Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:54 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

> How do people feel about a few of the larger the Chapters funding pilots to
> have professional researchers do https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en
> and a few other main languages?
>

​Might I suggest you approach some of these larger chapters and see what
they think? Popular opinion on the general mailing list isn't much currency
when you're talking about use of actual currency for chapters.

-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

[James Salsman]

>
>
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Once we, as in the WMF, start paying for content there is no reasonable
> argument to pay specific work and not pay for other specific work.


I am suggesting a limited experiment by the diverse chapters, not the WMF
proper. I don't think it follows that success would mean there would be no
reason to not pay for new content instead of citations for existing content.


> Why should we pay for additional content in English and not pay for
> content in
> other languages?


CItation Hunt is already translated into six diverse languages, five of
which are in our top 20, and it seems to work in RTL Hebrew.

Research is done that may lead to the use of Wikidata for citations.


I would love to see a link for the state of the art on that.

What is the status of
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Knowledge_Graph_with_DeepDive

and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/StrepHit:_Wikidata_Statements_Validation_via_References
?
There have been no updates on either at all this year, that I've been able
to find, even though at least one of them is supposed to be producing
monthly status reports. I'm not happy with the extent to which Wikidata has
fallen into a meaningless soup of impenetrable data category numbers for
its user interfaces. For a project being pushed as supporting translations,
Wikidata is really difficult for direct use by humans speaking any natural
language, but has been fantastic for search engines displaying summary
information cutting into Foundation pageviews and fundraising.


> We have a project called Wikiquote, why not invest attention into
> Wikiquote.


Because there is real demand and multiple quality-related fundamental
needs for Wikipedia citations which can be easily automated with Citation
Hunt, but all of the demand for Wikiquote expansion is fully addressed by
Mediawiki as-is.


> Really all the basic reasons why work on citations deserves additional
> funding is lacking. It does not explain what it will bring us anything that
> we cannot get in another way.
>

The number of {{citation needed}} tags is growing faster than new articles,
and the rate at which they are addressed is so slow as to be negligible if
you disregard WikiProject improvement drives, which occur less frequently
than they used to.


> As long as there is no obvious benefit, it would destroy what we are and
> how we do things for no obvious benefit.


As long as we don't measure the benefit, we have no way to know whether
it's positive and will forever remain non-obvious.



> On 23 April 2016 at 16:02, James Salsman  wrote:
>
> > Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >
> > > I categorically oppose paying people for content. Enabling them to
> create
> > > content is different. Citations is content and its quality is relevant
> > > but only that.
> >
> >
> > Why categorically? We already pay hundreds of people for work in support
> of
> > the projects, including reader-facing administrative and content far more
> > prominent than citations. We encourage Wikipedian in Residence programs
> > where third parties pay for all kinds of content development. The PR
> > editing guidelines explicitly recognize that paid content happens anyway,
> > we can't control it, but we can offer best practices. We support editing
> > assigned as part of academic class requirements.
> >
> > What reason is there to flatly rule out paying people to find citations
> > before measuring the quality and cost/benefit ratio of doing so with a
> > variety of both incentive payment models and managers?
> >
> >
> > >  > How do people feel about a few of the larger the Chapters funding
> > > pilots to have professional researchers do
> > https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en
> > > > and a few other main languages?
> > > >
> > > > It would be great to measure the quality of results of different
> > payment
> > > > incentive models and rates, but this is not something that the
> > Foundation
> > > > could do without some risk of breaching the DMCA safe harbor
> > provisions,
> > > as
> > > > far as I can see. Even if I am technically wrong about that, the
> > > > appearances would be that it's obvious exertion of what would be
> > positive
> > > > editorial control, which would still mean a greater likelihood of
> > > lawsuits
> > > > by disgruntled BLP and corporate subjects who can't win in court but
> > can
> > > > waste everyone's money.
> > > >
> > > > But I would rather have multiple measurements administered by
> different
> > > > parties anyway, because there are likely to be large uncontrollable
> > > sources
> > > > of noise.
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Once we, as in the WMF, start paying for content there is no reasonable
argument to pay specific work and not pay for other specific work. Why
should we pay for additional content in English and not pay for content in
other languages?

