In Wikidata there is an open bug to implement badges (see email below by Lydia), with the open question if this should be handled by the Mediawiki software itself or in some other way. "Template: Link FA" and "Template:Link GA" is the system currently used in all Wikipedias [1]
In addition to this, during the Wikimania Open Access project panel [2][3] there were some suggestions about how to engage the scientific community to contribute more content to Wikipedia. Apparently one major blocker is the lack of credit attribution in collaborative environments. By being able to attribute credit to major contributors of featured/good articles, scientists could (voluntarily) link their Wikipedia profile to an external authoring organization who would aggregate these contributions to their standard journal-based ones.
According to Denny, once SUL is in place, it should be possible to link Wikidata items representing authors both to their wikimedia profile and to any external authoring organization representing their identity. However, the information that this would provide would be of little use unless the api could provide a list of "featured contributions".
Any thoughts or ideas about these issues?
Cheers, Micru
[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16467 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5462767 [2] https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Open_Access_%26_Wikiped... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de Date: Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:58 AM Subject: [Wikidata-tech] badges support - decision needed? To: Wikidata technical discussion wikidata-tech@lists.wikimedia.org
Hey :)
It seems that badges support is stalled on a decision about how exactly to define the set of available badges if I read https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40810 correctly. Can we make a decision and move forward? It's the most voted on bug we have.
Cheers Lydia
-- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Community Communications for Technical Projects
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Obentrautstr. 72 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-tech mailing list Wikidata-tech@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech
We don't use votes... ;)
If we forget about the implementation of badges and discuss the contributions; there are no single correct way to weight contributions. Assume some user A write N characters as a continuous string, and some user B writes the same number of characters spread out over a text changing N words into something else. Those two edits can have the same edit distance but still have a completely different entropy. In the last case, who "owns" the changed words? The original author or the later one? This isn't obvious at all.
John
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 4:38 PM, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
In Wikidata there is an open bug to implement badges (see email below by Lydia), with the open question if this should be handled by the Mediawiki software itself or in some other way. "Template: Link FA" and "Template:Link GA" is the system currently used in all Wikipedias [1]
In addition to this, during the Wikimania Open Access project panel [2][3] there were some suggestions about how to engage the scientific community to contribute more content to Wikipedia. Apparently one major blocker is the lack of credit attribution in collaborative environments. By being able to attribute credit to major contributors of featured/good articles, scientists could (voluntarily) link their Wikipedia profile to an external authoring organization who would aggregate these contributions to their standard journal-based ones.
According to Denny, once SUL is in place, it should be possible to link Wikidata items representing authors both to their wikimedia profile and to any external authoring organization representing their identity. However, the information that this would provide would be of little use unless the api could provide a list of "featured contributions".
Any thoughts or ideas about these issues?
Cheers, Micru
[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16467 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5462767 [2] https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Open_Access_%26_Wikiped... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de Date: Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:58 AM Subject: [Wikidata-tech] badges support - decision needed? To: Wikidata technical discussion wikidata-tech@lists.wikimedia.org
Hey :)
It seems that badges support is stalled on a decision about how exactly to define the set of available badges if I read https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40810 correctly. Can we make a decision and move forward? It's the most voted on bug we have.
Cheers Lydia
-- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Community Communications for Technical Projects
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Obentrautstr. 72 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Wikidata-tech mailing list Wikidata-tech@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
We don't use votes... ;)
I think Lydia was referring to the votes on the bugzilla bug page, 14 votes so far :)
If we forget about the implementation of badges and discuss the contributions; there are no single correct way to weight contributions. Assume some user A write N characters as a continuous string, and some user B writes the same number of characters spread out over a text changing N words into something else. Those two edits can have the same edit distance but still have a completely different entropy. In the last case, who "owns" the changed words? The original author or the later one? This isn't obvious at all.
I thought Wikitrust [1] and others [2] had already addressed this issues? In any case there is no need for an "exact" attribution, an approximate percentage score would be a good enough solution for practical purposes.
[1] http://www.wikitrust.net/ [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Mshavlovsky/Authorship_Tracking
The approximate score will with accurate edit distance give two equal contributors in the first case, it will credit A with all edits if a limit is set on tracking of minor edits that is anything above zero with no edits on B, and it will credit the last of two editors if last contributions wins. There are no really good approximations, and t doesn't help to use "percentages".
Best I know of is dimension reduction and measuring path length, but that too fail for some combos of vandalism/reverts.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 5:08 PM, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
We don't use votes... ;)
I think Lydia was referring to the votes on the bugzilla bug page, 14 votes so far :)
If we forget about the implementation of badges and discuss the contributions; there are no single correct way to weight contributions. Assume some user A write N characters as a continuous string, and some user B writes the same number of characters spread out over a text changing N words into something else. Those two edits can have the same edit distance but still have a completely different entropy. In the last case, who "owns" the changed words? The original author or the later one? This isn't obvious at all.
I thought Wikitrust [1] and others [2] had already addressed this issues? In any case there is no need for an "exact" attribution, an approximate percentage score would be a good enough solution for practical purposes.
[1] http://www.wikitrust.net/ [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Mshavlovsky/Authorship_Tracking _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
There is no need for a "perfect" system and if it is too hard to do it automatically, then don't. A manual system where a group of reviewers assign badges to major contributors of good/featured articles could be an option, since there are not that many and usually for human reviewers it is quite clear which users that have contributed the most to an article. In a way this is how it is already happening now, users list in their user pages "their" good or featured articles. This might be also a hint for the Editor Engagement Group, since this kind of practice reflects that it is somewhat important for editors to list their successes in their user pages even if they have to go through the effort of doing it manually.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:27 AM, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
The approximate score will with accurate edit distance give two equal contributors in the first case, it will credit A with all edits if a limit is set on tracking of minor edits that is anything above zero with no edits on B, and it will credit the last of two editors if last contributions wins. There are no really good approximations, and t doesn't help to use "percentages".
Best I know of is dimension reduction and measuring path length, but that too fail for some combos of vandalism/reverts.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 5:08 PM, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
We don't use votes... ;)
I think Lydia was referring to the votes on the bugzilla bug page, 14
votes
so far :)
If we forget about the implementation of badges and discuss the contributions; there are no single correct way to weight contributions. Assume some user A write N characters as a continuous string, and some user B writes the same number of characters spread out over a text changing N words into something else. Those two edits can have the same edit distance but still have a completely different entropy. In the last case, who "owns" the changed words? The original author or the later one? This isn't obvious at all.
I thought Wikitrust [1] and others [2] had already addressed this issues? In any case there is no need for an "exact" attribution, an approximate percentage score would be a good enough solution for practical purposes.
[1] http://www.wikitrust.net/ [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Mshavlovsky/Authorship_Tracking _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 8/16/13 11:48 AM, David Cuenca wrote:
A manual system where a group of reviewers assign badges to major contributors of good/featured articles could be an option, since there are not that many and usually for human reviewers it is quite clear which users that have contributed the most to an article.
Do you have in mind something along the lines of barnstars?
On 08/21/2013 08:35 AM, Mark wrote:
On 8/16/13 11:48 AM, David Cuenca wrote:
A manual system where a group of reviewers assign badges to major contributors of good/featured articles could be an option, since there are not that many and usually for human reviewers it is quite clear which users that have contributed the most to an article.
Do you have in mind something along the lines of barnstars?
See also http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/OpenBadges (just a stub, don't get excited yet).
@Mark: yes! A barnstar for major contributions to Featured/Good articles would be perfect, but probably it would need to be a reduced group of users the ones that are allowed to assign those kind of badges.
@Quim, I think that is a good start, tbh I didn't know about OpenBadges, thanks for sharing. Do you think it would be worthwhile to add OAuth to the list?
Cheers, Micru
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 08/21/2013 08:35 AM, Mark wrote:
On 8/16/13 11:48 AM, David Cuenca wrote:
A manual system where a group of reviewers assign badges to major contributors of good/featured articles could be an option, since there are not that many and usually for human reviewers it is quite clear which users that have contributed the most to an article.
Do you have in mind something along the lines of barnstars?
--> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia:Barnstarshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars
See also http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/**OpenBadgeshttp://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/OpenBadges(just a stub, don't get excited yet).
-- Quim Gil Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/**User:Qgilhttp://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
______________________________**_________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikitech-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org