That would be a useful feature in the long term
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of Anthony Cole
Sent: Saturday, 12 March 2016 8:42 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically
discern what a <ref> refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph."
Check out the first paragraph and its references here:
.
Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your
MediaWiki preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what
each reference is supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting
the supported text on the page, rather than having it appear in a tool tip.
I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that
screen readers can read it.
Anthony Cole
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske <
magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:
> Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those
> at the end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of
> references at the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are
missing my
point.
Many
editors use one footnote marker to support all
the sentences in a
paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences
after
the
last footnote marker.
There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote
marker supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the
sentences at the beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be
counted as unsourced statements.
Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically
discern what a <ref> refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As
described, my "one sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound
of statement numbers. So is my <ref> count, then. I am certain you
can find an article where my statement-to-reference ratio is off
against WIkipedia; but I believe I could find more instances where
it is in
favour of Wikipedia.
But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just
doesn't
matter which project is more poorly referenced.
Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care
:-)
My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one
can't "sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor
referencing.
Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did
(amongst other things).
That is all.
Cheers,
Magnus
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole
<ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of
> you
only
counting
footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the
end of paragraphs.
And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a
paragraph
if,
> as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a
> paragraph
often
supports
all statements in the paragraph?
Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in
his response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading
because, provided statements are repeated and supported by a
reliable source in
the
body of an article, citations are not expected or
required in
en.Wikipedia
article leads.
Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating
Wikipedia's
> lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
> reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia
> is appalling.
>
> Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia
> is
worse".
You
appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's
true but still an invalid argument.
It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument.
Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding
references
is
> difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it
> is easy to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more
> difficult than adding them to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will you?
>
> You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the
> media
viewer
> and visual editor was the stoopid power
users.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Magnus Manske <
> magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole
>> <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Magnus.
>> >
>> > I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to
>> > an
essay
> [1]
> > earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you
> > were
> addressing
> > me.
> >
> > Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here.
> > You
describe
>> a
>> > formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by
>> > reliable
>> sources.
>> > Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each
sentence
> >
contains one statement of fact and compare the number of
> > sentences
with
>> the
>> > number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the
references
> per
> > statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving
> > at the
RPS
>> > ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS
>> > ratios of en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios
>> > of their
associated
> >
Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
> >
>
> Correct.
>
> >
> > Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio
> > because
> whole
> > paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote
> > marker
appears
>> > only once at the end of the paragraph.
>> >
>>
>> Which is why I am counting reference markers within the
>> paragraphs,
not
>
references at the end. Every <ref> is sacred ;-)
>
> Actually, I think my statement count for entire Wikipedia
> articles is
low
> (and thus, favourable to Wikipedia). Take
jsut the first
> sentence at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams
> This sentence alone contains nine statements (first names, last
> name, birth date, death date, nationality, the fact he's human,
> and three occupations).
> But I would only count that as one statement, as it is one sentence.
This
>> reduces the number of statements I count in the article, but
>> the
number
of
>> references (btw, only one in the entire lead section) remains
constant,
>> thus pushing the RPS ratio in favour of
Wikipedia.
>>
>> >
>> > But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a
>> > wiki it
>> should
>> > be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very
>> > valid arguments.
>> >
>>
>> I agree. Which is why I never made such arguments. Please don't
>> put
them
> >> in
> >> my mouth; I don't know you well enough for that.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard
> >> > and
> others
> >> > that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata
sources.
If
> > that is so, you should fix that.
> >
>
> Actually, it is easy to add references to Wikidata, certainly
> not more difficult than adding them to Wikipedia. I have
> written bots and drag'n'drop scripts to make it even easier. It
> is a little fiiddly to
add
> book references, but still reasoably
possible.
> What /is/ difficult is to do this automatically, by bot. But
> pick a
random
>> Wikidata entry, and with a little googling, many statements can
>> be referenced to URLs. But this takes time.
>> Which brings me back to my blog post: Even after ~3 years,
>> Wikidata is referenced not too badly, compared to Wikipedia.
>> And if we have
learned
>> one
>> thing from Wikipedia, it is that the state in general, and
>> references
in
>
particular, will improve over time.
> So to everyone who disses Wikidata because of "missing
> references", I
say:
>> 1. You're wrong (it's already OK) 2. Patience (it will get even
>> better)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Magnus
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 1.
http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378
>> >
>> > Anthony Cole
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels <
andreengels(a)gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of
>> > > the
"it's
> >
> new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a
> > > crowd exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of
> > > community is behind
it,
>> > > as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the
>> > > community
who
> >
> had a negative opinion about the first released version of
> > > visual editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements.
> > > Which I had
to
> > > be, because I know you have done
many good things.
> > >
> > > And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your
> > > average Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the
> > > software
engineering
> > > skills to just go and repair the
Mediawiki code, and even
> > > if they
did,
>> > > they would not have the power to make their repairs go life
>> > > in
short
>> > > term (and before I'm
misunderstood, I am not complaining
>> > > about
that,
>> > > it is entirely logical and
doing it differently would
>> > > probably
cause
>> > > disasters). They can of course
complain, and file bug
>> > > reports etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.
>> > >
>> > > I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way
>> > > of
working
>> > > in this, at least that's
what I see in the Imageviewer case.
People
>> > > see issues, and want them
resolved. But some of those
>> > > issues are
so
> >
> large that they do not want the product at all *until they
> > > are resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester,
> > > but also forcing the product on them in the period between
> > > the discovery of
the
>> > > issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my
opinion
is
>> > > instrumental in turning the objections against specific
>> > > issues
into
>> > > resistance against the product
as a whole.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
>> > > <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > > > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote
>> > > > in
this
>> > > thread. I
>> > > > have no problem with specific criticism where it is
>> > > > deserved,
and
I
>> do
>> > > well
>> > > > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early
>> > > > incarnation, was
not
>> > quite
>> > > up
>> > > > to the job.
>> > > >
>> > > > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some
technical
>> or
>> > > > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing
>> > > > worthless,
even
>> > > > dangerous, and spreading
that view around. This
>> > > > behaviour, I
have
> seen
> > > time
> > > > and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
> > > >
> > > > It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix
it.
> > > >
> > > > It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new.
> > > > And
Not
>> > Made
>> > > > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole <
ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor
> > > >> revolt. A
> couple
> > of
> > > >> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely.
> > > >> And
you're
>> > > >> persisting with your idée fixe.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe,
actually.
>> The
>> > > >> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran
editors.
Not
>> > > newbies.
>> > > >> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully
>> > > >> complete
an
>> edit.
>> > > It
>> > > >> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few
editors
>> were
>> > > >> unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers.
>> > > >> But
then
>> most
>> > > of
>> > > >> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the
>> > > >> community
>> arrogantly
>> > > >> characterised *anyone* who complained about the product
>> > > >> as an
>> > ignorant,
>> > > >> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that
characterisation
> now.
> > > >>
> > > >> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that,
> > > >> and they
have
>> > > >> fostered a much healthier relationship between the
>> > > >> developers
and
>> the
>> > > >> community. You clearly haven't learned all you might
have.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here
>> > > >> and in
the
>> > > concurrent
>> > > >> thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge,"
and
>> > > >> from
Denny
>> in
>> > > >> earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it
>> > > >> seems to
me
>> there
>> > > is
>> > > >> still a significant arrogance problem that needs
>> > > >> addressing, at
>> least
>> > > over
>> > > >> at WikiData.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even
insultingly,
>> about
>> > > an
>> > > >> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in
>> > > >> talking
down
to
> > > them or
> > > >> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if
> > > >> you can't
> > > distinguish
> > > >> them from those who approach you with genuine concerns
> > > >> and
> > well-founded
> > > >> criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your
> > > >> technical
> > solutions
> > > >> are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than
> > > >> those
WMF
> > > staffers
> > > >> who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good
> > > >> career
move.
> > > >>
> > > >> Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of
> > > >> his
project,
> and
> > > your
> > > >> contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the
> > > >> early
visual
>> > > editor
>> > > >> and its launch are both very disappointing.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Anthony Cole
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske <
>> > > >> magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you
>> > > >> > do the
>> basic
>> > > >> > functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at
>> > > >> > the
same
>
time.
> > > We
> > > >> do
> > > >> > not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using
> > > >> > our
product.
> If
> > we
> > > >> can
> > > >> > present the product in such a way that more people use
> > > >> > it, it
is
>> a
>> > > >> success
>> > > >> > for us.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > I do stand by my example :-)
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael Peel <
>> email(a)mikepeel.net>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske <
>> > > magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > > wrote:
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > As one can be overly conservative, one can
also be
>> > > >> > > > overly
>> > > >> > enthusiastic. I
>> > > >> > > > would hope the Foundation by now understands
>> > > >> > > > better how
to
> >
handle
> > > new
> > > >> > > > software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic
> > functionality,
> > > but
> > > >> > > > working smoothly first.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's
a
> > > >> > > good
example
> to
> > > make
> > > >> > > here. :-/
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > Mike
> > > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > >> > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidel
> > > >> > > in es New messages to:
> > > >> > > 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/Guidelin
> > > >> > es New messages to: 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
> > > >> New messages to: 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
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: 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
>> > New messages to: 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
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe:
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ,
>
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubsc
> ri
> be>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscrib
e>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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:
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4540/11801 - Release Date:
03/12/16
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: