I'm sorry if this was already posted here, I may have missed it. But in case it was not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=926638155&...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_spacewalks_since_2015&...
I think this is truly amazing.
P.S. I was trying to find some additional sources besides this edit that would provide more context for readers, and am currently discussing this on the user page of the edit author:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darenwelsh#Edits_from_space
Best,
-- Yury Bulka https://mamot.fr/@setthemfree #NotOnFacebook
Hi Yury,
I saw some excitement from people regarding this edit. However, I for one have been hesitant to make wider announcements about this. My personal concern is that, although I have every reason to believe that the contributor is who others claim that she is, the contributor did not self publish information that unambiguously communicated her identity in a public space in the Wikiverse.
ENWP can be highly protective of contributors' off wiki identities when contributors have not self published that information. ENWP can be so protective that there is friction within the community about whether paid conflict of interest editors are getting an unreasonable degree of protection. In this case, the contributor's username is highly suggestive of her identity. I regret if the caution seems to be excessive, but there are reasons to be cautious about announcing information about other Wikimedia contributors who have implied and not outright stated information about their identities.
I hope that in the near future this contributor will provide a small amount of further self disclosure about her off wiki identity, such as by simply writing her name on her userpage, and at that time I would be much more comfortable celebrating this edit. Again, I regret if this approach feels excessively cautious.
Respectfully, Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
I believe Andy arranged for this to happen and there is a blog out there somewhere
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 28, 2019, at 11:37 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Yury,
I saw some excitement from people regarding this edit. However, I for one have been hesitant to make wider announcements about this. My personal concern is that, although I have every reason to believe that the contributor is who others claim that she is, the contributor did not self publish information that unambiguously communicated her identity in a public space in the Wikiverse.
ENWP can be highly protective of contributors' off wiki identities when contributors have not self published that information. ENWP can be so protective that there is friction within the community about whether paid conflict of interest editors are getting an unreasonable degree of protection. In this case, the contributor's username is highly suggestive of her identity. I regret if the caution seems to be excessive, but there are reasons to be cautious about announcing information about other Wikimedia contributors who have implied and not outright stated information about their identities.
I hope that in the near future this contributor will provide a small amount of further self disclosure about her off wiki identity, such as by simply writing her name on her userpage, and at that time I would be much more comfortable celebrating this edit. Again, I regret if this approach feels excessively cautious.
Respectfully, Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
Regarding the current sources and authenticity, certainly there is room for improvement. I'd only add that in addition to the diff, the user page and the tweet, we have the user creation log:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=newusers&user=&page=U...
It mentions that the user account was created by an admin+checkuser and that it was part of an ISS editathon.
Regarding blog post, it is about another instance where an astronaut created content on the ISS specifically for Wikipedia, but it was added by someone else: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/11/29/astronaut-spoken-voice/
I think it would make sense to keep the discussion about the sources on the Wikipedia, since not everyone is subscribed to this list. For now it has been happening on [[User talk:Darenwelsh]] (although probably it would have been more appropriate to have it on the article's talk page):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darenwelsh#Edits_from_space
Best, -- Yury Bulka https://mamot.fr/@setthemfree #NotOnFacebook
Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com writes:
I believe Andy arranged for this to happen and there is a blog out there somewhere
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 28, 2019, at 11:37 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Yury,
I saw some excitement from people regarding this edit. However, I for one have been hesitant to make wider announcements about this. My personal concern is that, although I have every reason to believe that the contributor is who others claim that she is, the contributor did not self publish information that unambiguously communicated her identity in a public space in the Wikiverse.
ENWP can be highly protective of contributors' off wiki identities when contributors have not self published that information. ENWP can be so protective that there is friction within the community about whether paid conflict of interest editors are getting an unreasonable degree of protection. In this case, the contributor's username is highly suggestive of her identity. I regret if the caution seems to be excessive, but there are reasons to be cautious about announcing information about other Wikimedia contributors who have implied and not outright stated information about their identities.
I hope that in the near future this contributor will provide a small amount of further self disclosure about her off wiki identity, such as by simply writing her name on her userpage, and at that time I would be much more comfortable celebrating this edit. Again, I regret if this approach feels excessively cautious.
Respectfully, Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
I saw that user creation log and that does seem to me to be persuasive evidence, but persuasive evidence may not be conclusive proof. Carl Sagan said that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard", and I understand if people would like evidence that is more verifiable to the public than a CU's testimony, especially keeping in mind that hoaxes have been a problem on English Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia. However, I also think that "assume good faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith" applies here, and I am mindful of another user who said that people made demands for proof of their authenticity in a way that sounded to me like the interrogators' primary motivation was harassment. Perhaps "Trust, but verify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify" fits how I'm thinking about this. The currently available evidence wouldn't be enough for me to feel comfortable with sending out a press release, but internally (in Wikimedia spaces) I would be happy to celebrate good news if this person is able and willing to publicly associate the Wikipedia account with their identity as an astronaut.
Internally, absolutely.
I was more responding to it having been placed into an actual article (the one on Wikipedia itself) with the only source being a diff and tweet. An internal website log and a tweet wouldn't be enough for inclusion of something like that in an article about any other website.
Hence my suggestion for those involved to get in touch with news outlets. It's something very cool, and it certainly should be something we see reporting on. It would make a great feel-good/human interest piece, so I'm sure someone would be interested in publishing on it. And once that happens, we can put it in articles too.
Todd
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 12:12 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I saw that user creation log and that does seem to me to be persuasive evidence, but persuasive evidence may not be conclusive proof. Carl Sagan said that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard", and I understand if people would like evidence that is more verifiable to the public than a CU's testimony, especially keeping in mind that hoaxes have been a problem on English Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia. However, I also think that "assume good faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith" applies here, and I am mindful of another user who said that people made demands for proof of their authenticity in a way that sounded to me like the interrogators' primary motivation was harassment. Perhaps "Trust, but verify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify" fits how I'm thinking about this. The currently available evidence wouldn't be enough for me to feel comfortable with sending out a press release, but internally (in Wikimedia spaces) I would be happy to celebrate good news if this person is able and willing to publicly associate the Wikipedia account with their identity as an astronaut.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
Hi! At the Wikimedia Technical Conference in Atlanta, I worked with Daren Welsh https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Darenwelsh, a spacewalk instructor for NASA, to assist Christina Koch in making the edit. I am certain this is not fake news, and you definitely should not hesitate to celebrate this milestone :)
That said, I understand if the lack of reporting is too great to make our own press release, and perhaps also for inclusion in the [[Wikipedia]] article. From what I was told, the news was shared with NASA's public affairs, but they unfortunately did not create a blog post or the like. It is my impression this historic edit is much more significant to us than to NASA (as an organization), especially considering Christina did this in her free time. We may have to be the primary source, if we want one.
I don't think we can necessarily expect Christina to satisfy doubts of the authenticity of her edit or account either, as she's understandably very busy breaking records and being an inspiration to women and space enthusiasts around the world https://nyti.ms/365aFjD :) Let's just be grateful that she took the time to do this for us in the first place. I certainly am grateful for my very tiny role!
Kind regards,
~ MA
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 02:22 Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Internally, absolutely.
I was more responding to it having been placed into an actual article (the one on Wikipedia itself) with the only source being a diff and tweet. An internal website log and a tweet wouldn't be enough for inclusion of something like that in an article about any other website.
Hence my suggestion for those involved to get in touch with news outlets. It's something very cool, and it certainly should be something we see reporting on. It would make a great feel-good/human interest piece, so I'm sure someone would be interested in publishing on it. And once that happens, we can put it in articles too.
Todd
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 12:12 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I saw that user creation log and that does seem to me to be persuasive evidence, but persuasive evidence may not be conclusive proof. Carl Sagan said that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard", and I understand if people would like evidence that is more verifiable to the public than a CU's testimony, especially keeping in mind that hoaxes have been a problem on English Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia. However, I also think that "assume good faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith" applies
here,
and I am mindful of another user who said that people made demands for proof of their authenticity in a way that sounded to me like the interrogators' primary motivation was harassment. Perhaps "Trust, but verify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify" fits how I'm thinking about this. The currently available evidence wouldn't be enough for me to feel comfortable with sending out a press release, but internally (in Wikimedia spaces) I would be happy to celebrate good news if this person
is
able and willing to publicly associate the Wikipedia account with their identity as an astronaut.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
It's neat if it happened, but currently, that material was only "sourced" to a Wikipedia diff and a tweet (and not even a tweet by her). We'd need better than that for verification, so I'd hold off saying it definitely happened until fact-checked sources confirm it did. (Not to say I don't believe anyone, of course, but "Wait for the sources, then we write about it after" is pretty much always how we do things.) I suspect some news outlet might be quite interested to write about such an occurrence.
Todd
On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 8:10 AM Yury Bulka setthemfree@privacyrequired.com wrote:
I'm sorry if this was already posted here, I may have missed it. But in case it was not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=926638155&...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_spacewalks_since_2015&...
I think this is truly amazing.
P.S. I was trying to find some additional sources besides this edit that would provide more context for readers, and am currently discussing this on the user page of the edit author:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darenwelsh#Edits_from_space
Best,
-- Yury Bulka https://mamot.fr/@setthemfree #NotOnFacebook
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@lists.wikimedia.org