On Jan 26, 2016 3:22 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the FUD.
"Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt" are not the precise words I would choose, but they fairly adequately describe how I feel about the WMF these days.
Of course, as a bit of jargon, FUD typically implies that somebody is trying to use those emotions in a manipulative way.
All I can say to that is....nope, not my intention.
So where are your sources Pete?
First, the main point of my email was to challenge what I consider a poor argument against Wikidata. That point is, IMO, the important one.
However, you're right: I did talk about my beliefs. I do believe there is a problem to be considered; and I don't think I need to offer proof for what my own beliefs are.
But, i agree, some substantiation is worthwhile. I consider the following to be the most interesting published documents relating to these issues: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Discovery_Year_0-1-2.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-01-13/Op-ed
It is very clear that the WMF has big plans, and that we have only seen parts of those plans. What those plans are, and whether they are good ones, remains to be explored; but the opaqueness of the plans is itself a problem. That is my point.
When other plans exist, the WMF is not the party developing them. For instance: I am arguing for the use of Wikidata in links and redlinks. I have published about it and I welcome comments. I asked you personally and you were not even interested.
OK, this part is getting silly. You presented an idea to me in private that is obviously a good idea. But, as I explained to you, your single-minded interest in me expressing an opinion on it gave me pause. I explained to you that you seemed more interested in setting me up to be a part of your political point, than in actually having a discussion. So I declined to discuss your idea.
This message seems to prove that my instincts were correct.
Pete
On 26 January 2016 at 08:33, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
(Note: I'm creating a new thread which references several old ones; in
the
most recent, "Profile of Magnus Manske," the conversation has drifted
back
to Wikidata, so that subject line is no longer applicable.)
Andreas Kolbe has argued in multiple threads that Wikidata is
fundamentally
problematic, on the basis that it does not require citations. (Please correct me if I am mistaken about this core premise.) I've found these threads illuminating, and appreciate much of what has been said by all parties.
However, that core premise is problematic. If the possibility of people publishing uncited information were fundamentally problematic, here are several platforms that we would have to consider ethically problematic
at
the core:
- Wikipedia (which for many years had very loose standards around
citations)
- Wikipediocracy (of which Andreas is a founding member) and all
Internet
forums
- All blogs
- YouTube
- The Internet itself
- The printing press
Every one of the platforms listed above created opportunities for
people --
even anonymously -- to publish information without a citation. If we
are to
fault Wikidata on this basis, it would be wrong not to apply the same standard to other platforms.
I'm addressing this now, because I think it is becoming problematic to paint Wikidata as a flawed project with a broad brush. Wikidata is an experiment, and it will surely lead to flawed information in some instances. But I think it would be a big problem to draw the conclusion that Wikidata is problematic overall.
That said, it is becoming ever more clear that the Wikimedia Foundation
has
developed big plans that involve Wikidata; and those big plans are not
open
to scrutiny.
THAT, I believe, is a problem.
Wikidata is not a problem; but it is something that could be leveraged
in
problematic ways (and/or highly beneficial ways).
I feel it is very important that we start looking at these issues from
that
perspective.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe