Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[Gnangarra]

One thing that grabs me about this is the Languages section, 750,000
speakers appears to be a rather high bar.   To explain there 2.5m people in
Western Australia most of could be classed as speaking nys at a basic level
because of the way the Noongar language has been adopted into the English
and continues to be taken up more as well as being taught in schools.  The
other side of the equation is that the primary source for Indigenous
language speakers uses a significantly flawed methodology to identify those
who use the language, the primary source being the ABS who ask only what is
the main language spoken at home then lists 9 languages(6 European, 2
Asian, 1 middle east) with a 10 option of other in which the person is then
asked to identify their language.  Indigenous language speakers have a
significant hurdle to actually be counted, and would suspect that this
issue isnt unfamiliar to in many other countries with colonial histories.

It would better if the bar be a two fold thats looks for a significantly
lower number of native speakers with a secondary level of partial
speakers.  but I'm not sure there are reliable means even flawed ones
to identify partial non native speakers of any language.

Additionally I think counting misses what can be large number of immigrants
who arent no longer a residential part of the speaking community.

On 28 September 2017 at 12:24, Michael Snow  wrote:

> On 9/27/2017 1:39 PM, Ariel Glenn WMF wrote:
>
>> Would a name like "emerging knowledge communities" be clearer?  Yes, you'd
>> think that in the context of Wikipedia and related projects, the word
>> 'knowledge' would be a given, but perhaps it isn't?
>>
> Yes, let's keep brainstorming about this. No, I'm afraid this combination
> is problematic, but thank you for the idea.
>
> Specifically, the issue is that in this formulation, "knowledge" works to
> modify "communities", but now "emerging" appears to modify "knowledge"
> instead, and that doesn't work. The potential implication that knowledge is
> only just emerging in these communities could appear condescending, much
> like the terminology we're trying to get away from. I'd argue that we
> operate on the assumption that as our communities grow, they already have a
> great deal of knowledge, it's a matter of sharing and making it accessible
> to all.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[Michael Snow]

On 9/27/2017 1:39 PM, Ariel Glenn WMF wrote:

Would a name like "emerging knowledge communities" be clearer?  Yes, you'd
think that in the context of Wikipedia and related projects, the word
'knowledge' would be a given, but perhaps it isn't?
Yes, let's keep brainstorming about this. No, I'm afraid this 
combination is problematic, but thank you for the idea.


Specifically, the issue is that in this formulation, "knowledge" works 
to modify "communities", but now "emerging" appears to modify 
"knowledge" instead, and that doesn't work. The potential implication 
that knowledge is only just emerging in these communities could appear 
condescending, much like the terminology we're trying to get away from. 
I'd argue that we operate on the assumption that as our communities 
grow, they already have a great deal of knowledge, it's a matter of 
sharing and making it accessible to all.


--Michael Snow

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[Ariel Glenn WMF]

Would a name like "emerging knowledge communities" be clearer?  Yes, you'd
think that in the context of Wikipedia and related projects, the word
'knowledge' would be a given, but perhaps it isn't?

Ariel

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:36 PM, ViswaPrabha (വിശ്വപ്രഭ) <
viswapra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I find it a lot difficult to explain the phrase 'Emerging communities'
> among my crowds during any outreach event.
> The phrase still doesn't get to pass on the idea of 'knowledge empowerment'
> or 'open digital access'. Rather it still make people think it's all about
> economic and technological advancement.
>
> My two fast bits.
>
> -User:Viswaprabha
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

[Peter Southwood]

As far as I can make out, James was referring to English Wikipedia articles on 
economics, not Wikidata. One of us is confused.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 11:30 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 
11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

Hoi,
The problem is that sources become controversial when there is nothing that 
mitigates their validity when other sources indicate that they have been 
invalidated. This is of particular relevance when organisations like Cochrane 
indicate this. The wholesale import into Wikidata essentially cements these 
sources as being valid. As a consequence it has everything to do with data 
uploads. Wikidata is not a stamp collection and we do not have proper means to 
invalidate. Consider for instance that in Norway a whole set of substances used 
in mental health are no longer provided. In the USA and elsewhere these same 
substances are subscribed while it is KNOWN that they are no better than a 
placebo.

Just copying controversial data into Wikidata is problematic and just saying 
that somebody else has to fix it is dodging responsibility.
Thanks,
  Gerard

On 27 September 2017 at 08:42, Peter Southwood  wrote:

> Gerard,
> If someone sees a thing on Wikipedia that needs to be fixed, they can 
> go ahead and do something about it. Please refer to the context of my comment.
> If James wants to start a project or task force to clean up economics 
> articles, he is free to do so. I don’t think this has anything to do 
> with data uploads. If it does, perhaps you could enlighten me.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 12:17 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 
> 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
>
> Hoi,
> There is a responsibility by the people doing massive uploads of data 
> that is full of everything under the sun. Given the scale of these 
> imports "so fix it" is not appropriate.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 19 September 2017 at 07:14, Peter Southwood < 
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > wrote:
>
> > So fix it,
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] 
> > On Behalf Of James Salsman
> > Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 
> > 20,
> > 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
> >
> > Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally 
> > influenced by Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's 
> > Economics article still says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand."
> > Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles 
> > are tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R  wrote:
> > >
> > > The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, 
> > > September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
> > >
> > > YouTube stream:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
> > >
> > > As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research.
> > > And, you can watch our past research showcases here 
> > >  > Showcase#September_2017>.
> > >
> > >...
> > >
> > > Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control 
> > > Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
> > >
> > > As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising 
> > > that Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. 
> > > However, Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in 
> > > the world, including by scientists, which suggests that it also 
> > > has the potential to shape science. This paper shows that it does.
> > > Incorporating ideas into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas 
> > > being used more in the scientific literature. This paper documents
> this in two ways:
> > > correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and 
> > > causally through a randomized experiment where we added new 
> > > scientific content to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the 
> > > correlational relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has 
> > > a strong shaping effect on science. Our findings speak not only to 
> > > the influence of Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of 
> > > repositories of scientific knowledge. The results suggest that 
> > > increased provision of information in accessible repositories is a 
> > > very cost-effective way to advance science. We also find that such 
> > > gains are 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[വിശ്വപ്രഭ]

I find it a lot difficult to explain the phrase 'Emerging communities'
among my crowds during any outreach event.
The phrase still doesn't get to pass on the idea of 'knowledge empowerment'
or 'open digital access'. Rather it still make people think it's all about
economic and technological advancement.

My two fast bits.

-User:Viswaprabha


On 27 September 2017 at 22:58, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a
> distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South
> countries.  That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency
> named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the
> Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve
> impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.
>
> However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us.  It was based on
> UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to
> nation-wide economic conditions.  Its binary nature did not allow for
> distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and
> happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or
> next to none, is happening, or possible.  It also looked only at geography,
> whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by
> geographies.  And it was political and alienating to many people.
>
> In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as
> unloved and rejected by many.
>
> The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been thinking
> about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a
> much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state of
> editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and
> would be less controversial.
>
> We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a
> replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our intention
> to define Emerging Communities ourselves.  Finishing the proposed
> definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we are
> ready to share the proposed definition today:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/
> Defining_Emerging_Communities
>
>
> We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread.
> The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to
> incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October 31st.
>
> Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page, too.
> :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Asaf
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[Asaf Bartov]

Dear Wikimedians,

Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a
distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South
countries.  That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency
named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the
Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve
impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.

However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us.  It was based on
UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to
nation-wide economic conditions.  Its binary nature did not allow for
distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and
happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or
next to none, is happening, or possible.  It also looked only at geography,
whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by
geographies.  And it was political and alienating to many people.

In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as
unloved and rejected by many.

The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been thinking
about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a
much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state of
editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and
would be less controversial.

We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a
replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our intention
to define Emerging Communities ourselves.  Finishing the proposed
definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we are
ready to share the proposed definition today:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Communities


We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread.
The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to
incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October 31st.

Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page, too.
:)

Cheers,

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

[Wikimedia-l] The secret lives of new editors: research report and discussion sessions

[Neil Patel Quinn]

Hello everyone!

In May and June of this year, a team of researchers from the Wikimedia
Foundation and Reboot [1] traveled to the South Korea and the Czech
Republic to learn more about the experiences new editors have on the Czech
and Korean Wikipedias.

We interviewed 47 new editors and 17 experienced editors and (with an
intermediate stop on several thousand sticky notes) summarized what we
learned in 11 findings. You can learn more about the project and see our
full report on our wiki page, mw:New Editor Experiences [2].

Of the 11 findings we identified, some may be surprising to you, while
others may reinforce what you already knew. Either way, we'd love to know
what you think. We're holding two public discussion sessions next week to
talk briefly about our findings and then take questions and comments.

We hope you'll come! The two sessions will be at:
1. Wednesday, October 4, 09:30–11:00 PDT (16:30–18:00 UTC)
2. Thursday, October 5, 21:00–22:30 PDT (Friday, October 6, 04:00–05:30 UTC)

Full details and instructions on how to join are at mw:New Editor
Experiences/October 2017 discussions [3].

[1]: https://reboot.org/
[2]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/New_Editor_Experiences
[3]:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/New_Editor_Experiences/October_2017_discussions

-- 
Neil Patel Quinn ,
product analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

[Yaroslav Blanter]

The issue with Commons is actually not whether Wikipedia uses the picture
or not. The issue is the validity of description. If an image depicts A and
the description says it is B, then the data on Commons are obviously
invalid, and this would be the analog of false info at Wikidata sources to
unreliable sources or unsourced.This does not happen so often, despite the
fact that many Commons images have dubious provenance, and is currently
much more common on Wikidata. This is why the English Wikipedia community
opposes to the usage of the BLP Wikidata data, but does not oppose to the
usage of Commons images.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> When a database is linked to, there are many reasons for linking. One is it
> is "authoritative" so the data is of a high quality or it is the standard
> bearer in a particular field. Another reason is because there is a clear
> operational purpose. Linking to the Open Library for instance has such a
> purpose; it allows us to link to free content; it provides the basics for a
> mechanism so that Wikipedia readers can read books of an author or read a
> particular book.
>
> One reason often neglected is that the other database is actively
> maintained and its maintainers collaborate with people at Wikidata to
> mutual advantage. This is the case with the people at Open Library, with
> the people at OCLC. It is most powerful because past activities have had a
> measurable effect in their projects and in Wikidata. From my personal
> perspective active collaboration is to be preferred over the authority of
> another source.
>
> The reason why both red, blue and black links ought to be linked to
> Wikidata is because it enables comparison and evaluation. When red links
> are linked to a Wikidata item they will not turn blue whan an autonym is
> created. Blue links have an implicit link to a Wikidata item. It happens
> all too often, particularly in lists, that a blue link is associated with
> the wrong article. It is reasonable to expect that multiple instances of
> the same list contains links to the same items. With an explicit link it
> becomes easy for bots to compare lists in the different Wikipedias and find
> these differences. It is also possible to compare with Wikidata but that is
> of a secondary relevance..
>
> With red links and blue links linked to Wikidata, the similarity of the
> data on an item with the data in an article indicates a probability that
> the quality in Wikidata is high. Given the huge number of statements on
> items that have no reference it is the best that can be done given the
> enormous amount of data in Wikidata.
>
> Given the policies of Wikidata, there will be references to living people
> that only exist to complete a list. I am adding many Dutch authors at this
> time to complete the award winners of Dutch literature awards. They consist
> of a label in Dutch, the fact of their humanity often a gender indication
> and the fact that they won the award. This pattern is true for many awards
> and, it is an accepted consequence of the Wikidata notability policy. These
> are in effect red links in a Wikipedia.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 27 September 2017 at 05:08, Alessandro Marchetti 
> wrote:
>
> > Personally, I think that if person has an ID on some databases, than it
> > can stay on wikidata. Once in a while some database can be removed if
> > issues are pointed out about their accuracy, but if a database is sound
> and
> > professional, we should use it to fix an item. it could be the same for a
> > databases of sites, buildings or museum items too. Creating a
> > wikipedia-style averaged policy on the issue is much more vague.
> Especially
> > when local pages do not exist, the IDs is the key parameter to start,
> IMHO.
> >
> > It is ok if a wikipedia has only a fraction of relevant "photographers"
> or
> > "painters" or "athletes"... but a database should be complete and
> > objective, it cannot rely on the funnel of what some wikipedia accepts
> and
> > other don't, it would make it more biased and unbalanced importing a
> local
> > bias. What's the point for example if I find an archive of Dutch
> > photographers with IDs to import only those that have a page on nlwiki
> (or
> > maybe enwiki, dewiki, frwiki)? You import all the codes, some items will
> > have wikipedia pages, some will not, what's the real issue on this
> aspect?
> > Being standardized and coherent is more important for an archive.
> >
> > About the quality of the items, this comes as a second step. Some of them
> > will always be less cured, we can say that for a BLP a minimum
> requirement
> > of properties is necessary for example. I can accept that an item with
> just
> > one ID is removed if no additional information can be found. That is, a
> BLP
> > item with a limited number of properties and no platform and just one ID
> > can be proposed for 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The problem is that sources become controversial when there is nothing that
mitigates their validity when other sources indicate that they have been
invalidated. This is of particular relevance when organisations like
Cochrane indicate this. The wholesale import into Wikidata essentially
cements these sources as being valid. As a consequence it has everything to
do with data uploads. Wikidata is not a stamp collection and we do not have
proper means to invalidate. Consider for instance that in Norway a whole
set of substances used in mental health are no longer provided. In the USA
and elsewhere these same substances are subscribed while it is KNOWN that
they are no better than a placebo.

Just copying controversial data into Wikidata is problematic and just
saying that somebody else has to fix it is dodging responsibility.
Thanks,
  Gerard

On 27 September 2017 at 08:42, Peter Southwood  wrote:

> Gerard,
> If someone sees a thing on Wikipedia that needs to be fixed, they can go
> ahead and do something about it. Please refer to the context of my comment.
> If James wants to start a project or task force to clean up economics
> articles, he is free to do so. I don’t think this has anything to do with
> data uploads. If it does, perhaps you could enlighten me.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 12:17 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017
> at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
>
> Hoi,
> There is a responsibility by the people doing massive uploads of data that
> is full of everything under the sun. Given the scale of these imports "so
> fix it" is not appropriate.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 19 September 2017 at 07:14, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > wrote:
>
> > So fix it,
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of James Salsman
> > Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20,
> > 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
> >
> > Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally
> > influenced by Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's
> > Economics article still says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand."
> > Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles
> > are tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R  wrote:
> > >
> > > The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday,
> > > September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
> > >
> > > YouTube stream:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
> > >
> > > As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research.
> > > And, you can watch our past research showcases here
> > >  > Showcase#September_2017>.
> > >
> > >...
> > >
> > > Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control
> > > Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
> > >
> > > As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that
> > > Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However,
> > > Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world,
> > > including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the
> > > potential to shape science. This paper shows that it does.
> > > Incorporating ideas into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas
> > > being used more in the scientific literature. This paper documents
> this in two ways:
> > > correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and
> > > causally through a randomized experiment where we added new
> > > scientific content to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the
> > > correlational relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a
> > > strong shaping effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the
> > > influence of Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of
> > > repositories of scientific knowledge. The results suggest that
> > > increased provision of information in accessible repositories is a
> > > very cost-effective way to advance science. We also find that such
> > > gains are equity-improving, disproportionately benefitting those
> > > without
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> > ---
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When a database is linked to, there are many reasons for linking. One is it
is "authoritative" so the data is of a high quality or it is the standard
bearer in a particular field. Another reason is because there is a clear
operational purpose. Linking to the Open Library for instance has such a
purpose; it allows us to link to free content; it provides the basics for a
mechanism so that Wikipedia readers can read books of an author or read a
particular book.

