Re: [Wikimedia-l] Be the change you want to see (was: WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive)

2019-05-15 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Asaf thank you very much. This response of yours helps build bridges.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 03:17, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Speaking as a (very) longtime member of this mailing list, and one who is
> carefully observing it for a few years now as a volunteer list
> co-administrator:
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:56 AM Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
> > I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of good
> > suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a sound
> > mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time and
> > movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content. And yet
> > it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most worthwhile
> > constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook because
> this
> > list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when emails are
> > written with such overt passive aggression.
> >
> > I call it out because if we want people to participate on this list, the
> > unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most active
> > participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will not get
> > acknowledged or answered.
> >
>
> I am not sure the causality here runs in the direction you describe.  It's
> true that this list had some aggressive, even vulgar participants in the
> past, and that some senior staff members, as well as board members, have
> left the list in protest.  Personally, I think that was a mistake on their
> part: to improve the list atmosphere, you model good behavior yourself, and
> you call upon the rest of the list -- the "silent majority" -- to call out
> bad behavior and enforce some participation standards (as, indeed, I and my
> co-moderators have been doing since we took over).
>
> By senior people's departing this list, and no longer requiring staff to be
> on this list, a strong signal was sent that this is not a venue crucial to
> listen to, and that, coupled with the decreasing frequency of WMF responses
> to legitimate volunteer inquiries and suggestions, had a *powerful*
> chilling effect on the willingness of most volunteers to engage here.
> Especially when, as you say, they were able to get better engagement on
> Facebook and other channels, despite the serious shortcomings of
> accountability on those channels (immutable archiving, searchability,
> access to anonymous volunteers, etc.)
>
> Yes, this list has also seen some pseudonymous critics whose questions may
> have been inconvenient or troublesome to address.  Yet I think the
> accountable thing to do would have been to respond, however briefly, to
> prevent the sealioning and sanctimonious posts that filled the list -- and,
> I am sure, greatly annoyed and demotivated many subscribers.  Even a
> response stating WMF chooses not to respond to a certain question, or not
> to dig up certain data, would have been better than the stony silence that
> has become the all-too-common stance for WMF on this list.
>
> As you know, I also work for WMF (though I am writing this in my volunteer
> capacity, and out of my care for the well-being of this list).  While I
> have never shied away from responding on this list, I have on occasion been
> scolded (internally) for attempting to answer volunteer queries to the best
> of my knowledge, for "outstepping my remit" or interfering in someone
> else's remit.  I have taken this to heart, and accordingly no longer try to
> respond to queries such as Fae's (which in this case I find a perfectly
> reasonable question, meriting an answer).  Several past attempts by me to
> ping appropriate senior staff on questions on this list (or on talk pages)
> have also met with rebuke, so I have ceased those as well.
>
> For these reasons I do not accept this wholesale blaming of this list's
> subscribers on the difficulty having meaningful conversations here:
>
> But if we want to see staff members more actively
> > participating here then those long standing individuals need to really
> > thing about the tone in which they engage here, particularly those who do
> > so most often. If that does not change, this list will continue to
> languish
> > and those few staff members who continue to engage here will slowly
> > disappear. This now increasingly perennial topic keeps coming up and my
> > fear is that it will on go away through the increasing abandonment this
> > list faces.
> >
>
> It is WMF that is not behaving collaboratively here.  And it is within
> WMF's power to change it.  C-levels, the ED, and other managers at WMF
> could all decide to participate more actively in this list; to respond to
> questions or delegate the answering to their subordinates, who are awaiting
> their cue; and indeed, they could themselves make more use of this list as
> a sounding board, a consultation room, and a reserve of experience and
> diverse context.  They can be the change they (and you, and me) would like
> to see.
>
> Perhaps 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing 1Lib1Ref (1Bib1Ref) in May 2019!

2019-04-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Well if this was not a Wiki, I could agree with you. However in a Wiki we
need to be complete, we need to understand an issue and work towards a
solution. Your assertion that the community "is not fixing that problem and
indeed is unable to fix that problem" is therefore an assertion that is
best used elsewhere. To a large extend, the notion some have: "everything
needs to be sourced" reads better as "everything should be sourced", much
more reasonable. Such a difference allows for requiring sources when an
issue is controversial.

Having said that a lot of work is being done and we have had our first
articles changed because the facts supported by citations are invalid; the
sources were retracted. Now that is exactly where we need our community to
understand the implications. Science is not immutable, it is not an opinion
and when thing are untrue, our articles need to reflect this. The
mechanisms that make this possible require technology, we need people like
librarians that understand this as part of our community, because at this
time many people do not appreciate science and its processes.

And by the way, I do understand the scale of this issue. It is why I spend
a large amount of time adding scientists, scholarly papers to Wikidata.
Particularly on those subjects that I think are important where there is a
lot of misinformation, where points of view, including political points of
view are not supported by science, better where science indicates that
those points of view are wrong. In addition I add those scientists that are
"in the news"
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 08:38, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gerard
>
> Thank you for explaining to me what it is that I fail to understand.  In
> the same spirit, let me adopt for once your own, somewhat assertive
> terminology, to explain to you what you do not understand, namely the scale
> of the problem: the major Wikipedia projects have millions of unreferenced
> or inadequately referenced articles, including thousands which are
> biographies of living people.  What you do not understand is that the
> community on which you place such emphasis has created that problem, is not
> fixing that problem and indeed is unable to fix that problem.  You also do
> not understand the simple arithmetic that the collaboration with librarians
> equally does not and cannot fix that problem.
>
> In future, please do not say "you do not understand X" when what you mean
> is "I disagree with you about X".
>
> JPS
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 8:54 PM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The thing you fail to understand is how much of what we do is done by a
> > community. What we need is collaboration with the world of libraries. It
> is
> > embodied by librarians and yes, it is important that they are on our
> side.
> > To be on our side, they need to know Wikipedia, what we are doing in
> > Wikidata with scholarly papers. They need to know, be involved in order
> to
> > help their clients understand the Internet and Wikipedia. Their clients
> are
> > or may become Wikimedians.
> >
> > So yes, we are dabbling with AI to find where citations are most needed.
> We
> > need to work on including science in Wikidata so that its references may
> be
> > used in a scalable way. A way that allows us to check Wikipedia for the
> > retractions we are finally including in Wikidata. The technology may
> become
> > available to us but we need people who understand it, live it. Librarians
> > are great at that.
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> > On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 19:37, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Jake
> > >
> > > Thanks for that, but I think we need to preserve a sense of proportion
> > > here.  According to a recent WMF Research finding, see
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/03/can-machine-learning-uncover-wikipedias-missing-citation-needed-tags/
> > > ,
> > > <
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/03/can-machine-learning-uncover-wikipedias-missing-citation-needed-tags/
> ,
> > >
> > > "one
> > > out of four articles in English Wikipedia does not have any references
> at
> > > all".  That' something like 1.5 million articles, and maybe 3 million
> > > across all languages.  Your report suggests that around 6000 articles
> > were
> > > updated: that's at best 0.2% of the backlog.  At this rate it will take
> > > about 250 years to clear it.  Perhaps a new approach is neede

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing 1Lib1Ref (1Bib1Ref) in May 2019!

2019-04-28 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
The thing you fail to understand is how much of what we do is done by a
community. What we need is collaboration with the world of libraries. It is
embodied by librarians and yes, it is important that they are on our side.
To be on our side, they need to know Wikipedia, what we are doing in
Wikidata with scholarly papers. They need to know, be involved in order to
help their clients understand the Internet and Wikipedia. Their clients are
or may become Wikimedians.

So yes, we are dabbling with AI to find where citations are most needed. We
need to work on including science in Wikidata so that its references may be
used in a scalable way. A way that allows us to check Wikipedia for the
retractions we are finally including in Wikidata. The technology may become
available to us but we need people who understand it, live it. Librarians
are great at that.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 19:37, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jake
>
> Thanks for that, but I think we need to preserve a sense of proportion
> here.  According to a recent WMF Research finding, see
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/03/can-machine-learning-uncover-wikipedias-missing-citation-needed-tags/
> ,
> 
> "one
> out of four articles in English Wikipedia does not have any references at
> all".  That' something like 1.5 million articles, and maybe 3 million
> across all languages.  Your report suggests that around 6000 articles were
> updated: that's at best 0.2% of the backlog.  At this rate it will take
> about 250 years to clear it.  Perhaps a new approach is needed -- WMF
> researchers are looking into AI.
>
> JPS
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:27 PM Jake Orlowitz  wrote:
>
> > Librarians and library lovers,
> >
> > Next month from May 15th to June 5th we will be joining together around
> the
> > world to make Wikipedia more reliable.  You can participate in #1Lib1Ref
> by
> > simply adding a citation to Wikipedia's content.
> >
> > That's all we ask and imagine: a world in which every librarian (or
> > archivist, reference professional, and scholar) adds 1 more reference to
> > Wikipedia.
> >
> > This is the fourth year of the #1Lib1Ref campaign and our second time
> > running it in May, when it's more convenient for the southern hemisphere.
> > You can learn about this year's January campaign too in our recently
> > released learnings report.
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Library/1Lib1Ref/Lessons/2019
> >
> > Full resources and guides for participating in May are available on the
> > http://1lib1ref.org campaign website.
> >
> > The campaign will be fully tracked with daily metrics and leaderboard
> > updates.  You can make sure your contribution is counted by using the
> > Program and Events Dashboard for your event, institution, or region.
> >
> > Login to start a new event or join up with an existing group for the May
> > Campaign here:
> >
> >
> https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/campaigns/1lib1ref_may_2019/programs
> >
> > Please tell your library and library-loving friends about #1Lib1Ref in
> > May.  We need everyone's help to make Wikipedia more reliable!
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Jake Orlowitz
> >
> > Head of the Wikipedia Library
> >
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > wikipedialibr...@wikimedia.org
> >
> > @Wikilibrary
> >
> > P.S. Don’t worry if you can’t make it for the May campaign, as now
> 1Lib1Ref
> > receives annual support and you can always reach out for assistance any
> > time of the year.
> > ___
> > 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] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

2019-04-27 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Now that the Wikidatafication of Commons allows for "depicts", there is
plenty to do. It will make it easier to find what is on Commons, it will
hugely increase the relevance of Commons beyond the Wikimedia Foundation
and within, it allows people to find illustrations in their own language


On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 15:09, Dennis During  wrote:

> It would be nice if more Commons images HAD proper location and context
> info. As it is experts are often needed to identify meaningful content and
> categories. Those tasks are not the equivalent of minor copyediting, not
> that proofreading is a minor matter.
>
> IOW, Commons *needs* more collaborative effort.
> ___
> 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] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

2019-04-19 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
"your time and effort" is for those other people to waste. It is for them
to decide what value they derive from spending it in this way. "our
donations", donations is what donors offer. Once they have donated, it
becomes the money of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is not our donations, it
is not even our money.

Then consider the cost, to the Wikimedia Foundation. It is largely the cost
of serving the content, the management of the servers. In the big picture
it is not much, it is also very much a question on the inclusivity of the
Wikimedia Foundation that enables the continued existence of these
projects. With a Wikipedia community as a movement we will be excluding
others as we expel volunteers who are considered redundant because they do
not fit our image.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 18:20, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Peter
>
> Our brand is already on it in these cases, and yes it would be sending a
> > message - "We want you to risk your time and effort on our projects but
> we
> > may later decide to discard everything you worked for"
> >
>
> I don;t think "discard" is right.  The message would be "... but if it
> doesn't work out then we won't continue to waste your time and effort and
> our donations indefinitely". That's realistic.
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Jennifer,
So you did not say it because you did not do the researce but when a
minority of our community does not identify themselves as "Wikipedians" it
does not matter. Sorry, but that is EXACTLY what I said. What you indicate
is that a minority may be ignored. Why else do "the research" but to
provide grounds to change "the brand" anyway?

As to problems with projects, Wikipedia has its problems with citations as
you indicate in another mail. At Wikidata a whole lot of effort is ongoing
to include items for sources used for citations in all the Wikipedias. At
the same time there is new functionality to find/focus on those instances
where citations are lacking using AI. At some stage these two developments
will meet. We know about other issues in Wikipedias and as you may know,
Wikipedians are stubborn, uncooperative and reject what others have to
offer.

To put it bluntly, the majority smothers the minority, prevents others from
bringing new developments to a state where it obviously improves on the
old. Past experience shows there will always be a vocal group from the
majority preventing change.

Wikipedia as a brand will prove destructive.
Thanks,
  GerardM



On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 18:16, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gerard
>
> >
> > So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not?
> >
> > I didn't say that at all.  I merely suggest that the reality is that the
> majority of volunteers take a certain view of themselves (that they are
> Wikpedians first and foremost ), and that the ones who take a different
> view of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in the
> minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
> not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it is,
> that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state that
> the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-18 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not?
Thanks,
GerardM

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 08:32, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> >
> > You can't be a member of "The Wikipedia Movement".
> >
> >
> I suggest that this claimed impossibility is in fact exactly what the vast
> majority of the volunteers believe that they are.
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

2019-04-16 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Fine. Obviously we disagree on what we read in the same text. Now what
would be the "correct way" to address a perceived sense of superiority ?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 11:24, Dan Garry (Deskana)  wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:14, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Thank you for your sense of superiority..
>
>
> It's not helpful to sarcastically "thank" someone like this. I don't find
> Chris to have had a sense of superiority in his email, but even if he had,
> this is not the correct way to address it.
>
> Dan
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

2019-04-16 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Thank you for your sense of superiority.. the views on this list are "easy
to have"and "not the big, difficult questions".

These are some big difficult questions I can come up with:

   - how will we deal with the existing bias that is Anglo-American..
   - how will we deal with the existing bias that is articles in Wikipedia,
   our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge..
   - how will we deal with the 6% error rates that is in Wikipedia lists

There are more issues but, hey you should not overload one email and deal
with multiple issues.. So lets focus on what *you* consider the big
difficult questions making this rebranding issue not so relevant..
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:53, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> In many ways yes - not that branding isnt important, but these two
> conversations are a great example of people engaging with the narrow
> questions that are easy to have a view on, and not the big, difficult
> questions.
>
> (Though also, there is nothing more interesting on the working group email
> lists - the summaries are high level and the documents are high level
> because that's where we're at)
>
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 21:09 James Salsman,  wrote:
>
> > I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion,
> > and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
> > like to have a more substantive discussion:
> >
> > (1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and
> > requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and
> > all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents
> > or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
> >
> > (2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several people
> > involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking
> > at length for additional participation (e.g.
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ=23m and
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ=30m et seq.) To be
> > honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from
> > working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the
> > meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If
> > there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can
> > people use off-list emails instead?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jim
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-14 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Yes there is a noticeable difference. Costs for changing websites,
stationary and the like are not budgeted for. Given that budgets do not
account for such nonsense it is not an "easy" test. It is also not a test
because when the test proves negative you double the cost.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 10:45, Ed Saperia  wrote:

> Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start calling
> itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s any
> noticeable difference?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers  wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I agree Galder!
> >>
> >> I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw
> people
> >> to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have
> >> some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting
> >> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very
> >> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors.
> >> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
> >> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that
> >> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
> >>
> >
> > Dear Rebecca,
> > Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> > I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
> > currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy
> ecosystem
> > of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that chapters,
> > affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for the
> > larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> > improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
> >
> > Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> > infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> > geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to supporting
> > existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We do
> > this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> > effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
> > participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not directly
> > editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> > building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia group/
> > structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who work
> > largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work we
> > all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are not,
> in
> > themselves, the end goal.
> >
> > So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read all
> of
> > the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding: the
> > several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
> > discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we
> need
> > to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
> > knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
> > Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance, with
> an
> > easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
> > becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out,
> and
> > be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the Wikipedia
> > Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the
> > Foundation provides, exactly?
> >
> > If the answer is that this change will definitely increase participation
> in
> > the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the
> > various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger
> audience,
> > then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to
> > imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the
> > Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia
> > participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
> >
> > -- Phoebe
> > ___
> > 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
When I worked on Ottoman history in Wikidata (I will get back to it again)
Catalan was one of the best resources. Thank you :) If you want me to I can
share my work/your work on your wikipedia.
Thanks,
GerardM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM#Ottoman_Turkey

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 20:21, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Well, that Wikidata problem happens on English Wikipedia. Some Wikipedias
> (Basque, Catalan, even French) are embracing Wikidata extensively.
>
> And there's the branding issue. Maybe Wikipedia is not THE future.
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
The basic assumption of Wikipedia is the article. When we are truly to
reach out and take a next step, it has to be more than Wikipedia, more than
obsessing with articles. People are not looking for articles, they are
looking for information on subjects. Information on subjects may be
delivered in the format of articles but it may also be delivered in the
format of books data presentations and images.

This obsession of Wikipedia being the objective of all of that we do, the
format that is to apply to everything we do is holding us back. A few
examples; we do not officially present the data of Wikidata in a format
that is useful to humans. Such formats have existed for years in the format
of Reasonator and recently in the format of Scholia. Compare that to the
bickering about including Wikidata in Wikipedia and it is obvious how
Wikipedia is holding us back. Several volunteers used data from many
sources and created a wealth of Wikipedia articles that would otherwise
have hardly any at all. The verdict: it is not by a community and
consequently it cannot be maintained. No research has been done, no
outreach happened. It is a success story that does not fit the mold and is
ignored. Within the movement there is a general agreement that the gender
gap affects us all. It is why we celebrate the success of the diminishment
of this gap and rightfully so as it is pervasive and recognisable in all of
our projects. It is however not our biggest bias. Our biggest bias is the
AngloAmerican bias.

The only way out of it I see is in a change of outlook. Our outlook needs
to be less Wikipedia and its articles and more about what DO we have on a
subject and expose them in any form we have. Expose them together with all
the organisations that have a compatible outlook. When we actively engage
people who seek information by asking them to expand on what they seek, we
will slowly but surely  increase the amount of information we hold and have
this information in all of our languages.

This different approach can happily coexist with our Wikipedia bias. It
does not take much to get it of the ground. What it does take is the
realisation that Wikimedia is NOT Wikipedia. This is necessary for this
experiment to start..
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 17:56, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> On Sat., Apr. 13, 2019, 2:27 a.m. Gerard Meijssen, <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Wikipedia is indeed clearly the core global brand. The notion that
> > Wikidata will "never match Wikipedia whatever its future success" is a
> sad
> > argument.
> >
>
> You misunderstand me. I do not mean in importance: Wikidata will surely be
> equally important to knowledge sharing, and more pervasive, though the two
> are hard to compare and not independent.
>
> I mean purely in the memetics and brand sense: the history of humanity will
> keep a mention of Wikipedia for centuries, should we persist that long.
> Its success, elegance, and defiance of previous assumptions remains in many
> places the dominant shorthand for crowdsourcing, period; for editable
> websites;  the standard visual template for reference works.
>
> Other projects that follow in those footsteps, even if they become much
> more influential or pervasive, will not surpass the deep and broad appeal
> of the original.
>
> 
>
> That said !
>
> Aside from recognizing confusion around 'Wikimedia' that we can reduce, I
> reckon a central
>  branding focus should be making our messaging and core interactions
> (including Wikidata and Commons meta pages) truly interlingual.  This takes
> a combination of software, translators, and brand focus.  It is the obvious
> way to meaningfully amplify reach and participation in underrepresented
> regions: literally underrepresented because the projects don't seem to
> speak to or to know how to hear from them; and because of iterative network
> effects of those on projects inviting their friends, enemies, and
> colleagues.
>
> Rather than the somewhat zero sum efforts to change branding in a way that
> shifts around community expectations (and may not attract any more
> contributors), a branding effort that enhances cross language connection
> and reminds people of the global bounty of the projects, would be an
> updraft for all.
>
> Run translation drives every month, posting banners in other languages on
> each project inviting participation. ;). Revel in the experimental
> brokenness of multilingual-talk-page tools and invite pan-language web
> designers to.come play + iterate with us, w a bit UN and translator-network
> campaign.
>
> We don't have to keep repainting the sign on our house, we can now
> relandscape the entire neighborhood.
>
> SJ
>
> p.s. if Commons hates 'Wikicommons' we can vid up and return t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Thank you for your well argued point of view. I followed the statistics as
provided by Erik Zachte for a long time and the trend was slowly but surely
where based on the statistics of Wikipedia alone English Wikipedia traffic
moved slowly but surely from over fifty to under fifty percent. Then there
is traffic from everything else..

As to accounting for the spending of the Wikimedia Foundation itself,
MediaWiki is developed for Wikipedia. Development of Wikidata is done by
the German chapter.  So spending of over 50% for English Wikipedia is
better than plausible. When new features are introduced, they fit English
Wikipedia perfectly. There is no indication whatsoever that features are
developed specifically for the small Wikipedias. It is easy enough to argue
that many of the "must have" Wikipedia features are an impediment for the
development of the small Wikipedias and as  Research is focused on English
as well, there is not much to say otherwise.

Now, please move on and consider the other points I made.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 10:55, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> > We know our statistics and English Wikipedia is not 50% of our traffic.
> It
> > is where over 50% of our resources are spend.
> >
>
> Do we?
>
> Based on what?
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Wikipedia is indeed clearly the core global brand. The notion that Wikidata
will "never match Wikipedia whatever its future success" is a sad argument.
Use some hindsight and compare Wikipedia and its impact with Wikidata at
the same age, do the same for Commons. It is also a useless argument
because success comes in different shapes and forms and we should foster
success and value where we find it. The biggest issue is not to be
overwhelmed with the complacency that comes with what is mistaken as the
success of English Wikipedia. Complacency because English Wikipedia could
be much better.

We know our statistics and English Wikipedia is not 50% of our traffic. It
is where over 50% of our resources are spend. It is maintained by a bias
for everything related to what we do in English. We promote Wikipedia as a
tool for university students and its focus is the USA. The reality is that
we need high school students to write articles in most of our other
languages. Oh and do not rely on research; Wikipedia research is biased
because it is almost exclusively English Wikipedia what is studied. Even
when it is not, it relies on studies with the same bias.

When we truly want to be more international, we should focus on raising
money outside of the AngloSaxon countries. The money is there, just
consider known statistics. Spend everything that is raised "elsewhere",
elsewhere and add significant bias where we have the best 'return on
investment'. NB it is my business to know fundraising and we under perform
in the Netherlands by a large margin. There is no "need" to change our
really successful fundraising except when we use it as an instrument to
attract attention for our brands.

Both Wikidata and Commons are English. It is not that there are no projects
that use other languages within these projects but it is dominantly English
in the same way Wikipedia is dominantly English. Giving examples of these
projects is mistaking exceptions for the rule. Case in point; show me all
the Wikidata editors and show me those editors that do not communicate in
English.. show me their success.

When this notion that Wikimedia is English is to be countered, consider how
we can share our resources. For me the best example how we miss the boat is
found in Wikidata; we were promised an official replacement of Listeria.
Listeria is great but not good enough. The promise has not been kept, we
are still pissing in the wind and manually updating lists in the Wikipedias.

Please let us have a hard look at the efficiency at which we "share the sum
of all knowledge". Once the giddiness has left the house, let us work in
earnest and expand the 50% percent of our traffic and serve the underserved.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 06:38, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Wikipedia is clearly the core global brand.
> It also has a prominence in the history of the Web and internetworked
> society that Wikidata, whatever its future success, will never match.
>
> Internally, as all have noted, the dilemma is that it is associated with
> the focus  and policies of one project.  So if we shift towards calling
> things "Wikipedia Foo" instead of "Wikimedia Foo", we will have to go out
> of our way to expand its connotations.  That takes an internal campaign: w
> thoughtful & responsive answers to common questions /concerns.
>
> SJ
>
> P.S. Personally, while these recs encourage keeping the old project names,
> I think Wikipictionary, Wikipews, Wikipedanta and Wikiperversity have a
> chance of becoming even more popular with new readers & contributors.
>
> --
>
> On Fri., Apr. 12, 2019, 11:33 p.m. Andrew Lih, 
> wrote:
>
> > Responses below:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:07 PM Strainu  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I would argue that, on the contrary, for the outside word we were less
> > > Wikipedia 10 years ago. Around that time there was still hope that
> > > Wikibooks or Wikinews could still be successful, at least in some
> > > languages. New language versions of other projects than Wikipedia were
> > > created relatively regularly and many people who started with
> > > Wikipedia moved on to maintain and develop other projects. Today the
> > > Foundation has all but given up on all other projects except the 3 you
> > > mention below (and, to some extent, Wikisource), Google is taking data
> > > from Wikipedia (but prefers other dictionaries instead of Wikt) and
> > > people barely hide a polite yawn when you talk about the other
> > > projects.
> > >
> >
> > For the record, I was one of the earliest skeptics of Wikinews and was
> one
> > of the first accredited Wikinewsies in 2005. I believed the best way to
> > critically understand its flaws was to actually immerse myself in it. I
> > quickly saw it was not viable, and memorialized my thoughts about it for
> > Harvard Nieman Lab (below). I say this not to brag, but simply to say
> that
> > the "hope" of that era may be overhyped. :)
> >
> >
> >
> 

[Wikimedia-l] The Wikimedia search engine, a thought experiment

2019-04-10 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Our projects, our organisation is fractured. In the perception of many we
are Wikipedia but in actuality there is no Wikipedia, there are over 180
Wikipedias. There are projects other than Wikipedia but for all kinds of
reasons they are not known, as a brand they have little recognition. At
this time we are considering how we can be our best in the future. One
recommendation of a marketing organisation is to rename the whole lot and
become "Wikipedia"..

Another approach is to strengthen the "Wikimedia" brand. This proposal aims
to achieve exactly that.

It has been said all too often: "sharing in the sum of all knowledge.." Our
knowledge is fractured like our projects and  in a "Wikimedia search
engine" we change our focus from article/text centred to subject centred.
This brings the result from our projects together in one display. Like
other search engines, results are presented in a tabbed display. Obviously
it will have images from Commons, data presentations from Wikidata,
articles from Wikipedias, search results from "your" Wikipedia, dictionary
content from Wiktionary books from Wikisource.. All the components we have,
it is just a matter of sticking things together. This is not hard.

In the 2030 proposals we aim to collaborate widely. So what could it mean
for libraries.. Why not have a tab where you can search *your* library and
reserve a book. Why not point to OpenLibrary as well for books available
for reading. So what could it mean for science. Obviously all the
references used in every Wikipedia are known. We know about the public data
in ORCiD and for all the scientists involved we have a Scholia. For all the
publications we have a Scholia. For all the universities we have a Scholia.
For every subject studied in academia we have a Scholia. In a next
generation of Scholia the information is localised.

The "Wikimedia search engine is not only about consuming information, it is
also a Wiki. People can sign on using their Wikimedia profile or a profile
of one of the organisations we collaborate with. In this way a scientist
may trigger an update from ORCiD and update his Scholia .. he may even
update his ORCiD data from Crossref if there are new publications.  When a
word, a concept is not known we will ask to provide us with the necessary
meta data to possibly link it to known. When a word for a subject in a
language is unknown, we ask people to link it to words for the same concept
in an other language improving search. We enable people interested in
pictures to upload their pictures in order to improve our coverage of any
and all subjects.

The best part.. We do not have to provide all of this in one go. Our
strategy aims for 2030. Having said that, I am sure that most of this can
be functioning within a few months.
Thanks,
  GerardM
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
* The global brand will make it even easier to forget who we are at the
Foundation. This is exactly what is to be prevented. The existing bias is
already too big.
* Not necessarily sure but it is inevitable because you say that is who we
are.

When we are to do better in our mission, we should be subject driven not
article driven.
Thanks but no thanks,
   GerardM

On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 18:17, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> From what I know:
> * The global brand won't stop Wikidata being Wikidata.
> * Wikimedia Russia won't necessarily become Wikipedia Russia
>
> Seddon
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 4:56 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Think of Wikipedia Russia convincing Russian government that they are not
> > really Wikipedia Russia.
> > 
> > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of
> > Benjamin Ikuta 
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 4:21 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
> >
> >
> >
> > What real life problems would there be?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> > galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more
> > problems than it solves, specially in places where identifying ourselves
> > with Wikipedia could create real life problems to affiliates. Let's think
> > on making our product better, because is not a brand problem, is an
> > obsolescence problem what we have.
> > > 
> > > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf
> > of Gerard Meijssen 
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:36 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030
> goals
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is
> > to
> > > share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. In addition
> > to
> > > this the approach and `the lessons learned` in effect are used as a
> > > template on how `other` Wikipedias are to function. This bias hinder,
> > even
> > > prevent other possible approaches.
> > >
> > > Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias
> and
> > > hinders our mission.
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > > On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Elena,
> > >>
> > >> If by "branding project" you mean replacing references to Wikimedia
> > >> with Wikipedia, that is fine with me.
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> Jim
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:58 AM Elena Lappen 
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi all,
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project
> > >>> community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful
> feedback
> > >> via
> > >>> email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members
> and
> > >>> individual contributors.
> > >>>
> > >>> I posted this invitation to the project talk page last week [1], but
> > >> wanted
> > >>> to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
> > >> session
> > >>> to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
> > >> provide
> > >>> feedback.
> > >>>
> > >>> When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
> > >>>
> > >>> Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using
> your
> > >>> closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
> > >>>
> > >>> If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no
> > >>> problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the
> link
> > on
> > >>> the talk page afterwards.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>> Elena
> > >>>
> > >>> [1]
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Invitation_to_join_a_video_conference_presentation
> &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Wikipedia is one brand. In some of our "markets" Wikibooks is of greater
relevance. We destroy important brands that are important in the
alphabetisation of real people.

When you think that all there is is Wikipedia. Fine but you are wrong.
Commons will gain relevance because of this !@#$$% legislation that makes
copyright even more problematic. Commons is the biggest public domain only
repository of illustrations. Given that with the Wikidatafication it
becomes easier to open up the Commons content, we have yet another brand
that is not Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is about articles and not about subjects. Wikidata is about
subjects, Commons is about subjects and all Wikipedias together are about
subjects. In the current understanding of most people Wikipedia is a single
entity never mind the language. It is this approach, this bias that will
hurt us badly, it already does.

So yes, real life problems.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 16:21, Benjamin Ikuta  wrote:

>
>
> What real life problems would there be?
>
>
>
> On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more
> problems than it solves, specially in places where identifying ourselves
> with Wikipedia could create real life problems to affiliates. Let's think
> on making our product better, because is not a brand problem, is an
> obsolescence problem what we have.
> > ____
> > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf
> of Gerard Meijssen 
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:36 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
> >
> > Hoi,
> > The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is
> to
> > share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. In addition
> to
> > this the approach and `the lessons learned` in effect are used as a
> > template on how `other` Wikipedias are to function. This bias hinder,
> even
> > prevent other possible approaches.
> >
> > Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias and
> > hinders our mission.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Elena,
> >>
> >> If by "branding project" you mean replacing references to Wikimedia
> >> with Wikipedia, that is fine with me.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Jim
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:58 AM Elena Lappen 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project
> >>> community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful feedback
> >> via
> >>> email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members and
> >>> individual contributors.
> >>>
> >>> I posted this invitation to the project talk page last week [1], but
> >> wanted
> >>> to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
> >> session
> >>> to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
> >> provide
> >>> feedback.
> >>>
> >>> When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
> >>>
> >>> Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your
> >>> closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
> >>>
> >>> If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no
> >>> problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link
> on
> >>> the talk page afterwards.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Elena
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Invitation_to_join_a_video_conference_presentation
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Elena Lappen
> >>> Community Relations Specialist
> >>> Wikimedia Foundation
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> :: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to
> >> ensure
> >>>> w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is to
share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. In addition to
this the approach and `the lessons learned` in effect are used as a
template on how `other` Wikipedias are to function. This bias hinder, even
prevent other possible approaches.

Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias and
hinders our mission.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman  wrote:

> Hi Elena,
>
> If by "branding project" you mean replacing references to Wikimedia
> with Wikipedia, that is fine with me.
>
> Best regards,
> Jim
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:58 AM Elena Lappen  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project
> > community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful feedback
> via
> > email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members and
> > individual contributors.
> >
> > I posted this invitation to the project talk page last week [1], but
> wanted
> > to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
> session
> > to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
> provide
> > feedback.
> >
> > When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
> >
> > Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your
> > closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
> >
> > If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no
> > problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link on
> > the talk page afterwards.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Elena
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Invitation_to_join_a_video_conference_presentation
> >
> >
> > [2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
> >
> >
> > --
> > Elena Lappen
> > Community Relations Specialist
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune 
> wrote:
> >
> > > :: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to
> ensure
> > > we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as
> possible. ::
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review
> on
> > > Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
> > >
> > > Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the
> > > world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
> get
> > > a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and
> evaluate
> > > public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
> > >
> > > We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part
> of
> > > our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
> commissioned
> > > by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and
> > > directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected
> > > perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China,
> > > Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and
> > > values.
> > >
> > > The study revealed some interesting trends:
> > >
> > > - Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
> America.
> > >
> > > - Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5]
> and is
> > > fast growing.
> > >
> > > - There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower.
> For
> > > example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%,
> Wikidata at
> > > 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
> > >
> > > - There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia.
> Respondents
> > > reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its
> relationship
> > > to Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > - In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a
> high
> > > level of support for our mission.
> > >
> > > Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made
> a
> > > strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The
> > > suggestions include:
> > >
> > > - Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
> > >
> > > - Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia
> to
> > > drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
> > >
> > > - Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia
> Commons
> > > which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent
> with
> > > other projects.
> > >
> > > - Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate
> groups
> > > that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
> > >
> > > - Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to
> reassert the
> > > connections between projects (e.g. “__ - A Wikipedia project”).
> > >
> > > This is not a new idea.[7][8]
> > >
> > > By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

2019-03-21 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Thank you for quoting out of context.

This is a quote to get the context: " However when a list like a Wikipedia
category of alumni of a given university is considered, there are no new
errors introduced by a bot. All the errors included in Wikidata are the
errors that already exist in a Wikipedia".

My reality is that I have imported masses of people with awards and
categories with people who are staff or alumni of universities. I have
observed the issues that I described, I have blogged about it. My reality
is that I make errors like everyone else. Because of this, when I import
data from a category, I have learned to check the first entry and see if it
created the expected statement. The start of this process are statements on
the item for the category indicating what it contains. This allows later
processes to be done fully automated by a bot.

Given that we include data from many Wikipedias, information from ORCID, we
know about more people with articles in any Wikipedia that went to those
universities for study or work. It means that we can, if a "community"
allows for it, add those people to Wikipedia categories.

NB I have blogged about this for years now. People seem not to be
interested in context [1].

However, both Wikipedias, Wikidata get it wrong. My argument, my point is
that when we do work together, we get the facts straight for the subjects
that are under consideration. The notion that Wikidata is done importing
from sources is a fallacy. We are not ready for consolidation, most items
are incomplete, often impossible to disambiguate and we are stuck with
Wikipedia think that prevents us from seeing a bigger picture. The bigger
picture is that the "sum of all knowledge" is not in articles nor in items.
It is in how we bring things together.
Thanks,
 GerardM

[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 22:34, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors that already exist in a
> Wikipedia,"
>
> That's rather far from being correct. I already indicated one form of
> error, caused by erroneous scraping by bot from an external data set.  And
> to the extent that information is inserted by humans from whatever sources,
> that is subject to error too.  And less checkable as Wikidata does not
> reference sources directly as does Wikipedia.
>
> JPS
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:46 AM Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The biggest benefit of Wikidata is that it knows about more subjects than
> > any Wikipedia has articles. Like Wikipedia it has its own problems but it
> > has its own benefits. The biggest problem with Wikidata is not its
> quality
> > and the biggest benefit of Wikipedia is not its quality. Both have
> issues.
> > All Wikimedia projects rely on their communities, that is where things
> are
> > the same.
> >
> > The notion that a community and text is better is in itself a fallacy
> > because the integrity of data is easier to check with data and not so
> much
> > with text. An example: I have repeatedly indicated that 6% of all the
> > entries in a list in a Wikipedia is wrong. The problem is one of
> > disambiguation..  For instance, for a chemistry award you would expect at
> > least scientists better chemists. When a hockey player or a movie star is
> > among them, it follows that you want to check this out. Easy to do at
> > Wikidata, impossible at Wikipedia. It is possible but only only when
> > Wikipedians and Wikidatans collaborate (they are not really).
> >
> > When you suggest that bots are less secure than humans you are wrong as
> > well. Research shows that a human with the best of intentions has an
> error
> > rate of something like 6%. However when a list like a Wikipedia category
> of
> > alumni of a given university is considered, there are no new errors
> > introduced by a bot. All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors
> > that already exist in a Wikipedia,. When we were to have consolidation
> > processes, once a person is known to have studied at a university we
> could
> > synchronise categories and data. In addition to this, bots import
> > authorised data from ORCID indicating former students of universitiies. A
> > consolidation process could update update both Wikidata and all
> Wikipedias
> > who take an interest.
> >
> > In addition when people search withing Wikidata, never mind the language
> > they will find what Wikidata has to offer. Any Wikipedia is a subset of
> > what a Wikipedia has to offer.
> >
> > So as much as both Wikidata Wikipedia are wonderful products, the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

2019-03-20 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
The biggest benefit of Wikidata is that it knows about more subjects than
any Wikipedia has articles. Like Wikipedia it has its own problems but it
has its own benefits. The biggest problem with Wikidata is not its quality
and the biggest benefit of Wikipedia is not its quality. Both have issues.
All Wikimedia projects rely on their communities, that is where things are
the same.

The notion that a community and text is better is in itself a fallacy
because the integrity of data is easier to check with data and not so much
with text. An example: I have repeatedly indicated that 6% of all the
entries in a list in a Wikipedia is wrong. The problem is one of
disambiguation..  For instance, for a chemistry award you would expect at
least scientists better chemists. When a hockey player or a movie star is
among them, it follows that you want to check this out. Easy to do at
Wikidata, impossible at Wikipedia. It is possible but only only when
Wikipedians and Wikidatans collaborate (they are not really).

When you suggest that bots are less secure than humans you are wrong as
well. Research shows that a human with the best of intentions has an error
rate of something like 6%. However when a list like a Wikipedia category of
alumni of a given university is considered, there are no new errors
introduced by a bot. All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors
that already exist in a Wikipedia,. When we were to have consolidation
processes, once a person is known to have studied at a university we could
synchronise categories and data. In addition to this, bots import
authorised data from ORCID indicating former students of universitiies. A
consolidation process could update update both Wikidata and all Wikipedias
who take an interest.

In addition when people search withing Wikidata, never mind the language
they will find what Wikidata has to offer. Any Wikipedia is a subset of
what a Wikipedia has to offer.

So as much as both Wikidata Wikipedia are wonderful products, there is room
for improvement. Improvement will only happen when we truly care about
sharing in the sum of all knowledge, when we truly care about quality and
not assume that "we" (whoever we is) has a superior proposition.
Thanks,
  GerardM


On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 10:45, Gabriel Thullen  wrote:

> Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but:
> Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots than
> by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for a
> few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the bots
> on the English Wikipedia has almost always been lower than the activity of
> anonymous contributors, and that activity has always been well below that
> of registered contributors. There was one exception, in 2013 where there
> was a spike of bot activity.
> We could also talk about the average number of edits per contributor which
> appears to be around 100 on the English Wikipedia and 1,200 on Wikidata
> (these numbers are after removing the estimated edits done by bots). Quite
> a difference.
> The different Wikimedia projects rely on the community to police and curate
> the content of these encyclopedias and data collections. I am therefore a
> bit wary of what is happening with Wikidata where more edits are still
> being done by bots than by real humans (by "real" I mean "real" not like
> "real" as in the TV series "real humans")
>
> Best regards
> Gabe
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Olushola Olaniyan <
> olaniyanshol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > This is a good news.
> >
> > Cheers!!!
> >
> > Olaniyan Olushola
> > CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd
> > President, Wikimedia Nigeria
> > Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation)
> > Co-director Wiki Women Radio
> > www.wikimedia.org.ng
> > sh...@wikimedia.org.ng
> > olaniyanshol...@gmail.com
> > +2348167352512
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk  >
> > > Hello Ariel Glenn,
> > > Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that
> > > making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than
> on
> > > Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to
> > > congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-)
> > > Kind regards
> > > Ziko
> > >
> > >
> > > Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen <
> > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as
> Wikidata...
> > > > HU
> > > > Thanks,
&g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

2019-03-20 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as Wikidata...
HU
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF  wrote:

> Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of
> revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped off by a
> tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that displays
> the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where Wikidata
> overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
>
> [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
>
> Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
>
> [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py
> Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401
> 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
>
> Have a nice day!
>
> Ariel
>
> [1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345
> ___
> 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] How diverse are your readers?

2019-03-19 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I read the blogpost and it utterly misses the point. The point is that this
is NOT about English Wikipedia, for them another approach will work better.
At the same time when you read my blogpost, you will find that the elephant
in the room is that we consider articles to be synonymous with subjects.
They are not. We do not have an aggregated number of most popular subjects,
subjects on all Wikipedias. When we did, we would know what the world reads
and not what is served by a single Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia.

The biggest benefit is that it will provide us with a list with less of an
Anglo-American bias. One subset of this list will be what the world reads
and is not available on English. Subjects that feature high in the world
indicate a particular kind of notability. It will be really interesting to
see how these subjects will be appreciated by the public and the "wiki
gnomes". Finding authors can be done in a similar way as the "gender bias"
approach.

Another thing where the blogpost misses the point is that is concentrates
on English Wikipedia. The only line left for the small Wikipedias is
that the gem-to-dung ratio may differ. As English has never been my
objective of this approach, it disqualifies the results. By posting this
blogpost, you make it plain you have not read or understood what it is that
I propose in my blogpost [1].

First I want the search extension by Magnus active on every Wikipedia. This
will expose all subjects known to us as a result, not just the articles on
a Wikipedia. It is save to log such an interest. All we want is a
timestamp, the language and the Qid. This is exactly what we do for
articlesl so there is no privacy issue here. I also want to invite people
to add labels and false friends in their language.

For any Wikipedia, the approach what is the most read article that you do
not have, is a valid approach to propose the writing of a new article. Some
will use this list, most will not and again, the English Wikignomes do not
know the language elsewhere.

We know what articles are receiving what traffic. It is just a data
question for us to know what new articles received what traffic in a full
month. Exposing this, highlighting their success is a powerful way to
provide recognition.

In conclusion, there is a very strong bias for English Wikipedia in the
attention given to the exclusion of others. English is less than fifty
percent of our traffic. It gets more than eighty percent of attention. As
you read in the comments of your blogpost, I am happy to collaborate but so
far it has not fit your agenda.
Thanks,
  GerardM



[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/sharing-in-sum-of-all-knowledge-from.html

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 18:28, Ed Erhart  wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> Trey authored a Wikimedia blog post on this as well:
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/12/12/failed-queries-fear-of-missing-out/
>
> --Ed
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:34 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> wrote:
>
> > The topic of zero-result search queries comes up from time to time. The
> > logic is generally this: if we can see the top queries that got no
> results,
> > then we can figure out what users are looking for but not finding, and
> add
> > it to the encyclopedia. Wonderful user-centred thinking, and it sounds
> > great! The problem is, sadly, the data doesn't help us achieve this at
> all.
> >
> > The sheer volume of requests means that a lot of the top zero-results
> > queries are junk. Trey Jones, an engineer on the Search Platform Team,
> > wrote a comprehensive analysis
> > <
> >
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:TJones_(WMF)/Notes/Survey_of_Zero-Results_Queries
> > >
> > a
> > few years ago of the top zero-result queries based on an analysis of a
> > 500,000 multi-lingual sample. It was quite enlightening in some senses—we
> > found out a lot about the things that people are doing with the search
> > system, found some bugs in other products, and so on—but it didn't
> actually
> > help us understand what people were looking for and not finding.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 23:12, Leila Zia  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Gerard,
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 2:26 PM Gerard Meijssen
> > >  wrote:
> > > > but really
> > > > why can we not have the data that allows us to seek out what people
> are
> > > > actually looking for and do not find..
> > >
> > > Please open a Phabricator task for this request at
> > > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org . Please add Research as a tag and
> > > add me as one of the subscribers. I'd like to work with you on a
> > > concrete proposal. A few items to consider as you're expanding the
> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

2019-03-16 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I have written another blogpost [1] where I express a different approach to
our data. It achieves two things

   - an understanding what subjects not articles are most popular in
   Wikipedia
   - a tool that identifies what subjects we are looking for as missing in
   any Wikipedia

the tool is based on existing functionality, it just needs additional
functionality to support people in adding new items and statements for a
Wikidata item that represents the missing subject.
I will write another blogpost where I expand on opportunities to expand
search to share in the sum of all knowledge and not on what only one
Wikipedia has to offer.
Thanks,
   GerardM

[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/sharing-in-sum-of-all-knowledge-from.html

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 00:12, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi Gerard,
>
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 2:26 PM Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > but really
> > why can we not have the data that allows us to seek out what people are
> > actually looking for and do not find..
>
> Please open a Phabricator task for this request at
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org . Please add Research as a tag and
> add me as one of the subscribers. I'd like to work with you on a
> concrete proposal. A few items to consider as you're expanding the
> description of the task:
>
> * We won't be able to release raw search queries as they come to
> Wikimedia servers. That is for privacy reasons.
>
> * You also likely don't need raw search queries. If you can be
> specific about what you want to have access to, as much as possible,
> that can help us get started with scoping the problem. I'm looking for
> something along these lines: "I want to be able to see a monthly list
> of top n search terms in language x that result in 0 search results or
> results where the user does not click on any of the search results
> offered." The more specific, the better. If you are in doubt, put some
> description and we can iterate on it.
>
> Best,
> Leila
> p.s. The goal of this exercise is to have an open question ready (with
> all the details one needs to know) for the next time we will have a
> volunteer researcher to work with us.
>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

2019-03-12 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
The point is EXACTLY that this list will be different per language. What
there is, what is needed differs as a consequence. What specific Wikipedias
covers is as different.

There are multiple objectives to be gained:

   - as we gain more articles, we will gain a bigger presence for a
   Wikipedia in Google
   - a bigger presence will give us more eye balls.
   - more people who edit a Wikipedia means that any and all subjects of
   their choosing become better covered

When we choose for an approach like this, it is very much in the true Wiki
spirit. When the argument is about "supervision", the question is how that
would work. In my opinion, you are likely not to know the other language
and Google translate is unlikely to function for all the 280+ languages.

The point of this approach is very much that there is no solution for all
of Wikipedia.. It is weird to suggest that would work in the first place.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 14:08, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Reminding is easy, it's analyzing that it's complex.
>
> I suspect that editors and readers are probably a little bit smarter than
> generally assumed. It's quite "obvious" that editors understand what is an
> encyclopedia, after years. When I make an informal survey, statistically
> the "smarter" students in the class or in the group of people in front of
> me at an event are those who already edited something or who want to know
> more or are willing to compile a form to state their opinion or similar.
>
> Plus, every topic is multifaceted somehow, it's the same for the most
> popular ones. It's strange when long-time editors seem to miss this aspect.
> There is always a specific disease, an historical event, a place or a
> person in a family history linked to a most searched topic. You can detect
> many missing specific things just focusing on a core topic and starting
> from there. Again, maybe it's worth reminding also how our editors are
> quite good at doing this, and this type of information is therefore a
> starting point. In some of this comments, it always look like an end per
> se.
>
> Seriously, if someone is so superficial to just edit something with no
> depth because it's on a list, (s)he will just do something equally
> superficial somewhere else. Clinically, I might state that it's probably a
> good thing if this occur in an area with huge focus, it actually lowers the
> possible long-term disfunctionalities induced by a rigid approach,
> something that it's more subtle to detect in less supervised areas.
>
> in any case, these lists can change a lot from area to area so it is not
> even driven by the "mass", if you give a country in South America or Asia
> the same focus on a western country you end up with very unusual guideline.
> it's nice to know that you expertise in an area even if less taken into
> account in the average community around you, it's useful in a different
> part of the word.
>
>
>
> Il lunedì 11 marzo 2019, 13:32:12 CET, Amir E. Aharoni <
> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> ha scritto:
>
>  ‬
>
> > The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 
> >
> >
> I agree, although I'd make it a bit more focused: an encyclopedia that is
> *only* popularity-driven is indeed scary. It's good to mention this, and
> not once, but repeatedly.
>
> However, providing Wikipedia editors with information about what *is* in
> demand is useful, as long as the editors clearly know that they have the
> choice to write what is *important* and that "important" is not equal to
> "popular".
>
> While I haven't ran a proper survey about this, conversations that with
> Wikipedia editors from various "big" and "small" languages tell me that
> most of them already understand it, and this is good. Nevertheless,
> reminding people that Wikipedia is not supposed to be just about covering
> popular topics won't hurt.
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> ___
> 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

2019-03-12 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
You will not see me write about subjects I do not care about. So the notion
that anyone writing about subjects you care about is a fallacy. It takes
horses for courses, you will write about what you care about and so will I.
Others may look into what is missing and find that their subject matter
expertise is called for.

When you state that Mr Trump does not know about Indian-Pakistan conflicts,
does he know that a Nigerian governor outspends presidents of neighbouring
countries.. There are elections for Nigerian governors...

When Mr Trump does not know, and we do not either, we EXACTLY find a spike
in a subject people are looking for..
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 10:07, Vi to  wrote:

> That's an unstable process on a long-term, with popular topics
> cannibalizing resources. Top read articles are already about two or three
> sports, some TV series and three or four music topics.
> These are also the most popular topics among editors but if you'll start
> focusing energies on these already popular topics you'll end up having no
> resources to be spent on "female combatants during Russian civil war",
> "near to extinction languages in Brazil", "computational chemestry in late
> XX century".
>
> The way we self-identify as a project  deeply affects our results:
> promoting the idea of Wikipedia as "the pop encyclopedia" (instead of "the
> free encyclopedia embedding pop topics") will weaken our commitment to
> diversity and quality.
>
> Also, topic popularity is mutable on a daily basis and it's driven by a
> very narrow number of media (basically Google/YouTube and Facebook) which
> will gain a complete influence over us.
>
> To me the mission of an encyclopedia is providing the *knowledge* (not
> *information*) which is worth collecting and preserving. The information
> people need/want is likely to be a subset of this.
>
> If Wikipedia is also an educational medium we should find a way to ask the
> ordes of people looking for new mr. Trump's bizarreness "hey, do you know
> the background of India-Pakistan conflicts?"
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno lun 11 mar 2019 alle ore 06:19 David Goodman 
> ha scritto:
>
> > The idea of an encyclopedia is to provide the information people need or
> > want  that's appropriate to the format. It would be useful to see what
> they
> > want that is appropriate but we do not have -- and also useful to see
> what
> > they look for that isn't appropriate for us. Within what's appropriate, I
> > see no reason why selection of topics should not be driven by reader
> > interests as much as by editor interests. Our purpose is not to practice
> > our writing skills for our own benefit.
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:58 PM Vi to  wrote:
> >
> > > The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 
> > >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen <
> > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > I have been thinking about it.. There is a place for research but
> > really
> > > > why can we not have the data that allows us to seek out what people
> are
> > > > actually looking for and do not find.. Why can we not promote what
> > proves
> > > > to be of interest [1] ?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >  GerardM
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it-is-that.html
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader
> > > > > surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the
> > > > > reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of
> > > > > their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between
> > > > > demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
> > > > >
> > > > > If your language community is interested to have statistics on the
> > > > > distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and
> > > > > geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on
> > how
> > > > > much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this
> > is
> > > > > your chance to indicate interest at:
> > > > >
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

2019-03-12 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
What is it that scares youi? When you want to write about the subject that
you care about do. If it is popular good. That is all.

What scares me is that people define what others want to / need to know.
What is the propblem with providing what people are looking for? In the big
Wikipedias almost everything is there including pokemon, soccer and ice
hockey...
Thanks,
GerardM

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 23:58, Vi to  wrote:

> The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I have been thinking about it.. There is a place for research but really
> > why can we not have the data that allows us to seek out what people are
> > actually looking for and do not find.. Why can we not promote what proves
> > to be of interest [1] ?
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it-is-that.html
> >
> > On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader
> > > surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the
> > > reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of
> > > their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between
> > > demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
> > >
> > > If your language community is interested to have statistics on the
> > > distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and
> > > geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on how
> > > much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this is
> > > your chance to indicate interest at:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Demographics_and_Wikipedia_use_cases#Interested_languages
> > >
> > > I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since
> > > then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating some
> > > of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are
> > > needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
> > >
> > > As always: this call is primarily a service to your language
> > > community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action
> > > is needed. :)
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Leila
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.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,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

2019-03-10 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I have been thinking about it.. There is a place for research but really
why can we not have the data that allows us to seek out what people are
actually looking for and do not find.. Why can we not promote what proves
to be of interest [1] ?
Thanks,
 GerardM

[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it-is-that.html

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader
> surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the
> reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of
> their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between
> demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
>
> If your language community is interested to have statistics on the
> distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and
> geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on how
> much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this is
> your chance to indicate interest at:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Demographics_and_Wikipedia_use_cases#Interested_languages
>
> I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since
> then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating some
> of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are
> needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
>
> As always: this call is primarily a service to your language
> community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action
> is needed. :)
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.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,
> 
___
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 case for the Wikimedia Foundation as an ORCID member organisation

2019-02-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,

Earlier I posted the following text on my blogpost and as it concerns the
Wikimedia Foundation and how it deals with its research, it is very much a
subject that needs discussion for instance on this list.

Thanks,

  GerardM


The Wikimedia Foundation is a research organisation. No two ways about it;
it has its own researchers that not only perform research on the Wikimedia
projects and communities, they coordinate research on Wikimedia projects
and communities and it produces its own publications. As such it qualifies
to become an ORCID Member organisation.

The benefits are:

   -

   Authenticating ORCID iDs of individuals using the ORCID API to ensure
   that researchers are correctly identified in our systems
   -

   *Displaying* iDs to signal to researchers that our systems support the
   use of ORCID
   -

   *Connecting* information about affiliations and contributions to ORCID
   records, creating trusted assertions and enabling researchers to easily
   provide validated information to systems and profiles they use
   -

   *Collecting* information from ORCID records to fill in forms, save
   researchers time, and support research reporting
   -

   *Synchronizing* between research information systems to improve
   reporting speed and accuracy and reduce data entry burden for researchers
   and administrators alike

At this time the quality of information about Wikimedia research is hardly
satisfactory. As is the standard; announcements are made about a new paper
 and as can be expected the paper is not
in Wikidata
.
The three authors are not in ORCID, as is usual for people who work in the
field of computing so there is no easy way to learn about their
publications.

What will this achieve; it will be the Wikimedia Foundation itself that
will push information about its research to ORCID and consequently at
Wikidata we can easily update the latest and greatest. It is also an
important step for documentation about becoming discoverable. It is one
thing to publish Open Content, when it is then hard to find, it is still
not FAIR and the research does not have the hoped for impact. It also
removes an issue that some researchers say they face; they cannot publish
about themselves on Wikimedia projects.

Another important plus; by indicating the importance of having scholarly
papers known in ORCID we help reluctant scientists understand that yes,
they have a career in open source, open systems but finding their work is
very much needed to be truly open.

Thanks,

GerardM
___
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] Survey about the Foundation's Mission

2019-01-16 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I am troubled with the ease doubt is raised about people contributing to
this mailing list/ our community/ our projects. This is a mailing list that
has the option of moderation. That is already in itself a sure way of
driving people away. However, it is not the same as going whole hog and ban
like it is proposed.

Our community needs to have a plurality of points of view and for me this
is yet another moment where the view point of others is not respected, a
moment where we are way too aggressive in ostracising someone who has been
with us for a long time. I have seen on multiple occasions how people with
a long track record become lost to us. All because of  what, the greater
good?

Sad indeed.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 19:05, Risker  wrote:

> I regret to say that I feel James has abused this forum once again for his
> own personal agenda, much of which is unrelated even indirectly to the WMF
> or the Wikimedia movement. Further, I feel that he has done so in a way
> that is deceptive to members of this mailing list, and that his actions are
> an abuse of the trust of the members of this mailing list.
>
> Generally speaking, I'm pretty tolerant of people bringing different
> perspectives and ideas to this mailing list; however, I believe this is a
> step too far for someone who has been asked in the past on multiple
> occasions to stay on topic.  I am not sure that James needs to remain a
> contributor to this list.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 11:56, James Salsman  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 1:23 AM Kevin Payravi 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I've heard confusion from a couple folks and want to make sure it's
> clear
> > > here that this survey is coming from you as an individual, Jim, and has
> > no
> > > origination or coordination with the Foundation - correct?
> >
> > Yes, the survey is just from me, not the Foundation. I'm trying to
> > encourage the Executive Director to bring back the "Letter to Donors"
> > which was discontinued for reasons unknown, but not the explanation
> > given to me at the time, that it was forbidden by law:
> >
> > https://twitter.com/jsalsman/status/998272655995240449
> > https://twitter.com/SuePGardner/status/998302792946102273
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 3:44 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >... (free healthcare, universal basic income, etc.) have very little to
> > > do with the Foundation's mission.
> >
> > That is precisely the matter of opinion which the survey measures. The
> > idea that the abundance of contributors would not increase under the
> > proposals is clearly not shared by most, and whether that means
> > contributors would therefore be "empowered" by them is subjective.
> >
> > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 8:21 PM James Salsman  > >
> > > > Happy 18th birthday to Wikipedia!
> > > >
> > > > What does it mean for the Wikimedia Foundation to empower
> > > > contributors? Please share your opinion of what the Wikimedia
> > > > Foundation's mission statement means when it describes empowering
> > > > people to collect and develop educational content:
> > > >
> > > > http://bit.ly/wikimission
> > > >
> > > > The survey results are summarized after form submission.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Jim Salsman
> >
> > ___
> > 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] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

2019-01-09 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
May I remind you again that at the time the Vrije Universiteit was testing
in a grid how the performance of a MediaWiki based on peer to peer
technology would cope.. The guy who ran the computing department is known
for MINIX.. it was his development.

Why not run p2p and the central server systems in paralel. It may do some
things for us in places like Turkey
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 16:00, Ariel Glenn WMF  wrote:

> The files made available as 'Wikimedia dumps' are not intended to be a full
> backup. And indeed that is not their purpose. People do set up mirrors
> using these dumps from time to time, though I have not done so recently.
>
> Actual honest-to-goodness backups (database snapshots) are another thing
> altogether and one of the Wikimedia DBAs may want to talk about that.
>
> Ariel
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:52 PM Risker  wrote:
>
> > Without in any way suggesting that David's and Fae's question is
> > inappropriateI suspect that the people most likely to have
> used/tested
> > the backups are not people who follow this list; they're much more likely
> > to participate on technical lists.
> >
> > It's actually a pretty good question, and Ariel Glenn of the WMF may be
> the
> > best person to ask since they seem to be managing the process of making
> the
> > files available.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 06:44, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > Location: This is a tangent, one that has been raised before as a
> > > /non-answer/ to the issue of actually getting on with contingency
> > > planning. Realistically I would start by looking at the potential
> > > matches of Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands (where servers already
> > > are used for WMF operations), or lastly and for very different
> > > reasons, Peru.
> > >
> > > What I find weird, or bizarro, is that the responses so far are vague
> > > dismissals for non-good fantastic reasons, at the level of "let magic
> > > blockchain technology solve it for free", rather than taking on board
> > > that preparing a hot switch for Wikimedia operations in a welcoming
> > > host country, is a highly cost effective disaster contingency plan,
> > > whether due to natural disasters in San Fran / Florida / Amsterdam, or
> > > due to national government using its legal authority to freeze, switch
> > > off or tamper with content due to politically inflated "security" or
> > > "emergency" issues. The risks are real and predictable, and as a
> > > globally recognized charity with plenty of money in the bank, the WMF
> > > should have contingency plans to ensure its continued existence, as
> > > any professional business actuary would advise.
> > >
> > > As a past IT auditor, what also made the hairs prick up on the back of
> > > my neck, was David Gerard's sensible question "So ... when did someone
> > > last test putting up a copy of the sites from
> > > the backups" - Could someone give a real answer to that please? If
> > > it's never, then wow, we all have to ask some hard questions of the
> > > WMF Board of exactly how they hold senior management to account.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Fae
> > > --
> > > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > >
> > > On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 23:05, Nathan  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Fae,
> > > >
> > > > I'm curious what nation you have in mind for your stable Plan B. Is
> it
> > > > Brexit Britain? France of the Yellow Vests and Front National?
> Perhaps
> > > > Orban's Hungary, Putin's Russia, or Germany with its recent
> right-wing
> > > > resurgence?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe you'd prefer Jair Bolsonaro's Brazil? I suppose in Italy we'd
> > worry
> > > > about Beppe and criminal libel statutes, while BJP would hardly seem
> > > > welcoming in India and I can't imagine you'd suggest a home on the
> > other
> > > > side of the Great Firewall.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe you're hinting at Canada, but otherwise, I'd love to understand
> > > what
> > > > island of liberal stability and legal safeguards you think is safe
> from
> > > the
> > > > vagaries of electoral politics or rigid authoritarianism.
> > > >
> > > > The countries I list above have their own flaws (although in each
> > case, I
> > > > believe, many desirable traits as well) as does any other
> alternative.
> > > > Anyone could reasonably argue it's unfair to stigmatize any of them
> by
> > > > glaringly public flaws.
> > > >
> > > > To my mind Steve Walling has it right - the very nature of Wikipedia
> is
> > > > maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly
> > > > unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of
> > > Wikipedia.
> > > >
> > > > Nathan
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:17 PM Fæ  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear fellow Wikimedians, please sit back for a moment and ponder
> the
> > > > > following,
> > > > >
> > > > > For those of us not resident in the US, it has been genuinely
> > alarming
> > > > > to see highly respected US government 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

2019-01-01 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I spend some time formulating my thoughts on the subject. Arguably I am not
a Wikipedian but apart from the necessary changes we must go through, I see
a great future for our work. What I have to say is on my blog [1]. The most
important change is that we need to become less US-American to be more
effective. The most relevant reason: our public is not there.

What will also have a positive effect when we make our relation with
partners less parasitic. more symbiotic. Why not point to Open Library of
the local library when people read about books or authors? Why not show the
publications of scientists based on what we know, largely thanks to ORCID
and Crossref?  We say that Wikipedia should not be quoted but we can make
external source much more findable. Sharing the quest for the sum of all
knowledge is more effective by sharing the limelight with our partners..

