Hi,
I'm the Product Manager for The Wikipedia Library, thanks for starting this
conversation! Let me start by providing some background context around how
and why the criteria are set this way.
Way back when the library started, it was an uphill battle to get
publishers to agree to participate. While some were happy to jump right in,
others were very wary about making their paywalled materials free for a
nebulous group of folks from around the world. The editing requirements
were primarily designed to convince those publishers that the only people
who would be getting access to their materials were active Wikipedia
editors who would be using their access primarily to contribute to
Wikipedia. The initial requirements were actually even higher than they are
today, at 1000 edits and 12 months of activity. We lowered that to 500
edits and 6 months around 2015 because it was clearly excessive. Last year
we added the 10+ edits/month and no active blocks criteria as we shifted
~half of the publishers to the instant-access model where no applications
are required. I think those two criteria are pretty minor compared to 500/6
(if you don't meet the 10 edits criteria you can make them all in the space
of an hour and get access again right away).
Unfortunately, lowering the requirements isn't quite as easy as simply
making an internal/community decision. Almost all publishers who provide
access via the library sign an agreement with us. We don't pay for access,
so adding new publishers is entirely dependent on convincing them to join
the program. That agreement currently includes the editor activity
criteria. This means lowering the requirements would necessitate going to
each publisher, having them agree, and then likely signing a new agreement.
This was enough of a challenge when we made the 2015 change, but by now we
have something like 80 partnerships and the criteria need to be the same
for all publishers, so this would be quite the undertaking. That's not to
say it isn't worth the effort, I just want to clarify what's required.
In terms of who qualifies under the current criteria, the figure is
somewhere around 57,000 active editors in total today, obviously with more
receiving the eligibility notification each day.
In terms of lowering the requirements further, I do agree in principle that
it would be nice if newer good faith editors were able to access the
library, but we need to balance this with publishers' willingness to
continue providing this free access. When we say '500 edits and 6 months of
editing' this generally puts folks we're pitching to at ease, and makes
them confident the program isn't likely to be used by people who aren't
actively editing Wikipedia and have simply registered a free account to use
the library for personal reasons. I'm not sure what the boundary is there,
i.e. whether we would be as successful if we said '250 edits and 3 months',
for example. I'll also say these numbers aren't hugely data-informed. We
didn't analyse at what edit count/tenure threshold we can be confident in
saying 'this is an active and engaged content contributor' versus 'theres a
chance this user has made trivial edits simply to get access', but that's
certainly a research project I could see being useful here, rather than
making an arbitrary change that we can't justify with data.
Because of the work involved in changing these criteria I'm very hesitant
about doing so, but I'd love to hear what you all think and whether the
above changes your perspective at all.
Best,
Sam
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 1:38 PM J West <jessamyn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I can absolutely see lowering the number of edits required, but it
>> might also be worth looking at or adjusting what sort of edits we are
>> looking for or adjusting them per-resource though that might get
>> messy. For example, people who are creating articles need to have a
>> different, and one could possibly argue higher, level of Wikipedia
>> literacy and familiarity than someone doing automated edits. They're
>> both valuable! But may have different needs w/r/t the Library.
>>
>> As someone who approves people for a few different WL resources, I see
>> basically two kinds of applicants
>>
>> - People who just apply for access to ALL WL resources and just are
>> rolling the dice about whether they'll be accepted. What they apply
>> for doesn't match their areas of interest or expertise or even editing
>> areas, or their qualifying edits are all profile page edits
>> - People who apply for a narrowly-tailored set of resources that match
>> their editing expertise
>>
>> I guess the larger question is whether WL resource access is seen as a
>> perq for longer time editors or if it's supposed to just be a tool to
>> help people edit Wikipedia.
>>
>
> Thanks for sharing that's valuable to hear. I would put money on the fact
> that a lot of helpful new editors who don't yet qualify wouldn't even
> bother to apply, for lack of awareness or just giving up after seeing the
> requirements on the main landing page.
>
> Your larger question is definitely the right one. I would say that if our
> mission is to give everyone on the planet free access to the sum of all
> knowledge, we need to treat it like a resource that's available to anyone
> who wants to make a good faith effort to create and edit articles. The bar
> for access should be the minimum necessary to ensure that you've shown real
> interest and ability to make use of the library. If there are limits on the
> volume of editors who can participate, there are other tools we can use
> like making access expire if you don't use it. (Do we do that already?
> Pardon my ignorance here.)
>
>
>>
>> _____________
>> Jessamyn West
>> User:Jessamyn
>> box 345, randolph vt 05060
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 4:26 PM Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I wanted to start a discussion on lowering the threshold for access.
>> Very very very few people qualify for the current requirements of 500+
>> edits, 6+ months editing, 10+ edits in the last month, and no active
>> blocks. In fact basically this excludes any new editor no matter how good
>> faith and helpful they have been. Even just lowering one of the account age
>> or edit count thresholds would go a long way.
>> >
>> > I recently was pretty shocked to discover this high of a bar for
>> access, after recommending the library as a resource to a new editor who
>> has been doing a great job and (as a young student) could use access to
>> academic source material in creating science-related content. I won't name
>> them, but as an example this editor has over 300 edits and has created just
>> over 50 articles, mainly for missing plant species.
>> >
>> > Do the participating institutions require this level of exclusionary
>> criteria? How can we gather data to show them that there are good content
>> contributors being excluded here?
>> >
>> > These requirements seem pretty absurd especially since many of the
>> largest resources in the Library, like JSTOR, give any random person with a
>> Google account access to 100 free articles per month. The risk profile of a
>> Wikipedia who say has,100 edits and 1 month of experience has got to be
>> less than that? We should pilot a threshold like that.
>> >
>> > Steven
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikipedia-Library mailing list -- wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > To unsubscribe send an email to
>> wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-Library mailing list -- wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>> wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-Library mailing list -- wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
--
Sam Walton
Senior Product Manager, Moderator Tools
swalton(a)wikimedia.org
I wanted to start a discussion on lowering the threshold for access. Very
very very few people qualify for the current requirements of 500+ edits, 6+
months editing, 10+ edits in the last month, and no active blocks. In fact
basically this excludes any new editor no matter how good faith and helpful
they have been. Even just lowering one of the account age or edit count
thresholds would go a long way.
I recently was pretty shocked to discover this high of a bar for access,
after recommending the library as a resource to a new editor who has been
doing a great job and (as a young student) could use access to academic
source material in creating science-related content. I won't name them, but
as an example this editor has over 300 edits and has created just over 50
articles, mainly for missing plant species.
Do the participating institutions require this level of exclusionary
criteria? How can we gather data to show them that there are good content
contributors being excluded here?
These requirements seem pretty absurd especially since many of the largest
resources in the Library, like JSTOR, give any random person with a Google
account access to 100 free articles per month. The risk profile of a
Wikipedia who say has,100 edits and 1 month of experience has got to be
less than that? We should pilot a threshold like that.
Steven
Subject: Can I have a Wikipedia article written about me?
Good day from Singapore,
Can I have a Wikipedia article written about me?
I am looking forward to your reply.
Thank you.
Regards,
Mr. Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming
Targeted Individual in Singapore
27 July 2022 Wed
Blogs:
https://tdtemcerts.blogspot.comhttps://tdtemcerts.wordpress.com
Hi!
The Wikipedia Library has new collections now available to experienced
Wikimedia contributors at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/:
* Wiley (journals, books, and research resources, covering life, health,
social, and physical sciences):
https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/128/
* OECD (iLibrary, Data, and Multimedia published by the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development):
https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/125/
* SPIE Digital Library (journals and eBooks on optics and photonics applied
research): https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/129/
Many other sources are already available, including collections which
recently became accessible to all eligible editors: Cambridge University
Press, BMJ, AAAS, Érudit and more. Do better research and help expand the
use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: log in today!
The Wikipedia Library Team
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Library
Hi,
The Wikipedia Library now has a part-time opening for a Partnerships
Specialist to take the lead on the library's partnerships with academic
publishers, aggregators, and other organisations with paywalled reliable
sources.
Please take a look and share in any relevant networks!
https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/3336311
Best,
Sam
--
Sam Walton
Product Manager, The Wikipedia Library
swalton(a)wikimedia.org
Hi everyone!
Next Monday and Tuesday, we have one more GLAM & Culture office hours by
the WMF GLAM team. These ones will be about Structured Data on Commons.
There will be a meeting on *Monday, 26 April, 3.30 pm - 4.30 pm UTC*,
followed by another on *Tuesday, 27 April, 11.00 am - 12.00 pm UTC*.
On the first day, Carly Bogen, the Foundation's Program Manager for
Structured Data, will talk about the new Media Search, Image
Recommendations, and provide updates on the Structured Data Across
Wikimedia project. Jennie Choi, General Manager of Collection Information
for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, will also present her process of batch
uploading Structured Data on Commons.
On the second day, John Sampson Tiberius Cummings, Wikimedian in Residence
at UNESCO, and Alicia Fagerving, Developer at Wikimedia Sverige (WMSE),
will share Wikimedia Sweden's plans with Structured Data, GLAM content, and
Wiki Loves Monuments.
Find the Zoom links to both meetings here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_GLAM_team/Office_Hours>
.
