Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Hoi, I do not care for "policies" that are only there for some and not for others. I do not care to be told that I am wrong because of the policy and at the same time to notice that policies are arbitrarily enforced. This is not one such situation. One person who has the power deleted many items

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Hoi, What is trivial. I find that the disappointment in what our policies bring us amounts to a lot. Effectively it is only who you are that determines what you get away with. The quality of arguments are easily dismissed with "I have a different opinion" (that is NOT an argument. When you look

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Why were we even talking about stewards overruling local admins? I don't see that suggested in any of the emails above, and obviously it would be totally inappropriate. But on the whole I agree, Vito. There are more productive ways of dealing with this. Adrian Raddatz On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

On 6 August 2016 at 07:42, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > Andy Mabbett писал 2016-08-04 22:45: >> >> On 1 August 2016 at 01:05, Vi to wrote: >> There is no community action to overrule. The deletion was done by >> single, involved admin, with no

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

I never loved authority principle, nor I do in this context. I didn't reply because I find this thread has turned into rant too many emails ago, while this list cannot produce consensus for any project. But well, here's my reply: Wikidata has an active community, which has a series of means to

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Hoi, You make a mistake. You are talking to one of the most influential Wikimedians. Andy is professional in the width and the breath and quality of what he does as a Wikimedian. He is quite capable of understanding policy and he is quite capable of expressing his well founded opinion. The

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Andy Mabbett писал 2016-08-04 22:45: On 1 August 2016 at 01:05, Vi to wrote: Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out of our mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete ^^), same for the staffers. No chances to

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

On 1 August 2016 at 01:05, Vi to wrote: > Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out of our > mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete ^^), same > for the staffers. No chances to overrule a community for such trivial >

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Thanks, Vito & All! Scott On Jul 31, 2016 5:05 PM, "Vi to" wrote: > [Note: I'm using the last message for a cumulative reply] > > Wikidata has 16k active users, 66 admins, 3 'crats, with a pretty active > community. This thread has turned into a weird mix of

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

If, as Jimbo Wales' wrote the purpose of Wikipedia involves imagining "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.—Jimbo Wales [3]

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Hoi, There were lists of Wikimania talks for the Wikimanias. So these items were not standing alone they were in context and THAT is what makes it attractive to have them. We do have Wikimanias as items and on there own they do not provide information. Looking at them from only WIkidata you do not

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Hi! > Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What > was done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion. I wonder whether Wikidata is really the best platform to host Wikimania talks and information about it. While I have no doubt these are excellent

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

That's a fair assessment of the situation. I can understand the other side of the conversation as well; it is somewhat debatable whether or not the items actually fill a structural need for the conference page, though I would suggest that any data that can be included on an item presents a need to

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Wikimedia Commons will have its own structured data repository soon, and it will need to tackle this BLP problem also. Wikidata really needs a BLP policy; then it is easier to trust Wikidata with the grey area. Wikimedians will be worried that while Gerard's intention is noble, when they have an

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Gerard's point that the items are typically found in Wikimedia Commons I think is key. If the item is part of a sister project to Wikidata then it has a corresponding place on Wikidata. Unless I misunderstand the interoperability and mission of Wikidata. Also: I am not a fan of deleting

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

The WMF does not engage in such matters, this is a community issue. And given the unwillingness of admins to act in this case, I think a discussion on the project chat on whether or not these items are notable makes a lot more sense than continued discussion on the administrators' noticeboard (or

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Hello, Sorry, but what has "the new head of the WMF" to do with the community matters of Wikidata? Greetings, Sjoerd de Bruin sjoerddebr...@me.com > Op 31 jul. 2016, om 19:18 heeft Info WorldUniversity > het volgende geschreven: > > Thanks Andy for

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Thanks Andy for helping focus these developing process questions. What role could the new head of the WMF play here in positive regards? Regards, Scott On Jul 31, 2016 10:09 AM, "Andy Mabbett" wrote: > On 31 July 2016 at 16:43, Adrian Raddatz

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

On 31 July 2016 at 16:43, Adrian Raddatz wrote: > my personal opinion is that these items are > fine as well. But (and here's the important thing), it's not a big deal > either way. The site will continue, and this especially should not be a time > for trying to force an

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Daniel and All, That would be wise of Wikipedia/WMF (and pretty easy for Wikidata too), j'pense. Regards, Scott On Jul 31, 2016 9:10 AM, "Andy Mabbett" wrote: > On 31 July 2016 at 16:25, Daniel Kinzler > wrote: > > > So you think that

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

On 31 July 2016 at 16:25, Daniel Kinzler wrote: > So you think that for every relevant conference, all talks and speakers should > automatically be considered relevant? Does the same aregument apply to all > courses and theachers at all relevant universities and

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

On 31 July 2016 at 15:11, wrote: > the wikimania site is not a reliable source reflecting on what happened. The > published proceedings of Wikimania would be an RS. The videos *are* the published proceedings of Wikimania. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

On 31 July 2016 at 14:44, wrote: > I looked quickly at AN and it seems the issue is about creating items about > Wikimedians who dont clearly meet the notability criteria. No; the deleted items include: * Items about talks given at Wikimania * Items about the people who gave

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Hoi, There are several things at play. First, Wikimania and its talks will find its place in Wikidata because typically much of the papers, presentations and registrations will be found in Commons. So they will be registered anyway. Second, this thread is also about the way our policies are

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

I normally don't (and probably should not) get into this little squabbles, but I am getting a bit weary always reading through me... so let me see if I can help bring this all together in the spirit of goodwill... I think that instead of using the term 'relevant' that Wikidata should instead

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Am 31.07.2016 um 17:04 schrieb Gerard Meijssen: > Hoi, > I am not to judge what conferences will be deemed relevant for an item in > Wikidata. When a conference is relevant, it is the talks and particularly the > registrations of the talks, the papers and the presentations that make the >

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Hoi, I am not to judge what conferences will be deemed relevant for an item in Wikidata. When a conference is relevant, it is the talks and particularly the registrations of the talks, the papers and the presentations that make the conference relevant after the fact. Is Wikimania relevant?

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Am 31.07.2016 um 16:28 schrieb Gerard Meijssen: > Hoi, > Really? It is a source for the talks that were given. It contains the papers > that were the basis for granting a spot on the program. To clarify - would the same apply for any talk at any conference? Or do you think Wikimania schould be

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Hoi, Really? It is a source for the talks that were given. It contains the papers that were the basis for granting a spot on the program. Thanks, GerardM On 31 July 2016 at 16:11, wrote: > the wikimania site is not a reliable source reflecting on what happened. > The

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

the wikimania site is not a reliable source reflecting on what happened. The published proceedings of Wikimania would be an RS. On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:00 Gerard Meijssen, wrote: > Hoi > Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What was > done

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Hoi Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What was done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion. There is a policy about that and as a policy it failed miserably. The admins failed to take the existing policy seriously and consequently the notions of

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

I looked quickly at AN and it seems the issue is about creating items about Wikimedians who dont clearly meet the notability criteria. Recreating items about users after they haved objected, is dangerous ground to be walking on Wikidata needs an accepted and enforced BLP. I assume these items

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Hoi, John it was documented on the Administrators noticeboard. The "discussion" ran for over two weeks. I feel no need to identify the admin, he is typically the kind of person I greatly admire. If anything I object to the way admins do not take responsibility for what happens. If anything the way

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Which items, which admin, etc. A little context would help. If the items were appropriate, wait for the community to agree with you before recreating them. On 31 Jul 2016 17:50, "Gerard Meijssen" wrote: > Hoi. > Many items were created for Wikimania talks. They were

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

Konyol mu lah Pada 31 Jul 2016 18.09, "Gerard Meijssen" menulis: > Hoi, > Never heard about a "deflag". What is it and what does it do? > > NB Wikidata is in many ways different from MediaWiki. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 31 July 2016 at 12:59, Federico Leva