I'm waiting for the day when Magnus will have a profile on the New Yorker, but this is nice, for the time being :-) Aubrey On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi, Magnus developed functionality to replace the "red links". Arguably replacing wikilinks with Wikidata in the background will improve Wikipedia (in any language) substantially. It is just not considered. Thanks, GerardM http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-fruit-f… On 18 January 2016 at 14:34, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you for flagging this for us, Andrew. I have been unsuccessful in accessing this page and have been told by others who tried to do so that they were also getting various error messages. I will try again later using different technology - the problem may be that the blog doesn't come up well certain types of phones. Personally, I have always been a bit heartbroken that I missed out on the chance for a "Magnus Manske has a Posse" t-shirt a while back; his work has genuinely changed the course of our project on more than one occasion, and his reputation is solidly earned. With that in mind - that I've not yet got the full context of Magnus's comments, but that I believe anything Magnus says is worth listening to and considering - I'm a bit concerned about any suggestion that "the community" rejected Visual Editor because it was "new". The English Wikipedia community rejected it because it was really bad software that was causing so much damage to the project that even editors whose focus was on content writing and improvement wound up wasting their time fixing the errors inserted into the text by VisualEditor. We went from a somewhat-difficult-to-use text editor (wikitext) as the default to a not-even-beta-level default editor that could not carry out even basic editing functions and was actively damaging existing content - without even a way for editors to select a "no VE" preference, which had to be written after implementation. While it was available to IP editors, the community wound up reverting almost 100% of their edits because the VE-generated problems were so severe. This was not a failure of the community to accept change. This was the failure of the WMF to understand what a minimal viable product should be. The poorly thought out implementation of VisualEditor has caused a huge amount of damage to the reputation of the software - remember, the community had been asking for something along this line as far back as 2003, so it wasn't that we didn't want this type of editing interface - and it also caused an entirely predictable backlash from the community of 2013. Remember, this was not the community of 2003 that understood almost everyone involved in software creation was a volunteer too, and thus would tolerate less refined software releases. The community of 2013 (quite correctly, I think) expected much higher quality work from paid staff. Bluntly put, not even when almost all of the software was being written by volunteers did we see such a problematic "upgrade". The Visual Editor of January 2016 bears little relationship to that which was released on July 1, 2013 - it is dramatically better, easier to use, and has some really great features that even experienced editors will find useful. I hope more experienced users will give it another try. I often find it ironic that the great concern about attracting new editors and thus creating VisualEditor is then immediately dumped to the bottom of the drawer when it comes to Wikidata. First we'll make it easy for them to edit. Then we'll include a whole pile of data that they can't edit -or at least can't edit on the website they logged into. They're pretty opposite ideas, but of course that's considered luddite thinking. Risker/Anne On 18 January 2016 at 08:34, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Although "Tech innovations which try to replace quality human editing are not a good idea." Tech innovations which can adequately replace the need for quality human editing when that editing is not sufficiently available can be a very good idea, So can tech innovations which try can assist low quality human editing to become of higher quality. So can tech innovations which merely replicate what some people can do at a high quality, but most people cannot. I saw little need to replace the wikitext editor because I have worked enough in html for that to be as natural as using a keyboard, but it is easy to forget the needs of those who have only worked through WSIWYG interfaces. I find the talk page system quite intuitive, but I'm aware that many others don't share this feeling. The difficulty is in differentiating these situations, and I haver seen here as in many situation elsewhere that the people who develop technology are willing to use it even when imperfect and badly documented, and even pride in their ability to do so. This was certainly true in my own profession, where we librarians never understood why most of the public found navigating our manual and early automated system so difficult. I share in detail Risker's feeling about the visual editor in particular: I use it now, and the key factor which improved it for me was the recent addition of the ability to go back and forth between the two editing modes without losing work, so I can use the strengths of each of the as needed. (But I am aware of the pressure to release *something* to the public after the very slow development; that original slow development was perhaps the root problem.) On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

Hoi, When people complain that Wikidata has a real awful user interface, I wholeheartedly agree. It is really bad, so much so that I only use it to edit. I am a big fan of Magnus's Reasonator. It turns data into information. It works well, it works in many languages. I search in Reasonator, I use Reasonator for disambiguation. It is superior. When you say that the current Wikidata has a bad user interface, do not excuse yourself; it is awful. For me it indicates that Wikidata is underfunded. However, there is a general rule that throwing more developers at a problem does not necessarily make it better. Given the challenges that the Wikidata development face, I do not complain. I respect the effort involved, I truly respect Lydia and her team. When Reasonator is to be used by the whole of the Wikimedia movement, I know it will fail. It works well up to a point, this point can be much improved but in my appreciation it is not trivial at all to scale it up. In the mean time people who use it like myself are blessed with a user interface that is wonderful. Thanks, GerardM On 18 January 2016 at 17:44, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I cannot speak for Magnus, but there’s a distinction that needs to be made: Writing, “… all have been resisted by vocal groups of editors, not because they are a problem, but because they represent change” is not maligning all editors who complain. It simply says that those who resist innovation because it is a change from the status quo, and without solid reasoning, should reconsider. The detailed analysis of Jonathan Cardy and Risker criticizing VE’s suboptimal 2013 launch are well-informed and legit. But many, unfortunately, don’t apply such high standards for analysis. -Andrew On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 18 January 2016 at 20:33, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote: As a huge VE advocate, I was quite disconcerted how hard the WMF was trying to force through what was clearly an early beta in need of real-world testing as if it were a production-ready product; I think this was the problem and the reason for the backlash. VE *now* has had a couple of years' development in a real-world environment and is really quite excellent (and the only sensible way to edit tables). But the problem here was not fear of change or fear of technology, but rejecting technology that was being forced on editors when it was really obviously not up to the job as yet. - d.

But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's a good example to make here. :-/ Thanks, Mike

Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple of people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're persisting with your idée fixe. There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not newbies. Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an edit. It was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it. The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors were unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then most of the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community arrogantly characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an ignorant, selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation now. The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and the community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have. In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the concurrent thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny in earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems to me there is still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at least over at WikiData. Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly, about an innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down to them or ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't distinguish them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and well-founded criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your technical solutions are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than those WMF staffers who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career move. Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his project, and your contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early visual editor and its launch are both very disappointing. Anthony Cole On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote: To be fair, Magnus was addressing more than just the initial complaints from 2013. He said, “condemning an entire product forever because the first version didn’t do everything 100% right is just plain stupid.”

I'm not sure where you get your impressions, Magnus. But when I discuss ideas for a better implementation of Wikidata into Wikipedia to improve automatisation of repetitive editing procedures, including the implementation of the possible use of structured data, I rarely hear "It Is Not Made Here" or "It's Bad Because Its New". When it comes to analyse the problems with Wikidata it isn't only about possible early-lifecycle issues(which can be fix), but about the blind spot when it comes to develope working social processes which keep everybody (especially the editors) in the picture. Community involvement (especially consultations) are often seem to be organized only out of necessity. They not in the middle of the decision-making process. Nobody said that doing things the way they are done in a crowdsourced, community-driven process are easy, but this is no excuse for any Foundation or other similiar entity to set up an intransparent, precendents creating process where community becomes accessories. The whole way the Knowledge Engine process was implemented, the whole still intransparent incident of kicking a highly valued community-selected person out of the WMF board are clear signals that some people already decided about the future of Wikimedia and now staging a folksy broad consultation circus to create the impression of transparent community involvement. - Deciding about the color of the car if you would instead prefer to talk about the vehicle is the illusion of community-based decisionmaking. We need a lot of change in the social procedures at the level of really needed ground work which is important for changing the Wikiprojects to make them work for the future. To reflect and to work on the development of these social procedures would be the most precious work to be done by the Foundation. Instead the Foundation dreams of techbubble-driven, humanless wonderland full of free floading informations which magically forms into knowledge when it somehow hits a human being. I like the idea of Wikidata. I like the idea of combining Encylopedia with structured data to enable understanding and easy re-use at the reader-side of Wikiprojects. So many things are imaginable there when the culture of conveying the needed individual and social skills are done well. Tech is only tool to these processes. Tools are important, but not the purpose when it comes to disseminate knowledge. regards, Jens 2016-01-19 15:56 GMT+01:00 Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>om>:

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:40 PM Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> > > I notice VE isn't even an option when I log out and edit en.Wikipedia, > yet > > above others are saying it is much improved and ready for release. What > are > > we waiting for? > > > > This is the thing. The atmosphere has been poisoned against VE, which now > makes it much harder to get a good product deployed. > > But I agree with the sentiment. What ARE we waiting for? > Folks, it is ON by default in English Wikipedia for new users who are logged in. But not for anons. At the top of the articles now: "Read - Edit source - Edit - View History” This was turned on late last year as a default for new users, to the delight of those who do GLAM training and edit-a-thons. -Andrew

Magnus, regarding, "...at some point, you have to leave the test environment, and test your product against reality." Of course. But VE was far, far too bad for real time when it was released. Really. It was driving newbies away. The sensible embracers-of-change threw it out, in the end. The squealing Ludites don't have the numbers for that. When the sensible majority starts squealing, the developers really need to pay attention. I didn't follow it carefully but it seemed to me the release of the Image Viewer was much better timed and handled. Ludites squealed but genuine concerns were addressed promptly and respectfully. Anthony Cole On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Magnus Manske &lt;magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:40 PM Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> > > Magnus, in the interview you said "From the Media Viewer, the Visual > > Editor, to Wikidata transclusion, all have been resisted by vocal groups > of > > editors, not because they are a problem, but because they represent > change. > > For these editors, the site has worked fine for years; why change > > anything?" > > > > Well, yes. No one here, I'm sure, will argue there aren't such groups. > > > > But the problem with the blog post is you only mention them. > > > Because they are the problem, and they (by being vocal) often get more > attention than a more silent, sensible majority. But by getting attention, > they shape the general consensus, in a negative way. > > > > You don't take > > into account the very much larger crowd, including myself, who were > hanging > > out for the visual editor and were contemptuously flicked off by the > > developers when we brought up fatal flaws, as just some more > > superconservative no-vision Ludites - haters of change. > > > > I am not going to get into a who-said-what-to-whom-in-what-tone discussion > here. I wouldn't be surprised if some developers didn't bother to > differentiate between sensible feedback and nay-sayers. As I have said in > this mail thread, I hope the Foundation has learned how to deal with > feedback more sensibly. > > > > > > The first version of VE was so bad it was harming our mission. It was far > > worse than "didn't do everything 100% right." It would have been bounced > > back from the community to the developers even if that first group of > > bitter, change-hating autistic ranters hadn't said a word. > > > > Consider this perspective: I doubt the developers would have pushed out > that first version if it had massively failed their own tests. But at some > point, you have to leave the test environment, and test your product > against reality. Remember, WMF is not Microsoft, with an army of thousands > of paid beta-testers. > > So then it turns out there are more (and more really bad) bugs than > anticipated. Then you go and fix those bugs. Which is what they did. But > turning a major endeavour on and off repeatedly is just a bad thing to do. > AFICT the window where wrong edits were made by VE was not /that/ large. > Apparently, the decision was made to "power through it", rather than flip > the switch repeatedly. That may or may not have been the right strategy. > > > > > > I notice VE isn't even an option when I log out and edit en.Wikipedia, > yet > > above others are saying it is much improved and ready for release. What > are > > we waiting for? > > > > This is the thing. The atmosphere has been poisoned against VE, which now > makes it much harder to get a good product deployed. > > But I agree with the sentiment. What ARE we waiting for? > > Cheers, > Magnus > > > > > > > > > > Anthony Cole > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Andrew Lih &lt;andrew.lih(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > > > > > > Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple > > of > > > > people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're > > > > persisting with your idée fixe. > > > > > > > > > > To be fair, Magnus was addressing more than just the initial complaints > > > from 2013. He said, “condemning an entire product forever because the > > first > > > version didn’t do everything 100% right is just plain stupid.” > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >

As it happens, I now like both VE and Image Viewer as optional features. I didn't appreciate how they were deployed. The constitutional crisis that WMF created by using Superprotect to force Image VIewer on the communities was arrogant, disproportionate, politically unwise, and wasteful. Although WMF has backed off from this position a bit, it has never apologized for it AFAIK, and this is one in a number of experiences that is informing the community thinking about strategic alternatives to WMF. Let me contrast this with Echo, which had some initial pains but was accepted by the community with relative ease. It's still one of my favorite features, and I look forward to its continued development. Piine On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 1:45 PM, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: This. David and Risker say it well. From my position, as the guy responsible for the team that was worried about the non-technical aspects of the rollout, I think I'm safe​ ​in saying that the root cause was a lack of a clearly articulated minimum viable product. From the WMF developers' POV, "Hey! it does half of what you need!" was a pretty substantial win at the time. From the POV of a random editor, "Hey! it only does //half// of what I need" was pretty damning criticism. I own part of the blame for that rollout. I wish I'd pushed back harder. In my own defense, the team that had to articulate these changes and manage the social roll out (which formed the corpus of the Community Engagement (Product) team today)​ was hired about 11 minutes before the roll-out. We didn't have much of a chance to have direct influence. And I don't think we really knew how many editing errors would be introduced - I don't think that anyone expected that, and until we got it up to scale, we wouldn't have seen that, necessarily. The real flaw was the failure to agree with the editing community on what the minimum viable product was. I'm pleased to say that the WMF learned a lot from that experience, and by the time I left, we had moved on to making a whole new set of mistakes.... But yeah, what David and Risker said. pb -- Philippe Beaudette philippe(a)beaudette.me 415-275-1424

On 2016-01-19 12:53 PM, Pine W wrote: ... except that this is not what happened. While that narrative might be satisfying for someone who looks for a sense of being the stalwart defender of an oppressed community, the reality is that superprotect was created to block the deployment of a technically inapt and entirely broken "fix" that was - itself - a kneejerk reaction. Which is not to say that its creation or use was wise in any way - it wasn't. But trying to reframe things in "oh, evil WMF did all wrong against the poor, innocent community" terms serves no purpose other than create a windmill to tilt at. -- Marc

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Marc A. Pelletier &lt;marc(a)uberbox.org&gt; wrote: No, Marc. Your version is quite a stretch. According to Lila Tretikov -- the person responsible for rolling out Superprotect -- its legacy is that it established a "precedent of mistrust <http://wikistrategies.net/superprotect-removed/>." It was deployed to block something, but the thing that was technically inept was the initial deployment of Media Viewer. Even if you (or WMF) disagreed, there was no real cost to the alternative of disabling it by default, with the possibility of fixing it and redeploying it. Even now, more than a year later, independent news organizations and web sites frequently cite the wrong person when reusing Commons photos -- they cite the uploader, rather than the photographer. That bug (one of many) was caught, has now been fixed (in the last couple of weeks). It was caught by a photographer looking after his own attribution -- a photographer who did not sign the Superprotect letter, if that matters -- not by Wikimedia staff. Media Viewer was deployed before it was ready. There was no benefit to doing so. Superprotect was deployed to reinforce that bad decision. Which is not to say that its creation or use was wise in any way - it The Wikimedia Foundation needs, first and foremost, to look after the principle and unique asset that gives the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands value: its volunteer community. When the Wikimedia Foundation conducts itself in a way that leads to division, it's damaging our shared vision, and it needs to be held accountable. None of that is to say that the Wikimedia Foundation should give way before a mob of pitchfork-wielding anarchists; but to the repeated suggestion that that's what the community (or those opposed to any specific software deployment) is, I say: Citation needed. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] Author of letter objecting to Superprotect: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_Wikimedia_Foundation:_Superprotec…

