Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Petr Kadlec]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are
> already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality
> because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
>

Right. When some users blindly dump random data to Wikidata, not
communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the situation
becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikipedia that
argue not to bother about Wikidata quality because in their view,
Wikidatans do not care about its own quality.

For instance, take a look at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM/Archive_1

Erm
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wiki-research-l] Quality issues

[WereSpielChequers]

My experience is that pretty much all Wikimedians care about quality,
though some have different, even diametrically opposed views as to what
quality means and which things are cosmetic or crucial.

My experience of the sadly dormant death anomaly project
 was that people
react positively to being told "here is a list of anomalies on your
language wikipedia" especially if those anomalies are relatively serious.
My experience of edits on many different languages is that wikipedians
appreciate someone who improves articles, even if you don't speak their
language. Dismissing any of our thousand wikis as a "black box" is I think
less helpful.

One of the great opportunities of Wikidata is to do the sort of data driven
anomaly finding that we pioneered with the death anomalies report. But we
always need to remember that there are cultural difference between wikis,
and not just in such things as the age at which we assume people are dead.
Diplomacy is a useful skill in cross wiki work.



On 20 November 2015 at 07:18, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia.
> Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and
> arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata
> for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
>
> When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are
> already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality
> because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
>
> Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
>
> There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality issue
> both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how to
> deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
>
> I blogged about it..
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.html
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Richard Symonds]

Folks, regardless of which views we hold, we're all on the same side - can
we try and be a little less acerbic please - it is Friday after all!

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

On 20 November 2015 at 13:50, Petr Kadlec  wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there
> are
> > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
> quality
> > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
> >
>
> Right. When some users blindly dump random data to Wikidata, not
> communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the situation
> becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikipedia that
> argue not to bother about Wikidata quality because in their view,
> Wikidatans do not care about its own quality.
>
> For instance, take a look at
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM/Archive_1
>
> Erm
> -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[MZMcBride]

Wil Sinclair wrote:
>Thanks for bringing me up, MZMcBride; should get a lot more people to look
>at those IRC logs I was hoping to bring to everyone's attention.

I'm looking forward to your posts about the current and upcoming Wikimedia
Foundation strategic plans. That's why you came on IRC, right? Not to
stoke drama and violate its social norms regarding public logging, but to
have an open discussion about current goals and future goals? Your
discussion seems to have started there and yet somehow you became entirely
focused on trying to advance some warped version of "free speech" in a
couple of IRC channels that you rarely visit. Re-skimming some of the 2014
threads that you precipitated, this seems like pretty classic Wil behavior.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Peter Southwood]

Gerard, 
Who were you expecting would respond from the Wikipedias?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Friday, 20 November 2015 9:18 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Research into Wikimedia content and communities; 
WikiData-l
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi,
At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia. Lists 
have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and arguably 
they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata for that 
matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.

When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside world, 
at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are already 
those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality because in 
their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.

Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.

There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality issue both 
for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how to deal 
with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.

I blogged about it..
Thanks,
 GerardM

http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.html
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11032 - Release Date: 11/20/15


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Richard Ames]

Please drop this thread / subject.  Concentrate on issues not people.

Regards, Richard.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Fundraising Update

[Megan Hernandez]

Hi all,


We are just a few weeks away from the launch of the December English
fundraiser.  The end of the year is the most critical time of the year for
Wikimedia’s fundraising: The goal this year is $25 million.  The campaign
will launch in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland on Giving
Tuesday , December 1st.

In these past months of preparation, we have relied on feedback from the
volunteer community, readers, and staff through discussion pages, feedback
sessions, phone calls, interviews, user testing, surveys and A/B tests.
Thank you to everyone for participating! It has truly been a helpful
experience and wonderful to hear from so many voices from all different
parts of the movement.

In just the last two weeks, an independent research firm conducted a new
survey of Wikipedia readers. (You may remember that we did a similar survey
last February.) We heard from you last spring that there were some
additional concerns that you would like us to explore with readers.  We
tried to look into those concerns in this survey. We have uploaded the survey
report on Commons

for anyone who is interested in reading it. We have also setup a section on
the Fundraising Meta page

to discuss the survey.

The feedback from readers, the volunteer community and staff has been
critical to shape the campaign. Several improvements have been made so far
as a direct result of this input.  We have changed a few specific sentences
of the message that were discussed heavily on meta pages and also tried a
variety of design ideas based on comments.

We also have some fresh banner ideas that came about through a recent
workshop with staff.  We will be testing those new banner ideas in small
runs throughout the campaign as well.  And we’re still gathering ideas! To
see the latest version of the message and submit your ideas, please visit
the fundraising ideas meta page
.

Since last year, we have made improvements to our banner targeting and
analytics systems with the goal of raising the budget, while limiting the
number of banners and disruption for our readers. We aim to run the
campaign for roughly two weeks at a high traffic level and then at a much
reduced level for the rest of December.

The fundraising team faces a great challenge this year: the highest revenue
target in WMF history along with a decline in page views – particularly in
desktop pageviews where readers are more likely to donate. The team has and
will continue to work hard to make improvements needed to reach this goal.
We cannot do this alone.  Thank you to everyone who has offered input,
expertise, time and energy into helping make this fundraiser a success.

We look forward to your ideas and questions. Since the team experiences an
incredibly high volume of seasonal work, we will not be able to respond
immediately to questions or feedback.  We will review feedback and bug
reports regularly and we have dedicated time to post an update by
mid-December and again at the end of the campaign.  Here’s how to get
involved:

   -

   To file a bug report or technical issue, please create a phabricator
   ticket
   
   or email problemsdonat...@wikimedia.org
   -

   To see the latest news from the team, see the fundraising meta page
   
   -

   To suggest a banner idea, visit the test ideas meta page
   
   -

   To read the latest reader survey, see the
   
full
   report on commons
   

   -

   To learn more about the fundraising program and last year’s campaign,
   see the 2014-15 fundraising report
   


Thank you to everyone who has contributed to the campaign preparations.
More importantly, thank you to the entire Wikimedia community for building
this incredible project that readers love and support with their
donations.  None of this would be possible without you.

Megan

-- 

Megan Hernandez

Director of Online Fundraising
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The difference between the use of quality images from Commons and
establishing what is correct is quite distinct. With Commons it is an
esthetic difference, with these lists it is about the credibility of the
data involved.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 20 November 2015 at 09:53, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Gerard,
> I think this was always the case. Most Wikidatans are as at home on
> Wikipedia as they are on Commons. The issue you describe also happened to
> Commons - both communities feel the other is less focussed on quality. Many
> Commonists spend hours on high quality images and these are rarely picked
> up by Wikipedia unless a Commonist notices and does so in their own
> language. There is no requirement for Wikipedians to get to know any other
> project and this is normal wiki behavior. We don't want anyone to feel
> pressured to do anything they feel uncomfortable doing. It's already
> difficult to get Wikipedians to do small tasks like add catagories to their
> articles. The list of things necessary to create an acceptable article on
> Wikipedia just seems to get longer and longer, while the associated work
> for illustrations of that article or for data of that article is not even
> mentioned in current AfC policies on Wikipedia. I have thought about this,
> but I still think we need to break down the list of things necessary to
> make new short articles on Wikipedia, not extend the list. So in summary, I
> think that what you describe is normal predictable behavior for a
> "Wikipedia support" project such as Commons and Wikidata. This will change
> as more and more external users find out that Commons and Wikidata are
> valuable resources in and of themselves. This is already the case for many
> GLAMs which have found collaborations with Commons to be valuable
> experiences. I have high hopes this will become the case for Wikidata as
> well.
> Jane
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia.
> Lists
> > have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and
> arguably
> > they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata for that
> > matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
> >
> > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there
> are
> > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
> quality
> > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
> >
> > Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
> >
> > There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality
> issue
> > both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how
> to
> > deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
> >
> > I blogged about it..
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.html
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Jane Darnell]

Gerard,
I think this was always the case. Most Wikidatans are as at home on
Wikipedia as they are on Commons. The issue you describe also happened to
Commons - both communities feel the other is less focussed on quality. Many
Commonists spend hours on high quality images and these are rarely picked
up by Wikipedia unless a Commonist notices and does so in their own
language. There is no requirement for Wikipedians to get to know any other
project and this is normal wiki behavior. We don't want anyone to feel
pressured to do anything they feel uncomfortable doing. It's already
difficult to get Wikipedians to do small tasks like add catagories to their
articles. The list of things necessary to create an acceptable article on
Wikipedia just seems to get longer and longer, while the associated work
for illustrations of that article or for data of that article is not even
mentioned in current AfC policies on Wikipedia. I have thought about this,
but I still think we need to break down the list of things necessary to
make new short articles on Wikipedia, not extend the list. So in summary, I
think that what you describe is normal predictable behavior for a
"Wikipedia support" project such as Commons and Wikidata. This will change
as more and more external users find out that Commons and Wikidata are
valuable resources in and of themselves. This is already the case for many
GLAMs which have found collaborations with Commons to be valuable
experiences. I have high hopes this will become the case for Wikidata as
well.
Jane

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia. Lists
> have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and arguably
> they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata for that
> matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
>
> When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are
> already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality
> because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
>
> Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
>
> There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality issue
> both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how to
> deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
>
> I blogged about it..
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.html
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
 quality is different things  I do care about quality but I do
not necessarily agree with you how to best achieve it. Arguably bots are
better and getting data into Wikidata than people. This means that the
error rate of bots is typically better than what people do. It is all in
the percentages.

I have always said that the best way to improve quality is by comparing
sources. When Wikidata has no data, it is arguably better to import data
from any source. When the quality is 90% correct, there is already 100%
more data. When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the same,
you only have to check 15% and decide what is right. When you compare with
two distinct sources, the percentage that differs changes again.. :) In
this way it makes sense to check errors

It does not help when you state that either party has people that care or
do not care about quality. By providing a high likelihood that something is
problematic, you will learn who actually makes a difference. It however
started with having data to compare in the first place
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 20 November 2015 at 14:50, Petr Kadlec  wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there
> are
> > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
> quality
> > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
> >
>
> Right. When some users blindly dump random data to Wikidata, not
> communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the situation
> becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikipedia that
> argue not to bother about Wikidata quality because in their view,
> Wikidatans do not care about its own quality.
>
> For instance, take a look at
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM/Archive_1
>
> Erm
> -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
So far such lists have been produced for bigger Wikipedias but essentially
it is potentially an issue for any and all Wikis that have data that may
exist on Wikidata or linked through Wikidata on external sources.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 20 November 2015 at 12:33, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Gerard,
> Who were you expecting would respond from the Wikipedias?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Friday, 20 November 2015 9:18 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Research into Wikimedia content and
> communities; WikiData-l
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues
>
> Hoi,
> At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia.
> Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and
> arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata
> for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
>
> When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are
> already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality
> because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
>
> Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
>
> There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality issue
> both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how to
> deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
>
> I blogged about it..
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.html
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11032 - Release Date: 11/20/15
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wiki-research-l] Quality issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I have been working on Wikidata for almost two years on recent deaths. It
is one easy and obvious thing to signal recent deaths to all the WIkipedias
that have articles.It is quite similar to what you describe. It is dead
easy to produce such lists, not only for recent deaths but also for deaths
that differ from one source to the next.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 20 November 2015 at 14:30, WereSpielChequers  wrote:

> My experience is that pretty much all Wikimedians care about quality,
> though some have different, even diametrically opposed views as to what
> quality means and which things are cosmetic or crucial.
>
> My experience of the sadly dormant death anomaly project
>  was that people
> react positively to being told "here is a list of anomalies on your
> language wikipedia" especially if those anomalies are relatively serious.
> My experience of edits on many different languages is that wikipedians
> appreciate someone who improves articles, even if you don't speak their
> language. Dismissing any of our thousand wikis as a "black box" is I think
> less helpful.
>
> One of the great opportunities of Wikidata is to do the sort of data driven
> anomaly finding that we pioneered with the death anomalies report. But we
> always need to remember that there are cultural difference between wikis,
> and not just in such things as the age at which we assume people are dead.
> Diplomacy is a useful skill in cross wiki work.
>
> 
>
> On 20 November 2015 at 07:18, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia.
> > Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and
> > arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata
> > for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
> >
> > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there
> are
> > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
> quality
> > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
> >
> > Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
> >
> > There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality
> issue
> > both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how
> to
> > deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
> >
> > I blogged about it..
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.html
> >
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Gnangarra]

>
> ...
> *When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the same,**you only
> have to check 15% and decide what is righ**t*


​this very statement highlights one issue that ​

​will always be a problem between Wikidata and Wikipedias. Wikipedia, at
least in my 10 years of experience on en:wp is that when you have multiple
sources that differ you highlight the existence of those ​sources and the
conflict of information  we dont decide what is right or wrong.

On 21 November 2015 at 06:35, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
>  quality is different things  I do care about quality but I do
> not necessarily agree with you how to best achieve it. Arguably bots are
> better and getting data into Wikidata than people. This means that the
> error rate of bots is typically better than what people do. It is all in
> the percentages.
>
> I have always said that the best way to improve quality is by comparing
> sources. When Wikidata has no data, it is arguably better to import data
> from any source. When the quality is 90% correct, there is already 100%
> more data. When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the same,
> you only have to check 15% and decide what is right. When you compare with
> two distinct sources, the percentage that differs changes again.. :) In
> this way it makes sense to check errors
>
> It does not help when you state that either party has people that care or
> do not care about quality. By providing a high likelihood that something is
> problematic, you will learn who actually makes a difference. It however
> started with having data to compare in the first place
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 20 November 2015 at 14:50, Petr Kadlec  wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> > > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there
> > are
> > > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
> > quality
> > > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
> > >
> >
> > Right. When some users blindly dump random data to Wikidata, not
> > communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the situation
> > becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikipedia that
> > argue not to bother about Wikidata quality because in their view,
> > Wikidatans do not care about its own quality.
> >
> > For instance, take a look at
> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM
> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM/Archive_1
> >
> > Erm
> > -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Milos Rancic]

Offtopic: Gerard, during the last half an hour or so, I am just
getting emails from you inside of this thread (including wiki-research
list). I thought my phone has a bug. It's useful to write a larger
email with addressing all the issues. Besides other things, with this
frequency, you'll spend your monthly email quota for this list the day
after tomorrow.

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Hoi,
>  quality is different things  I do care about quality but I do
> not necessarily agree with you how to best achieve it. Arguably bots are
> better and getting data into Wikidata than people. This means that the
> error rate of bots is typically better than what people do. It is all in
> the percentages.
>
> I have always said that the best way to improve quality is by comparing
> sources. When Wikidata has no data, it is arguably better to import data
> from any source. When the quality is 90% correct, there is already 100%
> more data. When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the same,
> you only have to check 15% and decide what is right. When you compare with
> two distinct sources, the percentage that differs changes again.. :) In
> this way it makes sense to check errors
>
> It does not help when you state that either party has people that care or
> do not care about quality. By providing a high likelihood that something is
> problematic, you will learn who actually makes a difference. It however
> started with having data to compare in the first place
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 20 November 2015 at 14:50, Petr Kadlec  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
>> > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there
>> are
>> > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
>> quality
>> > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
>> >
>>
>> Right. When some users blindly dump random data to Wikidata, not
>> communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the situation
>> becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikipedia that
>> argue not to bother about Wikidata quality because in their view,
>> Wikidatans do not care about its own quality.
>>
>> For instance, take a look at
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM/Archive_1
>>
>> Erm
>> -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising Update

[Gnangarra]

opened firefox this morning, now maybe its because the coffee kicked in
earlier today I noticed this for the first time, it reads very much like
what I've seen in previous years on Wikipedia banners, I think the
fundraising team should be aware of this because it may be a cause behind
the messages get lost in the noise, in 10 days time seeing an almost
identical banner it will be an over cooked message with no impact




On 21 November 2015 at 04:06, Megan Hernandez 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
> We are just a few weeks away from the launch of the December English
> fundraiser.  The end of the year is the most critical time of the year for
> Wikimedia’s fundraising: The goal this year is $25 million.  The campaign
> will launch in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland on
> Giving
> Tuesday , December 1st.
>
> In these past months of preparation, we have relied on feedback from the
> volunteer community, readers, and staff through discussion pages, feedback
> sessions, phone calls, interviews, user testing, surveys and A/B tests.
> Thank you to everyone for participating! It has truly been a helpful
> experience and wonderful to hear from so many voices from all different
> parts of the movement.
>
> In just the last two weeks, an independent research firm conducted a new
> survey of Wikipedia readers. (You may remember that we did a similar survey
> last February.) We heard from you last spring that there were some
> additional concerns that you would like us to explore with readers.  We
> tried to look into those concerns in this survey. We have uploaded the
> survey
> report on Commons
> <
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf
> >
> for anyone who is interested in reading it. We have also setup a section on
> the Fundraising Meta page
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising#Reader_Survey_November_2015
> >
> to discuss the survey.
>
> The feedback from readers, the volunteer community and staff has been
> critical to shape the campaign. Several improvements have been made so far
> as a direct result of this input.  We have changed a few specific sentences
> of the message that were discussed heavily on meta pages and also tried a
> variety of design ideas based on comments.
>
> We also have some fresh banner ideas that came about through a recent
> workshop with staff.  We will be testing those new banner ideas in small
> runs throughout the campaign as well.  And we’re still gathering ideas! To
> see the latest version of the message and submit your ideas, please visit
> the fundraising ideas meta page
> .
>
> Since last year, we have made improvements to our banner targeting and
> analytics systems with the goal of raising the budget, while limiting the
> number of banners and disruption for our readers. We aim to run the
> campaign for roughly two weeks at a high traffic level and then at a much
> reduced level for the rest of December.
>
> The fundraising team faces a great challenge this year: the highest revenue
> target in WMF history along with a decline in page views – particularly in
> desktop pageviews where readers are more likely to donate. The team has and
> will continue to work hard to make improvements needed to reach this goal.
> We cannot do this alone.  Thank you to everyone who has offered input,
> expertise, time and energy into helping make this fundraiser a success.
>
> We look forward to your ideas and questions. Since the team experiences an
> incredibly high volume of seasonal work, we will not be able to respond
> immediately to questions or feedback.  We will review feedback and bug
> reports regularly and we have dedicated time to post an update by
> mid-December and again at the end of the campaign.  Here’s how to get
> involved:
>
>-
>
>To file a bug report or technical issue, please create a phabricator
>ticket
><
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/create/?template=118862>
>or email problemsdonat...@wikimedia.org
>-
>
>To see the latest news from the team, see the fundraising meta page
>
>-
>
>To suggest a banner idea, visit the test ideas meta page
>
>-
>
>To read the latest reader survey, see the
><
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf
> >full
>report on commons
><
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf
> >
>-
>
>To learn more about the fundraising program and last year’s campaign,
>see the 2014-15 fundraising report
>
>
>
> Thank you to everyone who has 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Peter Southwood]

How are you notifying the Wikipedias/Wikipedians? Do you leave a message on the 
talk page of the relevant article?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Saturday, 21 November 2015 12:23 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi,
So far such lists have been produced for bigger Wikipedias but essentially it 
is potentially an issue for any and all Wikis that have data that may exist on 
Wikidata or linked through Wikidata on external sources.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 20 November 2015 at 12:33, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Gerard,
> Who were you expecting would respond from the Wikipedias?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Friday, 20 November 2015 9:18 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Research into Wikimedia content and 
> communities; WikiData-l
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues
>
> Hoi,
> At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia.
> Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved 
> and arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or 
> Wikidata for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
>
> When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the 
> outside world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this 
> moment there are already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother 
> about Wikipedia quality because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about 
> its own quality.
>
> Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
>
> There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality 
> issue both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research 
> issue; how to deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
>
> I blogged about it..
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikiped
> ia.html ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11032 - Release Date: 
> 11/20/15
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11036 - Release Date: 11/20/15


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising Update

[Peter Southwood]

Are these new improved banners available for inspection and comment?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Megan Hernandez
Sent: Friday, 20 November 2015 10:07 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising Update

Hi all,


We are just a few weeks away from the launch of the December English 
fundraiser.  The end of the year is the most critical time of the year for 
Wikimedia’s fundraising: The goal this year is $25 million.  The campaign will 
launch in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland on Giving 
Tuesday , December 1st.

In these past months of preparation, we have relied on feedback from the 
volunteer community, readers, and staff through discussion pages, feedback 
sessions, phone calls, interviews, user testing, surveys and A/B tests.
Thank you to everyone for participating! It has truly been a helpful experience 
and wonderful to hear from so many voices from all different parts of the 
movement.

In just the last two weeks, an independent research firm conducted a new survey 
of Wikipedia readers. (You may remember that we did a similar survey last 
February.) We heard from you last spring that there were some additional 
concerns that you would like us to explore with readers.  We tried to look into 
those concerns in this survey. We have uploaded the survey report on Commons 

for anyone who is interested in reading it. We have also setup a section on the 
Fundraising Meta page 

to discuss the survey.

The feedback from readers, the volunteer community and staff has been critical 
to shape the campaign. Several improvements have been made so far as a direct 
result of this input.  We have changed a few specific sentences of the message 
that were discussed heavily on meta pages and also tried a variety of design 
ideas based on comments.

We also have some fresh banner ideas that came about through a recent workshop 
with staff.  We will be testing those new banner ideas in small runs throughout 
the campaign as well.  And we’re still gathering ideas! To see the latest 
version of the message and submit your ideas, please visit the fundraising 
ideas meta page 
.

Since last year, we have made improvements to our banner targeting and 
analytics systems with the goal of raising the budget, while limiting the 
number of banners and disruption for our readers. We aim to run the campaign 
for roughly two weeks at a high traffic level and then at a much reduced level 
for the rest of December.

The fundraising team faces a great challenge this year: the highest revenue 
target in WMF history along with a decline in page views – particularly in 
desktop pageviews where readers are more likely to donate. The team has and 
will continue to work hard to make improvements needed to reach this goal.
We cannot do this alone.  Thank you to everyone who has offered input, 
expertise, time and energy into helping make this fundraiser a success.

We look forward to your ideas and questions. Since the team experiences an 
incredibly high volume of seasonal work, we will not be able to respond 
immediately to questions or feedback.  We will review feedback and bug reports 
regularly and we have dedicated time to post an update by mid-December and 
again at the end of the campaign.  Here’s how to get
involved:

   -

   To file a bug report or technical issue, please create a phabricator
   ticket
   
   or email problemsdonat...@wikimedia.org
   -

   To see the latest news from the team, see the fundraising meta page
   
   -

   To suggest a banner idea, visit the test ideas meta page
   
   -

   To read the latest reader survey, see the
   
full
   report on commons
   

   -

   To learn more about the fundraising program and last year’s campaign,
   see the 2014-15 fundraising report
   


Thank you to everyone who has contributed to the campaign preparations.
More importantly, thank you to the entire Wikimedia community for building this 
incredible project that readers love and support with their donations.  None of 
this would be possible without you.

Megan

-- 

Megan Hernandez

Director of Online Fundraising
Wikimedia Foundation

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wiki-research-l] Quality issues

[Craig Franklin]

Indeed, the things that make a Wikipedia article high quality (such as well
written and engaging prose) are not necessarily the same things that are
useful for a data-driven product like Wikidata.  When Wikidata offers
assistance to another project, and that assistance is not received
enthusiastically because the project feels it will not improve their own
quality metrics; that is not a "black box" communication problem, nor is it
anyone in particular's fault, that is an issue of differing priorities.

Cheers,
Craig

On 20 November 2015 at 23:30, WereSpielChequers  wrote:

> My experience is that pretty much all Wikimedians care about quality,
> though some have different, even diametrically opposed views as to what
> quality means and which things are cosmetic or crucial.
>
> My experience of the sadly dormant death anomaly project
>  was that people
> react positively to being told "here is a list of anomalies on your
> language wikipedia" especially if those anomalies are relatively serious.
> My experience of edits on many different languages is that wikipedians
> appreciate someone who improves articles, even if you don't speak their
> language. Dismissing any of our thousand wikis as a "black box" is I think
> less helpful.
>
> One of the great opportunities of Wikidata is to do the sort of data driven
> anomaly finding that we pioneered with the death anomalies report. But we
> always need to remember that there are cultural difference between wikis,
> and not just in such things as the age at which we assume people are dead.
> Diplomacy is a useful skill in cross wiki work.
>
> 
>
> On 20 November 2015 at 07:18, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia.
> > Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and
> > arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata
> > for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
> >
> > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
> > world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there
> are
> > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
> quality
> > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
> >
> > Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
> >
> > There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality
> issue
> > both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how
> to
> > deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
> >
> > I blogged about it..
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.html
> >
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Peter Southwood]

It is hard to tell what thread you refer to when the thread is gone.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Richard Ames
Sent: Friday, 20 November 2015 9:51 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

Please drop this thread / subject.  Concentrate on issues not people.

Regards, Richard.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11036 - Release Date: 11/20/15


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
That is indeed a problem. So far it has been lists, often well formatted
lists that do not have a workflow, are not updated regularly. I have added
these issues as a wishlist item to work on. [1]

You have to appreciate that when a list of problematic issues is listed
with over 100 items, it is no longer easy or obvious that you want to add
and follow 100 talk pages.This is one of the big differences between
Wikipedia think and Wikidata think. I care about a lot of data, data that
is linked. Analogous to the "Kevin Bacon steps of separation" I want all
items easily and obviously connected.  That is another quality goal
for Wikidata .

Given the state of Wikipedia, most articles have an article, easy and
obvious tasks like fact checking and adding sources is exactly what we are
looking for for maintaining our community. Add relevance to the cocktail,
we know that these facts are likely to have issues, and you appreciate why
this may help us with our quality and with our community issues.
Thanks,
 GerardM


[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey#Visibility_for_quality_issues

On 21 November 2015 at 07:11, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> How are you notifying the Wikipedias/Wikipedians? Do you leave a message
> on the talk page of the relevant article?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Saturday, 21 November 2015 12:23 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues
>
> Hoi,
> So far such lists have been produced for bigger Wikipedias but essentially
> it is potentially an issue for any and all Wikis that have data that may
> exist on Wikidata or linked through Wikidata on external sources.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 20 November 2015 at 12:33, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> > Who were you expecting would respond from the Wikipedias?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: Friday, 20 November 2015 9:18 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Research into Wikimedia content and
> > communities; WikiData-l
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues
> >
> > Hoi,
> > At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia.
> > Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved
> > and arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or
> > Wikidata for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such
> outreach.
> >
> > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the
> > outside world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this
> > moment there are already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother
> > about Wikipedia quality because in their view, Wikipedians do not care
> about its own quality.
> >
> > Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
> >
> > There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality
> > issue both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research
> > issue; how to deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if
> at all.
> >
> > I blogged about it..
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> >
> > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikiped
> > ia.html ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> > -
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11032 - Release Date:
> > 11/20/15
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11036 - Release Date: 11/20/15
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: