Re: [Foundation-l] Communicating effectively: Wikimedia needs clear language now
I'd recommend George Orwell's essay on Politics and the English Language. It's one of the most persuasive arguments to use clear language I've read. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm We're a multi-lingual movement, and this makes clear English even more important. If something is unclear to a native speaker, it's even more difficult for someone who has English as a second or third language. Chris ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
Jussi-ville writes: The policy, misused in the course of POV struggle, is a way of excluding information with interferes with presentation of a desired point of view. I think you are being way too generous. ... Let me repeat in more concise form. The policy was written to enable serious work on hard topics, it as it stands, hinders work, making it hard to edit simple facts. I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original Research), and who, instead of trying to end-run WP:NOR, waited years until the article was actually published before trying to modify the Haymarket article. To me, this is a particularly fascinating case because the author's article, unlike the great majority of sources for Wikipedia articles, was peer-reviewed -- this means it underwent academic scrutiny that the newspapers, magazines, and other popular sources we rely on never undergo. I think the problem really is grounded in the UNDUE WEIGHT policy itself, as written, and not in mere misuse of the policy. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Communicating effectively: Wikimedia needs clear language now
We're a multi-lingual movement, and this makes clear English even more important. If something is unclear to a native speaker, it's even more difficult for someone who has English as a second or third language. I confirm. Its quite difficult for a non fluent english speaker to be involved in the international wikimedia movement even if I understand that we need a lingua franca and this lingua franca is english. But please do not complicate their life for example by using American or British locutions (or explain it if use). Thierry who still not have found a good translation in French for accountability :) 2012/2/19 Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com I'd recommend George Orwell's essay on Politics and the English Language. It's one of the most persuasive arguments to use clear language I've read. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm We're a multi-lingual movement, and this makes clear English even more important. If something is unclear to a native speaker, it's even more difficult for someone who has English as a second or third language. Chris ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Thierry Coudray Administrateur - Trésorier Wikimédia France http://www.wikimedia.fr/ Mob. 06.82.85.84.40 http://blog.wikimedia.fr/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Communicating effectively: Wikimedia needs clear language now
On 19 February 2012 10:21, Thierry Coudray thierry.coud...@wikimedia.fr wrote: We're a multi-lingual movement, and this makes clear English even more important. If something is unclear to a native speaker, it's even more difficult for someone who has English as a second or third language. I confirm. Its quite difficult for a non fluent english speaker to be involved in the international wikimedia movement even if I understand that we need a lingua franca and this lingua franca is english. But please do not complicate their life for example by using American or British locutions (or explain it if use). Just to clarify: the issue I raised isn't about American or British terms. I'd argue that UK/US (and Canada, Australia, NZ etc.) differences isn't really a major issue with Foundation/Chapter communications. A few of the Foundation-isms (Sue's On-passing) are probably down to spending too much time in California. (And I do hope Wikimedia UK doesn't start using phrases like Tally ho, chaps! in their documents...) Mostly though, thanks to the Internet and multinational corporations, godawful business jargon crosses all national borders. Words and phrases like 'onboarding', 'stakeholders', 'mission statements', 'platforms', 'proactive', 'sectors' and pretty much anything 'strategic', for instance. To see the difference, consider: Wikipedia is the leading player in the online reference sector and provide a revolutionary cloud-based 'encyclopedia as a service'. Thanks to the visionary utilization of our key strategic software assets, we deliver value-add to our stakeholders by enabling them to modify, shape and determine the future of the resource by modification of key text assets. vs. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on the Internet that anybody can edit. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original Research), and who, instead of trying to end-run WP:NOR, waited years until the article was actually published before trying to modify the Haymarket article. To me, this is a particularly fascinating case because the author's article, unlike the great majority of sources for Wikipedia articles, was peer-reviewed -- this means it underwent academic scrutiny that the newspapers, magazines, and other popular sources we rely on never undergo. I think the problem really is grounded in the UNDUE WEIGHT policy itself, as written, and not in mere misuse of the policy. Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's judgement that was called for with the Haymarket article. Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original Research), and who, instead of trying to end-run WP:NOR, waited years until the article was actually published before trying to modify the Haymarket article. To me, this is a particularly fascinating case because the author's article, unlike the great majority of sources for Wikipedia articles, was peer-reviewed -- this means it underwent academic scrutiny that the newspapers, magazines, and other popular sources we rely on never undergo. I think the problem really is grounded in the UNDUE WEIGHT policy itself, as written, and not in mere misuse of the policy. Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's judgement that was called for with the Haymarket article. Mike The policy had its roots in the effort to deal with physics cranks, see http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006715.html It it is misapplied when rigorous new research is excluded. What is needed is capacity make judgements based on familiarity with the literature in the field. You can have that, as a academic in the field might, or you can learn about it by reading literature in the field and finding how how new research was received, reviewed and commented on. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] EFE: Indigenous languages entering Wikipedia
Yes, you are right! I forgot to mention you guys, so sorry! I'll punish myself :P El 18-02-2012 22:31, Mateus Nobre mateus.no...@live.co.uk escribió: Wikimedia Brasil also have a project of indigenous language, the nheengatu project. http://br.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nheengattu _ MateusNobre MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects (+55) 85 88393509 30440865 Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:50:20 -0300 From: os...@wikimediachile.cl To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] EFE: Indigenous languages entering Wikipedia Hi everyone! Yesterday, news agency EFE published a note about the work done mainly by W... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Communicating effectively: Wikimedia needs clear language now
On 19/02/2012 5:21 AM, Thierry Coudray wrote: Thierry who still not have found a good translation in French for accountability :) You probably want /imputabilité/ :-) -- Coren / Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Jussi-ville writes: The policy, misused in the course of POV struggle, is a way of excluding information with interferes with presentation of a desired point of view. ... I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original Research), and who, instead of trying to end-run WP:NOR, waited years until the article was actually published before trying to modify the Haymarket article. To me, this is a particularly fascinating case because the author's article, unlike the great majority of sources for Wikipedia articles, was peer-reviewed -- this means it underwent academic scrutiny that the newspapers, magazines, and other popular sources we rely on never undergo. I think the problem really is grounded in the UNDUE WEIGHT policy itself, as written, and not in mere misuse of the policy. --Mike I agree. It's the way UNDUE is written that is problematic, and it has led, for years, to significant-minority viewpoints being excluded -- on the grounds that the views are not sufficiently well-represented by reliable sources; or that the reliable sources, even if peer-reviewed, belong to the wrong field. Sarah ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Jussi-ville writes: The policy, misused in the course of POV struggle, is a way of excluding information with interferes with presentation of a desired point of view. I think you are being way too generous. ... Let me repeat in more concise form. The policy was written to enable serious work on hard topics, it as it stands, hinders work, making it hard to edit simple facts. I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original Research), and who, instead of trying to end-run WP:NOR, waited years until the article was actually published before trying to modify the Haymarket article. To me, this is a particularly fascinating case because the author's article, unlike the great majority of sources for Wikipedia articles, was peer-reviewed -- this means it underwent academic scrutiny that the newspapers, magazines, and other popular sources we rely on never undergo. I think the problem really is grounded in the UNDUE WEIGHT policy itself, as written, and not in mere misuse of the policy. Yes, that is what I said in my previous posting, the policy as it originally was written was fine, but people deliberately edited the policy in such a way that the letter of the policy in the strict sense makes this kind of abuse possible, and not merely possible, but commonplace. Some of the editors might have had excusable motives of not only removing fringe beliefs from wikipedia but also things they considered too inconsequential to be in an encyclopaedia. I think they were fundamentally and comprehensively wrong to take this view, but I cannot deny that from their philosophical perspective, removing what they consider dross but others might not, is from their perspective a good thing no matter how much they must twist the original intent of the policy document. A collateral of this and a few other policies similarly co-opted and edited beyond the original aims and intent of the policy in effect was to leverage power to the experienced editors who knew how to quote chapter and verse from the policies, and to dissuade new editors from protesting the validity of their case. I do believe this might have some relevance to the low retention rate of new editors. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Mike Christie coldchr...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's judgement that was called for with the Haymarket article. A cop pulls over a black man and and follows the usual procedures. It turns out he was a Harvard Professor. He failed to exercise good judgement. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Mike Christie coldchr...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's judgement that was called for with the Haymarket article. As of now they do not merely allow, but require the removal of various kinds of good editing. And though it is impossible to legislate good judgement, it is possible to supply enforcers with equipment far in excess of what doing their job properly requires. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Communicating effectively: Wikimedia needs clear language now
Dear Tom, I couldn't agree more. And I remember that I understand Amir's blog entries quite well, in sharp opposition to some other WMF technical guys' blog entries... A copy-editor with an eye for newbies, non techies, non native speakers of English etc. would be a great idea. Kind regards Ziko 2012/2/18 Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org: Since Wikipedia started in 2001, great effort has been put into ensuring that it is readable, clear and understandable by visitors. Good Wikipedia writing is clear, concise, comprehensive and consistent. Excellent Wikipedia writing is, according to English Wikipedia's featured article criteria, engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. Wikipedia editors work hard to remove buzzwords, unnecessary jargon, peacock terms, marketing-speak, weasel words and other similar clutter from their work. And it's not just Wikipedia: all of the Wikimedia projects aspire to write clearly, neutrally and factually. English Wikinews says simply: Write to be easily understood, to make reading easier. Sadly, documents and communication from the Foundation, from chapters, from board members and so on often fall far short of these sentiments. There are certain places where it is to be expected that communication won't necessarily be clear: I wouldn't expect a non-programmer to be able to understand some of the discussions on Bugzilla or mediawiki.org, but the Foundation's monthly report is something editors should be able to understand. From January 2012, under Global development's list of department highlights... India program: Six outreach workshops in January in partnership with the community as part of an effort to increase outreach and improve conversion to editing An outreach workshop... to increase outreach. Is that a workshop to train editors on how to do outreach? Or is it a workshop for newbies teaching them how to edit? Enquiring minds want to know. Later on in the same document: We concluded an exercise on distilling learnings from all Indic communities and started the process of seeding ideas with communities. I was bold and changed learnings to lessons. What is a learning? How does one distill a learning? And seeding ideas with communities? The idea, presumably, is the soil, into which one puts each different community. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. This one is a howler from a subpage of the movement roles discussion: At the same time, for Wikimedia to adopt the best of the Olympic movement would probably raise the bar on accountabilities for chapters and other organizations Accountabilities, plural? I can understand accountability, the state of being accountable to another. But I have no idea what accountabilities are. Can you collect them like Pokémon cards? And how would one raise the bar on accountabilities? Would that mean some accountabilities can't quite reach the bar? (Also, the idea that we could learn anything about accountability, singular or plural, from the Olympics strikes me as hilarious given the extensive history of corruption at the IOC.) If you search on Meta, it is possible to find lots and lots of other documents from the Foundation filled with corporate lingo. Projects are 'scoped', and there is a list of 'deliverables' -- not just any deliverables but 'specific deliverables' -- along with 'next steps' to deliver, err, those deliverables while 'going forward'. I can't be the only one who reads these things and whose brain stalls or goes into reverse. There have been numerous things where I've had to ask Foundation contacts to explain things in clear and simple language to me. I don't think I'm particularly stupid or uninformed. Nor do I think that the people who write in the manner I've described do it consciously. But we do need to fix it. If well-educated, informed native English speakers struggle with learnings and accountabilities and so on, what about those who don't natively speak English? When people see sloppy, buzzword-driven language, they wonder if this reflects sloppy, buzzword-driven thinking, or perhaps obfuscation. Clear writing signals the opposite: clear thinking and transparency. I'm not suggesting we all need to write as if we're editing Simple English Wikipedia. But just cut out the buzzwords and write plainly and straightforwardly like the best writing on Wikipedia. What can be done about this? There seem to be two possible solutions to this problem: one involves hiring a dominatrix with a linguistics degree to wander the San Francisco office with handcuffs, a bullwhip, a number of live gerbils and plentiful supplies of superglue, and given free reign to enforce the rules in whatever way she deems fit. The other, which involves far fewer embarrassing carpet stains, is to empower the community to fix these problems. Have a nice little leaderboard on Meta, and encourage community members to be bold, fix up bad writing,
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Right to be Forgotten
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, 19/02/2012 08:12: Do the people at MeatballWiki know? Why should they care? I don't know if this has already been mentioned somewhere: http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com/2012/02/our-thoughts-on-right-to-be-forgotten.html It's a very cautious comment I think. Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcement: Building a new Legal and Community Advocacy Department Promotion of Philippe Beaudette
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: However, the issue of advocacy is not generally agreed upon by the entire community. SOPA blackout was the first and official action of its kind, before we consider an advocacy department, do we have consensus that it is something we should seek actively? The strategic plan and individual board members covered this issue in passing several times, but as far as I know, there is no official community-ratified outline or policy to warrant an active involvement at this stage. Issues like SOPA are rare, they come up once in a while. It was the only one of its kind that required such strong action in the last few years I can remember. I'm not sure if an advocacy department already, is a good thing. Especially, if actions like the Italian Wikipedia blackout prove that local communities are quiet capable of doing this on their own, without the involvement or even the knowledge of WMF. The issue with SOPA blackout was different, the communication from WMF was constantly that it is the community's decision, and the foundation will support what the community decides. There was a quick vote and not long after, a blackout. Then the impression seems to have shifted that it was WMF who took that decision, and everyone agreed. I guess what I'm trying to say is, Advocacy is a sensitive area. I really think if we venture too far into this territory, we might loose our neutrality. Encyclopedias, historically have little to do with politics and political advocacy, the only exception that can be agreed upon is, related to things that affect the existence and pursuit of the mission. Those are quiet rare to warrant an entire department already. I think you are confusing rare with first. This was merely the OPENing salvo of a long and protracted battle to protect wikimedia and the internets and particularly and espescially up and coming internet entrepeneurs from draconian internet/IP legislation and international treaties. This will now, once started, last years if not decades, and we have to stand fast. It isn't our neutrality that is at stake, it is our very existence, and our ability to stay neutral under pressure from governments. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
On 2/19/12 4:12 PM, Sarah wrote: On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Godwinmnemo...@gmail.com wrote: I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original Research), and who, instead of trying to end-run WP:NOR, waited years until the article was actually published before trying to modify the Haymarket article. To me, this is a particularly fascinating case because the author's article, unlike the great majority of sources for Wikipedia articles, was peer-reviewed -- this means it underwent academic scrutiny that the newspapers, magazines, and other popular sources we rely on never undergo. I think the problem really is grounded in the UNDUE WEIGHT policy itself, as written, and not in mere misuse of the policy. --Mike I agree. It's the way UNDUE is written that is problematic, and it has led, for years, to significant-minority viewpoints being excluded -- on the grounds that the views are not sufficiently well-represented by reliable sources; or that the reliable sources, even if peer-reviewed, belong to the wrong field. The history of why it's written that way is interesting to keep in mind. As far as I recall and can reconstruct, the main three targets were: 1) fringe-physics advocates; 2) alternative-medicine advocates; and 3) advocates of heterodox theories of WW2 and the Holocaust. There was an influx of all three circa 2003-05, once Wikipedia started getting internet-famous (featured on Slashdot, etc.). WP:NOR was a first-cut reaction to exclude the totally fringe stuff, like some Usenet people who had migrated to Wikipedia and were trying to make it their own personal original-physics playground. But what about minority views that *are* published somewhere, just not widely held? The response was WP:UNDUE, that those should indeed be covered, but in an appropriate, limited sense--- it should not be the case that every single article on a subatomic particle would include a section explaining the heterodox view according to $very_minor_fringe_theory, even though the theory itself should have an article, and perhaps a brief mention in one of the top-level articles (e.g. in some sort of alternative views section of a particle-physics article). Same with including minority historical views in every single article on the Holocaust, or on the Civil War, even in the case of minority views held by respectable scholars. What I find discussing this is that, put in that context, the majority of people (at least that I've talked to) think the policy is correct and makes sense in that context. So the trick seems to be that it makes less sense in other contexts. -Mark ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
On 2/19/12 2:29 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: The key problem here is that WP:UNDUE was expressly written to address the problem of genuine ongoing controversies, and fringe views. In this case there is no ongoing controversy, but the use of the policy has for long been used to remove new research no-one has even refuted, much less there being an intractable controversy over the issue. In some cases I think *that* is also the correct response, though it's difficult to sort out how to distinguish when it is and isn't. In my own field (artificial intelligence), there is a certain amount of excessive recentism in Wikipedia articles--- some new paper will come out with a grand new result or critique, will get a flurry of coverage in New Scientist and similar publications, and the Wikipedia article will be updated with this cutting-edge AI result. But, this often ends up being premature, because the grand result will not really turn out to be as grand as initially claimed (or perhaps even accepted by the field at all), the critique may be responded to in six months in convincing fashion, etc. In many cases, when editing myself, I prefer to be skeptical of the past 1-2 years of journal articles and conference papers, except those that I know to be rock-solid (admittedly a judgment call). It's not clear with very recent papers to what extent they constitute consensus of the field, when the field hasn't had a chance to process them yet; though if it's a literature you're familiar with, you can sometimes make educated guesses as to which are flash-in-a-pan versus genuinely major new results. I suppose that's where I'd agree with the frequent calls for more experts on Wikipedia; one thing someone expert in a field can do well is give some context to and evaluate recent publications. -Mark ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote: On 2/19/12 4:12 PM, Sarah wrote: On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Godwinmnemo...@gmail.com wrote: I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original Research), and who, instead of trying to end-run WP:NOR, waited years until the article was actually published before trying to modify the Haymarket article. To me, this is a particularly fascinating case because the author's article, unlike the great majority of sources for Wikipedia articles, was peer-reviewed -- this means it underwent academic scrutiny that the newspapers, magazines, and other popular sources we rely on never undergo. I think the problem really is grounded in the UNDUE WEIGHT policy itself, as written, and not in mere misuse of the policy. --Mike I agree. It's the way UNDUE is written that is problematic, and it has led, for years, to significant-minority viewpoints being excluded -- on the grounds that the views are not sufficiently well-represented by reliable sources; or that the reliable sources, even if peer-reviewed, belong to the wrong field. The history of why it's written that way is interesting to keep in mind. As far as I recall and can reconstruct, the main three targets were: 1) fringe-physics advocates; 2) alternative-medicine advocates; and 3) advocates of heterodox theories of WW2 and the Holocaust. There was an influx of all three circa 2003-05, once Wikipedia started getting internet-famous (featured on Slashdot, etc.). WP:NOR was a first-cut reaction to exclude the totally fringe stuff, like some Usenet people who had migrated to Wikipedia and were trying to make it their own personal original-physics playground. But what about minority views that *are* published somewhere, just not widely held? The response was WP:UNDUE, that those should indeed be covered, but in an appropriate, limited sense--- it should not be the case that every single article on a subatomic particle would include a section explaining the heterodox view according to $very_minor_fringe_theory, even though the theory itself should have an article, and perhaps a brief mention in one of the top-level articles (e.g. in some sort of alternative views section of a particle-physics article). Same with including minority historical views in every single article on the Holocaust, or on the Civil War, even in the case of minority views held by respectable scholars. What I find discussing this is that, put in that context, the majority of people (at least that I've talked to) think the policy is correct and makes sense in that context. So the trick seems to be that it makes less sense in other contexts. You are missing the point, the original wording of the policy was fine, in any context, closely read. But the language has been tweaked, so the original intent is completely clouded and replaced by a vastly expanded ambit of applicability. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote: On 2/19/12 2:29 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: The key problem here is that WP:UNDUE was expressly written to address the problem of genuine ongoing controversies, and fringe views. In this case there is no ongoing controversy, but the use of the policy has for long been used to remove new research no-one has even refuted, much less there being an intractable controversy over the issue. In some cases I think *that* is also the correct response, though it's difficult to sort out how to distinguish when it is and isn't. In my own field (artificial intelligence), there is a certain amount of excessive recentism in Wikipedia articles--- some new paper will come out with a grand new result or critique, will get a flurry of coverage in New Scientist and similar publications, and the Wikipedia article will be updated with this cutting-edge AI result. I completely agree that *sometimes* it the correct response. I completely disagree that it is a WP:UNDUE issue. Maybe we should have a WP:SPECULATIVE policy page. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Right to be Forgotten
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, 19/02/2012 08:12: Do the people at MeatballWiki know? Why should they care? This is where it all started, http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToLeave -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Right to be Forgotten
