Hi James,
Thanks for your observations on rightsstatements.org Since I happen to be a lurker on this list (via digest) and since you name-check me in your observations let me try to answer some of the question that you have raised. This is not necessarily a response on behalf of rightsstatements.org but I believe hat the following is broadly in line with how others who are involved with the project look at these issues.
While I can understand your initial reaction to the suite of rights statements that is offered by rs.org I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of the site. The purpose of rs.org is certainly not to to "to march people *away* from the maximum openness, access, and impact.” Instead rightsstatements.org was conceived out of a need for standardised, well-structured machine readable rights information that can be used with digital objects that cannot be made available under an open license or marked as being in the public domain.
For most cultural heritage institutions (and aggregators) such objects make up the majority of the digital objects on their platforms. This concerns works that are in copyright but which can be made available online by the organisations who have them in their collections. This can be because the institutions rely on fair use or on other exceptions to copyright, or because they have obtained licenses from the rights holders or CMOs for the sole purpose of making these works available online.
While we have a set of standardised machine readable tools to mark up works that can be made avail under open terms (the Creative Commons licenses and PD tools), prior to rights statements.org there were no standardised machine readable tools that could serve to describe the copyright status of works that cannot be openly shared. This meant that Europeana relied on its own set of (rather crummy) rights statements (see here for an overview: https://github.com/Kennisland/EuropeanaLicensingFramework/tree/master/state… or here for an actual example: https://www.europeana.eu/portal/en/rights/rr-r.html). The DPLA at that time did not use standardised rights statements at all, which resulted in them having in excess of 80.000 different copyright statements in in their collection.
The idea behind rights statements.org is to provide standardised rights statements to express the copyright and reuse sates of works that cannot be made available under one of the CC licenses and tools. This is not to promote the unfree status of such objects but to make it easier for users to understand the rights status of such digital objects and to enable platforms to allow users to filter their collections based on standardised rights statuses.
While it is clear that labelling works with a rs.org statement does not contribute to the commons it does contribute to the ability of users to understand what parts of the vast cultural heritage collections available online they can freely re-use and which part they cannot (note that we have taken great care to make it absolutely clear in the statements that works that are in copyright can still be used under exceptions to copyright).
In short the purpose is not to march people away from openness but to enable institutions who have collection with varying rights statuses to clearly indicate which parts of them are open and which are not. Hope this helps you understand the rationale behind making these statements available.
Now with regards to your observations about individual statements. It is true that some of our statements are more problematic than others. This concerns the three NoCopyright statements that carry additional restrictions. All of these have been modelled on existing restrictions that platforms like Europeana and DPLA are already dealing with. We do not promote them but given that we have digital objects with such complicated rights statements in our collections and given that we rely on standardised statements there was a need to model these rights statements.
John has rightly pointed out that a lot of the material in Europeana comes from digitisation partnerships where the parties have agreed to limit the re-use of the resulting digital objects for whatever reasons. Personally I think such arrangements are morally wrong, but I still think we need to allow our partners who have entered in them to express the conditions they have agreed on in a standardised way.
If you take a look at https://pro.europeana.eu/page/available-rights-statements you will also discover that Europeana actually employs a set of checks before such restrictive statements can be used and that we do not allow the use of all rs.org statements (for example we have decided against allowing the use of the NoC-CR statement, or the InC-NC statement). We will also carefully monitor the use of the InC-EDU and the NoC-OKLR statements with an eye on deciding if we continue to support them in the future.
On a final note, we are still working out how to best run rightsstatements.org but if people here are genuinely interested in contributing to the project we are open to participation on various levels. Have a look at http://rightsstatements.org/en/get_involved.html to learn more.
Paul
p.s the order of the licenses on http://rightsstatements.org/page/1.0/?language=en. Is generated via a script that pulls that information from a master file that contains all the statements. We are not intentionally displaying the contractual restrictions statement first but should probably look if we can change the order here.
> I was wondering, have people on this list had any contact with, or have any thoughts about rightsstatements.org (http://rightsstatements.org) ?
>
> I was in a twitter chat earlier with a digital librarian at University College Dublin (re whether or not a copyright they were asserting for Ordnance Survey Ireland re digitisation of some old maps had any basis in reality), and, in passing, she proudly mentioned that they were going to start adding rightsstatements.org standard descriptions of copyright status to all content.
>
> I had a look at the site, and my first take was it must have been an initiative from some of the major publishers, so loaded did it seem to be towards promoting different options for *preventing* people doing things with one's content.
>
> I was quite surprised to find that actually it seems to be a 100% GLAM initiative, initiated by DPLA and Europeana, with strong input from Creative Commons, and Kennisland's Paul Keller as one of the chairs. (And I see that our own Alex Stinson and Federico Leva even contributed some thoughts in the development phase)
>
> Yet to me (I don't know if others agree), the lead document at http://rightsstatements.org/page/1.0/?language=en seems rather hostile to the widest access, openness, and re-use.
>
> Yes, Creative Commons licences /are/ in fact mentioned as the 1st-best option in the body text, if one reads closely. But I have to admit I missed that completely the first time I skimmed the page -- because it is only the restrictions that get the big graphics and the emphasis.
>
> My worry would be that if organisations like UCD make it a policy to mark their material up with a rightsstatements.org indicator wherever possible, this will (subtly or not-so-subtly) lead them away from PD or CC0 choices; or away from "attribution" requirements (which are not on the page) towards "non-commercial" restrictions (which are).
>
> (Any NC statement of course also opens up a huge can of worms as to just what activities and by whom are or are not "non-commercial" -- something the page does not flag up, and which the site offers no clarification about, as to what might or might not be the intended meaning).
>
> I am also quite concerned about the apparent endorsement given to the "contractual restrictions" option, and indeed its prominence on the page -- placed as the first option for non-copyright material, almost as if to encourage institutions to see this as the appropriate default status.
>
> "Contractual restrictions" seems a particularly nasty way to try to fence in the public domain. It's also questionable in its effectiveness. The long-term folk wisdom on Commons has been that if a museum has a sign up saying "no photography" or "personal photography only", but somebody takes a photograph and someone uploads it to Commons, that any claim would stop (at most) with the photographer -- Commons has no contract with the museum, so is not a party to any restrictions. That may be a slightly rose-tinted and self-serving view, but it seems a little odd to see this option so blandly endorsed, and indeed promoted, without any qualification.
>
> It seems odd, given who they are, that the people behind rightsstatements.org would produce a site that seems calculated to march people *away* from the maximum openness, access, and impact.
>
> Yet - I don't know if the list would agree - but to me that seems to be exactly what the current presentation does, leading people away from sharing and freedom, and instead normalising closure and restriction, even for PD materials.
>
> I'd like to know whether the list agrees with me on this; or whether I'm being over-sensitive and perhaps just encountered the site in the wrong frame of mind. But, since between us I think we have a lot of contacts with the people involved with this project, if others see something in these concerns, perhaps it might be worth a quiet word to see if the presentation could perhaps be re-balanced a bit, to more even-handedly present more open options?
>
> -- James.
>
> PS. Going back to the point of my initial discussion with UCD, if copyrights /are/ being asserted on apparently well-published archival material, it seems to me that it would be useful if the site encouraged as standard best practice a statement of /why/ it was asserted that there was copyright in the material -- eg whether there had genuinely been a copyrightable expression of creativity or judgment involved. This would lend such claims extra weight, in a world where there is so much copyfraud around that such assertions otherwise might get casually dismissed.
Useful case. Thanks for sharing it here.
Fae
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
On 2 Oct 2017 6:56 a.m., "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hirtle summary of <https://carrollogos.blogspot.
> com/2016/04/us-court-correctly-interprets-creative.html> on Drauglis v.
> Kappa Map Group, also covered in
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license#Drau
> glis_v._Kappa_Map_Group.2C_LLC>
> <https://www.technollama.co.uk/us-court-interprets-copyleft-
> clause-in-creative-commons-licenses>
>
> Nemo
>
>
> -------- Messaggio inoltrato --------
> Oggetto: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] By-SA and By-NC-SA
> Data: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 22:31:34 +0000
> Mittente: "Peter B. Hirtle" (via scholcomm Mailing List) <
> scholcomm(a)lists.ala.org>
>
> Eric, things may be a little clearer than you suspect. Let’s parse your
> hypothetical:
>
> “So imagine you are making a book from two chapters, one SA and the other
> SA-NC. The book (a work in its own right because of a creative cover)…”
>
> That isn’t quite right (though it doesn’t matter for the rest of your
> example). The cover itself is likely to have enough creativity to have its
> own copyright, but the book as a whole will only have its own copyright if
> it is itself an “original work of authorship.” This would mostly involve
> some creative selection or organization of the material. Slapping a
> copyrighted image on top of two separately copyrighted works is, in my
> non-legal opinion, unlikely to be enough to be considered to be a separate
> “original work of authorship.” The question would be whether someone could
> publish the same two chapters but with a different cover on it, and I think
> in most cases they could.
>
> “…, has to be distriibuted under the more restrictive license (SA-NC)
> because it staples together the two chapters.”
>
> This is incorrect. You haven’t created an adaption of the original
> material, so you are not required to use the SA license. Michael Carroll
> has a good discussion of this in his blog post on a relatively recent court
> case: see https://carrollogos.blogspot.com/2016/04/us-court-correctly-
> interprets-creative.html. In this case, a commercial publisher used a SA
> photograph on the cover of its street atlas. It slightly cropped the
> image, but the court concluded that the change was not enough to create an
> adaptation and hence the publisher was not required to distribute its atlas
> with an SA license on it. The publisher did comply with the attribution
> requirements of the license.
>
> In your hypothetical, if you decided to abridge the chapter, then you
> would be created a derivative version and would have to apply the SA
> license to the book. But so long as you follow the other terms in the CC
> license, you can put any license you like on the book as a whole (even if
> the cover image is the only thing actually being licensed by you). You
> could even omit a license on your contribution. Just don’t distribute it
> commercially.
>
> “But it has to do two more things:
>
> 1. Add separate license statements for each chapter.”
>
> Yes, I am postulating that you are complying with the attribution and
> non-commercial elements of the license, which are not dependent on whether
> or not the works are adapted.
>
> 2. The chapters must be separable (the staples can be easily removed)
>
> No, the physical format does not matter. Copyright matters are separate
> from physical formats. All you need to do is include the original license
> and attribution with each chapter.
>
> Peter Hirtle
>
> From: scholcomm-request(a)lists.ala.org [mailto:scholcomm-request@list
> s.ala.org] On Behalf Of Eric Hellman
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 5:24 PM
> To: scholcomm(a)lists.ala.org
> Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] By-SA and By-NC-SA
>
> The comments fro Billy Meinke and Peter Hirtle reflect my reality that
> there seem to be only gray areas when it comes to copyright.
>
> The 3.0 license defines "collections" and "adaptions".
>
> 1. "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such
> as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or
> broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in
> Section 1(g) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of
> their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is
> included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other
> contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in
> themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work
> that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as
> defined above) for the purposes of this License.
> and in doing so makes explicit how to deal with the SA vs SA-NC.
>
> So imagine you are making a book from two chapters, one SA and the other
> SA-NC. The book (a work in its own right because of a creative cover), has
> to be distriibuted under the more restrictive license (SA-NC) because it
> staples together the two chapters. But it has to do two more things:
> 1. Add separate license statements for each chapter.
> 2. The chapters must be separable (the staples can be easily removed)
>
> I would make the same argument for illustrations in a website or ebook. If
> Mahrya Carncross's colleague's guide is more of a collection than mix, then
> she might be in the clear.
>
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode
>
> The 4.0 license doesn't have this explicit carve-out for collections, and
> appears to me to take a harder line against mixed license "arrangement"
> works, but at the same time says that 3.0 licensed works can be adapted
> into 4.0 licenses, so that's confusing to this non-lawyer.
>
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode
>
> Eric Hellman
> President, Free Ebook Foundation
> Founder, Unglue.it<http://unglue.it> https://unglue.it/
> https://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/
> twitter: @gluejar
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
This thread may have started weird, but it seems to be going in a very good
direction: we're all very concerned about editor retention, we all see
problem areas we agree on, and we are all grasping at new ideas that seem
more or less like straws. This is bad news, but it has to remain on the
agenda, and we have to keep thinking about it or the project runs the risk
of actually failing - the very thing we all laughed away for a long time
seeing wikipedia's success.
When I look back on my wiki time, I see a transition much as Erik
described. I joined in 2005 with the great influx that was going on, or
just coming to an end at the time. The editors who were there, who learned
me the ropes, still very strongly believed in WP:IAR, and the 'it's just a
guideline' principle. What I believe happened is that a new generation of
editors - roughly new editors since the time I joined - who didn't create
the rules had more distance from the rules, and in some ways more respect
for them. These are the vandalism fighters and the new page patrollers
Risker mentions were - and are - very needed. If they are not here, we
might well collapse under the load of bad faith edits. Everyone obviously
believes that their view of what wikipedia is is right, but I believe they
don't grok wikipedia. They don't grok the meaning of a wiki, and neither do
they grok IAR. And yet we need them desperately. As a community we started
revering the rules over the project, and that's very very wrong.
I'm going to go ahead and postulate that the greatest problem with editor
retention is that it is really really hard to do something good for
wikipedia - too hard for many people - and far harder still to grok
wikipedia. This is a two sided problem. The first side is the problem for
new editors: We have set up rules to justify fixing the good faith errors
they have made which are enforced quite strictly. To grok wikipedia you
need experience. As a rule of thumb, I would say about 1000 edits which are
not anti-vandalism edits, and you could grok it. I am willing to go
further, and say that none or very few of those 1000 edits will actually be
very good. But we don't have the manpower in experience to guide all those
1000 edits, kindly explain what's wrong with them, and that it's absolutely
fine that the edits aren't very good. Before that moment has arrived, we
will have had a good meaning good faith vandal fighter strongly
discouraging this user. It's a miracle people even make it this far.
So what can we do? Well, first off, we could stop bothering new editors
about the rules. There are far too many anyway, and while they are a fun
mental exercise for the experienced wikipedian, a new wikipedian only needs
to know a few things: Don't act like a dick, be bold, content should be
verifiable, and you are here for the project - not personal gain. An editor
writes the most horrific sucky article ever, but passes those above rules?
Cool! Thanks! Carry on! Feedback can come later, he already took the hurdle
of writing something that passes the basic rules. (note this is not how
[[WP:AfC]] works). An editor breaks one of the above rules? Take ownership
and responsibility for the rule. If you agree to the rule, you don't need
the blue link to tell him what they did wrong. "Hey, you wrote this and
that article, and you didn't name your sources. Without them our readers
will rightfully question the truthfullness - to them, it's just some guy on
the internet who wrote that. Could you fix that?" No need to bother them
with the finer points of [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. They're just policy pages
- a pretty nifty summary of consensus.
Now that might be a little awkward and getting used to for our editing
community, but there is another painful truth out there. The people who
have the ability to properly understand wikipedia are spread far to thin to
give this personal attention to newcomers, attention they very much need to
come to be grown up wikipedians, and still be productive in their own
right. We need a cure for that. We tried the cure of dedicated vandal
fighters, and it didn't work, it landed us in the situation where we are
now. We need something else, and whatever that something else will be, it
will be very very painful, and will go against everything our wikispirit
stands for, and we will hate it, but it will be needed. Possibly flagged
revisions on all pages. Possibly a far simpler blocking policy (I for one
strongly support abolishing any form of time-expiring block which are
punitive almost by definition. You are blocked indefinitely, and you are
unblocked if you ask for it, and give a good reason why the problematic
behaviour won't be recurring. There is never a reason to unblock because
three days have passed) If some administrator has the strong feeling that
they are not here to build an encyclopedia, begone. Is that fair? No. There
is a large factor of arbitarity there, mistakes will be made, and it
requires far more responsibility from our admins than we should ask of
them. But we need it to protect the time of our more experienced members to
grow more experienced members. We will need to make things worse now to
make them better later, or they will be far worse in the future - one of
the greatest projects of our time dead in the water, with no hope of
expanding it, just draconic measures to protect it.
Now people like Tim, who have their wiki heart in the right place (thanks
for kicking this up Tim!), and seem to grok the project, can work on
technical means that alleviate the pain for the technical editing
experience. People like Leslie who recently became the focus of a
hypothetical discussion on the medical expenses policy of the WMF (wtf?)
can do her work to provide the infrastucture our platform needs. This will
never be enough if we don't change as a community.
We all know the 'oh fuck' graph of editor retention. For you viewing
pleasure, the equivalent in admin retention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:List_of_administrators/stat_tab…
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> Erik Moeller, 04/01/2013 08:02:
>
> I'm wondering whether the key findings in Halfaker's recent "rise and
>> decline" paper resonate with you:
>> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~**halfak/publications/The_Rise_**
>> and_Decline/<http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/>
>>
>> Existing data like the above supports strongly the notion that
>> well-intentioned, good faith contributors are much more heavily
>> discouraged in 2012 than they were in 2004 or 2005, but this can be
>> explained in significant part with the influx of bad faith
>> contributors that have necessitated increasingly heavy handed ways to
>> control against bad edits (Huggle, Twinkle, AbuseFilter, etc.) --
>> which catch good faith editors in the crossfire -- as well as
>> increasing expectations of what constitutes an acceptable quality edit
>> / page creation.
>>
>
> The paper does contain good news though:
> ----
> To explore Hypothesis: Norm formalization & calcification, we first looked
> for changes in the rate
> of new policy creation following the introduction of a structured proposal
> process in 2005.
> Figure 8 shows that growth of policies and guidelines began to slow in
> 2006, just as Forte
> (2009) reports. The results from our analysis of new policy/guideline
> proposals show that the
> number of new policy proposals accepted via this process peaked in 2005 at
> 27 out of 217 (12%
> acceptance). 2006 saw an even higher number of proposed policies, but
> lower acceptance
> with 24 out of 348 proposals accepted (7% acceptance). From 2007 forward,
> the rate at which
> policies are proposed decreases monotonically down to a mere 16 in 2011
> while the acceptance
> rate stays steady at about 7.5%.
> ----
> In other words, it would seem that en.wiki, contrary to popular belief,
> has developed a good immune system against bureaucracy norms expansion. :-)
>
> The paper is actually of little use in this part IMHO, because:
> 1) we already know that users who joined in 2005/2006 are still
> disproportionately active in most community processes like deletion
> discussions and so on,
> 2) everybody knows that to influence how the wiki is run it's more
> effective to change a single word in an important policy than to establish
> ten new policies.
>
> As for (1), I doubt the Wikipedia thought police is keeping newcomers out
> of discussions, but one can make them look so hard that newbies won't
> participate. However, it.wiki recently switched from the established
> vote-system for deletion to a discussion system as en.wiki's, and a year of
> data for the "new" system seems to prove that it increased the words spent
> and drove away old/unexperienced editors (with 3+ years or 51-5000 edits),
> while newcomers resisted, presumably to defend their own articles.
> https://toolserver.org/~**mauro742/liste/pdc_stats.csv<https://toolserver.org/~mauro742/liste/pdc_stats.csv>
> <https://it.wikipedia.org/**wiki/Wikipedia:Elenchi_**
> generati_offline/Richieste/**Archivio/2011#Lavoro_per_le_**PdC<https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elenchi_generati_offline/Richieste/…>
> >
>
> Nemo
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>
Are you accepting donations from Russia at present?
Peter Southwood
-----Original Message-----
From: wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Gruwell
Sent: 13 November 2014 05:46 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Fundraiser] fundraising blocked in Russia
Hello rubin16,
We are not running fundraising in Russia at this time, but I want to assure you that this was not a decision motivated by politics.
We take compliance with appropriate laws very seriously in everything we do. Out of an abundance of caution, we're not fundraising in Russia right now.
Of course, the fact that we are not fundraising in Russia does and will not have any impact at all on how the WMF continues to support the Russian language Wikipedia, its sister projects, and the Russian Wikimedian community.
Thank you,
Lisa Gruwell
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 7:44 PM, rubin.happy <rubin.happy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> There were no recent changes in sanctions and I don't understand why
> this turn off in donations happened just now.
>
> Ideas about SWIFT kick out are not relevant here, as it was just a
> discussion some months ago but no such action happened.
>
> Furthermore, the sanctions were placed on particular companies and
> individuals, there were no prohibitions against all financial relations.
> So, I could understand if donations weren't accepted when they were
> sent via a couple of banks under sanctions, but I want to repeat that
> there is, for example, no prohibition to receive money from Russians.
>
> rubin16
> 13 нояб. 2014 г. 4:01 пользователь "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> написал:
>
> > I'm presuming this is sanctions against Russia kicking in; all sorts
> > of business has been stopped dead in its tracks, not just charity
> > donations. There's even serious moves to kick Russia out of the
> > SWIFT
> > network:
> >
> http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-04/ultimate-sanction-barr
> ing-russian-banks-from-swift-money-system
> > It strikes me as quite unlikely that there's anything at all WMF can
> > actually do about this. Possibly it could have been handled better,
> > but that won't change the fact.
> >
> > On 13 November 2014 00:12, Craig Franklin
> > <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>
> > wrote:
> > > I'm sure that you're correct here Joseph, but this is another
> > > example I think where the Foundation should have notified the
> > > relevant chapter
> > > *before* taking the action, so that they would be ready when the
> > questions
> > > started rolling in.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, I think we're getting back to the bad old days of
> chapter
> > > and user group press contacts being the last people to find out
> > > about potentially controversial issues like this.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Craig Franklin
> > > (personal view only)
> > >
> > >
> > > On 13 November 2014 10:07, Joseph Seddon <josephseddon(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I would hate to preclude any answer from the foundation. However
> > >> the
> > laws
> > >> that govern the foundation are that of the US. Given the previous
> > >> and renewed ongoing palaver with Ukraine and the presence of
> > >> economic
> > sanctions
> > >> and the increasing likelihood of on top of what is already
> > >> present, I imagine this related to that.
> > >>
> > >> Im not sure of what legal risks accepting such donations would
> > >> expose
> > the
> > >> foundation to. However such precautions have been made in the
> > >> past
> > relating
> > >> to unrest.
> > >>
> > >> Its no slight on the country or its individuals, just a
> > >> precautionary measure.
> > >>
> > >> Seddon
> > >> On 12 Nov 2014 19:48, "Federico Leva (Nemo)"
> > >> <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> rubin.happy, 12/11/2014 18:48:
> > >>>
> > >>>> We received some alerts from our users that donations are now
> blocked
> > >>>> when user is from Russia:
> > >>>>
> > http://habrastorage.org/files/31b/b1f/ec9/31bb1fec9b9e45abb6ac4babcc
> > 2371
> > >>>> 84.png
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for the information. Everyone can see the same warning by
> > clicking
> > >>> the "Russia" link in
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give
> > >>> Through what channels are donations blocked? Did anyone try
> > >>> sending a wire to the EU (SEPA) account (IBAN
> > >>> GB54CHAS60924241034640), or a
> > PayPal
> > >>> donation?
> > >>>
> > >>> Nemo
> > >>>
> > >>> P.s.: ROTFLOL "Please email donate(a)wikimedia.org for more
> information
> > on
> > >>> how to make a bank transfer to the Wikimedia Foundation." In
> > >>> case
> > someone
> > >>> forgets there is an ocean between Europe and USA.