Best,
Giovanna Fontenelle (she/her)
Program Officer; GLAM and Culture
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
Hello all,
This is Giovanna, from the GLAM & Culture team at the Foundation. I'm here
to share some really exciting news with you: the launch of the new Media
Search and the Image Suggestion API.
*Making cultural content more visible*
Several product teams at the Foundation are working hard to improve image
discovery and reuse on Wikimedia projects. Two new releases show the
potential of these developments for libraries and cultural institutions.
The first is the new Media Search on Wikimedia Commons, by the Structured
Data Across Wikimedia team, and the second is a proof-of-concept
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Structured_data_across_Wikimedia> Image
Suggestion API, by the Platform Engineering team.
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Platform_Engineering_Team>
*Searching across languages*
Media Search (or Special:MediaSearch
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=image>) is an
image-focused interface that makes it easier to find what you’re looking
for on Wikimedia Commons. Most importantly, the search results are language
agnostic. Given a search term like "zonnevlek" (Dutch for “sunspot”), Media
Search won’t just return the one file on Commons that uses that term, it
will search Wikidata for relevant entities and then find all files with
that term and any of its aliases or translations. For the “zonnevlek”
example, the number of images returned increased from one file to more than
six hundred files. Media Search will make the millions of images
contributed by libraries and cultural institutions much more accessible to
a broad global audience.
You can try the new search here
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch>. It became the
default search landing page for anonymous users on 1 April 2021, and for
all users in May 2021.
To increase the search relevance of your files, you should include a
descriptive title and detailed description, use the relevant Commons
categories, and add depicts statements and a caption as Structured Data
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Media_search>.
Suggesting images for Wikipedia
The Image Suggestion API <https://image-suggestion-api.toolforge.org/?doc#/>
is a service that will generate a list of unillustrated articles for any
language version of Wikipedia, and then suggest up to 10 images for
placement on those articles. The API will be powering a planned ‘add an
image’ structured task for newcomers
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Growth/Personalized_first_day/Structured_tas…>
to Wikipedia but could also be used to drive image reuse campaigns,
such as Wikipedia
Pages Wanting Photos
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Pages_Wanting_Photos>.
Right now, the API is only a proof of concept and is still being developed.
You can try it at API Documentation
<https://image-suggestion-api.toolforge.org/?doc#/> and learn more on
the MediaWiki
page
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Core_Platform_Team/Initiatives/Image_Suggest…>.
If you can imagine using this API in your work with images, share your
ideas on the Talk page.
The API uses algorithms that simply aggregate existing information from
Wikidata and Commons, drawing on connections already made by experienced
contributors. There are four main ways that it suggests matches to
unillustrated articles:
1.
Look at the Wikidata item for the article. If it has an image (P18
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P18>), choose that image.
2.
Look at the Wikidata item for the article. If it has a Commons category
associated (P373 <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P373>), choose
an image from the category.
3.
Look at the articles about the same topic in other language Wikipedias.
Choose a lead image from those articles.
4.
Search MediaSearch for the title of the article. If an image ranks high
enough in the results, choose that image.
To make your files available to the Image Suggestion API, you should use
the relevant Commons categories and add depicts statements as Structured
Data
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Media_search>.
Learn more about the benefits of using Structured Data on Commons by reviewing
the updated documentation
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/GLAM/Why> and
joining our April office hours
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_GLAM_team/Office_Hours>
on Monday, 26 April, 3.30-4.30pm UTC, and on Tuesday, 27 April, 11.00-12.00
UTC.
This was also published in the WMF *This month in GLAM *newsletter. You can
read the rest of it here
<https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/March_2021/Contents/WMF…>
.
Hope to see you all during the April office hours.
Best,
Giovanna Fontenelle (she/her)
Program Officer; GLAM and Culture
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
Hi all,
The Wikipedia Library team at the Wikimedia Foundation is pleased to
announce new technical improvements to the Library Card platform and the
addition of 6 new publisher collections. If you’re an active editor who
would find free access to paywalled reliable sources useful for your
contributions, log in now to see what you can access:
https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/
More than half of the publishers available through the library can now be
accessed directly through the Library Card platform, rather than requiring
an individual account to be set up and maintained for each. Additionally,
the Library Bundle provides immediate access to 60% of our content with no
application required!
We’re also excited to announce that 6 new publishers have joined the
program, including ProQuest, Springer Nature, and the Central and Eastern
European Online Library.
You can read more about these changes in the blog post we just published:
https://space.wmflabs.org/2020/06/24/simplifying-your-research-needs-the-wi…
We hope you find these resources useful, and would love to hear your
feedback at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Library_Card_platform/Authentication-b…
Best,
Sam
--
Sam Walton
Product Manager, The Wikipedia Library
Wikimedia Foundation
swalton(a)wikimedia.org