On 19 February 2012 18:06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, 19/02/2012 08:12: Do the people at MeatballWiki know? Why should they care? This is where it all started, http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToLeave The Right to Leave is very different from the Right to Vanish. Nobody can stop you leaving, so the Right to Leave is just a statement of fact. The Right to Vanish is something that we (and possibly this new law) explicitly grant to people. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Mike Christie coldchr...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's judgement that was called for with the Haymarket article. If policies don't encourage good judgment, or discourage bad judgment, then what are policies for? It seems worth discussing whether it would be good to revise the existing policy to restore its original (presumed) functionality. More generally, I've believed for a long time that WP policies have been increased, modified, and subverted in ways that both create a higher barrier to entry for new editors and that discourage both new editors and existing ones. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Mike Christie coldchr...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's judgement that was called for with the Haymarket article. If policies don't encourage good judgment, or discourage bad judgment, then what are policies for? It seems worth discussing whether it would be good to revise the existing policy to restore its original (presumed) functionality. More generally, I've believed for a long time that WP policies have been increased, modified, and subverted in ways that both create a higher barrier to entry for new editors and that discourage both new editors and existing ones. --Mike I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That is just one example, but there are other similar situations. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Right to be Forgotten
On 19 February 2012 18:06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, 19/02/2012 08:12: Do the people at MeatballWiki know? Why should they care? This is where it all started, http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToLeave The Right to Leave is very different from the Right to Vanish. Nobody can stop you leaving, so the Right to Leave is just a statement of fact. The Right to Vanish is something that we (and possibly this new law) explicitly grant to people. How can we remove ten thousand comments and signatures using the users real name or well-known handle? Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Right to be Forgotten
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On 19 February 2012 18:06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, 19/02/2012 08:12: Do the people at MeatballWiki know? Why should they care? This is where it all started, http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToLeave The Right to Leave is very different from the Right to Vanish. Nobody can stop you leaving, so the Right to Leave is just a statement of fact. The Right to Vanish is something that we (and possibly this new law) explicitly grant to people. How can we remove ten thousand comments and signatures using the users real name or well-known handle? And how about all the mirrors, blogs, etc. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Right to be Forgotten
On 19 February 2012 20:13, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: How can we remove ten thousand comments and signatures using the users real name or well-known handle? With a bot (or AWB) going through the What Links Here list for your user page. People have done that before (although maybe not if they had ten thousand comments to change). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Right to be Forgotten
On 19/02/2012 4:25 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: With a bot (or AWB) going through the What Links Here list for your user page. People have done that before (although maybe not if they had ten thousand comments to change). Yes, and on enwp at least the one time I remember this having been attempted on a large scale caused so much disruption and strife that it resulted in bans, departures and ArbCom-level disputes over more than a year. In other words: it can't be done systematically without causing a revolution. -- Coren / Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Right to be Forgotten
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On 19 February 2012 18:06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, 19/02/2012 08:12: Do the people at MeatballWiki know? Why should they care? This is where it all started, http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToLeave The Right to Leave is very different from the Right to Vanish. Nobody can stop you leaving, so the Right to Leave is just a statement of fact. The Right to Vanish is something that we (and possibly this new law) explicitly grant to people. How can we remove ten thousand comments and signatures using the users real name or well-known handle? If we are using the wonderful Liquid Threads extension, all signatures change when we rename the account. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:LiquidThreads It is implemented on a few WMF projects, but it is being rewritten at the moment. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia
On 2/19/2012 8:19 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Message: 4 Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:12:09 -0300 From: Sarahslimvir...@gmail.com To:mnemo...@gmail.com, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions Message-ID: CAM4=keljs_1-trdfruvxzza48djazb0wgmk+arcalf_odnx...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Godwinmnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Jussi-ville writes: The policy, misused in the course of POV struggle, is a way of excluding information with interferes with presentation of a desired point of view. ... I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original Research), and who, instead of trying to end-run WP:NOR, waited years until the article was actually published before trying to modify the Haymarket article. To me, this is a particularly fascinating case because the author's article, unlike the great majority of sources for Wikipedia articles, was peer-reviewed -- this means it underwent academic scrutiny that the newspapers, magazines, and other popular sources we rely on never undergo. I think the problem really is grounded in the UNDUE WEIGHT policy itself, as written, and not in mere misuse of the policy. --Mike I agree. It's the way UNDUE is written that is problematic, and it has led, for years, to significant-minority viewpoints being excluded -- on the grounds that the views are not sufficiently well-represented by reliable sources; or that the reliable sources, even if peer-reviewed, belong to the wrong field. Sarah The origin of these policies in theoretical physics is mind boggling - how can you stretch something that applies to unproven theoretical entries to also apply to real world facts? To claim that a subject is inconsequential, advertising or not important as a basis for killing a new entry is a BIG reason why_new contributors are so discouraged_ that they go away rather than deal with the obstacles to making a new entry stay active and be available for others to add to in the future. The learning curve is steep enough without someone telling you your efforts aren't wanted. I've fought several of these battles with pig headed editors who claim that a new factual or biographical entry isn't important enough to be accepted. Sometimes it is easy to refute them, but they often ignore evidence based in brick mortar publications of a reputable nature. For example - lookup virtual valley on Wikipedia. The closest result currently up is Metro Silicon Valley, which is related. However the editor who killed the virtual valley entry did not bother to find this entry (and perhaps suggest they be merged). Instead that person claimed it was blatant advertising and could not be bothered to look at historical evidence online and elsewhere to the contrary. I lost that time - and it put such a bad tase in my mouth that I haven't troubled myself to spend any more time trying to publish anything on Wikipedia. Who won? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
Fred Bauder writes: I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That is just one example, but there are other similar situations. This analogy is breathtakingly unpersuasive. Apart from the fact that consensus about scientific theory is not analogous to consensus about the historical records of particular events, climate-change-denial theory is actually discussed quite thoroughly on Wikipedia. Plus, the author of the op-ed in The Chronicle of Higher Education doesn't seem at all like climate-change deniers. If there is something specific you want to suggest about the author -- that he's agenda-driven, that his work is unreliable, or that the journal in which he published the article is not a reliable source -- then I think equity requires that you declare why you doubt or dismiss his article. I read the article in the Chronicle pretty carefully. The author's experience struck me as an example of a pattern that may account for the flattening of the growth curve in new editors as well as for some other phenomena. As you may rememember, Andrew Lih conducted a presentation on the policy thicket at Wikimania almost five years ago. The wielding of policy by long-term editors, plus the rewriting of the policy so that it is used to undercut NPOV rather than preserve it, strikes me as worth talking about. Dismissing it out of hand, or analogizing it to climate-change denial, undercuts my trust in the Wikipedian process rather than reinforces it. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
Fred Bauder writes: I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That is just one example, but there are other similar situations. This analogy is breathtakingly unpersuasive. Apart from the fact that consensus about scientific theory is not analogous to consensus about the historical records of particular events, climate-change-denial theory is actually discussed quite thoroughly on Wikipedia. Plus, the author of the op-ed in The Chronicle of Higher Education doesn't seem at all like climate-change deniers. If there is something specific you want to suggest about the author -- that he's agenda-driven, that his work is unreliable, or that the journal in which he published the article is not a reliable source -- then I think equity requires that you declare why you doubt or dismiss his article. I read the article in the Chronicle pretty carefully. The author's experience struck me as an example of a pattern that may account for the flattening of the growth curve in new editors as well as for some other phenomena. As you may rememember, Andrew Lih conducted a presentation on the policy thicket at Wikimania almost five years ago. The wielding of policy by long-term editors, plus the rewriting of the policy so that it is used to undercut NPOV rather than preserve it, strikes me as worth talking about. Dismissing it out of hand, or analogizing it to climate-change denial, undercuts my trust in the Wikipedian process rather than reinforces it. --Mike We're talking past one another. It is obvious to me that the author of the Chronicle article should have been able to add his research without difficulty, at least after it was published. We have material about climate change denial, but do not give political viewpoints the status we give scientific opinion in articles on the science, nor should we. What we would be looking for, and will not be able to find, is substantial work showing that climate warming does not result from an increase in greenhouse gases and other products of human activity. We can't simply say, According to Rick Santorum, there is no scientific basis Yes, please, lets discuss. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] EFE: Indigenous languages entering Wikipedia
This is a wonderful report. Thank you for sharing, Osmar! Do you know whether we have any official message of support from UNESCO that we can point to? Or one from a group that works with us and that is wholly dedicated to language preservation (like our friends at the Rosetta Project?) SJ -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] EFE: Indigenous languages entering Wikipedia
Hoi, This sounds like a great initiative. I am sure that the language committee will aim to help you as much as possible. The language policy is designed to ensure that new projects have an optimal chance of success. There are a few things that we require from you. They are that you localise the most used messages of MediaWiki. This ensures that someone who knows only this language has a chance of understanding what is asked in the user interface. The other part is to write a substantial number of articles in the Incubator. This allows us to ask experts to verify for us that the language is indeed the language it is said to be. These requirements can be quickly met and particularly when there is a program supporting the new project it proves possible to get a project created relatively quickly. Thanks, Gerard On 18 February 2012 22:50, Osmar Valdebenito os...@wikimediachile.clwrote: Hi everyone! Yesterday, news agency EFE published a note about the work done mainly by Wikimedia Argentina about the development of projects in Native American languages like aymara, guarani and mapudungun. The news have been replied in the largest newspapers and websites of Latin America and Spain. The work to develop Wikimedia projects in Native American languages have been taken as a priority for the chapters members of Iberocoop (Wikimedia Argentina, Chile, Mexico and Venezuela) and we expect this year 2012 to work in the development of those communities of users and editors. But we expect also the support of the Language Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation for this work. http://www.que.es/201202171651-lenguas-indigenas-abren-paso-wikipedia-efe.html Here is a fast translation to English of the article (sorry for my English btw): Indigenous languages like Guaraní and Mapuche are making their way into Wikipedia with the help offered by the editors of the colorful encyclopedia to teachers and students of the University of Buenos Aires (UBA), the largest in Argentina. These presentations for teachers and students of Guaraní and Mapuche in the Language Center of the UBA wants to promote the development of content in versions that are underrepresented on the Internet, said Patricio Lorente, president of Wikimedia Argentina, local official of the encyclopedia. The training courses were held at the headquarters of the university in late 2011 and are planned to be repeated this year to expand the initiative. The editors of this South American country contacted with users of neighboring Bolivia promote the incorporation of content in Aymara, one of the main indigenous languages of that country, but is also spoken in parts of Argentina, Peru and Chile. According to Unesco, language preservation is a challenge considering the danger of extinction that half of the 6,000 languages in the world are facing. We are concerned about the preservation of culture. That is why we teach to those who speak these languages about Wikipedia editing rules, said the head of the subsidiary in Argentina, with an indigenous population of about 600,000 people, according to official estimates. Currently, the encyclopedia has about 1,500 items in Guaraní and another 1,700 in Aymara, while the Mapuche or Mapudungun, as is known, is still in experimental phase, he said. However, in other Indian languages such as Quechua, used in Argentina and six other South American countries, the experience is more extensive, with some 16,000 articles entered. With the Mapudungun there are some additional problems because until recently it had no writing. And, according to the communities, they have different ways of writing by region. So we are seeing the possibility of applying a technical solution so everyone can view the articles in their own dialect, said Lorente. The main Mapuche community is in Chile, where some 600,000 members concentrated mainly in the region of La Araucania, and also extends to the Argentine Patagonia, with a hundred thousand members. For its part, the Guarani is one of the two official languages of Paraguay, alongside Spanish, but also has strong presence in northern Argentina, especially in the province of Corrientes, which is valid for the authorities. In general, articles entered in Vikipeta, the Guarani version of the encyclopedia, are small in size and are mostly associated with geo-referenced with data on Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil, among others. The editors of the site believe that the poverty facing these peoples should not be an obstacle to greater difussion of their languages, especially when those are the only languages some of them know. They have a very strong linguistic identity and vocation for the preservation of the language. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in permanent construction that seeks to incorporate more and more content like this, he said Lorente. For that, the local site editors also prepared a manual for editing in Wikipedia to be
