Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Can Wikipedia Survive?" op-ed

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Of Education-coop cabal: what's...

Bylaw proposal on term limits

James Heilman

22 Jun 2015 22 Jun '15

7:28 p.m.

What we need to figure out is how to allow translation of articles through micro contributions via cellphones. Maybe send out sentences one by one for translation from one language to another. Just start with the leads of articles that are deemed to be of good quality. Than when the lead is all translated join it back together and add it to that language. This would of course only apply to articles which are non existent in the target language. Maybe Amir's "content translation" tool could do this eventually https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian Starting July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation My emails; however, do not represent the official position of the WMF The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com

Show replies by date

Gerard Meijssen

22 Jun 22 Jun

7:41 p.m.

New subject: "Can Wikipedia Survive?" op-ed

Hoi, Magnus pointed the way forward when he started MediaWiki. When you look into the whole stack of his data related tools, you will find how they make aggregating data a whole lot easier and worthwhile. He demonstrated how people on a mobile can be asked to help with "simple" tasks it works well and it continues to work in production (labs willing). When you are talking micro contributions, every statement in Wikidata is one. It can easily be done from a mobile when the UI is given attention. It is known how to create articles from data. The Swedes, Dutch etc have done it often enough and it brought them more readers and more editors... Study what we already know. There is nothing new here and the solutions are there to be had. We only have to accept them. I do agree that the old old way of Wikipedia is ultimately a dead end. Thanks, GerardM On 22 June 2015 at 19:28, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Risker

11:46 p.m.

New subject: "Can Wikipedia Survive?" op-ed

Gerard, I think you may be missing the point of the NYT op-ed. The issue isn't data, it's people who will use that data (whether it comes from structured data sets like Wikidata, or from dead-tree or electronic media) to create articles, curate them, maintain them, keep the various wikipedias mostly spam-free, and develop communities around them. We're not lacking in data. We're lacking in human beings and healthy, growing communities. On the other hand, I'm not entirely certain that Andrew's concerns about the use of smartphones as the primary mode of access is entirely justified. We've known for a long time that many of our editors in Asian countries edit using smartphones, often with a keyboard attached; we've even featured them in videos. But realistically, the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia *readers* have never considered, even for a moment, actively participating in editing - and it has been that way pretty much since at least 2005, and maybe earlier. We can do better, of course, and making it easier to edit on tablets in particular is a worthwhile enterprise (smartphones...well, I'm not even persuaded they're going to exist five years from now in the way that we know them today...) Risker/Anne On 22 June 2015 at 13:41, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Gerard Meijssen

23 Jun 23 Jun

7:50 p.m.

New subject: "Can Wikipedia Survive?" op-ed

Hoi, I think I understand how much time is wasted replicating the same thing over and over again. When we know specific facts for instance an old president of the Sierra Leone dies, all articles about him have to change. When new demographics of Almere become known, all articles are to change. Adding information to Wikidata should be trivially easy on a smartphone. This has been proven by "The Game". When it is that easy to add information, the information can be updated in lists, in info boxes and alerts may be generated to modify the text where needed. You will often find that there is little to write when all the list, categories, info boxes are already updated. The consequence is that people who want to write articles may continue doing this. They do what they like best but at the same time we can do with fewer text junkies. The fun thing is that experience has learned us that when information becomes more complete we will attract more people anyway. It is just that all information does not need to be typed in manually all the time, everywhere ad nauseam. With more people adding data that is used everywhere, the problem of sourcing becomes easier as well. Because a source is a source <grin> and every language has its bias </grin> but that is a different issue. One solace, we should always compare Wikidata data with other external sources. In this way we will also get some/more grip on what sources to trust. :) Thanks, GerardM On 22 June 2015 at 23:46, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hoi, Magnus pointed the way forward when he started MediaWiki. When you look into the whole stack of his data related tools, you will find how they

make

aggregating data a whole lot easier and worthwhile. He demonstrated how people on a mobile can be asked to help with "simple" tasks it works well and it continues to work in production (labs willing). When you are talking micro contributions, every statement in Wikidata is one. It can easily be done from a mobile when the UI is given attention.

is known how to create articles from data. The Swedes, Dutch etc have

done

it often enough and it brought them more readers and more editors... Study what we already know. There is nothing new here and the solutions

are

there to be had. We only have to accept them. I do agree that the old

old

way of Wikipedia is ultimately a dead end. Thanks, GerardM On 22 June 2015 at 19:28, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Ed Erhart

11:16 p.m.

New subject: "Can Wikipedia Survive?" op-ed

Gerard, We need many more "text junkies," also known as article writers. Don't denigrate them. Best, --Ed On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

media)

to create articles, curate them, maintain them, keep the various

wikipedias

mostly spam-free, and develop communities around them. We're not lacking in data. We're lacking in human beings and healthy, growing communities. On the other hand, I'm not entirely certain that Andrew's concerns about the use of smartphones as the primary mode of access is entirely justified. We've known for a long time that many of our editors in Asian countries edit using smartphones, often with a keyboard attached; we've even featured them in videos. But realistically, the overwhelming

majority

of Wikipedia *readers* have never considered, even for a moment, actively participating in editing - and it has been that way pretty much since at least 2005, and maybe earlier. We can do better, of course, and making

easier to edit on tablets in particular is a worthwhile enterprise (smartphones...well, I'm not even persuaded they're going to exist five years from now in the way that we know them today...) Risker/Anne On 22 June 2015 at 13:41, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi, Magnus pointed the way forward when he started MediaWiki. When you look into the whole stack of his data related tools, you will find how they

make > aggregating data a whole lot easier and worthwhile. He demonstrated how > people on a mobile can be asked to help with "simple" tasks it works

well

> and it continues to work in production (labs willing). > > When you are talking micro contributions, every statement in Wikidata

> one. It can easily be done from a mobile when the UI is given

attention.

is known how to create articles from data. The Swedes, Dutch etc have

done

it often enough and it brought them more readers and more editors... Study what we already know. There is nothing new here and the solutions

are

there to be had. We only have to accept them. I do agree that the old

old > way of Wikipedia is ultimately a dead end. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 22 June 2015 at 19:28, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > What we need to figure out is how to allow translation of articles > > through micro contributions via cellphones. > > > > Maybe send out sentences one by one for translation from one language > > to another. Just start with the leads of articles that are deemed to > > be of good quality. Than when the lead is all translated join it back > > together and add it to that language. This would of course only apply > > to articles which are non existent in the target language. > > > > Maybe Amir's "content translation" tool could do this eventually > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation > > > > -- > > James Heilman > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > > > > Starting July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation > > My emails; however, do not represent the official position of the WMF > > > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine > > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Gerard Meijssen

24 Jun 24 Jun

1:06 a.m.

New subject: "Can Wikipedia Survive?" op-ed

Hoi, I don't but there is a place for them and it is not in endless drudgery that is best done in other ways. We need text junkies who love their language, who can explain things and make them understood as expected of an encyclopaedia. We do not need endless wikitext we need text. We do not need templates galore every time done in an incompatible and unintelligible way. Article writers should be able to distance themselves from such drudgery. When you call article writers people who are very good at such nonsense than yes, we need fewer of those because in the end they lose us more writers than they gain us quality content. Thanks, GerardM On 23 June 2015 at 23:16, Ed Erhart <the.ed17(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Gerard, We need many more "text junkies," also known as article writers. Don't denigrate them. Best, --Ed On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

change.

When new demographics of Almere become known, all articles are to change. Adding information to Wikidata should be trivially easy on a smartphone. This has been proven by "The Game". When it is that easy to add information, the information can be updated in lists, in info boxes and alerts may be generated to modify the text where needed. You will often find that there is little to write when all the list, categories, info boxes are already updated. The consequence is that people who want to write articles may continue doing this. They do what they like best but at the same time we can do

with

fewer text junkies. The fun thing is that experience has learned us that when information becomes more complete we will attract more people

anyway.

It is just that all information does not need to be typed in manually all the time, everywhere ad nauseam. With more people adding data that is used everywhere, the problem of sourcing becomes easier as well. Because a source is a source <grin> and every language has its bias </grin> but that is a different issue. One solace, we should always compare Wikidata data with other external

sources.

In this way we will also get some/more grip on what sources to trust. :) Thanks, GerardM On 22 June 2015 at 23:46, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Gerard, I think you may be missing the point of the NYT op-ed. The

issue

isn't data, it's people who will use that data (whether it comes from structured data sets like Wikidata, or from dead-tree or electronic

media)

to create articles, curate them, maintain them, keep the various

wikipedias > mostly spam-free, and develop communities around them. We're not

lacking

> in data. We're lacking in human beings and healthy, growing

communities.

> > On the other hand, I'm not entirely certain that Andrew's concerns

about

> the use of smartphones as the primary mode of access is entirely > justified. We've known for a long time that many of our editors in

Asian

countries edit using smartphones, often with a keyboard attached; we've even featured them in videos. But realistically, the overwhelming

majority > of Wikipedia *readers* have never considered, even for a moment,

actively

> participating in editing - and it has been that way pretty much since

least 2005, and maybe earlier. We can do better, of course, and making

it > easier to edit on tablets in particular is a worthwhile enterprise > (smartphones...well, I'm not even persuaded they're going to exist five > years from now in the way that we know them today...) > > Risker/Anne > > On 22 June 2015 at 13:41, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hoi, > > Magnus pointed the way forward when he started MediaWiki. When you

look

> > into the whole stack of his data related tools, you will find how

they

> make > > aggregating data a whole lot easier and worthwhile. He demonstrated

how

> people on a mobile can be asked to help with "simple" tasks it works

well

> and it continues to work in production (labs willing). > > When you are talking micro contributions, every statement in Wikidata

> one. It can easily be done from a mobile when the UI is given

attention. > It > > is known how to create articles from data. The Swedes, Dutch etc have > done > > it often enough and it brought them more readers and more editors... > > > > Study what we already know. There is nothing new here and the

solutions

> are > > there to be had. We only have to accept them. I do agree that the

old

> old > > way of Wikipedia is ultimately a dead end. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > On 22 June 2015 at 19:28, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > What we need to figure out is how to allow translation of articles > > > through micro contributions via cellphones. > > > > > > Maybe send out sentences one by one for translation from one

language

> > > to another. Just start with the leads of articles that are deemed

> > > be of good quality. Than when the lead is all translated join it

back

> > > together and add it to that language. This would of course only

apply

> > > to articles which are non existent in the target language. > > > > > > Maybe Amir's "content translation" tool could do this eventually > > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation > > > > > > -- > > > James Heilman > > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > > > > > > Starting July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation > > > My emails; however, do not represent the official position of the

WMF

> > > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine > > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > 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 > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Jane Darnell

9 a.m.

New subject: "Can Wikipedia Survive?" op-ed

Gerard, I disagree. I love reading all the nonsense as well as all the thoughtful articles. And sometimes it's the nonsense that triggers me to clean it up and learn something. If there is one thing I have learned in my time in the Wikiverse, it's that there are lots unexpected gems of information locked into unreadable snippets of text. On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Gerard, We need many more "text junkies," also known as article writers. Don't denigrate them. Best, --Ed On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

change. > When new demographics of Almere become known, all articles are to

change.

> Adding information to Wikidata should be trivially easy on a

smartphone.

This has been proven by "The Game". When it is that easy to add information, the information can be updated in lists, in info boxes and alerts may be generated to modify the text where needed. You will often find that there is little to write when all the list, categories, info boxes are already updated. The consequence is that people who want to write articles may continue doing this. They do what they like best but at the same time we can do

with > fewer text junkies. The fun thing is that experience has learned us

that

when information becomes more complete we will attract more people

anyway. > It is just that all information does not need to be typed in manually

all

> the time, everywhere ad nauseam. > > With more people adding data that is used everywhere, the problem of > sourcing becomes easier as well. Because a source is a source <grin>

and

every language has its bias </grin> but that is a different issue. One solace, we should always compare Wikidata data with other external

sources. > In this way we will also get some/more grip on what sources to trust.

Thanks, GerardM On 22 June 2015 at 23:46, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Gerard, I think you may be missing the point of the NYT op-ed. The

issue

isn't data, it's people who will use that data (whether it comes from structured data sets like Wikidata, or from dead-tree or electronic

media)

to create articles, curate them, maintain them, keep the various

wikipedias > mostly spam-free, and develop communities around them. We're not

lacking

> in data. We're lacking in human beings and healthy, growing

communities.

> > On the other hand, I'm not entirely certain that Andrew's concerns

about

> the use of smartphones as the primary mode of access is entirely > justified. We've known for a long time that many of our editors in

Asian > > countries edit using smartphones, often with a keyboard attached;

we've

even featured them in videos. But realistically, the overwhelming

majority > of Wikipedia *readers* have never considered, even for a moment,

actively

> participating in editing - and it has been that way pretty much since

at > > least 2005, and maybe earlier. We can do better, of course, and

making

> it > > easier to edit on tablets in particular is a worthwhile enterprise > > (smartphones...well, I'm not even persuaded they're going to exist

five

> years from now in the way that we know them today...) > > Risker/Anne > > On 22 June 2015 at 13:41, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com

> wrote: > > > Hoi, > > Magnus pointed the way forward when he started MediaWiki. When you

look

> > into the whole stack of his data related tools, you will find how

they

> make > > aggregating data a whole lot easier and worthwhile. He demonstrated

how > > > people on a mobile can be asked to help with "simple" tasks it

works

> well > > > and it continues to work in production (labs willing). > > > > > > When you are talking micro contributions, every statement in

Wikidata

> is > > > one. It can easily be done from a mobile when the UI is given > attention. > > It > > > is known how to create articles from data. The Swedes, Dutch etc

have

> > done > > > it often enough and it brought them more readers and more

editors...

> > > > Study what we already know. There is nothing new here and the

solutions

> are > > there to be had. We only have to accept them. I do agree that the

old > > old > > > way of Wikipedia is ultimately a dead end. > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > > > > On 22 June 2015 at 19:28, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > What we need to figure out is how to allow translation of

articles

> > > through micro contributions via cellphones. > > > > > > Maybe send out sentences one by one for translation from one

language

> > > to another. Just start with the leads of articles that are deemed

> > > be of good quality. Than when the lead is all translated join it

back

> > > together and add it to that language. This would of course only

apply > > > > to articles which are non existent in the target language. > > > > > > > > Maybe Amir's "content translation" tool could do this eventually > > > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation > > > > > > > > -- > > > > James Heilman > > > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > > > > > > > > Starting July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia

Foundation

> > > My emails; however, do not represent the official position of the

WMF

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Jane Darnell

8:56 a.m.

New subject: "Can Wikipedia Survive?" op-ed

Well Ed, as one "text junkie" to another, I liked Gerard's use of that term, because it shows how text oriented we have become, while the world around us tries to live by information bytes wrapped into audio and visual effects. Yes we need more text junkies, but the text junkies we already have need to step outside the confines of Wikipedia and take a look at their own work from the viewpoint of other projects. A healthy Wikiverse is one where savvy Wikipedians are savvy Commonists and savvy Wikidatans as well (and both of those projects are also heavily text-based btw). I think what Gerard is getting at is not so much whether our information needs to be text-based or image-based or machine-readable, but that our basic reliance on "reliable sources" (now also mostly text-based) is currently needlessly limited by the monolingual searches of text junkies like ourselves. Once we become familiar with how to use Wikidata in the way it was intended (interlinking the Wikiverse) we will be able to easily tap into many more reliable sources that are beyond our current individual search abilities as "text junkies" in our own language. Our challenge moving forward is to learn how to trust the work of other Wikipedia projects, something we don't do enough of, in my opinion. On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Ed Erhart <the.ed17(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Gerard, We need many more "text junkies," also known as article writers. Don't denigrate them. Best, --Ed On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

change.

with

fewer text junkies. The fun thing is that experience has learned us that when information becomes more complete we will attract more people

anyway.

sources.

issue

isn't data, it's people who will use that data (whether it comes from structured data sets like Wikidata, or from dead-tree or electronic

media)

to create articles, curate them, maintain them, keep the various

wikipedias > mostly spam-free, and develop communities around them. We're not

lacking

> in data. We're lacking in human beings and healthy, growing

communities.

> > On the other hand, I'm not entirely certain that Andrew's concerns

about

> the use of smartphones as the primary mode of access is entirely > justified. We've known for a long time that many of our editors in

Asian

countries edit using smartphones, often with a keyboard attached; we've even featured them in videos. But realistically, the overwhelming

majority > of Wikipedia *readers* have never considered, even for a moment,

actively

> participating in editing - and it has been that way pretty much since

least 2005, and maybe earlier. We can do better, of course, and making

look

> > into the whole stack of his data related tools, you will find how

they

> make > > aggregating data a whole lot easier and worthwhile. He demonstrated

how

> people on a mobile can be asked to help with "simple" tasks it works

well

> and it continues to work in production (labs willing). > > When you are talking micro contributions, every statement in Wikidata

> one. It can easily be done from a mobile when the UI is given

solutions

> are > > there to be had. We only have to accept them. I do agree that the

old

language

> > > to another. Just start with the leads of articles that are deemed

> > > be of good quality. Than when the lead is all translated join it

back

> > > together and add it to that language. This would of course only

apply

WMF

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

rupert THURNER

23 Jun 23 Jun

6:52 p.m.

New subject: "Can Wikipedia Survive?" op-ed

I like this idea a lot. If mediawiki and toolchain would additionally support paragraphs as primary unit it would allow to activate translated paragraphs. This might as well facilitate book creation, links to Wikidata etc. The granularity of articles is differing between languages I.e. What would be described in 2 articles in English often is packed into one in German. Rupert On Jun 22, 2015 7:28 PM, "James Heilman" <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

3238

days inactive

3240

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

8 comments

6 participants

tags (0)

participants (6)

Ed Erhart
Gerard Meijssen
James Heilman
Jane Darnell
Risker
rupert THURNER