Research is done that may lead to the use of Wikidata for citations. We
have a project called Wikiquote, why not invest attention into Wikiquote.
Really all the basic reasons why work on citations deserves additional
funding is lacking. It does not explain what it will bring us anything that
we cannot get in another way.

As long as there is no obvious benefit, it would destroy what we are and
how we do things for no obvious benefit.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 23 April 2016 at 16:02, James Salsman  wrote:

> >
> > Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >
> ...
>
>
> > I categorically oppose paying people for content. Enabling them to create
> > content is different. Citations is content and its quality is relevant
> but
> > only that.
>
>
> Why categorically? We already pay hundreds of people for work in support of
> the projects, including reader-facing administrative and content far more
> prominent than citations. We encourage Wikipedian in Residence programs
> where third parties pay for all kinds of content development. The PR
> editing guidelines explicitly recognize that paid content happens anyway,
> we can't control it, but we can offer best practices. We support editing
> assigned as part of academic class requirements.
>
> What reason is there to flatly rule out paying people to find citations
> before measuring the quality and cost/benefit ratio of doing so with a
> variety of both incentive payment models and managers?
>
>
> >  > How do people feel about a few of the larger the Chapters funding
> > pilots to
>
> > have professional researchers do
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en
> > > and a few other main languages?
> > >
> > > It would be great to measure the quality of results of different
> payment
> > > incentive models and rates, but this is not something that the
> Foundation
> > > could do without some risk of breaching the DMCA safe harbor
> provisions,
> > as
> > > far as I can see. Even if I am technically wrong about that, the
> > > appearances would be that it's obvious exertion of what would be
> positive
> > > editorial control, which would still mean a greater likelihood of
> > lawsuits
> > > by disgruntled BLP and corporate subjects who can't win in court but
> can
> > > waste everyone's money.
> > >
> > > But I would rather have multiple measurements administered by different
> > > parties anyway, because there are likely to be large uncontrollable
> > sources
> > > of noise.
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

[Brill Lyle]

I agree this is not a black and white issue.

To depend upon a volunteer workforce to chip away at big picture issues --
especially relating to citations (with the idea that they become systemized
and full on integrated with Wikidata in a super user friendly way) -- is
(a) impractical and (b) weakens the potential for innovation, information
gathering, and quality control.

But then again I think there should be rich and deep cultural partnerships
with GLAM and other institutions, even TV networks and other content
creators, that are funded by grants and outreach in an effort to make
Wikipedia less text heavy, less citation lite, and less curated by
hobbyists who drive out experts in their fields.

I am saying this lovingly, of course, as a hobbyist here

Agree also about how Wikimedia *does* pay many people -- and should
continue to do so in service to the projects. This is the first "dirty
secret" #NotReally I was truly shocked by once I started volunteering and
getting more involved here.

I don't get citation hunt, find it intimidating and is not why I edit
Wikipedia, but I support improving citations 100%.

- Erika

*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle* 
Secretary, Wikimedia NYC


On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 10:02 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

> >
> > Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >
> ...
>
>
> > I categorically oppose paying people for content. Enabling them to create
> > content is different. Citations is content and its quality is relevant
> but
> > only that.
>
>
> Why categorically? We already pay hundreds of people for work in support of
> the projects, including reader-facing administrative and content far more
> prominent than citations. We encourage Wikipedian in Residence programs
> where third parties pay for all kinds of content development. The PR
> editing guidelines explicitly recognize that paid content happens anyway,
> we can't control it, but we can offer best practices. We support editing
> assigned as part of academic class requirements.
>
> What reason is there to flatly rule out paying people to find citations
> before measuring the quality and cost/benefit ratio of doing so with a
> variety of both incentive payment models and managers?
>
>
> >  > How do people feel about a few of the larger the Chapters funding
> > pilots to
>
> > have professional researchers do
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en
> > > and a few other main languages?
> > >
> > > It would be great to measure the quality of results of different
> payment
> > > incentive models and rates, but this is not something that the
> Foundation
> > > could do without some risk of breaching the DMCA safe harbor
> provisions,
> > as
> > > far as I can see. Even if I am technically wrong about that, the
> > > appearances would be that it's obvious exertion of what would be
> positive
> > > editorial control, which would still mean a greater likelihood of
> > lawsuits
> > > by disgruntled BLP and corporate subjects who can't win in court but
> can
> > > waste everyone's money.
> > >
> > > But I would rather have multiple measurements administered by different
> > > parties anyway, because there are likely to be large uncontrollable
> > sources
> > > of noise.
> >
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

[James Salsman]

>
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
...


> I categorically oppose paying people for content. Enabling them to create
> content is different. Citations is content and its quality is relevant but
> only that.


Why categorically? We already pay hundreds of people for work in support of
the projects, including reader-facing administrative and content far more
prominent than citations. We encourage Wikipedian in Residence programs
where third parties pay for all kinds of content development. The PR
editing guidelines explicitly recognize that paid content happens anyway,
we can't control it, but we can offer best practices. We support editing
assigned as part of academic class requirements.

What reason is there to flatly rule out paying people to find citations
before measuring the quality and cost/benefit ratio of doing so with a
variety of both incentive payment models and managers?


>  > How do people feel about a few of the larger the Chapters funding
> pilots to

> have professional researchers do https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en
> > and a few other main languages?
> >
> > It would be great to measure the quality of results of different payment
> > incentive models and rates, but this is not something that the Foundation
> > could do without some risk of breaching the DMCA safe harbor provisions,
> as
> > far as I can see. Even if I am technically wrong about that, the
> > appearances would be that it's obvious exertion of what would be positive
> > editorial control, which would still mean a greater likelihood of
> lawsuits
> > by disgruntled BLP and corporate subjects who can't win in court but can
> > waste everyone's money.
> >
> > But I would rather have multiple measurements administered by different
> > parties anyway, because there are likely to be large uncontrollable
> sources
> > of noise.
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Oliver Keyes]

On Saturday, 23 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Governance worth a damn...  Did you know that I introduced Jan Bart
> to Jimmy  the rest is also history.


Yes Gerard, you're very very important. Much more so than me. Well done.

>
> But honestly. In the final analysis the more importance is given to the
> board, the more it shows a dysfunctional movement. When governance is so
> relevant, the first thing to do is not to micro-manage. That is what the
> board is not supposed to do and when something did not go right, remember
> that they are people. Ask yourself how we as a movement suffer instead or
> when you find that a certain behaviour did not win the beauty contest.
>
>
I know the board are people. I also know the people their actions affect
are people. I am agreed that the board is too prominent - see also the
spinoff thread - and given too much importance. But when the board sets
direction on almost everything that costs money, it's function or
dysfunction is absolutely an 'important thing'

I'm going to drop this thread because it is relatively clear we are not
making any progress, in either direction, on convincing the other one we're
right. But hey, at least neither of us demanded the other question their
own sanity :p


> This whole affair is backward. It does not help us forward, it does hinder
> and it takes energy away from those things that really matter.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 17 April 2016 at 22:13, Oliver Keyes  > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > > wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes
> > out,
> > > the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think he
> is
> > > an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still intend
> > on
> > > sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of
> > convincing
> > > before most other people would agree with you.
> > >
> > > The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil
> than
> > > anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer
> > about
> > > what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful talk
> > but
> > > for me it failed.
> >
> > From what I can see, "what we hope to achieve" is governance worth a
> > damn. It's people in key positions not using those positions as
> > weapons. It's people taking empathy and consideration and fiduciary
> > duties seriously. Now, if the absence of these doesn't affect you, I'm
> > profoundly jealous, but the fact that you do not understand why
> > Jimmy's behaviour makes it difficult to claim he's a suitable
> > participant in Wikimedia's governance does not change that a lot of
> > other people do have concerns - not just me, not just Andreas.
> >
> > >
> > > The one question that I have. In all your hiha I have not understood
> that
> > > you understand what it is what Jimmy uniquely brings to our community.
> He
> > > is really effective as an ambassador for what we do. In this there is
> > noone
> > > who can replace him. How do you want to replace him. Arguably the
> latest
> > > crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
> > make
> > > a meaningful contribution.
> >
> > Who said anything about replacing him as an ambassador? When Jimmy is
> > mentioned in the media it's in the context of being Wikipedia's
> > founder, not one of a dozen-odd board members, and unless there's an
> > IEG for the invention of a TARDIS I don't think anyone is removing his
> > founder status. The question is simply whether he is a suitable person
> > to indefinitely sit on the Board of Trustees, making governance
> > decisions, given the behaviour he has shown.
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > >GerardM
> > >
> > > On 17 April 2016 at 20:20, Andreas Kolbe  > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had
> > with
> > >> James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further
> > allegations
> > >> against James.[1]
> > >>
> > >> James replied twice:
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >> Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from
> > >> complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall
> > discussion.
> > >> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
> > >>
> > >> Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any
> > >> objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you
> > quoted
> > >> can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31
> > March
> > >> 2016 (UTC)
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >> Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.
> > >>
> > >> So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so
> that
> > >> everyone can judge for themselves how it was 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I categorically oppose paying people for content. Enabling them to create
content is different. Citations is content and its quality is relevant but
only that.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 22 April 2016 at 18:54, James Salsman  wrote:

> How do people feel about a few of the larger the Chapters funding pilots to
> have professional researchers do https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en
> and a few other main languages?
>
> It would be great to measure the quality of results of different payment
> incentive models and rates, but this is not something that the Foundation
> could do without some risk of breaching the DMCA safe harbor provisions, as
> far as I can see. Even if I am technically wrong about that, the
> appearances would be that it's obvious exertion of what would be positive
> editorial control, which would still mean a greater likelihood of lawsuits
> by disgruntled BLP and corporate subjects who can't win in court but can
> waste everyone's money.
>
> But I would rather have multiple measurements administered by different
> parties anyway, because there are likely to be large uncontrollable sources
> of noise.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Governance worth a damn...  Did you know that I introduced Jan Bart
to Jimmy  the rest is also history.

But honestly. In the final analysis the more importance is given to the
board, the more it shows a dysfunctional movement. When governance is so
relevant, the first thing to do is not to micro-manage. That is what the
board is not supposed to do and when something did not go right, remember
that they are people. Ask yourself how we as a movement suffer instead or
when you find that a certain behaviour did not win the beauty contest.

This whole affair is backward. It does not help us forward, it does hinder
and it takes energy away from those things that really matter.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 17 April 2016 at 22:13, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes
> out,
> > the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think he is
> > an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still intend
> on
> > sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of
> convincing
> > before most other people would agree with you.
> >
> > The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil than
> > anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer
> about
> > what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful talk
> but
> > for me it failed.
>
> From what I can see, "what we hope to achieve" is governance worth a
> damn. It's people in key positions not using those positions as
> weapons. It's people taking empathy and consideration and fiduciary
> duties seriously. Now, if the absence of these doesn't affect you, I'm
> profoundly jealous, but the fact that you do not understand why
> Jimmy's behaviour makes it difficult to claim he's a suitable
> participant in Wikimedia's governance does not change that a lot of
> other people do have concerns - not just me, not just Andreas.
>
> >
> > The one question that I have. In all your hiha I have not understood that
> > you understand what it is what Jimmy uniquely brings to our community. He
> > is really effective as an ambassador for what we do. In this there is
> noone
> > who can replace him. How do you want to replace him. Arguably the latest
> > crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
> make
> > a meaningful contribution.
>
> Who said anything about replacing him as an ambassador? When Jimmy is
> mentioned in the media it's in the context of being Wikipedia's
> founder, not one of a dozen-odd board members, and unless there's an
> IEG for the invention of a TARDIS I don't think anyone is removing his
> founder status. The question is simply whether he is a suitable person
> to indefinitely sit on the Board of Trustees, making governance
> decisions, given the behaviour he has shown.
>
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> > On 17 April 2016 at 20:20, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> >
> >> On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had
> with
> >> James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further
> allegations
> >> against James.[1]
> >>
> >> James replied twice:
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from
> >> complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall
> discussion.
> >> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
> >>
> >> Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any
> >> objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you
> quoted
> >> can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31
> March
> >> 2016 (UTC)
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.
> >>
> >> So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so that
> >> everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by Jimmy's
> >> selective quoting?
> >>
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> >>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_said_publicly_.282.29
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> >>
> >> > If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
> >> > account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under
> >> > his own steam?
> >> >
> >> > His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
> >> > politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his
> >> > repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
> >> > member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
> >> > Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
> >> >
> >> > If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
> >> >
> >> > P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF
> >> > employees