One reason often neglected is that the other database is actively
maintained and its maintainers collaborate with people at Wikidata to
mutual advantage. This is the case with the people at Open Library, with
the people at OCLC. It is most powerful because past activities have had a
measurable effect in their projects and in Wikidata. From my personal
perspective active collaboration is to be preferred over the authority of
another source.

The reason why both red, blue and black links ought to be linked to
Wikidata is because it enables comparison and evaluation. When red links
are linked to a Wikidata item they will not turn blue whan an autonym is
created. Blue links have an implicit link to a Wikidata item. It happens
all too often, particularly in lists, that a blue link is associated with
the wrong article. It is reasonable to expect that multiple instances of
the same list contains links to the same items. With an explicit link it
becomes easy for bots to compare lists in the different Wikipedias and find
these differences. It is also possible to compare with Wikidata but that is
of a secondary relevance..

With red links and blue links linked to Wikidata, the similarity of the
data on an item with the data in an article indicates a probability that
the quality in Wikidata is high. Given the huge number of statements on
items that have no reference it is the best that can be done given the
enormous amount of data in Wikidata.

Given the policies of Wikidata, there will be references to living people
that only exist to complete a list. I am adding many Dutch authors at this
time to complete the award winners of Dutch literature awards. They consist
of a label in Dutch, the fact of their humanity often a gender indication
and the fact that they won the award. This pattern is true for many awards
and, it is an accepted consequence of the Wikidata notability policy. These
are in effect red links in a Wikipedia.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 27 September 2017 at 05:08, Alessandro Marchetti 
wrote:

> Personally, I think that if person has an ID on some databases, than it
> can stay on wikidata. Once in a while some database can be removed if
> issues are pointed out about their accuracy, but if a database is sound and
> professional, we should use it to fix an item. it could be the same for a
> databases of sites, buildings or museum items too. Creating a
> wikipedia-style averaged policy on the issue is much more vague. Especially
> when local pages do not exist, the IDs is the key parameter to start, IMHO.
>
> It is ok if a wikipedia has only a fraction of relevant "photographers" or
> "painters" or "athletes"... but a database should be complete and
> objective, it cannot rely on the funnel of what some wikipedia accepts and
> other don't, it would make it more biased and unbalanced importing a local
> bias. What's the point for example if I find an archive of Dutch
> photographers with IDs to import only those that have a page on nlwiki (or
> maybe enwiki, dewiki, frwiki)? You import all the codes, some items will
> have wikipedia pages, some will not, what's the real issue on this aspect?
> Being standardized and coherent is more important for an archive.
>
> About the quality of the items, this comes as a second step. Some of them
> will always be less cured, we can say that for a BLP a minimum requirement
> of properties is necessary for example. I can accept that an item with just
> one ID is removed if no additional information can be found. That is, a BLP
> item with a limited number of properties and no platform and just one ID
> can be proposed for deletion, although this should not be an automatism.
> But if you care about an item, you can improve it if it risks to be
> deleted. This is a functional issue, if an item does not tell me if you're
> a man or a woman, your age, your profession... well it is basically few
> things more than a ugly duplicate of a string in the url of the original
> database, so what's its utility? Some more complete output in some basic
> query here and there, maybe, but it should be possible to ask more. The
> point is that this should be considered in the framework of a database and
> its use, a more "functional" than "philosophical" perspective.
>
> P.S. Not sure I have understood the blue and red link request, in some
> minor wiki red link can be linked to wikidata, but why the blue one?
>
>
>
> Il Martedì 26 Settembre 2017 19:07, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is a fallacy to  consider all Wikidata data as one big blob. As it is,
the English Wikipedia accepts particular data from Wikidata and it is
expressed in its articles. Arguably the quality of "Authority control" has
improved as a consequence.

In the same way "unsourced statements" exist in many ways. Consider a list
of award winners. The source typically is with the award for all the people
who received the award. Including for the people who do not have an article
but exist as a red link. In Wikidata they do get their own item and I have
observed that many of these people gain additional statements including
references to for instance VIAF over time.  As more information is added,
the item comes alive and sometimes they are merged with other items. This
has the effect that labels are added and it may mean that links in a
Wikipedia should point to the one article.

Wikidata can be many things. It may become a source for the inclusion of
much more data. What it already can be is a tool that helps maintain the
consistency of the links of Wikipedia. With blue, red and black links
linked to Wikidata, it will be relevant to help out whenever an issue is
found. At this time there is no meaningful effect fixing links in a
Wikipedia.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 27 September 2017 at 08:37, Peter Southwood  wrote:

> Yes, this is one of the reasons why data from Wikidata must only be
> included in a Wikipedia at the discretion of users of that specific
> Wikipedia, like images from Commons.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Sunday, 17 September 2017 10:14 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy
>
> Hoi,
> There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at Wikidata.
> Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and a
> policy that is a mirror image of their policy.
>
> I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the
> best practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data.
> Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it
> concerns BLP.
>
> Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments for
> a more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the
> relevant questions together.
>
> What this approach accomplishes is:
> * better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata
> * an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red
> links to Wikidata items
> * it allows for the Wikidata best practices
> * it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for
> our overall BLP.
>
> What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is
> not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often
> specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that too
> is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating and
> not so much in the endless bickering.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> [1]
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-
> and-its-blp-approach.html
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

[Fæ]

On 27 September 2017 at 10:01, Jane Darnell  wrote:
> We don't need to ban statements when we can just deprecate them with a
> reason. I think the whole point is to allow differing views equal weight,
> based on sourced statements. By allowing statements to reside side-by-side
> like this, it will be easy to see which Wikipedia projects (or sub-areas of
> interest on Wikipedia projects) have the most disputed statements on
> Wikidata. Right now that would be English Wikipedia overall of course, just
> by sheer numbers of pages. However, we are already at a point where you can
> look at specific sub-areas (players of certain national sports for example)
> and look at the controversial statements per Wikipedia. It could be quite
> interesting.
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
>> Actually, I believe that at some point Wikidata will be ready to ban
>> unsourced statements (including sources to other Wikimedia projects unless
>> appropriate), which will automatically solve the BLP issue.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Southwood <
>> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, this is one of the reasons why data from Wikidata must only be
>> > included in a Wikipedia at the discretion of users of that specific
>> > Wikipedia, like images from Commons.
>> > Cheers,
>> > Peter
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
>> > Sent: Sunday, 17 September 2017 10:14 AM
>> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy
>> >
>> > Hoi,
>> > There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at
>> Wikidata.
>> > Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and
>> a
>> > policy that is a mirror image of their policy.
>> >
>> > I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the
>> > best practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data.
>> > Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it
>> > concerns BLP.
>> >
>> > Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments for
>> > a more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the
>> > relevant questions together.
>> >
>> > What this approach accomplishes is:
>> > * better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata
>> > * an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red
>> > links to Wikidata items
>> > * it allows for the Wikidata best practices
>> > * it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for
>> > our overall BLP.
>> >
>> > What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is
>> > not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often
>> > specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that
>> too
>> > is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating
>> and
>> > not so much in the endless bickering.
>> > Thanks,
>> >   GerardM
>> >
>> > [1]
>> > https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-
>> > and-its-blp-approach.html
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > 
>> >
>> > ---
>> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> > http://www.avg.com
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> 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 and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

As per 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

[Jane Darnell]

We don't need to ban statements when we can just deprecate them with a
reason. I think the whole point is to allow differing views equal weight,
based on sourced statements. By allowing statements to reside side-by-side
like this, it will be easy to see which Wikipedia projects (or sub-areas of
interest on Wikipedia projects) have the most disputed statements on
Wikidata. Right now that would be English Wikipedia overall of course, just
by sheer numbers of pages. However, we are already at a point where you can
look at specific sub-areas (players of certain national sports for example)
and look at the controversial statements per Wikipedia. It could be quite
interesting.

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> Actually, I believe that at some point Wikidata will be ready to ban
> unsourced statements (including sources to other Wikimedia projects unless
> appropriate), which will automatically solve the BLP issue.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes, this is one of the reasons why data from Wikidata must only be
> > included in a Wikipedia at the discretion of users of that specific
> > Wikipedia, like images from Commons.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: Sunday, 17 September 2017 10:14 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy
> >
> > Hoi,
> > There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at
> Wikidata.
> > Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and
> a
> > policy that is a mirror image of their policy.
> >
> > I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the
> > best practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data.
> > Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it
> > concerns BLP.
> >
> > Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments for
> > a more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the
> > relevant questions together.
> >
> > What this approach accomplishes is:
> > * better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata
> > * an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red
> > links to Wikidata items
> > * it allows for the Wikidata best practices
> > * it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for
> > our overall BLP.
> >
> > What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is
> > not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often
> > specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that
> too
> > is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating
> and
> > not so much in the endless bickering.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > [1]
> > https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-
> > and-its-blp-approach.html
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > http://www.avg.com
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Actually, I believe that at some point Wikidata will be ready to ban
unsourced statements (including sources to other Wikimedia projects unless
appropriate), which will automatically solve the BLP issue.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Yes, this is one of the reasons why data from Wikidata must only be
> included in a Wikipedia at the discretion of users of that specific
> Wikipedia, like images from Commons.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Sunday, 17 September 2017 10:14 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy
>
> Hoi,
> There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at Wikidata.
> Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and a
> policy that is a mirror image of their policy.
>
> I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the
> best practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data.
> Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it
> concerns BLP.
>
> Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments for
> a more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the
> relevant questions together.
>
> What this approach accomplishes is:
> * better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata
> * an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red
> links to Wikidata items
> * it allows for the Wikidata best practices
> * it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for
> our overall BLP.
>
> What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is
> not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often
> specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that too
> is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating and
> not so much in the endless bickering.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> [1]
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-
> and-its-blp-approach.html
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

[Peter Southwood]

Gerard, 
If someone sees a thing on Wikipedia that needs to be fixed, they can go ahead 
and do something about it. Please refer to the context of my comment. If James 
wants to start a project or task force to clean up economics articles, he is 
free to do so. I don’t think this has anything to do with data uploads. If it 
does, perhaps you could enlighten me.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 12:17 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 
11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

Hoi,
There is a responsibility by the people doing massive uploads of data that is 
full of everything under the sun. Given the scale of these imports "so fix it" 
is not appropriate.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 19 September 2017 at 07:14, Peter Southwood  wrote:

> So fix it,
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of James Salsman
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 
> 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
>
> Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally 
> influenced by Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's 
> Economics article still says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand."
> Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles 
> are tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R  wrote:
> >
> > The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, 
> > September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
> >
> > YouTube stream:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
> >
> > As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research.
> > And, you can watch our past research showcases here 
> >  Showcase#September_2017>.
> >
> >...
> >
> > Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control 
> > Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
> >
> > As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that 
> > Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However, 
> > Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world, 
> > including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the 
> > potential to shape science. This paper shows that it does. 
> > Incorporating ideas into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas 
> > being used more in the scientific literature. This paper documents this in 
> > two ways:
> > correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and 
> > causally through a randomized experiment where we added new 
> > scientific content to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the 
> > correlational relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a 
> > strong shaping effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the 
> > influence of Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of 
> > repositories of scientific knowledge. The results suggest that 
> > increased provision of information in accessible repositories is a 
> > very cost-effective way to advance science. We also find that such 
> > gains are equity-improving, disproportionately benefitting those 
> > without
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

[Peter Southwood]

Yes, this is one of the reasons why data from Wikidata must only be included in 
a Wikipedia at the discretion of users of that specific Wikipedia, like images 
from Commons. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Sunday, 17 September 2017 10:14 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

Hoi,
There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at Wikidata.
Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and a 
policy that is a mirror image of their policy.

I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the best 
practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data.
Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it concerns 
BLP.

Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments for a 
more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the relevant 
questions together.

What this approach accomplishes is:
* better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata
* an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red links 
to Wikidata items
* it allows for the Wikidata best practices
* it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for our 
overall BLP.

What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is not 
realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often specific to one 
or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that too is to be expected. 
After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating and not so much in the 
endless bickering.
Thanks,
  GerardM

[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-and-its-blp-approach.html
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

[Alessandro Marchetti]

The winners of Dutch literature awards are IMHO fine for wikidata. I mean, what 
is the problem, that they are LP? Would be any difference form the relevance 
point of view, if they were asteroids or hamlets or small lakes or skerries on 
a nautical map? Some of them will get a page one day on some wikis, some of 
them will be cited on a list, some ignored... it happens all the times for a 
lot of items. 
We are uploading item for scientific articles, what is the problem with their 
authors? there are also national or institutional database for specific objects 
like work of arts or maps or specific documents, something that will show how 
loose are the borders between structured data of commons and a wikidata 
platform with lots of various items. I am sure we are importing some of them, 
what's the issue with their minor authors if they are still alive? 
Wikidata has also its own development issue to address, I agree, it can't store 
everything, but the solution to this question should not come with simple 
comparison to platforms with different roles and goals. Wikipedias have their 
battle with BLP and spam and so on, but in no way this should disrupt the 
wikidata workflow. Wikidata items have also their standards, the most 
reasonable future threshold here is for me the quality of the source but not 
the presence of the item per se if it has an external, good-quality ID.
If part of the issue here is that someone has some problem that the BLP they 
managed to erase on a local platforms is still on wikidata, honestly I think 
they should get over it focusing on more productive tasks. In any case, every 
wikiplatform can decide to use wikidata for the management of their red link 
and their infoboxes, only if they want to. I don't see the problem.

 

Il Mercoledì 27 Settembre 2017 7:50, Gerard Meijssen 
 ha scritto:
 

 Hoi,
When a database is linked to, there are many reasons for linking. One is it is 
"authoritative" so the data is of a high quality or it is the standard bearer 
in a particular field. Another reason is because there is a clear operational 
purpose. Linking to the Open Library for instance has such a purpose; it allows 
us to link to free content; it provides the basics for a mechanism so that 
Wikipedia readers can read books of an author or read a particular book. 

One reason often neglected is that the other database is actively maintained 
and its maintainers collaborate with people at Wikidata to mutual advantage. 
This is the case with the people at Open Library, with the people at OCLC. It 
is most powerful because past activities have had a measurable effect in their 
projects and in Wikidata. From my personal perspective active collaboration is 
to be preferred over the authority of another source.

The reason why both red, blue and black links ought to be linked to Wikidata is 
because it enables comparison and evaluation. When red links are linked to a 
Wikidata item they will not turn blue whan an autonym is created. Blue links 
have an implicit link to a Wikidata item. It happens all too often, 
particularly in lists, that a blue link is associated with the wrong article. 
It is reasonable to expect that multiple instances of the same list contains 
links to the same items. With an explicit link it becomes easy for bots to 
compare lists in the different Wikipedias and find these differences. It is 
also possible to compare with Wikidata but that is of a secondary relevance..

With red links and blue links linked to Wikidata, the similarity of the data on 
an item with the data in an article indicates a probability that the quality in 
Wikidata is high. Given the huge number of statements on items that have no 
reference it is the best that can be done given the enormous amount of data in 
Wikidata. 

Given the policies of Wikidata, there will be references to living people that 
only exist to complete a list. I am adding many Dutch authors at this time to 
complete the award winners of Dutch literature awards. They consist of a label 
in Dutch, the fact of their humanity often a gender indication and the fact 
that they won the award. This pattern is true for many awards and, it is an 
accepted consequence of the Wikidata notability policy. These are in effect red 
links in a Wikipedia.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 27 September 2017 at 05:08, Alessandro Marchetti  wrote:

Personally, I think that if person has an ID on some databases, than it can 
stay on wikidata. Once in a while some database can be removed if issues are 
pointed out about their accuracy, but if a database is sound and professional, 
we should use it to fix an item. it could be the same for a databases of sites, 
buildings or museum items too. Creating a wikipedia-style averaged policy on 
the issue is much more vague. Especially when local pages do not exist, the IDs 
is the key parameter to start, IMHO.
It is ok if a wikipedia has only a fraction of