Do u have kids? [email protected] wrote:
>Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > >You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia" > (Milos Rancic) > 2. Re: Wikisource and reCAPTCHA (Samuel Klein) > 3. Re: Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia" > (Samuel Klein) > 4. Re: Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia" > (Birgitte SB) > 5. Re: Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia" > (Mark Williamson) > 6. Re: Wikisource and reCAPTCHA (Andre Engels) > 7. Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Board resolution commissioning > study and recommendations (Ray Saintonge) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 01:06:25 +0200 >From: Milos Rancic <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - > one Wikipedia" >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <[email protected]> >Message-ID: > <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Mark Williamson <[email protected]> wrote: >> as if we were dumb. I have heard (and I am not an expert) from many >> people the idea that you will get what you give, meaning that if you >> treat an adolescent as if they were a criminal, they will often become >> a criminal; it seems to me that if we treat children as dumber >> versions of adult human beings, they will grow up to be just that. >> (again, I'm not an expert) > >A kind of virtuous circle and vicious circle. Dumb adults are creating >dumb articles because they think that their children are dumb, which >in turn transforms children into dumb adults ;) > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:43:00 -0400 >From: Samuel Klein <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <[email protected]> >Message-ID: > <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:16 AM, James Forrester <[email protected]> >wrote: >> On 24 June 2010 15:37, Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a >>> book's pages and TOC. ?Wikisource is becoming AWESOME. >> >> Ahem. Even more awesome, you mean. :-) > >It used to be just lowercase awesome... THINGS HAVE CHANGED. >:-) > >> Disclaimer - my PGDP account dates from 2004, but I only get involved >> in fits every couple of years. > >Could you ask some of the wiki-savvy continuously active proofreaders >to join this discussion for a little while? I like the work PGDP >does, and bet we can find a way to support and amplify it. > >SJ > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:51:33 -0400 >From: Samuel Klein <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - > one Wikipedia" >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <[email protected]> >Message-ID: > <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote: >> The fact that 10 years old child probably doesn't know what density >> means, doesn't mean that she or he can't read about that on >> encyclopedia. > >Of course. Children who specialize in a topic often make excellent >teachers, and sometimes featured-article writers. I like Greg's >notion of defining the project in terms of "expected level of >education" of the reader, not age. Almost everyone may want to refer >to a simplified reference for topics that confuse them -- and there is >a niche of popularizers of {science, mathematics, economics} who do >just that, for readers of all ages. Some of them win the highest >literary awards for their work. > > >One data point on language complexity: > >In Peru, I work with families and teachers in rural areas with little >access to books or references, whose children have a snapshot of >Spanish Wikipedia (offline, on their OLPC laptop). For perhaps >100,000 families and teachers, this is their primary general >reference. > >The teachers like this and use it; it is part of a national >project-based curriculum for grades 3-5. >http://www.perueduca.edu.pe/olpc/OLPC_fichasfasc.html > >But the teachers there also asked for a simpler-language project in >Spanish, and a simple project in English to help students with >language learning. > >> My personal responsibility for creating a Wikijunior project >> would be much higher than for creating a Wikinews project. > >Yes. We should definitely lay the groundwork well, as Ziko says. But >there are good projects underway today and doing this, in spanish, >french, and dutch. Some of the organizers of those projects have >contributed to the Wikikids proposal on meta. We can start by >directing energies there, finding out what Vikidia has learned running >projects in French and Spanish, what their standards for >project-creation are, and how we can help them. > >SJ > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:25:52 -0700 (PDT) >From: Birgitte SB <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - > one Wikipedia" >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <[email protected]> >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > >--- On Thu, 6/24/10, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: Milos Rancic <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one >> Wikipedia" >> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[email protected]> >> Date: Thursday, June 24, 2010, 6:06 PM >> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:26 AM, >> Mark Williamson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > as if we were dumb. I have heard (and I am not an >> expert) from many >> > people the idea that you will get what you give, >> meaning that if you >> > treat an adolescent as if they were a criminal, they >> will often become >> > a criminal; it seems to me that if we treat children >> as dumber >> > versions of adult human beings, they will grow up to >> be just that. >> > (again, I'm not an expert) >> >> A kind of virtuous circle and vicious circle. Dumb adults >> are creating >> dumb articles because they think that their children are >> dumb, which >> in turn transforms children into dumb adults ;) > > >I think you all are getting rather sidetracked over the details of content of >some proposed project that I do not believe you are actually interested in >joining. Surely any detailed decisions as exactly how to approach writing >medical articles for children would be an internal conclusion. The real issue >here is what merits the creation of a new wiki versus some specific project >being setup as subset of an existing wiki. > >I have come the conclusion the biggest factor leading to success of a new wiki >is a large enough community with a strong sense of a separate mission. If all >you have is a small group of hard core content editors you will be more >successful as subset of an existing wiki, if one is so kind enough to make >room for you. One thing that happens in a small wiki is all the happy energy >which was geared towards the content must be siphoned off into seemingly >endless administration tasks. It takes a while for the community to grow >enough to overcome that deficit. I would not recommend anyone to be in a >hurry to make their own new space. The longer you can use an existing wiki to >experiment with the your project the stronger you can grow your community, and >maybe you can find a way to permanently fit within the existing scope while >meeting the needs of your specific mission. If you can it do that it will >greatly improve your ability to work on content. I would > advise this group that as exciting as having their own Wikipedia must sound, > they might be more successful as a project within de.WP or de.WB And even if > they are dead-set on an independent wiki, they will benefit from starting > within an existing structure to grow a good sized proof of concept. > >Birgitte SB > > > > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 5 >Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:09:13 -0700 >From: Mark Williamson <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - > one Wikipedia" >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <[email protected]> >Message-ID: > <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >Birgitte, what I am discussing is whether or no t I see any merit in >this idea at all. Thanks. > > >On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Birgitte SB <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> --- On Thu, 6/24/10, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> From: Milos Rancic <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one >>> Wikipedia" >>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[email protected]> >>> Date: Thursday, June 24, 2010, 6:06 PM >>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:26 AM, >>> Mark Williamson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > as if we were dumb. I have heard (and I am not an >>> expert) from many >>> > people the idea that you will get what you give, >>> meaning that if you >>> > treat an adolescent as if they were a criminal, they >>> will often become >>> > a criminal; it seems to me that if we treat children >>> as dumber >>> > versions of adult human beings, they will grow up to >>> be just that. >>> > (again, I'm not an expert) >>> >>> A kind of virtuous circle and vicious circle. Dumb adults >>> are creating >>> dumb articles because they think that their children are >>> dumb, which >>> in turn transforms children into dumb adults ;) >> >> >> I think you all are getting rather sidetracked over the details of content >> of some proposed project that I do not believe you are actually interested >> in joining. ?Surely any detailed decisions as exactly how to approach >> writing medical articles for children would be an internal conclusion. The >> real issue here is what merits the creation of a new wiki versus some >> specific project being setup as subset of an existing wiki. >> >> I have come the conclusion the biggest factor leading to success of a new >> wiki is a large enough community with a strong sense of a separate mission. >> ?If all you have is a small group of hard core content editors you will be >> more successful as subset of an existing wiki, if one is so kind enough to >> make room for you. ?One thing that happens in a small wiki is all the happy >> energy which was geared towards the content must be siphoned off into >> seemingly endless administration tasks. It takes a while for the community >> to grow enough to overcome that deficit. ?I would not recommend anyone to be >> in a hurry to make their own new space. ?The longer you can use an existing >> wiki to experiment with the your project the stronger you can grow your >> community, and maybe you can find a way to permanently fit within the >> existing scope while meeting the needs of your specific mission. ?If you can >> it do that it will greatly improve your ability to work on content. I would >> ?advise this group that as exciting as having their own Wikipedia must >> sound, they might be more successful as a project within de.WP or de.WB And >> even if they are dead-set on an independent wiki, they will benefit from >> starting within an existing structure to grow a good sized proof of concept. >> >> Birgitte SB >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 6 >Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 05:13:57 +0200 >From: Andre Engels <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <[email protected]> >Message-ID: > <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: >> I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a >> book's pages and TOC. ?Wikisource is becoming AWESOME. >> >> Do we have PGDP contributors who can weigh on on how similar the >> processes are? ?Is there a way for us to actually merge workflows with >> them? > >I am quite active on PGDP, but not on Wikisource, so I can tell about >how things work there, but not on how similar it is to Wikisource. > >Typical about the PGDP workflow are an emphasis on quality above >quantity (exemplified in running not 1 or 2 but 3 rounds of human >checking of the OCR result - correctness in copying is well above >99.99% for most books) and work being done in page-size chunks rather >than whole books, chapters, paragraphs, sentences, words or whatever >else one could think of. > >There's a number of people involved, although people can and often do >fill several roles for one book. > >First, there is the Content Provider (CP). > >He or she first contacts Project Gutenberg to get a clearance. This is >basically a statement from PG that they believe the work is out of >copyright. In general, US copyright is what is taken into account for >this, although there are also servers in other countries (Canada and >Australia as far as I know), which publish some material that is out >of copyright in those countries even if it is not in the US. Such >works do not go through PGDP, but may go through its sister projects >DPCanada or DPEurope. > >Next, the CP will scan the book, or harvest the scans from the web, >and run OCR on them. They will usually also write a description of the >book for the proofreaders, so those can see whether they are >interested. The scans and the OCR are uploaded to the PGDP servers, >and the project is handed over to the Project Manager (PM) (although >in most cases CP and PM are the same person). > >The Project Manager is responsible for the project in the next stages. >This means: >* specifying the rules and guidelines that are to be followed when >proofreading the book, at least there where those differ from the >standard guidelines >* answer questions by proofreaders >* keep the good and bad words lists up to date. These are used in >wordcheck (a kind of spellchecker) so that words are considered >correct or incorrect by it > >The project then goes through a number of rounds. The standard number >is 5 rounds, of which 3 are proofreading and 2 are formatting, but it >is possible for the PM to make a request to skip one or more rounds or >go through a round twice. > >In the first three, proofreading, rounds, a proofreader requests one >page at a time, compares the OCR output (or the previous proofreader's >output) with the scan, and changes the text to correspond to the scan. >In the first round (P1) everyone can do this, the second round (P2) is >only accessible to those who have been at the site some time and done >a certain amount of pages (21 days and 300 pages, if I recall >correctly), for the third round (P3) one has to qualify. For >qualification one's P2 pages are checked (using the subsequent edits >of P3). The norm is that one should not leave more than one error per >five pages. > >After the three (or two or four) rounds of proofing, the foofing >(formatting) rounds are gone through. In these, again a proofreader >(now called formatter) requests and edits one page at the time, but >where the proofreaders dealt with copying the text as precisely as >possible, the formatter will deal with all other aspects of the work. >They denote when text is italic, bold or otherwise in a special >format, which texts are chapter headers, how tables are laid out, >etcetera. Here there are two rounds, although the second one can be >skipped or a round duplicated, like before. The first formatting round >(F1) has the same entrance restrictions as P2, F2 has a qualification >system comparable to P3. > >After this, the PM gives the book on to the Post-Processor (PP). >Again, this is often the same person, but not always. In some other >cases, the PP has already been appointed, in others it will sit in a >pool until picked up by a willing PP. The PP does all that is needed >to get from the F2 output to something that can be put on Project >Gutenberg: they recombine the pages into one work, move stuff around >where needed, change the formatters' mark-up in something that's more >appropriate for reading, in most cases generate an HTML version, >etcetera. > >A PP that has already post-processed several books in a good way can >then send it to PG. In other cases, the book will then go to the PPV >(Post-Processing Verifier), an experienced PP, who checks the PP's >work, and gives them hints on what should be improved or makes those >improvements themselves. > >Finally, if the PP or PPV sends the book to PG, there is a whitewasher >who checks the book once again; however, that is outside the scope of >this (already too long) description, because it belongs to PG's >process rather than PGDP's. > >To stop the rounds from overcrowding with books, there are queues for >each round, containing books that are ready to enter the round, but >have not yet done so. To keep some variety, there are different queues >by language and/or subject type. A problem with this has been that the >later rounds, having less manpower because of the higher standards >required, could not keep up with P1 and F1. There has been work to do >something about it, and the P2 queues have been brought down to decent >size, but in P3 and F2 books can literally sit in the queues for >years, and PP still is a bottleneck as well. > > >-- >Andr? Engels, [email protected] > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 7 >Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:42:26 -0700 >From: Ray Saintonge <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Board resolution > commissioning study and recommendations >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <[email protected]> >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > >David Gerard wrote: >> On 24 June 2010 19:28, Michael Snow <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> That's the meaning, definitely, same as it was in the previous board >>> statement. I would observe, too, that for material on user pages, if >>> you're even going to ask whether it's educational, what is it going to >>> educate people about? That particular user, presumably. And in that >>> context, it's pretty hard to rule out any kind of self-expression that >>> person has chosen as not being educational about them. It may be >>> inappropriate for other reasons, such as community policy or social >>> concerns, but this wouldn't really be a basis for enforcing that. >>> >> Nevertheless - if you're going to make official statements like this, >> you can't assume that hundreds of thousands of people are all going to >> interpret them the same way, as you seem to have here. >> >Precisely. We already have too many people ready and willing to take a >common sense idea and turn it into rigid policy. > >Ec > > > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >foundation-l mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > >End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 75, Issue 110 >*********************************************
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