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Fundraiser mailing list
> > >>> Fundraiser(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/fundraiser
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Fundraiser mailing list
> > >> Fundraiser(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/fundraiser
> > >>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > 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
> > 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
> 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
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: 2015.0.5557 / Virus Database: 4213/8564 - Release Date: 11/13/14
Hi Jane,
Thanks for that. My guesses maybe wrong, but that does not mean my logic is
flawed. My point was precisely that different language Wikipedias will have
their own characteristics, and that it is precisely because, as we agree,
Welsh wikimedians also read English wikipedia that I made my point.
I found the information you gave about the survey you did in Netherlands
very interesting, but as this discussion focuses more on page creators, I
wonder how well the data reflects such a more engaged group of people.
Also I feel that the example of Dutch wikipedia is of course very
important, bearing in mind it is the third largest wikipedia, even bigger
than German wikipedia. However my concern is that we should also be
considering a variety of circumstances:
- Chinese <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_language> (15th),
- Norwegian (Bokmål)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_%28Bokm%C3%A5l%29_language>
(19th) and Norwegian (Nynorsk)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_%28Nynorsk%29_language> (48th)
- Swahili <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swahili_language> (93rd) an
official language in three different countries
If we are thinking in terms of more generic usability and the unfolding
role of Wikidata in relationship to the variety of languages which will
increasingly come to use it, then I feel we should be sketching out a
broader picture.
I hope that makes my thinking clearer.
all the best
Fabian Tompsett,
Volunteer Support Organiser,
Wikimedia UK,
Address: 56-64 Leonard St,
Shoreditch,
London EC2A 4LT
Phone:020 7065 0990
*Mobile: *07840 455 746
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
On 29 January 2015 at 14:23, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Fabian,
> I think your logic is flawed, as I believe most of the Welsh contributors
> probably also read the English Wikipedia. This will be true for many
> languages that are closely related, such as Dutch and Afrikaans, but there
> is much less "cross reading" between English and languages that are located
> far from English-speaking countries. Hungarian and other languages will
> show less "cross reading". In the Netherlands, we held a user survey in
> 2013 that was very enlightening as it showed us some interesting data that
> we didn't know. One of the most surprising was that most people in the
> Netherlands were unaware that Wikipedia is written by volunteers (we are
> holding a PR campaign this year that just addresses this specific point).
> The other very interesting and surprising thing we learned was that most
> people were unaware that Wikipedia was an American invention. They assumed
> it was Dutch. I personally infer from this the following two things:
> 1) Dutch people are unaware that Wikipedia exists in other languages,
> especially since Google's knowledge graph is able to give them enough meta
> data in web searches such that they need to click on a Wikipedia page less
> and less for basic information on any specific subject.
> 2) Dutch people are unaware that the servers of the Dutch Wikipedia are
> hosted in the U.S. and are therefore abiding by the rules in the U.S.
> legislative territory.
>
> We know from earlier tests with users that "Donate buttons" and other
> links appearing on the left seem to be invisible to most users. It is based
> on all of these things that I made that comment. The click-through data on
> the interwikis would be very interesting to see.
> Best,
> Jane
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Fabian Tompsett <
> fabian.tompsett(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> > I for one would bet that the number of page creators in any given
>> Wikipedia that know enough to even look at the left side of the page is
>> quite small. In my experience, most page creators are unaware that
>> Wikipedia exists in any language but their own
>>
>> mmm, an interesting perspective, but do we have any data? As we are in to
>> speculation here, I would hazard a guess that the smaller the Wikipedia the
>> more likely it is that page creators are aware that there are wikipedias in
>> other languages. So for example on Welsh Wicipedia
>> <https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafan> I would guess something close to
>> 100% of page creators are aware of English Wikipedia.
>>
>> <https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafan>
>>
>> all the best
>>
>> Fabian Tompsett,
>> Volunteer Support Organiser,
>> Wikimedia UK,
>> Address: 56-64 Leonard St,
>> Shoreditch,
>> London EC2A 4LT
>> Phone:020 7065 0990
>> *Mobile: *07840 455 746
>>
>>
>> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
>> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
>> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
>> 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global
>> Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia
>> Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>>
>> Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
>>
>> On 29 January 2015 at 11:00, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 on collecting the click data! I for one would bet that the number of
>>> page creators in any given Wikipedia that know enough to even look at the
>>> left side of the page is quite small. In my experience, most page creators
>>> are unaware that Wikipedia exists in any language but their own
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
>>> nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Daniel Kinzler, 29/01/2015 11:24:
>>>> > As far as I recall, there is some very silly technical reason that
>>>> this is not
>>>> > easy to change at all. We tried to do this right when we introduced
>>>> the other
>>>> > widget, of course.
>>>> >
>>>> > I don't recall what exactly the problem was though, and it might have
>>>> been fixed
>>>> > since. Worth another look...
>>>>
>>>> I see. I said "should" (ought to?). :P Is there a phabricator ticket
>>>> for this?
>>>>
>>>> Lydia Pintscher, 29/01/2015 11:31:
>>>>
>>>>> The issue with doing this when there are several sitelinks is that
>>>>> people will unknowingly merge items this way that should not be
>>>>> merged. That'd be a huge pita. We'll need to put some good thinking
>>>>> into this still. I have no good solution right now.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a non-issue IMHO, as soon as my suggestion at
>>>> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T85776 /
>>>> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/transactions/detail/PHID-
>>>> XACT-TASK-zi2igyjlfqasknq/ is implemented.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> >This should be very easy to change. The dialog could then contain a
>>>>>> link to
>>>>>> >the Wikidata item for the case when one wants to edit or remove
>>>>>> links, until
>>>>>> >such a feature is added to the dialog itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Showing the dialog and requiring people to click would probably annoy
>>>>> people for having to click one additional time? Especially if their
>>>>> intention is clear.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is already a generic Wikidata link in the sidebar which users can
>>>> click; having two of them is a waste. Also, the drawback is much lower than
>>>> the gain: if I'm forced to visit an entry in Wikidata to edit a sitelink, I
>>>> have to spend X seconds to load the entry, then find the "add" button etc,
>>>> spend additional N links; if I really want to go to the Wikidata entry,
>>>> having to click in a dialog is just one click more and a fraction of second
>>>> spent.
>>>>
>>>> If you really think the "add one link" case is minoritary for those who
>>>> click the edit links button, I trust you, but we should have click tracking
>>>> data to back this. Personally, I'd bet 85 % of users clicking the button
>>>> just wants to add one link and expects to see the dialog they usually see
>>>> to add links (when there are none).
>>>>
>>>> Nemo
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>>>> Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>>> Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
>
I think area of focus is likely to be a big factor. There's a stereotype,
for example, of new page patrollers as particularly uncaring and harried:
when we surveyed patrollers, and compared the results to the surveys of the
overall editing population, we found that the major demographic difference
or difference in priorities is simply that new page patrollers patrol new
pages. So where people choose to work definitely plays a part. And,
anecdotally, there are some areas that just attract combative individuals
and so become less-pleasant for those who (quite rightly) don't want to
tolerate that - articles around Israel/Palestine, for example, or the
Balkans.
At the end of the day, though, it's the people who make the environments
unpleasant just as much as it is the environments altering the people.
On 15 December 2014 at 23:28, mjn <mjn(a)anadrome.org> wrote:
>
> Perhaps it depends on what part of the encyclopedia? Has anyone
> attempted to characterize how the editing environment varies with
> different subject matter? I often run across descriptions that don't
> comport with either my experience, or that of people I've interviewed,
> but it's hard to tell precisely why. I've encountered quite different
> beliefs about what the en.wikipedia community is like, even among people
> who to me seem to otherwise have a similar background.
>
> Entirely anecdotally, areas of interest seem to be one correlated
> factor. For example, writing an article on an archaeological site (one
> thing I've mentored new editors in doing) is by and large trouble-free
> and friendly, in my experience. But some other areas are not. I haven't
> attempted to characterize that factor in any detail.
>
> -Mark
>
> WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> writes:
>
> > We have problems, I don't dispute that. But "ugly and bitter as 4chan"?
> That has to be an exaggeration.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Jonathan Cardy
> >
> >
> >> On 13 Dec 2014, at 01:03, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I certainly hope you're right Sydney. What a horrible mess.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> I think feminists, especially those who take an interest in STEM, will
> pass this article around.
> >>>
> >>> Sydney
> >>>
> >>>> On Dec 12, 2014 5:35 PM, "Andrew Lih" <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> It's a good piece, but honestly I think only the dedicated tech
> reader will make it through the entire story. There's a lot of jargon and
> insider intrigue such that I could imagine most people never making past
> the typewriter barf of "BLP, AGF, NOR" :)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
> darekj(a)alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> >>>>> While I agree that the article is overly negative (likely because of
> the individual experience), I think it still points to an important
> problem. I don't perceive this article as really problematic in terms of
> image. Maybe naively, I imagine that people will not stop donating because
> the community is not ideal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> pundit
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Kerry Raymond <
> kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> There’s a saying that everyone likes to eat sausages but nobody
> likes to know how they are made. It is not good to have negative publicity
> like that during the annual donation campaign (irrespective of the
> motivations of the journalist and/or the rights/wrongs of the issue being
> reported, neither of which I intend to debate here). As a donation-funded
> organisation, public perception matters a lot.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Kerry
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From: Jonathan Morgan [mailto:jmorgan@wikimedia.org]
> >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, 13 December 2014 6:43 AM
> >>>>>> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> >>>>>> Cc: Kerry Raymond
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] commentary on Wikipedia's community
> behaviour (Aaron gets a quote)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I mostly agree. On one hand, it's always nice to see a detailed
> description of how wiki-sausage gets made in a major venue. On the other,
> this journalist clearly has a personal axe to grind, and used his bully
> pulpit to grind it in public.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - J
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
> nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1000th addition to the inconsequential rant genre.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nemo
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jonathan T. Morgan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Community Research Lead
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> User:Jmorgan (WMF)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> __________________________
> >>>>> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> >>>>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> >>>>> i centrum badawczego CROW
> >>>>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> >>>>> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
> >>>>>
> >>>>> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> >>>>> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge?
> An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
> autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Recenzje
> >>>>> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
> >>>>> Pacific Standard:
> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
> >>>>> Motherboard:
> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
> >>>>> The Wikipedian:
> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> --
> Sent with my mu4e
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
Hi
On the question of location of disputes I wrote a blog post a few years ago:
"Auray et al. identify several factors which contribute to conflictuality, such as the number of participants, the location of disputes, and the identity choices of participants. The larger the number of contributors, the more likely discussion is; the threshold number seems to be eight. When there are more than ten participants, discussion increasingly moves to the talk pages of users, and is more likely to degenerate into insults. A surefire indicator of fights are references to policy pages. These can be statistically measured: research by Kriplean and Beschastnikh has shown that pages with more than 250 posts had 51% of the links towards policy pages.
There are two main types of articles where conflicts erupt: first, the usual suspects are topics with burning current affairs value involving inter-ethnic or inter-faith conflicts; second, “scientific” categories with low academic legitimacy such as homeopathy and chiropraxy are strong conflict zones. Suspected “sock-puppetry” (fake identity) is also a source of conflict; an attenuated version of this being the lack of regard for people who have not registered on the site and instead just use an IP address: more than half of the text inserted by “IPs” is deleted, and they are more likely to be present in semi-protected articles which is where disputes and insults typically occur. IPs are also more likely to insult others, so there are suspicions that IPs are registereds users who use “socks” to engage in insulting behaviour which they would not dare to do under their registered identities."
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/wikipedia-and-conflict/2009/07/07
cheers
Mathieu
________________________________________
From: wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org <wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org <wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 23:01
To: wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 112, Issue 24
Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wiki-research-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: commentary on Wikipedia's community behaviour (Aaron gets
a quote) (mjn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:28:30 +0100
From: mjn <mjn(a)anadrome.org>
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] commentary on Wikipedia's community
behaviour (Aaron gets a quote)
Message-ID: <87k31si55a.fsf(a)mjn.anadrome.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Perhaps it depends on what part of the encyclopedia? Has anyone
attempted to characterize how the editing environment varies with
different subject matter? I often run across descriptions that don't
comport with either my experience, or that of people I've interviewed,
but it's hard to tell precisely why. I've encountered quite different
beliefs about what the en.wikipedia community is like, even among people
who to me seem to otherwise have a similar background.
Entirely anecdotally, areas of interest seem to be one correlated
factor. For example, writing an article on an archaeological site (one
thing I've mentored new editors in doing) is by and large trouble-free
and friendly, in my experience. But some other areas are not. I haven't
attempted to characterize that factor in any detail.
-Mark
WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> writes:
> We have problems, I don't dispute that. But "ugly and bitter as 4chan"? That has to be an exaggeration.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan Cardy
>
>
>> On 13 Dec 2014, at 01:03, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I certainly hope you're right Sydney. What a horrible mess.
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think feminists, especially those who take an interest in STEM, will pass this article around.
>>>
>>> Sydney
>>>
>>>> On Dec 12, 2014 5:35 PM, "Andrew Lih" <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It's a good piece, but honestly I think only the dedicated tech reader will make it through the entire story. There's a lot of jargon and insider intrigue such that I could imagine most people never making past the typewriter barf of "BLP, AGF, NOR" :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl> wrote:
>>>>> While I agree that the article is overly negative (likely because of the individual experience), I think it still points to an important problem. I don't perceive this article as really problematic in terms of image. Maybe naively, I imagine that people will not stop donating because the community is not ideal.
>>>>>
>>>>> pundit
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> There’s a saying that everyone likes to eat sausages but nobody likes to know how they are made. It is not good to have negative publicity like that during the annual donation campaign (irrespective of the motivations of the journalist and/or the rights/wrongs of the issue being reported, neither of which I intend to debate here). As a donation-funded organisation, public perception matters a lot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kerry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Jonathan Morgan [mailto:jmorgan@wikimedia.org]
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, 13 December 2014 6:43 AM
>>>>>> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>>>>> Cc: Kerry Raymond
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] commentary on Wikipedia's community behaviour (Aaron gets a quote)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mostly agree. On one hand, it's always nice to see a detailed description of how wiki-sausage gets made in a major venue. On the other, this journalist clearly has a personal axe to grind, and used his bully pulpit to grind it in public.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - J
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1000th addition to the inconsequential rant genre.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nemo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathan T. Morgan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Community Research Lead
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> User:Jmorgan (WMF)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________
>>>>> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>>>>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
>>>>> i centrum badawczego CROW
>>>>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
>>>>> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>>>>>
>>>>> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
>>>>> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>>>>>
>>>>> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>>>>>
>>>>> Recenzje
>>>>> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
>>>>> Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
>>>>> Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
>>>>> The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
Sent with my mu4e
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 112, Issue 24
************************************************
Hi all -
The assumption that the citations are only about works discussing Wikipedia
is just not true. Scientists and mathematicians cite it as a definition
source on an increasing basis. I just did a quick WoS search and that was
the majority of the examples I spot checked.
And I'll say this again: it should be up to the peer review processes of
publications to determine what appropriate citation sources are. Imagine
publishing a scholarly article and then tweeting that it can't be cited in
a newspaper or blog because its inappropriate. It's silly.
Sara, I respect your community practices. But again, why should Wikipedia
be asserting those for you? That should be up to other communities to
decide. Wikipedia deciding to say this hurts the credibility of the site
and undermines much of the labor of volunteers working to create it.
Kathleen
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 3:05 PM Marks, Sara R <Sara_Marks(a)uml.edu> wrote:
> I said this on Twitter but I want to say it here too - no tertiary source
> should be used in an academic paper unless that source is the subject of
> the research. I wrote a thesis about Wikipedia and cited it hundreds of
> times but no encyclopedia should be used in a college-level paper -
> Brittanica, a subject-specific title, or WorldBook. Undergraduates need to
> be taught the value of different information sources and Wikipedia has an
> appropriate place in that discussion but it isn't the original research,
> systematic review of research, or the original news source.
>
> Why is Wikipedia cited in so many may times in SCOPUS or WoS? Because
> people are doing research about Wikipedia and have been since it started.
> Further, their audience isn't researchers - it's the general public. That
> statement about never using it as a source is for students and the general
> public, not sophisticated and experienced researchers who understand source
> value and ranking.
>
>
> Sara
>
>
> Sara Marks
>
> Librarian
>
> O'Leary Library 260A
>
> UMass Lowell
>
> sara_marks(a)uml.edu
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Libraries <libraries-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of
> Kathleen DeLaurenti <kathleendelaurenti(a)gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 26, 2019 2:55:05 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia & Libraries
> *Subject:* Re: [libraries] Concern about messaging about Wikipedia
>
> Thanks Merilee for the clarification - things can get a little "meta" when
> reading policies.
>
> Paul, I still strongly disagree with the idea that Wikipedia should be
> telling scholars how to use their work. In 2011, Wikipedia had more than
> 3500 citations across SCOPUS and WoS; I haven't checked to see what that
> looks like almost a decade later. Does it do Wikipedia any good to be
> pushing the idea that it's a bad source?
>
> KD
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 2:25 PM Paul S. Wilson <paulscrawl(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Merillee,
>>
>> The originally cited context not "ANYTHING", but specifically, "an
>> academic paper":
>>
>> >Yes, it may be appropriate on Twitter (though I still wouldn't because
>> citing Wikipedia does not tell you where the info originally comes from
>> because Wikipedia is simply a summary of secondary sources), but it's not
>> appropriate in an academic paper.
>> https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/1177215917534711808
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/11772159…>
>>
>> I agree. Citing tertiary sources is not academic.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 1:12 PM Merrilee Proffitt <mproffitt(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > The policy referred to is Wikipedia policy -- do not use Wikipedia as a
>> source for new or existing Wikipedia articles. Not do not use Wikipedia
>> articles as a source for ANYTHING.
>> >
>> > Top level guidelines are also to exercise common sense....
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:02 AM Paul S. Wilson <paulscrawl(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You're welcome, Kathleen,
>> >>
>> >> It is frustrating, but but WP is not yet EB.
>> >>
>> >> Paul
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:59 PM Paul S. Wilson <paulscrawl(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Wikipedia POLICY
>> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policie…>
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:54 PM Paul S. Wilson <
>> paulscrawl(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Not "individual practices"; this is an English Wikipedia Policy:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English
>> Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources. Also, do not use
>> websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on
>> material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not
>> considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources.
>> Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.[11]
>> (There is also a risk of circular reference/circular reporting when using a
>> Wikipedia article or derivative work as a source.)
>> >> > >
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources…
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifia…>
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:24 PM Kathleen DeLaurenti
>> >> > > <kathleendelaurenti(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Hi all -
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Thanks for the responses. Regardless of our individual
>> practices, I don't see any good coming from Wikipedia positively asserting
>> that it should "never be cited," and that's the crux of my concern here.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Best,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Kathleen
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 1:17 PM Paul S. Wilson <
>> paulscrawl(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> I have never considered user-generated content on Wikipedia to
>> be more than what librarians call a "discovery service".
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Briefly skimming an article on a subject l may know little
>> about, I invariably evaluate the sources rather than the text and hit the
>> cited references. In my 15-year experience, even the weakest and most
>> apparently biased articles have at least a few refs that lead to citable
>> sources and larger literature.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 11:54 AM Merrilee Proffitt <
>> mproffitt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> Hi,
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> I completely agree with Kathleen. I would assert that it is a
>> lack of nuance around the nature of information sources and the research
>> task at hand that has lead educators and others to wholesale "ban" the use
>> of Wikipedia.
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> Whether or not a source can be utilized in a research context
>> depends on the researcher, and what information they are supporting with
>> the citation. For my middle school daughter doing some investigation on an
>> element in the periodic table (as she has been doing this week), the
>> Wikipedia English article (or any encyclopedia article) is appropriate for
>> her. For a graduate student in chemistry this would not be appropriate, but
>> the grad student might (appropriately) cite Wikipedia for some basic
>> definitional stuff, just as they might cite a dictionary or something
>> similar. You see Wikipedia utilized appropriately in citations all the time
>> -- why would we discourage this?
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> Having conversations about the veracity of online information
>> is tough. Wikipedia can be challenging because articles are at various
>> levels of development. To my mind, this makes it something that those of us
>> engaged in conversations around information literacy should steer towards,
>> rather than away from, because a) Wikipedia is widely utilized in a variety
>> of contexts and b) it is a great teaching tool for talking about when you
>> can trust information online and when you should steer clear. But saying
>> "no" to any information source without having a discussion about it seems
>> lazy. It definitely does not reflect the type of discourse we should be
>> having, especially now.
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> I look forward to more discussion on this topic.
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> Merrilee
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:02 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) <
>> nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >>>>
>> >> > > >>>> Twitter doesn't facilitate reasoned arguments. I suppose as
>> usual the
>> >> > > >>>> goal was to encourage greater use of the references and other
>> >> > > >>>> meta-content of Wikipedia articles, which are excellent tools
>> for
>> >> > > >>>> critical thinking.
>> >> > > >>>>
>> >> > > >>>> Federico
>> >> > > >>>>
>> >> > > >>>> Kathleen DeLaurenti, 26/09/19 17:55:
>> >> > > >>>> > Hi all -
>> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> > > >>>> > As a librarian who uses and supports Wikipedia, I wanted to
>> bring up
>> >> > > >>>> > some issues around the BuzzFeed article posted today about
>> M-Journal
>> >> > > >>>> > that has led to some messaging from the WikipediaUK twitter
>> account that
>> >> > > >>>> > I find concerning. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate
>> place to
>> >> > > >>>> > bring this up, but I wasn't sure where else to reach out.
>> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> > > >>>> > For those who missed, a citation cite is not manufacturing
>> journal
>> >> > > >>>> > articles if a student submits a Wiki article so that it
>> looks like an
>> >> > > >>>> > "official" citation in their school research papers.
>> >> > > >>>> >
>> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/wikipedia-fake-academic-…
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatest…>
>> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> > > >>>> > Clearly there are some nefarious potential uses here, but
>> what's more
>> >> > > >>>> > concerning is that the WikiUK twitter account has come
>> forward
>> >> > > >>>> > forcefully saying that Wikipedia shouldn't be cited in the
>> literature.
>> >> > > >>>> > Period.
>> >> > > >>>> > https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/1177215917534711808
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/11772159…>
>> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> > > >>>> > I work very hard to improve the cite through my courses and
>> academic
>> >> > > >>>> > advocacy as do many librarians. It's concern to me to see
>> Wikipedia
>> >> > > >>>> > undermining its own authority in such a public way in what
>> appears to be
>> >> > > >>>> > a misguided attempt to deflect association with the
>> MJournal site.
>> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> > > >>>> > Would welcome any insight or ideas on how to navigate this
>> discussion.
>> >> > > >>>> > The entire M-Journal use case exists, imho, because we are
>> still
>> >> > > >>>> > battling for a critical (not blanket acceptance) view of
>> Wiki as a
>> >> > > >>>> > resources, and I find this kind of public statement to be
>> very damaging
>> >> > > >>>> > to the hard work so many are doing to create a quality
>> information resource.
>> >> > > >>>>
>> >> > > >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >> > > >>>> Libraries mailing list
>> >> > > >>>> Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> > > >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/li…>
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> _______________________________________________
>> >> > > >>> Libraries mailing list
>> >> > > >>> Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> > > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/li…>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> _______________________________________________
>> >> > > >> Libraries mailing list
>> >> > > >> Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/li…>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > _______________________________________________
>> >> > > > Libraries mailing list
>> >> > > > Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/li…>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Libraries mailing list
>> >> Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/li…>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Libraries mailing list
>> > Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/li…>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/li…>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
I think that this is extremely important moment in the existence of
Wikimedia and contemporary free content movement. The future of the concept
of free knowledge could depend on how Wikimedia positions itself in
relation to this issue and the future similar ones.
