Librarians and library lovers,
Next month from May 15th to June 5th we will be joining together around the world to make Wikipedia more reliable. You can participate in #1Lib1Ref by simply adding a citation to Wikipedia's content.
That's all we ask and imagine: a world in which every librarian (or archivist, reference professional, and scholar) adds 1 more reference to Wikipedia.
This is the fourth year of the #1Lib1Ref campaign and our second time running it in May, when it's more convenient for the southern hemisphere. You can learn about this year's January campaign too in our recently released learnings report.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Library/1Lib1Ref/Lessons/2019
Full resources and guides for participating in May are available on the http://1lib1ref.org campaign website.
The campaign will be fully tracked with daily metrics and leaderboard updates. You can make sure your contribution is counted by using the Program and Events Dashboard for your event, institution, or region.
Login to start a new event or join up with an existing group for the May Campaign here:
https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/campaigns/1lib1ref_may_2019/programs
Please tell your library and library-loving friends about #1Lib1Ref in May. We need everyone's help to make Wikipedia more reliable!
Sincerely,
Jake Orlowitz
Head of the Wikipedia Library
Wikimedia Foundation
wikipedialibrary@wikimedia.org
@Wikilibrary
P.S. Don’t worry if you can’t make it for the May campaign, as now 1Lib1Ref receives annual support and you can always reach out for assistance any time of the year.
Jake
Thanks for that, but I think we need to preserve a sense of proportion here. According to a recent WMF Research finding, see https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/03/can-machine-learning-uncover-wiki... ,"one out of four articles in English Wikipedia does not have any references at all". That' something like 1.5 million articles, and maybe 3 million across all languages. Your report suggests that around 6000 articles were updated: that's at best 0.2% of the backlog. At this rate it will take about 250 years to clear it. Perhaps a new approach is needed -- WMF researchers are looking into AI.
JPS
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:27 PM Jake Orlowitz jorlowitz@gmail.com wrote:
Librarians and library lovers,
Next month from May 15th to June 5th we will be joining together around the world to make Wikipedia more reliable. You can participate in #1Lib1Ref by simply adding a citation to Wikipedia's content.
That's all we ask and imagine: a world in which every librarian (or archivist, reference professional, and scholar) adds 1 more reference to Wikipedia.
This is the fourth year of the #1Lib1Ref campaign and our second time running it in May, when it's more convenient for the southern hemisphere. You can learn about this year's January campaign too in our recently released learnings report.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Library/1Lib1Ref/Lessons/2019
Full resources and guides for participating in May are available on the http://1lib1ref.org campaign website.
The campaign will be fully tracked with daily metrics and leaderboard updates. You can make sure your contribution is counted by using the Program and Events Dashboard for your event, institution, or region.
Login to start a new event or join up with an existing group for the May Campaign here:
https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/campaigns/1lib1ref_may_2019/programs
Please tell your library and library-loving friends about #1Lib1Ref in May. We need everyone's help to make Wikipedia more reliable!
Sincerely,
Jake Orlowitz
Head of the Wikipedia Library
Wikimedia Foundation
wikipedialibrary@wikimedia.org
@Wikilibrary
P.S. Don’t worry if you can’t make it for the May campaign, as now 1Lib1Ref receives annual support and you can always reach out for assistance any time of the year. _______________________________________________ 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
Hoi, The thing you fail to understand is how much of what we do is done by a community. What we need is collaboration with the world of libraries. It is embodied by librarians and yes, it is important that they are on our side. To be on our side, they need to know Wikipedia, what we are doing in Wikidata with scholarly papers. They need to know, be involved in order to help their clients understand the Internet and Wikipedia. Their clients are or may become Wikimedians.
So yes, we are dabbling with AI to find where citations are most needed. We need to work on including science in Wikidata so that its references may be used in a scalable way. A way that allows us to check Wikipedia for the retractions we are finally including in Wikidata. The technology may become available to us but we need people who understand it, live it. Librarians are great at that. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 19:37, Jennifer Pryor-Summers < jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com> wrote:
Jake
Thanks for that, but I think we need to preserve a sense of proportion here. According to a recent WMF Research finding, see
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/03/can-machine-learning-uncover-wiki... , https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/03/can-machine-learning-uncover-wikipedias-missing-citation-needed-tags/, "one out of four articles in English Wikipedia does not have any references at all". That' something like 1.5 million articles, and maybe 3 million across all languages. Your report suggests that around 6000 articles were updated: that's at best 0.2% of the backlog. At this rate it will take about 250 years to clear it. Perhaps a new approach is needed -- WMF researchers are looking into AI.
JPS
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:27 PM Jake Orlowitz jorlowitz@gmail.com wrote:
Librarians and library lovers,
Next month from May 15th to June 5th we will be joining together around
the
world to make Wikipedia more reliable. You can participate in #1Lib1Ref
by
simply adding a citation to Wikipedia's content.
That's all we ask and imagine: a world in which every librarian (or archivist, reference professional, and scholar) adds 1 more reference to Wikipedia.
This is the fourth year of the #1Lib1Ref campaign and our second time running it in May, when it's more convenient for the southern hemisphere. You can learn about this year's January campaign too in our recently released learnings report.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Library/1Lib1Ref/Lessons/2019
Full resources and guides for participating in May are available on the http://1lib1ref.org campaign website.
The campaign will be fully tracked with daily metrics and leaderboard updates. You can make sure your contribution is counted by using the Program and Events Dashboard for your event, institution, or region.
Login to start a new event or join up with an existing group for the May Campaign here:
https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/campaigns/1lib1ref_may_2019/programs
Please tell your library and library-loving friends about #1Lib1Ref in May. We need everyone's help to make Wikipedia more reliable!
Sincerely,
Jake Orlowitz
Head of the Wikipedia Library
Wikimedia Foundation
wikipedialibrary@wikimedia.org
@Wikilibrary
P.S. Don’t worry if you can’t make it for the May campaign, as now
1Lib1Ref
receives annual support and you can always reach out for assistance any time of the year. _______________________________________________ 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
Gerard
Thank you for explaining to me what it is that I fail to understand. In the same spirit, let me adopt for once your own, somewhat assertive terminology, to explain to you what you do not understand, namely the scale of the problem: the major Wikipedia projects have millions of unreferenced or inadequately referenced articles, including thousands which are biographies of living people. What you do not understand is that the community on which you place such emphasis has created that problem, is not fixing that problem and indeed is unable to fix that problem. You also do not understand the simple arithmetic that the collaboration with librarians equally does not and cannot fix that problem.
In future, please do not say "you do not understand X" when what you mean is "I disagree with you about X".
JPS
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 8:54 PM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The thing you fail to understand is how much of what we do is done by a community. What we need is collaboration with the world of libraries. It is embodied by librarians and yes, it is important that they are on our side. To be on our side, they need to know Wikipedia, what we are doing in Wikidata with scholarly papers. They need to know, be involved in order to help their clients understand the Internet and Wikipedia. Their clients are or may become Wikimedians.
So yes, we are dabbling with AI to find where citations are most needed. We need to work on including science in Wikidata so that its references may be used in a scalable way. A way that allows us to check Wikipedia for the retractions we are finally including in Wikidata. The technology may become available to us but we need people who understand it, live it. Librarians are great at that. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 19:37, Jennifer Pryor-Summers < jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com> wrote:
Jake
Thanks for that, but I think we need to preserve a sense of proportion here. According to a recent WMF Research finding, see
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/03/can-machine-learning-uncover-wiki...
, <
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/03/can-machine-learning-uncover-wiki...,
"one out of four articles in English Wikipedia does not have any references at all". That' something like 1.5 million articles, and maybe 3 million across all languages. Your report suggests that around 6000 articles
were
updated: that's at best 0.2% of the backlog. At this rate it will take about 250 years to clear it. Perhaps a new approach is needed -- WMF researchers are looking into AI.
JPS
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:27 PM Jake Orlowitz jorlowitz@gmail.com
wrote:
Librarians and library lovers,
Next month from May 15th to June 5th we will be joining together around
the
world to make Wikipedia more reliable. You can participate in
#1Lib1Ref
by
simply adding a citation to Wikipedia's content.
That's all we ask and imagine: a world in which every librarian (or archivist, reference professional, and scholar) adds 1 more reference
to
Wikipedia.
This is the fourth year of the #1Lib1Ref campaign and our second time running it in May, when it's more convenient for the southern
hemisphere.
You can learn about this year's January campaign too in our recently released learnings report.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Library/1Lib1Ref/Lessons/2019
Full resources and guides for participating in May are available on the http://1lib1ref.org campaign website.
The campaign will be fully tracked with daily metrics and leaderboard updates. You can make sure your contribution is counted by using the Program and Events Dashboard for your event, institution, or region.
Login to start a new event or join up with an existing group for the
May
Campaign here:
https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/campaigns/1lib1ref_may_2019/programs
Please tell your library and library-loving friends about #1Lib1Ref in May. We need everyone's help to make Wikipedia more reliable!
Sincerely,
Jake Orlowitz
Head of the Wikipedia Library
Wikimedia Foundation
wikipedialibrary@wikimedia.org
@Wikilibrary
P.S. Don’t worry if you can’t make it for the May campaign, as now
1Lib1Ref
receives annual support and you can always reach out for assistance any time of the year. _______________________________________________ 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
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
Hoi, Well if this was not a Wiki, I could agree with you. However in a Wiki we need to be complete, we need to understand an issue and work towards a solution. Your assertion that the community "is not fixing that problem and indeed is unable to fix that problem" is therefore an assertion that is best used elsewhere. To a large extend, the notion some have: "everything needs to be sourced" reads better as "everything should be sourced", much more reasonable. Such a difference allows for requiring sources when an issue is controversial.
Having said that a lot of work is being done and we have had our first articles changed because the facts supported by citations are invalid; the sources were retracted. Now that is exactly where we need our community to understand the implications. Science is not immutable, it is not an opinion and when thing are untrue, our articles need to reflect this. The mechanisms that make this possible require technology, we need people like librarians that understand this as part of our community, because at this time many people do not appreciate science and its processes.
And by the way, I do understand the scale of this issue. It is why I spend a large amount of time adding scientists, scholarly papers to Wikidata. Particularly on those subjects that I think are important where there is a lot of misinformation, where points of view, including political points of view are not supported by science, better where science indicates that those points of view are wrong. In addition I add those scientists that are "in the news" Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 08:38, Jennifer Pryor-Summers < jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com> wrote:
Gerard
Thank you for explaining to me what it is that I fail to understand. In the same spirit, let me adopt for once your own, somewhat assertive terminology, to explain to you what you do not understand, namely the scale of the problem: the major Wikipedia projects have millions of unreferenced or inadequately referenced articles, including thousands which are biographies of living people. What you do not understand is that the community on which you place such emphasis has created that problem, is not fixing that problem and indeed is unable to fix that problem. You also do not understand the simple arithmetic that the collaboration with librarians equally does not and cannot fix that problem.
In future, please do not say "you do not understand X" when what you mean is "I disagree with you about X".
JPS
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 8:54 PM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, The thing you fail to understand is how much of what we do is done by a community. What we need is collaboration with the world of libraries. It
is
embodied by librarians and yes, it is important that they are on our
side.
To be on our side, they need to know Wikipedia, what we are doing in Wikidata with scholarly papers. They need to know, be involved in order
to
help their clients understand the Internet and Wikipedia. Their clients
are
or may become Wikimedians.
So yes, we are dabbling with AI to find where citations are most needed.
We
need to work on including science in Wikidata so that its references may
be
used in a scalable way. A way that allows us to check Wikipedia for the retractions we are finally including in Wikidata. The technology may
become
available to us but we need people who understand it, live it. Librarians are great at that. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 19:37, Jennifer Pryor-Summers < jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com> wrote:
Jake
Thanks for that, but I think we need to preserve a sense of proportion here. According to a recent WMF Research finding, see
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/03/can-machine-learning-uncover-wiki...
, <
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/03/can-machine-learning-uncover-wiki... ,
"one out of four articles in English Wikipedia does not have any references
at
all". That' something like 1.5 million articles, and maybe 3 million across all languages. Your report suggests that around 6000 articles
were
updated: that's at best 0.2% of the backlog. At this rate it will take about 250 years to clear it. Perhaps a new approach is needed -- WMF researchers are looking into AI.
JPS
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:27 PM Jake Orlowitz jorlowitz@gmail.com
wrote:
Librarians and library lovers,
Next month from May 15th to June 5th we will be joining together
around
the
world to make Wikipedia more reliable. You can participate in
#1Lib1Ref
by
simply adding a citation to Wikipedia's content.
That's all we ask and imagine: a world in which every librarian (or archivist, reference professional, and scholar) adds 1 more reference
to
Wikipedia.
This is the fourth year of the #1Lib1Ref campaign and our second time running it in May, when it's more convenient for the southern
hemisphere.
You can learn about this year's January campaign too in our recently released learnings report.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Library/1Lib1Ref/Lessons/2019
Full resources and guides for participating in May are available on
the
http://1lib1ref.org campaign website.
The campaign will be fully tracked with daily metrics and leaderboard updates. You can make sure your contribution is counted by using the Program and Events Dashboard for your event, institution, or region.
Login to start a new event or join up with an existing group for the
May
Campaign here:
https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/campaigns/1lib1ref_may_2019/programs
Please tell your library and library-loving friends about #1Lib1Ref
in
May. We need everyone's help to make Wikipedia more reliable!
Sincerely,
Jake Orlowitz
Head of the Wikipedia Library
Wikimedia Foundation
wikipedialibrary@wikimedia.org
@Wikilibrary
P.S. Don’t worry if you can’t make it for the May campaign, as now
1Lib1Ref
receives annual support and you can always reach out for assistance
any
time of the year. _______________________________________________ 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
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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org