Monmouthpedia - press coverage so far - Wikimediauk-l

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

Monmouthpedia - press coverage so far

older

WikiConference UK 2012 feedback -...

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A V Denham

Stevie Benton

17 May 2012 17 May '12

4:12 p.m.

Hello everyone, I'm sure you all know about Monmouthpedia by now. We're starting to pick up some press coverage - so far, countries running the story include the US, Israel, Turkey, France, Mexico, Russia and India. You can see the links at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports/2012/May#GLAM_activities It's also been covered on the WMUK <http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/05/welcome-to-the-worlds-first-wikipedia-town/> and WMF <http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/05/16/monmouthpedia_day/> blogs. We currently have people pushing the story to the international press, tech press, UK press and Wales press. Hopefully we should see positive outcomes from this activity soon. If you'd like to help share the story please do let people know about it via Twitter, Facebook and so on. If you have any questions, please do get in touch. Many thanks, Stevie -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993

Attachments:

attachment.htm (text/html — 1.4 KB)

Show replies by date

Gordon Joly

18 May 18 May

9:59 a.m.

On 17/05/12 15:12, Stevie Benton wrote:

...

I'm sure you all know about Monmouthpedia by now.

Yes, indeed. I wonder if you extrapolated forwards, how big or how small a thing has to be before it received attention in the English Wikipedia. As Wikipedia expands, articles and projects might be created for smaller and smaller units. That is a country article, a region article, a town article, a street article, and finally a street address article. Will every address (32 million I believe) in the UK have an article in Wikipedia? Probably not. My example is absurd, of course. But my question is what is the granularity of articles? Some places, buildings, streets are merged and some stand on their own. Some are deleted since they do not meet the current standards for "significance". BTW, I live here.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansbury_Estate .... hence, a place with great significance? :-) Gordo

Fae

10:06 a.m.

On 18 May 2012 08:59, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:

...

On 17/05/12 15:12, Stevie Benton wrote: BTW, I live here.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansbury_Estate .... hence, a place with great significance?

Seems like a nice article with some interesting facts. I learned my lesson on this one by debating the notability of teeny hamlets in France with just a couple of houses. Yes, they are all "notable" regardless of actual notability, or decent sources for that matter. PS I can't see where you declared your conflict of interest. ;-) Fae

Gordon Joly

10:11 a.m.

On 18/05/12 09:06, Fae wrote:

...

PS I can't see where you declared your conflict of interest.;-)

Thank you for reminding me. http://www.lansburyvoices.org.uk/wiki/ <http://www.lansburyvoices.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_Page> Gordo

Roger Bamkin

10:22 a.m.

I think thats one of the things we are finding out. So far we have lost three articles to non-notability. Some others may be merged in time. But its not lack of articles. There is an open invite to help today and to just attend the celebrations tomorrow. I can't get over walking around a town that has 60 banners saying its working with Wikimedia UK. Press coverage at 3 tomorrow in the Shire Hall, but come and try some of the Wikipedia trails around the town and marvel at the Welcome to Monmouth signs saying "Worlds First Wikipedia Town". Hope to see you tomorrow. On 18 May 2012 08:59, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:

...

On 17/05/12 15:12, Stevie Benton wrote: I'm sure you all know about Monmouthpedia by now. Yes, indeed. I wonder if you extrapolated forwards, how big or how small a thing has to be before it received attention in the English Wikipedia. As Wikipedia expands, articles and projects might be created for smaller and smaller units. That is a country article, a region article, a town article, a street article, and finally a street address article. Will every address (32 million I believe) in the UK have an article in Wikipedia? Probably not. My example is absurd, of course. But my question is what is the granularity of articles? Some places, buildings, streets are merged and some stand on their own. Some are deleted since they do not meet the current standards for "significance". BTW, I live here.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansbury_Estate .... hence, a place with great significance? :-) Gordo _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

-- Roger Bamkin 01332 702993 0758 2020815 Google+:Victuallers Skype:Victuallers1 Flickr:Victuallers2

Gordon Joly

noon

On 18/05/12 09:22, Roger Bamkin wrote:

...

"Worlds First Wikipedia Town".

Is that the title of an article on the English Wikipedia? Gordo

steve virgin

12:15 p.m.

All With the London team busy preparing to go down to Monmouth for the official launch of Monmouthpedia tomorrow, I thought it useful to scoop up the coverage (to date) and share it with you all. I know it will all be put up on an appropriate Wiki at some point, but it has been coming in thick and fast in the last 24 hours. To date, 10ish Friday morning - we have around 100 significant online news stories from around the globe on the topic and on Twitter it is heading for around 1000 Tweets If any of you want to comment on these stories (you now have URL's to go and do so). If any of you have Twitter accounts you can (hopefully) retweet some of these. And if any of you want to push them out through any other channels please feel free. All these documents are is an attempt to scrape it all up and make it free, open and easy to use Help yourselves Steve Virgin -----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Joly Sent: 18 May 2012 11:00 To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Monmouthpedia - press coverage so far On 18/05/12 09:22, Roger Bamkin wrote:

...

"Worlds First Wikipedia Town".

Is that the title of an article on the English Wikipedia? Gordo _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

steve virgin

20 May 20 May

12:10 p.m.

Update As of middle of the afternoon on Saturday Identifiable press coverage in 'major' 'important' news publications around the world stood at 31 countries and 171 identified news stories ...there is likely to be more as a result of the work that happened in Monmouth ...if anyone wishes to chip in with tweets or blog posts it is warmly welcomed -----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of steve virgin Sent: 18 May 2012 11:16 To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] Monmouthpedia - press coverage so far All With the London team busy preparing to go down to Monmouth for the official launch of Monmouthpedia tomorrow, I thought it useful to scoop up the coverage (to date) and share it with you all. I know it will all be put up on an appropriate Wiki at some point, but it has been coming in thick and fast in the last 24 hours. To date, 10ish Friday morning - we have around 100 significant online news stories from around the globe on the topic and on Twitter it is heading for around 1000 Tweets If any of you want to comment on these stories (you now have URL's to go and do so). If any of you have Twitter accounts you can (hopefully) retweet some of these. And if any of you want to push them out through any other channels please feel free. All these documents are is an attempt to scrape it all up and make it free, open and easy to use Help yourselves Steve Virgin -----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Joly Sent: 18 May 2012 11:00 To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Monmouthpedia - press coverage so far On 18/05/12 09:22, Roger Bamkin wrote:

...

"Worlds First Wikipedia Town".

steve virgin

28 May 28 May

1:45 p.m.

A final press story count/wash up from the Monmouthpedia coverage for Wikimedia UK -----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of steve virgin Sent: 18 May 2012 11:16 To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] Monmouthpedia - press coverage so far All With the London team busy preparing to go down to Monmouth for the official launch of Monmouthpedia tomorrow, I thought it useful to scoop up the coverage (to date) and share it with you all. I know it will all be put up on an appropriate Wiki at some point, but it has been coming in thick and fast in the last 24 hours. To date, 10ish Friday morning - we have around 100 significant online news stories from around the globe on the topic and on Twitter it is heading for around 1000 Tweets If any of you want to comment on these stories (you now have URL's to go and do so). If any of you have Twitter accounts you can (hopefully) retweet some of these. And if any of you want to push them out through any other channels please feel free. All these documents are is an attempt to scrape it all up and make it free, open and easy to use Help yourselves Steve Virgin -----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Joly Sent: 18 May 2012 11:00 To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Monmouthpedia - press coverage so far On 18/05/12 09:22, Roger Bamkin wrote:

...

"Worlds First Wikipedia Town".

Andy Mabbett

18 May 18 May

1:31 p.m.

On 18 May 2012 09:22, Roger Bamkin <victuallers(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

So far we have lost three articles to non-notability.

Which articles? Were any attempts made to rescue them? Did they go through "Articles for Deletion" debates, or were they speedily deleted or PRODed? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Thomas Dalton

1:34 p.m.

On 18 May 2012 12:31, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

...

On 18 May 2012 09:22, Roger Bamkin <victuallers(a)gmail.com> wrote:

So far we have lost three articles to non-notability.

Which articles? Were any attempts made to rescue them? Did they go through "Articles for Deletion" debates, or were they speedily deleted or PRODed?

Richard Symonds

1:58 p.m.

Welsh is much higher - it might even be 100 PC. Most all of the Welsh community support this, including most admins and a crat, I believe.... Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK On May 18, 2012 12:34 PM, "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 18 May 2012 12:31, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

On 18 May 2012 09:22, Roger Bamkin <victuallers(a)gmail.com> wrote:

So far we have lost three articles to non-notability.

Which articles? Were any attempts made to rescue them? Did they go through "Articles for Deletion" debates, or were they speedily deleted or PRODed?

Given the enormous number of articles written, I would have been very suprised if they had all survived - notability can be quite a subjective issue, so there isn't always going to be agreement between article creators and the community. I assume that statistic of 3 articles is for the English Wikipedia? Does anyone know what the survival rate is for other language Wikipedias? Particularly Welsh? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Guy Hamilton

1:58 p.m.

I was involved as in editor in some at least of those deletion discussions. One was of a ("deplorable") statue affixed to the Shire Hall, which it was thought would be better placed within the Shire Hall article itself, and another was/is of a single shop (started by an editor who was the shop founder's grandson, I think), which was merged into an article about the street where it is located. The other may be an article about a single tree - not sure whether that article still exists. The interesting point is that all the discussions have been resolved between local (or at least UK) editors, rather than Randy from Boise complaining that they are non-notable. But, it's almost inherent in a locally-based initiative like this, involving new editors, that there will be some discussion - I think it's all been pretty amicable though. Some of the articles though do stretch the boundaries of what some of us consider to be notable (I've caught myself referring to "bog standard Grade II listed buildings, for instance). ghmyrtle

...

Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 12:34:35 +0100 From: thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Monmouthpedia - press coverage so far On 18 May 2012 12:31, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

On 18 May 2012 09:22, Roger Bamkin <victuallers(a)gmail.com> wrote:

So far we have lost three articles to non-notability.

Which articles? Were any attempts made to rescue them? Did they go through "Articles for Deletion" debates, or were they speedily deleted or PRODed?

Charles Matthews

1:12 p.m.

On 18 May 2012 08:59, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:

...

. But my question is what is the granularity of articles? Some places, buildings, streets are merged and some stand on their own. Some are deleted since they do not meet the current standards for "significance".

But that's how it works. Because people get het up in discussions, it tends to be forgotten that a deletion is only supposed to have effect for 6 months. The truth is that good sources are published all the time; and it is very significant for the work we do that more information is constantly being posted online. The "simplistic" theory is that we simply digest all the sources that are worth it into WP; and proponents of more "sophisticated" theories need to remember that sophistication has a downside built into the meaning. In any case WP is dynamic, and when it ceases to be is when we really should start to worry. Charles

Thomas Dalton

1:25 p.m.

On 18 May 2012 12:12, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:

...

On 18 May 2012 08:59, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:

But that's how it works. Because people get het up in discussions, it tends to be forgotten that a deletion is only supposed to have effect for 6 months.

A deletion has effect for as long as concensus remains the same. There are some vague guidelines on how long to wait between deletion debates, but if there is a good reason to think consensus will have changed (eg. due to new sources being published), then I'm not aware of any rules saying you have to wait 6 months before you can re-create the article.

Charles Matthews

1:33 p.m.

On 18 May 2012 12:25, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 18 May 2012 12:12, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:

On 18 May 2012 08:59, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:

But that's how it works. Because people get het up in discussions, it tends to be forgotten that a deletion is only supposed to have effect for 6 months.

Obviously not, if the prominence of the topic suddenly changes because it's in the news. My point was that there is nothing inherent in a topic that makes it worth an article, and you have to go case-by-case. By the way "vague guidelines" are good. Charles

Andy Mabbett

2:10 p.m.

On 17 May 2012 15:12, Stevie Benton <stevie.benton(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

...

We're starting to pick up some press coverage

There's been quite a lot of social media coverage, too - do we have any tools for measuring this? Yesterday, @JackSchofield (late of the Guardian, 19,744 followers) retweeted my comment about Monmouthpedia, and @BBCClick (1,970,737 followers!) have just done likewise. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Stevie Benton

6:19 p.m.

Hi Andy, I think our very own Steve Virgin is an expert in this field... Cheers, Stevie On 18/05/2012 13:10, Andy Mabbett wrote:

...

On 17 May 2012 15:12, Stevie Benton<stevie.benton(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

We're starting to pick up some press coverage

-- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993

4351

days inactive

4362

days old

wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

17 comments

10 participants

tags (0)

participants (10)

Andy Mabbett
Charles Matthews
Fae
Gordon Joly
Guy Hamilton
Richard Symonds
Roger Bamkin
steve virgin
Stevie Benton
Thomas Dalton