This is not about our personal political opinions, this is about very real
consequences, which could define would we have united movement as we know
or just fragments of once great idea. All the lamest Wikipedia edit wars
could look like quite decent past.
Imagine any of our past conflicts. And that could look like a childish game.
This is also the question of how mature our particular and broader
movements are. Are we really a global movement or we are just a sum of
people with good will, strictly determined by our citizenship?
During the last six to seven years we lost few opportunities to become
significant stakeholder on the global stage (cf. contemporary significance
of Facebook). We lost the momentum few times and now we are absolutely
irrelevant as the movement. And if we don't want to lose the movement
itself, we have to be extremely pragmatic from now on.
One very good fact is that it is not anymore a heresy to talk about the
movement instead of data. Yes, our movement is the most important thing to
preserve. Capacity of hard disks and links improved that much, that
preserving data is just a matter of decent organizational work.
Our movement is not just the most important thing to us. In my opinion, our
movement is the best chance of our species to build the future. There were
no and there is no comparable movements.
We have to take this moment extremely seriously and start to work together
on solving numerous obstacles which we'll find in the future.
Our worst-case scenario is to disappear in irrelevance. It will start with
inactive chapters. Formal organization is the most expensive thing to us.
Our events will become less diverse.
Our declining editor community will become less diverse, as well.
Eventually, one by one, Wikipedia in particular languages will become less
important source of information than third party collaborative sums of
knowledge. (Keep in mind that Chinese Wikipedia is not the biggest and the
most useful encyclopedia in Chinese language.)
If we want to keep us as a movement, we have to fight hard for that. It's
not about one challenge, it's about constant challenges which we'll have.
This issue is just the first one.
Wikimedia Foundation's job is to do the best -- and I don't count
conformist answers as valid ones, as the time of plenty is behind us -- to
solve formal obstacles. If the servers have to go to Singapore, they should
go there as soon as possible.
Chapters have to cooperate. That's especially important in relation to the
chapters in the present and future conflict zones. I am aware that such
things are far from an issue presently. However, it could be much harder in
the future.
The rest of us have to take this moment seriously, as well, and do the best
in our personal capacities. That means writing Wikipedia and contributing
to other projects. That means introducing one friend per month into
contributing to Wikimedia projects. That means having active friendships
with people from the other parts of the world.
On Nov 13, 2014 2:01 AM, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm presuming this is sanctions against Russia kicking in; all sorts
> of business has been stopped dead in its tracks, not just charity
> donations. There's even serious moves to kick Russia out of the SWIFT
> network:
> http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-04/ultimate-sanction-barring-r…
> It strikes me as quite unlikely that there's anything at all WMF can
> actually do about this. Possibly it could have been handled better,
> but that won't change the fact.
>
> On 13 November 2014 00:12, Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>
> wrote:
> > I'm sure that you're correct here Joseph, but this is another example I
> > think where the Foundation should have notified the relevant chapter
> > *before* taking the action, so that they would be ready when the
> questions
> > started rolling in.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I think we're getting back to the bad old days of chapter
> > and user group press contacts being the last people to find out about
> > potentially controversial issues like this.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Craig Franklin
> > (personal view only)
> >
> >
> > On 13 November 2014 10:07, Joseph Seddon <josephseddon(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I would hate to preclude any answer from the foundation. However the
> laws
> >> that govern the foundation are that of the US. Given the previous and
> >> renewed ongoing palaver with Ukraine and the presence of economic
> sanctions
> >> and the increasing likelihood of on top of what is already present, I
> >> imagine this related to that.
> >>
> >> Im not sure of what legal risks accepting such donations would expose
> the
> >> foundation to. However such precautions have been made in the past
> relating
> >> to unrest.
> >>
> >> Its no slight on the country or its individuals, just a precautionary
> >> measure.
> >>
> >> Seddon
> >> On 12 Nov 2014 19:48, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> rubin.happy, 12/11/2014 18:48:
> >>>
> >>>> We received some alerts from our users that donations are now blocked
> >>>> when user is from Russia:
> >>>>
> http://habrastorage.org/files/31b/b1f/ec9/31bb1fec9b9e45abb6ac4babcc2371
> >>>> 84.png
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the information. Everyone can see the same warning by
> clicking
> >>> the "Russia" link in https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give
> >>> Through what channels are donations blocked? Did anyone try sending a
> >>> wire to the EU (SEPA) account (IBAN GB54CHAS60924241034640), or a
> PayPal
> >>> donation?
> >>>
> >>> Nemo
> >>>
> >>> P.s.: ROTFLOL "Please email donate(a)wikimedia.org for more information
> on
> >>> how to make a bank transfer to the Wikimedia Foundation." In case
> someone
> >>> forgets there is an ocean between Europe and USA.
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Fundraiser mailing list
> >>> Fundraiser(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/fundraiser
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Fundraiser mailing list
> >> Fundraiser(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/fundraiser
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
My thoughts, as ever(!), are as follows:
- The tool that generates the descriptions deserves a lot more development.
Magnus' tool is very much a prototype, and represents a tiny glimpse of
what's possible. Looking at its current output is a straw man.
- Auto-generated descriptions work for current articles, and *all future
articles*. They automatically adapt to updated data. They automatically
become more accurate as new data is added.
- When you edit the descriptions yourself, you're not really making a
meaningful contribution to the *data* that underpins the given Wikidata
entry; i.e. you're not contributing any new information. You're simply
paraphrasing the first sentence or two of the Wikipedia article. That can't
possibly be a productive use of contributors' time.
As for Brian's suggestion:
It would be a step forward; we can even invent a whole template-type syntax
for transcluding bits of actual data into the description. But IMO, that
kind of effort would still be better spent on fully-automatic descriptions,
because that's the ideal that semi-automatic descriptions can only approach.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Brian Gerstle <bgerstle(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Could there be a way to have our nicely curated description cake and eat
> it too? For example, interpolating data into the description and/or marking
> data points which are referenced in the description (so as to mark it as
> outdated when they change)?
>
> I appreciate the potential benefits of generated descriptions (and other
> things), but Monte's examples might have swayed me towards human
> curated—when available.
>
> On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Ok, so I just did what I proposed. I went to random enwiki articles and
>> described the first ten I found which didn't already have descriptions:
>>
>>
>> - "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film about a Gulf War friendly-fire
>> incident*
>>
>> - "Pebasiconcha immanis", *largest known species of land snail, extinct*
>>
>> - "List of Kenyan writers", *notable Kenyan authors*
>>
>> - "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *annular eclipse which lasted 77
>> seconds*
>>
>> - "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *historic Civilian Conservation Corps
>> post-and-beam building*
>>
>> - "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *debut 1980 studio album by Goombay Dance
>> Band*
>>
>> - "E-1027", *modernist villa in France by architect Eileen Gray*
>>
>> - "Daingerfield State Park", *park in Morris County, Texas, USA,
>> bordering Lake Daingerfield*
>>
>> - "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *2014 Live album by Mexican pop singer Fey*
>>
>> - "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *6th UEFA Regions' Cup, won by Castile and
>> Leon*
>>
>>
>>
>> And here are the respective descriptions from Magnus' (quite excellent)
>> autodesc.js:
>>
>>
>>
>> - "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film by Edward Zwick, produced by John
>> Davis and David T. Friendly from United States of America*
>>
>> - "Pebasiconcha immanis", *species of Mollusca*
>>
>> - "List of Kenyan writers", *Wikimedia list article*
>>
>> - "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *solar eclipse*
>>
>> - "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *Construction in Connecticut, United
>> States of America*
>>
>> - "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *album*
>>
>> - "E-1027", *villa in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, France*
>>
>> - "Daingerfield State Park", *state park and state park of a state of
>> the United States in Texas, United States of America*
>>
>> - "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *live album by Fey*
>>
>> - "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *none*
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Just trying to make my own bold assertions falsifiable :)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The whole human-vs-extracted descriptions quality question could be
>>> fairly easy to test I think:
>>>
>>> - Pick, some number of articles at random.
>>> - Run them through a description extraction script.
>>> - Have a human describe the same articles with, say, the app interface I
>>> demo'ed.
>>>
>>> If nothing else this exercise could perhaps make what's thus far been a
>>> wildly abstract discussion more concrete.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If having the most elegant description extraction mechanism was the
>>>> goal I would totally agree ;)
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Dmitry Brant <dbrant(a)wikimedia.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> IMO, allowing the user to edit the description is a missed opportunity
>>>>> to make the user edit the actual *data*, such that the description is
>>>>> generated correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> IMO, if the goal is quality, then human curated descriptions are
>>>>>> superior until such time as the auto-generation script passes the Turing
>>>>>> test ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see these empty descriptions as an amazing opportunity to give
>>>>>> *everyone* an easy new way to edit. I whipped an app editing interface up
>>>>>> at the Lyon hackathon:
>>>>>> bluetooth720 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VblyGhf_c8>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I used it to add a couple hundred descriptions in a single day just
>>>>>> by hitting "random" then adding descriptions for articles which didn't have
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd love to try a limited test of this in production to get a sense
>>>>>> for how effective human curation can be if the interface is easy to use...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jan Ainali <jan.ainali(a)wikimedia.se>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nice one!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does not appear to work on svwiki though. Does it have something to
>>>>>>> do with that the wiki in question does not display that tagline?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige <http://wikimedia.se>
>>>>>>> 0729 - 67 29 48
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till
>>>>>>> mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.*
>>>>>>> Bli medlem. <http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2015-08-18 17:23 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske <
>>>>>>> magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Show automatic description underneath "From Wikipedia...":
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To use, add:
>>>>>>>> importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;
>>>>>>>> to your common.js
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be even better if this (short: 3 field max)
>>>>>>>>> pipe-separated list was available as a gadget to wikidatans on Wikipedia
>>>>>>>>> (like me). I can't see if a page I am on has an "instance of" (though it
>>>>>>>>> should) and I can see the description thanks to another gadget (sorry no
>>>>>>>>> idea which one that is). Often I will update empty descriptions, but if I
>>>>>>>>> was served basic fields (so for a painting, the creator field), I would
>>>>>>>>> click through to update that too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
>>>>>>>>> nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of fields
>>>>>>>>>>> separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what it
>>>>>>>>>> means, I certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding
>>>>>>>>>> existing manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile
>>>>>>>>>> folks often do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very happy. :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nemo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dmitry Brant
>>>>> Mobile Apps Team (Android)
>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_mobile_engineering
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> EN Wikipedia user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brian.gerstle
> IRC: bgerstle
>
>
--
Dmitry Brant
Mobile Apps Team (Android)
Wikimedia Foundation
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_mobile_engineering
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Brian Gerstle <bgerstle(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Could there be a way to have our nicely curated description cake and eat
> it too? For example, interpolating data into the description and/or marking
> data points which are referenced in the description (so as to mark it as
> outdated when they change)?
>
> I appreciate the potential benefits of generated descriptions (and other
> things), but Monte's examples might have swayed me towards human
> curated—when available.
>
> On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Ok, so I just did what I proposed. I went to random enwiki articles and
>> described the first ten I found which didn't already have descriptions:
>>
>>
>> - "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film about a Gulf War friendly-fire
>> incident*
>>
>> - "Pebasiconcha immanis", *largest known species of land snail, extinct*
>>
>> - "List of Kenyan writers", *notable Kenyan authors*
>>
>> - "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *annular eclipse which lasted 77
>> seconds*
>>
>> - "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *historic Civilian Conservation Corps
>> post-and-beam building*
>>
>> - "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *debut 1980 studio album by Goombay Dance
>> Band*
>>
>> - "E-1027", *modernist villa in France by architect Eileen Gray*
>>
>> - "Daingerfield State Park", *park in Morris County, Texas, USA,
>> bordering Lake Daingerfield*
>>
>> - "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *2014 Live album by Mexican pop singer Fey*
>>
>> - "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *6th UEFA Regions' Cup, won by Castile and
>> Leon*
>>
>>
>>
>> And here are the respective descriptions from Magnus' (quite excellent)
>> autodesc.js:
>>
>>
>>
>> - "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film by Edward Zwick, produced by John
>> Davis and David T. Friendly from United States of America*
>>
>> - "Pebasiconcha immanis", *species of Mollusca*
>>
>> - "List of Kenyan writers", *Wikimedia list article*
>>
>> - "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *solar eclipse*
>>
>> - "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *Construction in Connecticut, United
>> States of America*
>>
>> - "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *album*
>>
>> - "E-1027", *villa in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, France*
>>
>> - "Daingerfield State Park", *state park and state park of a state of
>> the United States in Texas, United States of America*
>>
>> - "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *live album by Fey*
>>
>> - "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *none*
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Just trying to make my own bold assertions falsifiable :)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The whole human-vs-extracted descriptions quality question could be
>>> fairly easy to test I think:
>>>
>>> - Pick, some number of articles at random.
>>> - Run them through a description extraction script.
>>> - Have a human describe the same articles with, say, the app interface I
>>> demo'ed.
>>>
>>> If nothing else this exercise could perhaps make what's thus far been a
>>> wildly abstract discussion more concrete.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If having the most elegant description extraction mechanism was the
>>>> goal I would totally agree ;)
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Dmitry Brant <dbrant(a)wikimedia.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> IMO, allowing the user to edit the description is a missed opportunity
>>>>> to make the user edit the actual *data*, such that the description is
>>>>> generated correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> IMO, if the goal is quality, then human curated descriptions are
>>>>>> superior until such time as the auto-generation script passes the Turing
>>>>>> test ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see these empty descriptions as an amazing opportunity to give
>>>>>> *everyone* an easy new way to edit. I whipped an app editing interface up
>>>>>> at the Lyon hackathon:
>>>>>> bluetooth720 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VblyGhf_c8>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I used it to add a couple hundred descriptions in a single day just
>>>>>> by hitting "random" then adding descriptions for articles which didn't have
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd love to try a limited test of this in production to get a sense
>>>>>> for how effective human curation can be if the interface is easy to use...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jan Ainali <jan.ainali(a)wikimedia.se>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nice one!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does not appear to work on svwiki though. Does it have something to
>>>>>>> do with that the wiki in question does not display that tagline?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige <http://wikimedia.se>
>>>>>>> 0729 - 67 29 48
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till
>>>>>>> mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.*
>>>>>>> Bli medlem. <http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2015-08-18 17:23 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske <
>>>>>>> magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Show automatic description underneath "From Wikipedia...":
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To use, add:
>>>>>>>> importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;
>>>>>>>> to your common.js
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be even better if this (short: 3 field max)
>>>>>>>>> pipe-separated list was available as a gadget to wikidatans on Wikipedia
>>>>>>>>> (like me). I can't see if a page I am on has an "instance of" (though it
>>>>>>>>> should) and I can see the description thanks to another gadget (sorry no
>>>>>>>>> idea which one that is). Often I will update empty descriptions, but if I
>>>>>>>>> was served basic fields (so for a painting, the creator field), I would
>>>>>>>>> click through to update that too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
>>>>>>>>> nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of fields
>>>>>>>>>>> separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what it
>>>>>>>>>> means, I certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding
>>>>>>>>>> existing manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile
>>>>>>>>>> folks often do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very happy. :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nemo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dmitry Brant
>>>>> Mobile Apps Team (Android)
>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_mobile_engineering
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> EN Wikipedia user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brian.gerstle
> IRC: bgerstle
>
>
--
Dmitry Brant
Mobile Apps Team (Android)
Wikimedia Foundation
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_mobile_engineering