On 20 January 2016 at 22:08, John Mark Vandenberg &lt;jayvdb(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Marc is not a member of the WMF staff. Risker/Anne

Hoi, Jens, so you talk about improving Wikipedia. What I hear is basic negativity. What is it in what you say that will actually make a positive difference. Have you considered how Wikidata already made a big quality improvement and do you agree that by taking the next step from interwiki links and move to links and red links Wikidata would easily improve any Wikipedia actually any Wikimedia project. It does not need sources, it does not need anything but the realisation that it will remove a whole class of errors that can be as much as 20% in some articles. Really Jens, let us forget about adding stumbling blocks and focus on quality. Improving quality in Wikipedia because we can. Thanks, GerardM On 19 January 2016 at 16:58, Jens Best &lt;best.jens(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 2016-01-19 16:58, Jens Best wrote: Actually, Wikidata itself is an excellent positive example of community involvement. All things, including technical innovations, are discussed at the village pump (there, it is called Project Chat); for those who are less active in some areas there are weekly digests covering all the activities; if there is a technical problem help comes within minutes. It is of course much easier for a smaller scale project, but the problems in Wikipedia from Wikidata come, I believe, not from negligence or from insufficient attention to the community, but from bad communication. Cheers Yaroslav

Ah, I see. I am the problem. Glad we cleared that up. On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:56 AM Isarra Yos &lt;zhorishna(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske &lt;magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to fulfil one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally published source. Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious that Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable source", isn't it?[2] [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Could you give some specific examples of such cases, with links to the relevant article versions? Andreas

Hoi, Eh, wrong link ... http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-20-error-rate.html On 25 January 2016 at 17:29, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Why not insist that every piece of data added to wikidata is supported by a reliable source? That's a genuine question. I don't know the answer. Saying, "Well, Wikipedia is unreliable, too" doesn't answer the question. You're all bright people, and I assume there is a good reason not to insist on reliable sourcing for all of Wikidata's claims. What is it, please? Anthony Cole On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Jane Darnell &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

The answer is quite simple and is exactly the same as it is for Wikipedia: it's a wiki, and not everyone who contributes knows how to add references. On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:39 AM, Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Hoi, The question why add sources to every statement has nothing to do with Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is mentioned, it is because Wikipedians say that Wikidata is inferior "because we have sources". When the question is to be asked seriously, the answer becomes quite different. - It is really laborious to add references. Many references are a book a publication and I give you one example of a book [1]. It takes MUCH more time to add a source than it is to add a statement. The book, the authors they need sources in their own right.. - At this stage of Wikidata, it is very incomplete and very immature. Our biggest concern is coverage more than anything else. Ask yourself on that book is it more relevant to have links to the authors or to the ISBN number if any? We actually need both. - Perceived quality is very much in the completeness of the data, the ease of going from item to item. This is true in Wikipedia and even more so in Wikidata. People read the article and some take an interest in sources. - When I add award winners, there may be a few there may fifty. All the statements are on the award winners. I can automate the insertion of the statement. I cannot automate the insertion of a source. Thanks, GerardM [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=22019124 On 26 January 2016 at 06:39, Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Be careful with that "obvious" word... http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378 On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:56 PM Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Most of the time, I think your approach is good enough. But please don't assume that there is a bijection between books ("works") and ISBNs. * not all books have ISBNs (ISBN has been widely used from 1970s) * that ISBNs are *always* unique (publishers reuse them to save money)(yeah, I know) * you often have a different ISBN for the ebook, for the paperback, for the hardcover, of the same book etc. * right now, we don't really know how to consistenly works to their different editions and translations. I'm simply stating that the reason we don't have Wikidata full of book records is a deep one. Aubrey

Most editions of most books published in the last 40 years (certainly books from reliable publishers) have an ISBN that identifies one edition. Most reliable journal articles these days have a doi. For simple citing of web pages, you could automatically convert bare urls to archived versions of the cited web page. There is a difference between unreliable assertions and knowledge. Wikimedia should be distributing knowledge. That's what the mission statement says. Wikidata could take citation a bit more seriously. On 26 Jan 2016 5:59 pm, "Jane Darnell" &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Hoi, You want to compare it to the Reasonator item. It has all the right links for 43 award winners. That is 100% I did not have problems telling Wikipedians that there link was wrong. The information is there and there are more 'blue' links than in Wikipedia. The proof is in the pudding. For simple lists and links Wikidata is hands down superior. Thanks, GerardM On 26 January 2016 at 12:21, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I do agree with you. But the problem emerges if you want to cite the reference (the book, the article) as an item. There you have to take into account a "book model" in Wikidata, and it's easier said than done. (scientific articles are a bit easier, and Magnus is working on them). https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Source_MetaData Aubrey

Yes, Aubrey. It would be way too onerous to expect us to make each citation a Wikidata item. On Tuesday, 26 January 2016, Andrea Zanni &lt;zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Anthony Cole

Hoi, It is becoming boring. Andreas, quality is not in sources. They are often horrible. Your notion that only sources are good is off. It has been argued too often that quality is in much more than only sources. The argument that Wikidata is immature has been made all frequently and the point is very much that we need to concentrate our effort on where effort has the biggest impact. To improve quality in a meaningful way, sources will not make much of a difference when adding them is not targeted. The most impact is achieved when differences between sources are identified and when they are curated. Andreas, it is irrelevant what others say, I do not care at all. I care however very much about quality, I blog frequently about it and I am happy that my understanding evolves. I sincerely hope that you take the time to consider what is important; dogma or making a qualitative difference in our projects. Thanks, GerardM On 11 March 2016 at 12:41, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I disagree with that. In my opinion Wikipedia and Wikidata do not have different purposes, they complement each other. In an ideal world all the data present in Wikidata should surface in Wikipedia, and be referenced from there. However it is expected that the data comes already referenced at *statement* level from Wikidata, when Wikipedia doesn't comply with those standards either. This assumes that the Wikidata community is a generator of perfectly referenced facts and that the Wikipedia communities are mere consumers of data. This is a toxic view because it goes against the core principle of wikis as a tool for taking ownership of the means of knowledge aggregation and distribution. It has to be noted too, that in Wikidata many items have external identifiers, references, and sources, and they apply to the whole information contained, not just one single statement, that is something that should be taken into account when speaking about reliability. Besides this discussion is trite. Quality comes from use, research and oversight, and without tools for working with wikidata from wikipedia, like connected infoboxes, there is no point in discussing about data quality, because as you said "no one reads a database"... except for a few people like me I guess :) Cheers, Micru

Andreas, Of course it is a Wikipedia-centric analysis, because citing the article you provide (bold in the original): *Wikidata presents Wikipedia as structured data* Wikidata does not exist in isolation. In symbiosis with existing projects it acts as a catalyst, or at least that is one of the goals. I am aware of the risks of the CC0 license reuse, and of the possible "garbage dump" effect, but so far the process of data import/correlation has been highly human supervised, with initiatives like the Wikidata game: https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/# or Mix'n'match: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mix'n'match There is also a process for approving data imports, it is not such a wild place... So far it is unclear how the relationship with external consumers will evolve, maybe it is a new opportunity for them to participate in the data curation process, either directly or through entirely new feedback loops that are not possible in the traditional Wikipedia setting. For instance: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase_Quality_Extensions All in all, I find very positive that you bring this issues into public awareness, it gives a broader perspective of the limits of the platform, both technical and social. I think there is still a lot to discuss about it, and it is good to have the conversation rolling. Cheers, Micru On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non

Hi Magnus. I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1] earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing me. Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe a formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable sources. Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with the number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references per statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison. Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because whole paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears only once at the end of the paragraph. But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it should be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid arguments. The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If that is so, you should fix that. 1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378 Anthony Cole On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels &lt;andreengels(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Gnangarra, I was away when Andy was here, and am really regretting missing his presentation. Can you explain to me why the Wikidata people have to make a wikidata item of every source before they can cite it? Anthony Cole On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of you only counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of paragraphs. And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a paragraph if, as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph often supports all statements in the paragraph? Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact? Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in his response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because, provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source in the body of an article, citations are not expected or required in en.Wikipedia article leads. Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating Wikipedia's lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is appalling. Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is worse". You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's true but still an invalid argument. It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument. Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding references is difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it is easy to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more difficult than adding them to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will you? You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the media viewer and visual editor was the stoopid power users. Anthony Cole On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Magnus Manske &lt;magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> > > Hi Magnus. > > > > I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1] > > earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing > > me. > > > > Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe a > > formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable > sources. > > Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence > > contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with > the > > number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references > per > > statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS > > ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of > > en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated > > Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison. > > > > Correct. > > > > > Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because whole > > paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears > > only once at the end of the paragraph. > > > > Which is why I am counting reference markers within the paragraphs, not > references at the end. Every <ref> is sacred ;-) > > Actually, I think my statement count for entire Wikipedia articles is low > (and thus, favourable to Wikipedia). Take jsut the first sentence at > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams > This sentence alone contains nine statements (first names, last name, birth > date, death date, nationality, the fact he's human, and three occupations). > But I would only count that as one statement, as it is one sentence. This > reduces the number of statements I count in the article, but the number of > references (btw, only one in the entire lead section) remains constant, > thus pushing the RPS ratio in favour of Wikipedia. > > > > > But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it should > > be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid > > arguments. > > > > I agree. Which is why I never made such arguments. Please don't put them in > my mouth; I don't know you well enough for that. > > > > > > The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others > > that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If > > that is so, you should fix that. > > > > Actually, it is easy to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more > difficult than adding them to Wikipedia. I have written bots and > drag'n'drop scripts to make it even easier. It is a little fiiddly to add > book references, but still reasoably possible. > What /is/ difficult is to do this automatically, by bot. But pick a random > Wikidata entry, and with a little googling, many statements can be > referenced to URLs. But this takes time. > Which brings me back to my blog post: Even after ~3 years, Wikidata is > referenced not too badly, compared to Wikipedia. And if we have learned one > thing from Wikipedia, it is that the state in general, and references in > particular, will improve over time. > So to everyone who disses Wikidata because of "missing references", I say: > 1. You're wrong (it's already OK) > 2. Patience (it will get even better) > > Cheers, > Magnus > > > > > > > > > > 1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378 > > > > Anthony Cole > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels &lt;andreengels(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > > > > The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's > > > new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd > > > exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it, > > > as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who > > > had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual > > > editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to > > > be, because I know you have done many good things. > > > > > > And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average > > > Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering > > > skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did, > > > they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short > > > term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that, > > > it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause > > > disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports > > > etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them. > > > > > > I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working > > > in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People > > > see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so > > > large that they do not want the product at all *until they are > > > resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also > > > forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the > > > issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is > > > instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into > > > resistance against the product as a whole. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske > > > &lt;magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> > > > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this > > > thread. I > > > > have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I > do > > > well > > > > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not > > quite > > > up > > > > to the job. > > > > > > > > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical or > > > > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even > > > > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have > seen > > > time > > > > and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata. > > > > > > > > It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it. > > > > > > > > It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not > > Made > > > > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > > > > > > > >> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A > couple > > of > > > >> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're > > > >> persisting with your idée fixe. > > > >> > > > >> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The > > > >> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not > > > newbies. > > > >> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an > edit. > > > It > > > >> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it. > > > >> > > > >> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors > were > > > >> unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then > most > > > of > > > >> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community > arrogantly > > > >> characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an > > ignorant, > > > >> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation > now. > > > >> > > > >> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have > > > >> fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and > the > > > >> community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have. > > > >> > > > >> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the > > > concurrent > > > >> thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny in > > > >> earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems to me > there > > > is > > > >> still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at > least > > > over > > > >> at WikiData. > > > >> > > > >> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly, > about > > > an > > > >> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down to > > > them or > > > >> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't > > > distinguish > > > >> them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and > > well-founded > > > >> criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your technical > > solutions > > > >> are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than those WMF > > > staffers > > > >> who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career move. > > > >> > > > >> Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his project, > and > > > your > > > >> contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early visual > > > editor > > > >> and its launch are both very disappointing. > > > >> > > > >> Anthony Cole > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske < > > > >> magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com&gt; > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do the > basic > > > >> > functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at the same > time. > > > We > > > >> do > > > >> > not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our product. > If > > we > > > >> can > > > >> > present the product in such a way that more people use it, it is a > > > >> success > > > >> > for us. > > > >> > > > > >> > I do stand by my example :-) > > > >> > > > > >> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael Peel &lt;email(a)mikepeel.net > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske < > > > magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > As one can be overly conservative, one can also be overly > > > >> > enthusiastic. I > > > >> > > > would hope the Foundation by now understands better how to > > handle > > > new > > > >> > > > software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic > > functionality, > > > but > > > >> > > > working smoothly first. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's a good example > to > > > make > > > >> > > here. :-/ > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > > >> > > Mike > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > > >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > >> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > >> > > Unsubscribe: > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > >> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org > > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > > >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > >> > Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > , > > > >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > >> Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > , > > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern what a <ref> refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As described, my "one sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound of statement numbers. So is my <ref> count, then. I am certain you can find an article where my statement-to-reference ratio is off against WIkipedia; but I believe I could find more instances where it is in favour of Wikipedia. Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care :-) My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one can't "sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor referencing. Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things). That is all. Cheers, Magnus

Ugh.I just edited the page and now it's not working. Try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2/Example Anthony Cole On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

That would be a useful feature in the long term Cheers, Peter -----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Cole Sent: Saturday, 12 March 2016 8:42 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern what a <ref> refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph." Check out the first paragraph and its references here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral. Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your MediaWiki preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what each reference is supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting the supported text on the page, rather than having it appear in a tool tip. I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that screen readers can read it. Anthony Cole On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske &lt;magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4540/11801 - Release Date: 03/12/16

Maybe it will become accessible with future technology, in which case your work would not be wasted. Cheers, Peter -----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Cole Sent: Saturday, 12 March 2016 9:06 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske I'd use it for most of my citations if it also worked for users of screen readers. But I can't bring myself to add a feature to an article that isn't accessible by the sight impaired. Anthony Cole On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4540/11804 - Release Date: 03/12/16

Thanks Peter. It's not my work, I put it out to tender at Village Pump (technical) and User:Makyen took it and did it. (It doesn't seem to be working now, though.) I'm pretty confident it's technically possible to make it accessible (readable by JAWS [1]) now. What's missing is the WMF's decision to invest in reliability. Reliability, I'm discovering, is the thing that must not be named. "We tried fixing reliability. Remember Nupedia? Hahahahahahaha." Magnus: I think we agree both ratios (Wikipedia's and Wikidata's) have a long way to go. :o) TTS: Yes. Why not? A simple button that smoothly reads an article to me, like a podcast, with fast forward and rewind or skip, while I do the dishes would be cool. I hope they're not going to try to re-invent JAWS, though. Anthony Cole On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:31 AM, Magnus Manske &lt;magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: