Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community revitalization

[Toby Negrin]

Hi Peter --

We're putting this feature into the Android app this quarter where we can
test and iterate on the UX. Based on user feedback, we'll have a better
idea of how to implement it on the more heavily trafficked platforms.
Clearly we'd do an automated fashion.

I'll ping the editing folks and see if there are any thoughts about a tool
for Editors.

-Toby

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> How about a tool to look up in Wiktionary from Wikipedia?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 November 2015 11:40 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Toby Negrin
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community revitalization
>
> Thanks Michal.
> I periodically use English Wiktionary and am pleased with it as a reader.
> I am wondering what it might take to increase our readership of
> Wiktionaries in general, perhaps by increasing the prominence of them in
> Google search results. Pinging Toby to see if he has any ideas on how to
> increase the readership of Wiktionaries.
> Regards,
> Pine
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Michal Lester 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear friends and colleague,
> >
> >
> >
> > I would to share with you the post we published on Wikimedia Blog
> > (November 13, 2015) [1]. It describes how WMIL works with few
> > *Wiktionary* volunteers in a process of revitalization of *Wiktionary*
> > community. I believe it could be useful case study for those of you who
> deal with similar issues.
> >
> > I would be happy to provide more info. to anyone who is interested
> > Michal
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/13/hebrew-wiktionary-community-revi
> > talization/
> >
> > *Regards,*
> >
> >
> > *Michal Lester,*
> >
> > *Executive DirectorWikimedia Israel*
> > *http://www.wikimedia.org.il   *
> > *972-50-8996046 ; 972-77-751-6032  *
> > ___
> > 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: 4460/11018 - Release Date: 11/17/15
>
>
> ___
> 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] Branislav Jovanovic, User:BraneJ in critical condition

[Asaf Bartov]

I have had the pleasure of meeting and talking to Brane at some length, in
Belgrade, in Hong Kong, and perhaps elsewhere too.  He is thoughtful and
dedicated, and as Milos said, has played a huge part in building up Serbian
Wikipedia and Wikimedia Serbia.

Brane, I wish you a full recovery, and hope to have the chance to see you
again, somewhere in the world or around the wikis.

Regards from the Wikisource gathering in Vienna,

Asaf

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> Pine asked me a good question: Where to express support? I think
> whatever you think is the most appropriate. This thread works, as
> well. His email is bra...@gmail.com. You have the link to his Facebook
> page via WMRS photo. He is using Twitter, as well @branej.
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> > At some point of time, the best you could do is to reach for a
> > superstition and hope it will work. It doesn't matter how it will be
> > explained after, but at this point of time, it's only that
> > superstition which matters.
> >
> > My particular superstition is that Brane would be able to see his
> > eulogy and that we'll be able to laugh together. You know, it's a rare
> > opportunity to see how your eulogy would look like, so I hope I am
> > giving it to him.
> >
> > An hour ago I heard that he is in critical condition. At first, I was
> > thinking what should I write after he dies. Then, I realized that I
> > should write it now and post it after. Then, it's come into my mind
> > that I should send it immediately as, at least, I could think about
> > reading with him this eulogy and your comments after he recovers.
> >
> > Since August 2014 he is struggling with bone cancer. His curse is that
> > his body is so strong, that chemotherapy is not working yet.
> > Paradoxically, we hope that his body is weak enough now that it will
> > finally accept chemotherapy. Monday would be crucial day for him.
> >
> > He is one of those "invisible" Wikimedians who actually contributed
> > significantly to our movement. Some of you, mostly those who visited
> > Belgrade, know him.
> >
> > He is one of the founders of Wikimedia Serbia. It's a pity that he is
> > in this condition while WMRS is preparing to celebrate its 10th
> > anniversary. Here is our photo from the founding assembly [1].
> >
> > Presently, he is a board member of Wikimedia Serbia.
> >
> > His epic fight for copyright correctness on Serbian Wikipedia created
> > the foundations of the present day strict copyright rules. It's a
> > great achievement for a project of such size and it was possible just
> > because of him.
> >
> > While he was active editor, he was highly trusted Wikipedian and he
> > was administrator, bureaucrat and checkuser on Serbian Wikipedia, as
> > well as on a number of of other projects in Serbian language.
> >
> > Alpha software for transliteration between Cyrillic and Latin scripts
> > of Serbian language in MediaWiki was his work. That was the basis for
> > the future implementation. It was the first software of that kind
> > implemented in one web engine.
> >
> > He is my close friend. Besides a lot of things which he did, which
> > will be mentioned at appropriate time, I want to say that many things
> > which I did wouldn't be possible without his contribution.
> >
> > He is now very exhausted and he won't be able to read this today or
> > tomorrow. However, I am sure he will be able to read it on Monday,
> > after he recovers a bit. So, your support matters, no matter of my
> > superstitious reasons for sending this email.
> >
> > [1]
> https://www.facebook.com/wikimedia.rs/photos/a.826279217387658.1073741828.294923960523189/1198903920125184/
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
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] Branislav Jovanovic, User:BraneJ in critical condition

[Milos Rancic]

At some point of time, the best you could do is to reach for a
superstition and hope it will work. It doesn't matter how it will be
explained after, but at this point of time, it's only that
superstition which matters.

My particular superstition is that Brane would be able to see his
eulogy and that we'll be able to laugh together. You know, it's a rare
opportunity to see how your eulogy would look like, so I hope I am
giving it to him.

An hour ago I heard that he is in critical condition. At first, I was
thinking what should I write after he dies. Then, I realized that I
should write it now and post it after. Then, it's come into my mind
that I should send it immediately as, at least, I could think about
reading with him this eulogy and your comments after he recovers.

Since August 2014 he is struggling with bone cancer. His curse is that
his body is so strong, that chemotherapy is not working yet.
Paradoxically, we hope that his body is weak enough now that it will
finally accept chemotherapy. Monday would be crucial day for him.

He is one of those "invisible" Wikimedians who actually contributed
significantly to our movement. Some of you, mostly those who visited
Belgrade, know him.

He is one of the founders of Wikimedia Serbia. It's a pity that he is
in this condition while WMRS is preparing to celebrate its 10th
anniversary. Here is our photo from the founding assembly [1].

Presently, he is a board member of Wikimedia Serbia.

His epic fight for copyright correctness on Serbian Wikipedia created
the foundations of the present day strict copyright rules. It's a
great achievement for a project of such size and it was possible just
because of him.

While he was active editor, he was highly trusted Wikipedian and he
was administrator, bureaucrat and checkuser on Serbian Wikipedia, as
well as on a number of of other projects in Serbian language.

Alpha software for transliteration between Cyrillic and Latin scripts
of Serbian language in MediaWiki was his work. That was the basis for
the future implementation. It was the first software of that kind
implemented in one web engine.

He is my close friend. Besides a lot of things which he did, which
will be mentioned at appropriate time, I want to say that many things
which I did wouldn't be possible without his contribution.

He is now very exhausted and he won't be able to read this today or
tomorrow. However, I am sure he will be able to read it on Monday,
after he recovers a bit. So, your support matters, no matter of my
superstitious reasons for sending this email.

[1] 
https://www.facebook.com/wikimedia.rs/photos/a.826279217387658.1073741828.294923960523189/1198903920125184/

___
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] Branislav Jovanovic, User:BraneJ in critical condition

[Milos Rancic]

Pine asked me a good question: Where to express support? I think
whatever you think is the most appropriate. This thread works, as
well. His email is bra...@gmail.com. You have the link to his Facebook
page via WMRS photo. He is using Twitter, as well @branej.

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> At some point of time, the best you could do is to reach for a
> superstition and hope it will work. It doesn't matter how it will be
> explained after, but at this point of time, it's only that
> superstition which matters.
>
> My particular superstition is that Brane would be able to see his
> eulogy and that we'll be able to laugh together. You know, it's a rare
> opportunity to see how your eulogy would look like, so I hope I am
> giving it to him.
>
> An hour ago I heard that he is in critical condition. At first, I was
> thinking what should I write after he dies. Then, I realized that I
> should write it now and post it after. Then, it's come into my mind
> that I should send it immediately as, at least, I could think about
> reading with him this eulogy and your comments after he recovers.
>
> Since August 2014 he is struggling with bone cancer. His curse is that
> his body is so strong, that chemotherapy is not working yet.
> Paradoxically, we hope that his body is weak enough now that it will
> finally accept chemotherapy. Monday would be crucial day for him.
>
> He is one of those "invisible" Wikimedians who actually contributed
> significantly to our movement. Some of you, mostly those who visited
> Belgrade, know him.
>
> He is one of the founders of Wikimedia Serbia. It's a pity that he is
> in this condition while WMRS is preparing to celebrate its 10th
> anniversary. Here is our photo from the founding assembly [1].
>
> Presently, he is a board member of Wikimedia Serbia.
>
> His epic fight for copyright correctness on Serbian Wikipedia created
> the foundations of the present day strict copyright rules. It's a
> great achievement for a project of such size and it was possible just
> because of him.
>
> While he was active editor, he was highly trusted Wikipedian and he
> was administrator, bureaucrat and checkuser on Serbian Wikipedia, as
> well as on a number of of other projects in Serbian language.
>
> Alpha software for transliteration between Cyrillic and Latin scripts
> of Serbian language in MediaWiki was his work. That was the basis for
> the future implementation. It was the first software of that kind
> implemented in one web engine.
>
> He is my close friend. Besides a lot of things which he did, which
> will be mentioned at appropriate time, I want to say that many things
> which I did wouldn't be possible without his contribution.
>
> He is now very exhausted and he won't be able to read this today or
> tomorrow. However, I am sure he will be able to read it on Monday,
> after he recovers a bit. So, your support matters, no matter of my
> superstitious reasons for sending this email.
>
> [1] 
> https://www.facebook.com/wikimedia.rs/photos/a.826279217387658.1073741828.294923960523189/1198903920125184/

___
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]

The problem may simply be that the information is not coming to the attention 
of the people who care, as they don't know that it exists or where to find it. 
The normal place to put information relating to improvement of an article is on 
the article talk page, and that is where Wikipedians will expect to find it.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Saturday, 21 November 2015 9:57 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

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-wikip
> > ed 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I respect the policy of Wikipedia. However, when multiple Wikipedias differ
and when there is no sourcing does this policy hold? When Wikidata has no
attributable sources but multiple statements is it not conceivable that
things are easy and obvious.. that they are wrong?

When you talk about the FA status of articles, you are considering
something totally alien to what is at stake. Typically we do not have
credible sources at Wikidata and typically there is an issue with the data.

When Wikidata is as mature as en.wp we will have on average 10 statements
for every item. Currently half of our items have at most two statements. We
do find issues in any source by comparing them. It does make sense to make
this effort. It is an obvious way of improving quality in all of our
projects and even beyond that.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 21 November 2015 at 10:26, Gnangarra  wrote:

> >
> > Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow that
> > without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
> > however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been
> made.
> > Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong,
>
>
> ​No we dont decide what is right or wrong, en:wp has very specific core
> policies about this
>
>- ​Original research - we dont draw conclusions from available data
>- NPOV​ -
>*which means presenting information without editorial bias*,
>​ the moment we make that decision about whats right  we exceed the
>boundaries of our core pillars ​dont know, uncertain or conflicting
>information means exactly that we dont get to choose what we think is
> right
>
>
> ​The data article writers work with isnt black and white and its definitely
> not set in stone Wikipedia content is a constant evolving collation of
> knowledge, we should be careful when ever we put in place a process that
> makes information definitive because people become reluctant to add to that
> and they are even less likely to challenge something that has been cast in
> stone already regardless of the inaccuracy of that casting .  We see it
> within Wikipedia when articles are elevated to FA status with the number of
> editors who fiercely defend that current/correct version against any
> changes regardless of the merit in the information being added with
> comments like "discuss it on talk page first" "revert good faith edit"
>
>
> the more disjointed knowledge becomes the harder it is to keep it current,
> accurate the more isolated that knowledge. Then power over making changes
> takes precedence over productivity, accuracy and openness
>
> On 21 November 2015 at 16:12, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > You conflate two issues. First when facts differ, it should be possible
> to
> > explain why they differ. Only when there is no explanation particularly
> > when there are no sources, there is an issue. In come real sources. When
> > someone died on 7-5-1759 and another source has a different date, it may
> be
> > the difference between a Julian and a Gregorian date. When a source makes
> > this plain, one fact has been proven to be incorrect. When the date was
> > 1759, it is obvious that the other date is more precise.. The point is
> very
> > much that Wikipedia values sources and so does Wikidata. USE THEM and
> find
> > that data sources may be wrong when they are. In this way we improve
> > quality.
> >
> > Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow that
> > without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
> > however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been
> made.
> > Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong, we do this when we research an
> > issue and that is exactly what this is about. It all starts with
> > determining a source.
> >
> > In the mean time, Wikidata is negligent in stating sources. The worst
> > example is in the "primary sources" tool. It is bad because it is brought
> > to us as the best work flow for adding uncertain data to Wikidata. So the
> > world is not perfect but hey it is a wiki :)
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 21 November 2015 at 00:32, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > > *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 <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > >  quality is different things  I do 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Gnangarra]

>
> Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow that
> without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
> however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been made.
> Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong,


​No we dont decide what is right or wrong, en:wp has very specific core
policies about this

   - ​Original research - we dont draw conclusions from available data
   - NPOV​ -
   *which means presenting information without editorial bias*,
   ​ the moment we make that decision about whats right  we exceed the
   boundaries of our core pillars ​dont know, uncertain or conflicting
   information means exactly that we dont get to choose what we think is right


​The data article writers work with isnt black and white and its definitely
not set in stone Wikipedia content is a constant evolving collation of
knowledge, we should be careful when ever we put in place a process that
makes information definitive because people become reluctant to add to that
and they are even less likely to challenge something that has been cast in
stone already regardless of the inaccuracy of that casting .  We see it
within Wikipedia when articles are elevated to FA status with the number of
editors who fiercely defend that current/correct version against any
changes regardless of the merit in the information being added with
comments like "discuss it on talk page first" "revert good faith edit"


the more disjointed knowledge becomes the harder it is to keep it current,
accurate the more isolated that knowledge. Then power over making changes
takes precedence over productivity, accuracy and openness

On 21 November 2015 at 16:12, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> You conflate two issues. First when facts differ, it should be possible to
> explain why they differ. Only when there is no explanation particularly
> when there are no sources, there is an issue. In come real sources. When
> someone died on 7-5-1759 and another source has a different date, it may be
> the difference between a Julian and a Gregorian date. When a source makes
> this plain, one fact has been proven to be incorrect. When the date was
> 1759, it is obvious that the other date is more precise.. The point is very
> much that Wikipedia values sources and so does Wikidata. USE THEM and find
> that data sources may be wrong when they are. In this way we improve
> quality.
>
> Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow that
> without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
> however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been made.
> Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong, we do this when we research an
> issue and that is exactly what this is about. It all starts with
> determining a source.
>
> In the mean time, Wikidata is negligent in stating sources. The worst
> example is in the "primary sources" tool. It is bad because it is brought
> to us as the best work flow for adding uncertain data to Wikidata. So the
> world is not perfect but hey it is a wiki :)
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 21 November 2015 at 00:32, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > >
> > > ...
> > > *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
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Fæ]

On 20 November 2015 at 22:47, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> 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.

+1

I keep an open mind for supporting Wikidata in association with my
Commons uploads. This thread going over a series of old gripes against
other projects, with a lack of new proposals, has diminished my
interest. For me, this effectively burns out the word "Wikidata" for a
month.

Fae

___
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,
You conflate two issues. First when facts differ, it should be possible to
explain why they differ. Only when there is no explanation particularly
when there are no sources, there is an issue. In come real sources. When
someone died on 7-5-1759 and another source has a different date, it may be
the difference between a Julian and a Gregorian date. When a source makes
this plain, one fact has been proven to be incorrect. When the date was
1759, it is obvious that the other date is more precise.. The point is very
much that Wikipedia values sources and so does Wikidata. USE THEM and find
that data sources may be wrong when they are. In this way we improve
quality.

Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow that
without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been made.
Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong, we do this when we research an
issue and that is exactly what this is about. It all starts with
determining a source.

In the mean time, Wikidata is negligent in stating sources. The worst
example is in the "primary sources" tool. It is bad because it is brought
to us as the best work flow for adding uncertain data to Wikidata. So the
world is not perfect but hey it is a wiki :)
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 21 November 2015 at 00:32, Gnangarra  wrote:

> >
> > ...
> > *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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Jane Darnell]

Sorry to read that Fae, but in your specific case I do think your time is
spent more productively on Commons, because the value of your contributions
there is huge. Having created Wikidata items for many of your Commons
uploads, I think it may be worthwhile at some point to try and get someone
to run a Fae-Wikidata-conversion bot to try and get as much data as
possible from your uploads moved over, but until then, please go ahead with
whatever it is you like to do best. In my last mail I was thinking about
Wikipedians, but of course the same is true for all of the sister projects.

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> On 20 November 2015 at 22:47, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> > 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.
>
> +1
>
> I keep an open mind for supporting Wikidata in association with my
> Commons uploads. This thread going over a series of old gripes against
> other projects, with a lack of new proposals, has diminished my
> interest. For me, this effectively burns out the word "Wikidata" for a
> month.
>
> Fae
>
> ___
> 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]

agree getting information in is in and of itself a good starting point but
ignoring the lessons learnt in other project in doing so is only creating
more work for those that follow. Having less clear policy about sources and
allowing unsourced information is only going to put Wikidata behind
Wikipedia in quality, in doing so its not going to endear WikiData
information to Wikipedians which in turn Wikipedians as they get data just
arent going to go that extra step to share no matter how easy the step is
to take

On 21 November 2015 at 19:13, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I respect the policy of Wikipedia. However, when multiple Wikipedias differ
> and when there is no sourcing does this policy hold? When Wikidata has no
> attributable sources but multiple statements is it not conceivable that
> things are easy and obvious.. that they are wrong?
>
> When you talk about the FA status of articles, you are considering
> something totally alien to what is at stake. Typically we do not have
> credible sources at Wikidata and typically there is an issue with the data.
>
> When Wikidata is as mature as en.wp we will have on average 10 statements
> for every item. Currently half of our items have at most two statements. We
> do find issues in any source by comparing them. It does make sense to make
> this effort. It is an obvious way of improving quality in all of our
> projects and even beyond that.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 21 November 2015 at 10:26, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow
> that
> > > without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
> > > however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been
> > made.
> > > Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong,
> >
> >
> > ​No we dont decide what is right or wrong, en:wp has very specific core
> > policies about this
> >
> >- ​Original research - we dont draw conclusions from available data
> >- NPOV​ -
> >*which means presenting information without editorial bias*,
> >​ the moment we make that decision about whats right  we exceed the
> >boundaries of our core pillars ​dont know, uncertain or
> conflicting
> >information means exactly that we dont get to choose what we think is
> > right
> >
> >
> > ​The data article writers work with isnt black and white and its
> definitely
> > not set in stone Wikipedia content is a constant evolving collation of
> > knowledge, we should be careful when ever we put in place a process that
> > makes information definitive because people become reluctant to add to
> that
> > and they are even less likely to challenge something that has been cast
> in
> > stone already regardless of the inaccuracy of that casting .  We see it
> > within Wikipedia when articles are elevated to FA status with the number
> of
> > editors who fiercely defend that current/correct version against any
> > changes regardless of the merit in the information being added with
> > comments like "discuss it on talk page first" "revert good faith edit"
> >
> >
> > the more disjointed knowledge becomes the harder it is to keep it
> current,
> > accurate the more isolated that knowledge. Then power over making changes
> > takes precedence over productivity, accuracy and openness
> >
> > On 21 November 2015 at 16:12, Gerard Meijssen  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > You conflate two issues. First when facts differ, it should be possible
> > to
> > > explain why they differ. Only when there is no explanation particularly
> > > when there are no sources, there is an issue. In come real sources.
> When
> > > someone died on 7-5-1759 and another source has a different date, it
> may
> > be
> > > the difference between a Julian and a Gregorian date. When a source
> makes
> > > this plain, one fact has been proven to be incorrect. When the date was
> > > 1759, it is obvious that the other date is more precise.. The point is
> > very
> > > much that Wikipedia values sources and so does Wikidata. USE THEM and
> > find
> > > that data sources may be wrong when they are. In this way we improve
> > > quality.
> > >
> > > Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow
> that
> > > without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
> > > however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been
> > made.
> > > Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong, we do this when we research
> an
> > > issue and that is exactly what this is about. It all starts with
> > > determining a source.
> > >
> > > In the mean time, Wikidata is negligent in stating sources. The worst
> > > example is in the "primary sources" tool. It is bad because it is
> brought
> > > to us as the best work flow for adding uncertain data to Wikidata. So
> the
> > > world is not perfect but hey it is a wiki :)
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM