Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP extension suggestion
On 4 June 2011 04:47, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Part of it is a matter of degree. The article on the John Kerry controversy isn't the #2 search for Kerry on the Internet. And whenever people mention this, they conveniently forget to mention that the #1 result is Dan Savage's website. As may be. The Wikipedia article for the word ranks above the article for the person; ergo, something is wrong. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP extension suggestion
I've just tested two searches in google. Rick Santorum had our article on the person in second place and our article on the neologism in third place. For Santorum we again had the second and third spots, but the order was reversed. In both cases Google gave prime place to a website about the neologism, that website is not part of wikimedia. If I was Rick Santorum I'd be asking Google why both queries gave the number one hit they they gave, but that surely is between him and Google. As for Kerry, the first Wikipedia hit is for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Kerry and there are several other people places and things called Kerry in the first few pages. On that search I didn't spot either a negative page about him, or our article about the controversy, so I don't know which comes higher in Google ranking for Kerry. But for kerry swift boat the first two hits are both Wikipedia. In my experience Wikipedia articles often come top or close to it in Google searches, and if I was Rick Santorum I would be hoping that the Wikipedia article on the neologism one day overtook the article that currently comes up top in a Santorum or Rick Santorum search. WSC On 4 June 2011 09:31, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 June 2011 04:47, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Part of it is a matter of degree. The article on the John Kerry controversy isn't the #2 search for Kerry on the Internet. And whenever people mention this, they conveniently forget to mention that the #1 result is Dan Savage's website. As may be. The Wikipedia article for the word ranks above the article for the person; ergo, something is wrong. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP extension suggestion
On 4 June 2011 11:43, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: I've just tested two searches in google. IMPORTANT: when testing Google searches, use another browser where you're logged out and there are no Google cookies! Search results vary *widely* between generic results for your location and your personal optimised results. If you're a Wikipedian, this is likely to have reached Google and it will then supply you with what it thinks are more helpful results. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP extension suggestion
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011, WereSpielChequers wrote: But for kerry swift boat the first two hits are both Wikipedia. Anyone searching for that is specifically searching for the controversy, not just searching for Kerry. If the santorum article only showed up when searching for santorum sexual slang there wouldn't be any problem. if I was Rick Santorum I would be hoping that the Wikipedia article on the neologism one day overtook the article that currently comes up top in a Santorum or Rick Santorum search. ... because the Wikipedia article is better than another page that's even worse. Talk about damning with faint praise. He might prefer the Wikipedia article over the other one, because even if it harms him, it doesn't harm him as much as the other one. Trying merely to be less harmful than other web pages is an abominably low standard. We can do better than that. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] schema.org - anything here for us?
Thanks for raising this, if the main search engines are collaborating on this together then it will probably work. But it makes me wonder: Are other sites implementing this? Am I correct in thinking that implementing this would further our mission by making relevant parts of our data more likely to appear in people's searches? Can we implement this without adding all this code to our data, for example by using categories etc to create a version that the search engines see and offering the current version to our editors? What happens if some Wikipedia editors start including schema tags in articles? Will it work and if so does MOS need an update? Can we incorporate Schema into the WYSIWYG upgrade currently being worked? If we don't, does this have the potential to raise the barriers against new editors joining us because they find our format arcane and more difficult than using Word or Facebook? WSC On 3 June 2011 22:49, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: http://schema.org/ An initiative by Google, Yahoo and Bing to make a tag language to make things more findable in search engines. Is there anything in this for us? schema.org tags in templates? Presumably this would require software work too, and require us to cross levels between software and content, at least a little ... - d. It's coded disambiguation. Actually an extension to the English language. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP extension suggestion
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Rob wrote: Part of it is that we're talking about different types of things. The Kerry controversy is ultimately about factual claims, and therefore whether our article harms John Kerry depends on whether we give undue weight to those claims. This one isn't about factual claims; it's about creating an unpleasant association, so avoiding undue weight isn't enough to keep it from doing harm. I don't understand this kind of hairsplitting. Documenting fabrications is acceptable, but only the right kind of fabrications? Aren't, say, the factual claims of Birthers about creating unpleasant associations with Obama? The last thing we need in Wikipedia is more systemic bias, and this is what that hairsplitting would lead to. Person X is like shit is unpleasant in a very different way from person X is a liar. The latter creates an unpleasant association with that person only to the degree that that person is believed to have committed unpleasant activities. The former creates an unpleasant association on an emotional level. You can write a balanced article that reports the claim that Obama is a liar without making the audience think Obama is a liar. You cannot do this when the article is about comparing a person to shit.___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP extension suggestion
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Rob wrote: Part of it is that we're talking about different types of things. The Kerry controversy is ultimately about factual claims, and therefore whether our article harms John Kerry depends on whether we give undue weight to those claims. This one isn't about factual claims; it's about creating an unpleasant association, so avoiding undue weight isn't enough to keep it from doing harm. I don't understand this kind of hairsplitting. Documenting fabrications is acceptable, but only the right kind of fabrications? Aren't, say, the factual claims of Birthers about creating unpleasant associations with Obama? The last thing we need in Wikipedia is more systemic bias, and this is what that hairsplitting would lead to. Person X is like shit is unpleasant in a very different way from person X is a liar. The latter creates an unpleasant association with that person only to the degree that that person is believed to have committed unpleasant activities. The former creates an unpleasant association on an emotional level. You can write a balanced article that reports the claim that Obama is a liar without making the audience think Obama is a liar. You cannot do this when the article is about comparing a person to shit. If you don't think the Birther claims work on an emotional level, then you haven't been paying attention to them. All such conspiracy claims work on an emotional level, as their adherents have proven impervious to the intervention of logic and facts. You're trying to make a distinction between two kinds of claims that does not exist. How do we incorporate that kind of hairsplitting into policy? And if we managed to do so, it would create a systemic bias, favoring one kind of targeted fabrication over another. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP extension suggestion
Ken Arromdee wrote: Anyone searching for [kerry swift boat] is specifically searching for the controversy, not just searching for Kerry. Kerry has common meanings unrelated to John Kerry on any level (and no common meanings along the lines of the sexual connotation arbitrarily assigned to santorum). All of this is beyond our control. If the santorum article only showed up when searching for santorum sexual slang there wouldn't be any problem. I've seen no evidence that there *is* a problem (of our creation). [T]he Wikipedia article is better than another page that's even worse. Talk about damning with faint praise. He might prefer the Wikipedia article over the other one, because even if it harms him, it doesn't harm him as much as the other one. Trying merely to be less harmful than other web pages is an abominably low standard. We can do better than that. How does the Wikipedia article harm him? The webpages created out of malice will continue to exist (and appear in Google search results) regardless of our actions. The existence of an article documenting the matter in a neutral, dispassionate manner (and making clear that the association stems from an organized campaign against Rick Santorum) actually benefits him. Person X is like shit is unpleasant in a very different way from person X is a liar. The latter creates an unpleasant association with that person only to the degree that that person is believed to have committed unpleasant activities. The former creates an unpleasant association on an emotional level. As Rob noted, the claims regarding Obama's birthplace have resonated on an emotional level to a huge extent. And I would argue that the potential damage was far greater, given their widespread perception as literal truths. (People might draw an unpleasant association between Rick Santorum and the concept described via the neologism, but no one has been led to believe that he literally *is* the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.) You can write a balanced article that reports the claim that Obama is a liar without making the audience think Obama is a liar. You cannot do this when the article is about comparing a person to shit. I see no material distinction preventing us from documenting the matter in a balanced fashion. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP extension suggestion
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:51 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: I see no material distinction preventing us from documenting the matter in a balanced fashion. The trouble is, the article is overwritten. This is not a phenomenon restricted to this article, it is common in many political or activist articles, where some editors try to use *every* source out there to write an article several pages long (sometimes in an attempt to avoid arguments about what to include and what not to include, at other times maybe just by being carried away, or simply by not wanting or knowing how to exercise judgment on what to include and when less is more). I repeat, a shorter article (if done to high standards) would be *just as balanced* and would send the message that this is not a topic that really needs lots written about it. One of the fundamental elements of editorial judgment is to decide what to leave out and how to *summarise* parts of the topic rather than drawing in everything that has been written about the topic. You see many FA-level articles where the main writer has read numerous sources and made a judgment (based on the proportions of coverage given by the main source) on where and how to summarize. That needs doing here. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP extension suggestion
Carcharoth wrote: The trouble is, the article is overwritten. To be clear, I'm not endorsing any particular prose (or the absence thereof). I'm addressing Ken Arromdee's assertion that it's impossible to present a balanced article on this subject. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
