the tone.
We've already had horrible projects to write tons of stubs before, like the "place" bots. And in those cases, we'd know at least roughly what they would do and how.
Yes, the horrible place bots like User:Rambot on the English Wikipedia. The bot started almost every place stub in the United States, and almost every one of those seeds has generated a more fully formed article.
This project is going for 100k articles. There are as of this writing 118 editors signed up. That is, even if we presume 100% participation (which is generally wildly optimistic), nearly 1000 articles per editor to reach that goal. If somehow that does happen, there are four judges who would need to review, if the goal is reached, 25000 articles each. Those are not realistic numbers.
Add into that financial incentives for being the most prolific, and we're setting up for a very foreseeable disaster.
Risk management is one thing. A foreseeable disaster is quite another. Overblown hyperbole.
I have no problems with editing initiatives focused on underrepresented areas. But they need to have realistic goals, numbers actually run during planning, and most importantly, no financial rewards. This project is not a good idea.
Mmmhmm, and who should be the ones to set the goals? The ones that "know better"?
I'd advise you all who'd like to tell people what they're doing wrong, instead focus on helping people to do things right.
Otherwise, this is just patronizing.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Keegan, calling people names isn't helpful here.
I didn't. I'm calling out the tone.
We've already had horrible projects to write tons of stubs before, like the "place" bots. And in those cases, we'd know at least roughly what they would do and how.
Yes, the horrible place bots like User:Rambot on the English Wikipedia. The bot started almost every place stub in the United States, and almost every one of those seeds has generated a more fully formed article.
Sorry, I misquoted. "Horrible projects" is actually worse.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Keegan, calling people names isn't helpful here.
I didn't. I'm calling out the tone.
I care if someone's right or wrong, not their tone. If we want to talk about that, we certainly could discuss calling someone "sexist" when they're calling attention to a potential problem, but I really don't care much about that either. The point is whether this is a good, well-conceived idea.
We've already had horrible projects to write tons of stubs before, like
the
"place" bots. And in those cases, we'd know at least roughly what they would do and how.
Yes, the horrible place bots like User:Rambot on the English Wikipedia. The bot started almost every place stub in the United States, and almost every one of those seeds has generated a more fully formed article.
And would've anyway. It's not like editing them would have been forbidden if they'd been redlinked until someone was ready to work on it. Every article started out as a redlink. But we're probably a bit off topic with that here.
This project is going for 100k articles. There are as of this writing 118 editors signed up. That is, even if we presume 100% participation (which
is
generally wildly optimistic), nearly 1000 articles per editor to reach
that
goal. If somehow that does happen, there are four judges who would need
to
review, if the goal is reached, 25000 articles each. Those are not realistic numbers.
Add into that financial incentives for being the most prolific, and we're setting up for a very foreseeable disaster.
Risk management is one thing. A foreseeable disaster is quite another. Overblown hyperbole.
Call it "risk management" or whatever you want, but those numbers are unrealistic by orders of magnitude. Now, that in itself wouldn't be a substantial concern, but then you've got the issue of offering money to hit them. That's absolutely a recipe for disaster, and many years of experience both on Wikipedia and otherwise would tell me that. Offering money for just being prolific, quantity over quality, is absolutely a bad idea.
I have no problems with editing initiatives focused on underrepresented areas. But they need to have realistic goals, numbers actually run during planning, and most importantly, no financial rewards. This project is
not a
good idea.
Mmmhmm, and who should be the ones to set the goals? The ones that "know better"?
People can set whatever goals they want. But what they're proposing to do affects the entire project, not just their corner of it, so everyone on the project should be involved in that. That absolutely includes people who have been around the block more than a few times. There's a reason we shut down the "reward board" type systems,
I'd advise you all who'd like to tell people what they're doing wrong, instead focus on helping people to do things right.
Otherwise, this is just patronizing.
You start toward fixing a problem by saying it is a problem. After that, you decide what should be done about it. And I did offer suggestions, thank you, that being, choose realistic numbers and keep money out of the equation. Money, like it or not, is a powerful motivator, and to some it's a motivator to cut corners, like using poor sources or plagiarizing. I'm not saying any individual editor would do that, mind you, but I'm saying it is part of what we know about human behavior. Even relatively trivial amounts of money can have substantial impacts on people's behavior; I'd be happy to find you the sources for that if you'd like to see them.
Todd
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
This project is going for 100k articles. There are as of this writing 118 editors signed up. That is, even if we presume 100% participation (which is generally wildly optimistic), nearly 1000 articles per editor to reach that goal. If somehow that does happen, there are four judges who would need to review, if the goal is reached, 25000 articles each. Those are not realistic numbers.
Come on. Did you even read the page you are talking about? Clearly you are confusing it with the 100,000 Challange [1] which starts at the same time but is a much larger project (the project page mentions a two-year timeframe).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/The_100,000...
If I misread that part, my apologies. That still doesn't change the core issue, that money is being offered, and that it's being offered for quantity rather than quality.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Gergo Tisza gtisza@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
This project is going for 100k articles. There are as of this writing 118 editors signed up. That is, even if we presume 100% participation (which
is
generally wildly optimistic), nearly 1000 articles per editor to reach
that
goal. If somehow that does happen, there are four judges who would need
to
review, if the goal is reached, 25000 articles each. Those are not realistic numbers.
Come on. Did you even read the page you are talking about? Clearly you are confusing it with the 100,000 Challange [1] which starts at the same time but is a much larger project (the project page mentions a two-year timeframe).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_ in_Red/The_100,000_Challenge _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Nah, the contest is about motivating people to write about a topic area that is not there normal bailiwick.
That is fine thing to do because the unintended consequences of being written on a wiki, English Wikipedia initially attracted people who were less interested in writing about women than the general population in English speaking world. So, we are still playing catch up to get the low hanging fruit from Women's Halls of Fame and other books that specialize in collecting biographies of notable people and their works.
I'm thrilled to see this contest promote writing about notable women from around the world so the goal of 20% is reached faster.
Sydney User:FloNight
Sydney Poore User:FloNight Co-founder Kentucky Wikimedians, Co-founder WikiWomen User Group, Co-founder WikiConference North America Board member of Wiki Project Med Foundation
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
If I misread that part, my apologies. That still doesn't change the core issue, that money is being offered, and that it's being offered for quantity rather than quality.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Gergo Tisza gtisza@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
This project is going for 100k articles. There are as of this writing
118
editors signed up. That is, even if we presume 100% participation
(which
is
generally wildly optimistic), nearly 1000 articles per editor to reach
that
goal. If somehow that does happen, there are four judges who would need
to
review, if the goal is reached, 25000 articles each. Those are not realistic numbers.
Come on. Did you even read the page you are talking about? Clearly you
are
confusing it with the 100,000 Challange [1] which starts at the same time but is a much larger project (the project page mentions a two-year timeframe).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_ in_Red/The_100,000_Challenge _______________________________________________ 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@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Have you looked at the list of signed up contributors? Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: Sunday, 15 October 2017 4:03 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red
I cant believe this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/The_World_C... has got WMF funding, the idea of trying to create 100,000 stub articles on english wikipedia without any thought to how it'll impact on the community.
I find it ironic that a competition is being funded to encourage current contributors to do what we wont accept from new editors. If a new editor was to create an article it wouldnt pass through the Articles for Creation process because its half the size of the minimum set there. Many of the competition articles will just get tagged CSD - A1, A7, A9 even G2
While there is a nice bot that will count the size of the prose, there is no automated process for checking copyright violations, checking for notability and most importantly checking for BLP with the aim of 100,000 the community will years to clean up the mess that is about to be created.
we are 15 days from this disaster commencing
-- G nangarra _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
WMSE has run programs with this focus for more then 3 years on svwp.
The result have been roughly 2-3 generated more then 1000 articles 15-25 generated more then 100 articles 100-200 more then 10 articles around 500 at least one giving a total of a bit more the 10000 new articles of women. And even being a bit on the short side, there is nothing wrong in them or to be ashamed of. (and many fascinating stories can be fund among them)
Enwp has 30 times as many editors than svwp. so I see nothing unrealistic with a goals of 100000 new articles, but perhaps it could take somewhat longer then anticipated Anders
Den 2017-10-15 kl. 16:02, skrev Gnangarra:
I cant believe this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/The_World_C... has got WMF funding, the idea of trying to create 100,000 stub articles on english wikipedia without any thought to how it'll impact on the community.
I find it ironic that a competition is being funded to encourage current contributors to do what we wont accept from new editors. If a new editor was to create an article it wouldnt pass through the Articles for Creation process because its half the size of the minimum set there. Many of the competition articles will just get tagged CSD - A1, A7, A9 even G2
While there is a nice bot that will count the size of the prose, there is no automated process for checking copyright violations, checking for notability and most importantly checking for BLP with the aim of 100,000 the community will years to clean up the mess that is about to be created.
we are 15 days from this disaster commencing
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I cant believe this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_ in_Red/The_World_Contest has got WMF funding, the idea of trying to create 100,000 stub articles on english wikipedia without any thought to how it'll impact on the community.
I find it ironic that a competition is being funded to encourage current contributors to do what we wont accept from new editors. If a new editor was to create an article it wouldnt pass through the Articles for Creation process because its half the size of the minimum set there. Many of the competition articles will just get tagged CSD - A1, A7, A9 even G2
While there is a nice bot that will count the size of the prose, there is no automated process for checking copyright violations, checking for notability and most importantly checking for BLP with the aim of 100,000 the community will years to clean up the mess that is about to be created.
we are 15 days from this disaster commencing
Women in Red has been doing similar projects on a smaller scale for quite a while now. If you think this current one will turn out much worse, at a minimum you should be able to explain how it is different from those.
Anyhow, this contest has been in the works for almost a year and will start in two weeks. The supporting grant was given half a year ago, after public review. If there ever was a time when organizers should have taken vague prophecies of doom into account, it has surely long passed. At this point all you can achieve is creating a hostile atmosphere for the contest (especially if you continue using emotionally charged words like "disaster" or "mess"); please don't push that. If you have constructive advice on how the ill effects you are worried about can be avoided without putting undue burden on the organizers or preventing them to run the contest effectively, focus on that. Otherwise, it's probably best to refrain from discussion for now.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org