Happy 2019
   GerardM

[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-decline-of-wikipedia-as-we-know-it.html

On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 at 22:35, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> I have written a long text today (posted in my FB) which the readers of
> this mailing list might find interesting. I copy it below. I understand
> that it is very easy to critisize me for side issues, but if you want to
> comment/reply I would appreciate if you address the main issue. The target
> audience I was thinking about was general (not necessarily
> Wikimedia-oriented), and for the readers from this mailing list the first
> several paragraphs can sound trivial (or even trivial and wrong). I
> apologize in advance.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
> _
> I currently have a bit of time and can write on the future of Wikipedia.
> Similarly to much of what I write it is probably going to be useless, but
> someone may find it interesting. For simplicity, I will be explicitly
> talking about the English Wikipedia (referring to it as Wikipedia). I am
> active in other projects as well, and some of them have similar issues, but
> there are typically many other things going on there which make the picture
> more complicated.
>
> Let us first look at the current situation. Wikipedia exists since 2001,
> and in a couple of weeks will turn 18. Currently, it has 5.77 million
> articles. I often hear an opinion that all important articles have already
> been created. This is incorrect, and I am often the first person to point
> out that this is not correct. For example, today I created an article on an
> urban locality in Russia with the population of 15 thousands. Many articles
> are indeed too short, badly written, or suffer from other issues, and they
> need to be improved. There are new topics which appear on a regular basis:
> new music performers, new winners of sports competitions or prizes, and so
> on. As any Web 2.0 project, Wikipedia requires a regular cleanup, since
> there are many people happy to vandalize the 5th website in the world in
> terms of the number of views. However, as a general guideline, it is not so
> much incorrect to state that all important things in Wikipedia have been
> already written. Indeed, if someone looks for information in Wikipedia -
> or, more precisely, uses search engines and gets Wikipedia as the first hit
>  they are likely to find what they need with more than 99% chance.
>
> In this sense, Wikipedia now is very different from Wikipedia in 2008 or
> Wikipedia in 2004. Ten and especially fifteen years ago, everybody could
> contribute something important. For example, the article on the 1951 film
> "A Streetcar Named Desire", which won four Academy Awards, was started in
> 2005, as well as an article on Cy Twombly, at the time probably the most
> famous living artist. This is not possible anymore. This is why the number
> of active editors is currently dropping - to contribute to the content in a
> meaningful way, one now has to be an advanced amateur - to master some
> field of knowledge much better than most others do. Or one can be a
> professional - but there are very few professionals contributing to
> Wikipedia in their fields, and there are very few articles written at a
> professional level. Attempts to attract professionals have been made for
> many years, and, despite certain local success, generally failed. They have
> been going now for long enough to assume they will never succeed on a large
> scale. Wikipedia is written by advance amateurs for amateurs. However,
> despite the decline in the number of editors, there are enough resources to
> maintain and to expand the project. It does not mean there are no problems
> - there are in fact many problems. One of the most commonly discussed one
> is systemic bias - there is way more information on Wikipedia on subjects
> pertaining to North America than to Africa, and if a topic is viewed on
> differently in different countries, one can be sure that the American view
> dominates. But it is usually thought - and I agree with this - that these
> drawbacks are not 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

2018-12-10 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
No point in automating NPOV, we are not at a point where we can. Where we
are is a point where we can collect all sources used to prove a point, any
point. We are at a point where we can indicate what sources are used to
prove or disprove any given point.

Now a NPOV does not mean that facts can be denied because "a" source says
something is a fact. There is plenty of literature where facts are plain
untrue and when this is a given, a source cannot be used. This mechanism to
validate sources in a bigger context is what I propose.

The facts will fall as they may. However calling the Croations names is
only justified when it is justified.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 23:45, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:

> I don't clearly understand Gerard what is your idea. Do you want to measure
> NPOV by calculating how often the sources are used after somehow marking
> them to belong to one or another group of political, religous or other type
> of  POV? And when you find that one group of them are more often cited than
> the others, this is a symptom of systematic bias of given Wikimedia
> project? Well that might be quite misleading because the issue is the
> honesty and context of using sources.
>
> For example: One can write an article about any controversial topic using
> equal number of  sources supporting opposite POVs, but the text can still
> be quite biased:
>
> "According to unfaithful bastard X [source X] the true is A. But, according
> to honourable and widely recognized expert Y [source Y] A it is not true,
> but the true is B."
>
> I don't believe in any kind of automated method of measuring NPOV. NPOV is
> very complex issue needed human judgment. You can't avoid it.
>
>
> śr., 28 lis 2018 o 12:43 Gerard Meijssen 
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hoi,
> > I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with
> > the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that
> include
> > the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects.
> When
> > they are a faith, they are our faith.
> >
> > My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will
> > bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your
> favourite
> > project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that
> undermines
> > Wikipedia as NPOV!
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During  wrote:
> >
> > > Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours?  We
> > should
> > > get started.
> > >
> > > I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of
> facts.
> > > At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one
> > > dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO
> > > this process works very well.  The other depends on opinion, votes,
> > > supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty)
> > > advocates bring to bear.  That process, though adequate, is not as
> > > satisfactory.
> > >
> > > Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
> > ready
> > > to go, let it be validated and put to use.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees  > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter,
> et
> > al
> > > > as
> > > > > the new press barons?
> > > >
> > > > All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making
> judgments.
> > > > As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
> > > > projects should be the ones to make those judgments.  But in some
> > > > extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this
> > case
> > > I
> > > > > think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
> > > > applied.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know whether this is the process we want.  But if it is,
> > > > somebody's gotta go first.
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Contents of annual reports from Wikimedia affiliate organizations

2018-11-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Wonderful that you want to burden people with new standards. I have had
dealings with funding of the WMF. I delivered on time and for what I
delivered to work, the WMF had to do its stuff on time. They did not, my
project petered out and THEN they required me to jump through hoops
demonstrating that my project was "appropriate".. It was no longer and from
the WMF there was no self reflection.

When for whatever good reason you want OTHERS to deliver according to your
standards / WMF standards, be advised that such a requirement need to be
bidirectional. What I have noticed is that funding and organisational stuff
has become increasingly bureaucratic and for simple small projects it
stopped functioning.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 04:11, Pine W  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> This email is mainly addressed to Affcom and WMF but I would like to hear
> others' comments also.
>
> Some background information regarding the context for this email: the
> recently published annual reports from user groups reminded me of some
> issues that I first considered a few years ago. I believe that user group
> annual reports are currently not standardized, and I think that the public
> and WMF might like to have standardized quantitative and comparable ways to
> understand affiliates' work, including use of volunteer hours and
> per-program benefits, while minimizing the burden on volunteers for
> administrative tasks.
>
> I would like to suggest that Affcom and WMF require that all affiliates'
> annual reports include:
>
> 1. A list of programs which the affiliate supported in the past year. For
> each program the affiliate should state the financial costs to the
> affiliate including overhead costs and overhead person-hours attributable
> to the program, how much time the organizers and participants spent on the
> program, the Wikimetrics/Global Metrics results of each program, and
> results for any custom-defined measures of success. Auditable performance
> information can be made public and/or shared privately with WMF, depending
> on privacy rules and the willingness of participants to share information
> regarding their participation.
>
> 2. A financial summary for the year that states all sources of income and
> amounts from each source, how funds were spent, funds payable, funds
> receivable, debts, reserves, assets, etc.
>
> 3. Total annual organizer and participant person-hours and a summary of how
> those hours were used, for both programmatic and non-programmatic
> activities.
>
> 4. Total annual Wikimetrics/Global Metrics results for the year, and total
> annual results for any custom-defined metrics. Again, auditable performance
> information can be made public and/or shared privately with WMF, depending
> on privacy rules and the willingness of participants to share information
> regarding their participation.
>
> This information is important enough that I would support reasonable staff
> or contractor expenses to produce reports with these details. I am mindful
> of how precious volunteer time is, and I do not want to burden already
> generous volunteers with administrative work that could be done by
> contractors or staff. Some cooperation and support for reporting from
> volunteer organizers may be necessary, such as when gathering information
> from participants at individual events. Some affiliates may have such
> generous volunteers that they can do all of the reporting with volunteer
> time. But for many affiliates I would support reasonable expenses for
> producing standardized quantitative information in annual reports while
> minimizing the administrative burden on volunteers.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> 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] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

2018-11-28 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with
the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that include
the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects. When
they are a faith, they are our faith.

My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will
bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your favourite
project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that undermines
Wikipedia as NPOV!
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During  wrote:

> Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours?  We should
> get started.
>
> I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of facts.
> At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one
> dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO
> this process works very well.  The other depends on opinion, votes,
> supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty)
> advocates bring to bear.  That process, though adequate, is not as
> satisfactory.
>
> Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost ready
> to go, let it be validated and put to use.
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees 
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al
> > as
> > > the new press barons?
> >
> > All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making judgments.
> > As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
> > projects should be the ones to make those judgments.  But in some
> > extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this case
> I
> > > think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
> > applied.
> >
> > I don't know whether this is the process we want.  But if it is,
> > somebody's gotta go first.
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> I
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

2018-11-27 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
We have a database with all the citations of all Wikipedias. That database
is integrated in wikidata as we speak. What we should do is eat our own
medicine and compare sources on the same subject when the subject is
controversial. Our overriding policy is for Wikipedia to have a neutral
point of view. So while Croation sources are fine, they need to be balanced
for a NPOV. When sources with a different viewpoint are available, ignoring
them is not an option.

At the same time, there are sources that have been found to be
untrustworthy. At some stage, sources, any and all sources can be assessed
and even rejected.

Admins and bureaucrats have their authority because they promise to  adhere
to the universal Wikipedia policies, the other reason is the trust their
community gave them at one time. In the end, we have the mechanisms and the
methods to assess the NPOV and the quality of articles. We have the
mechanisms and methods to assess the functioning of people who are trusted
to adhere to our policies.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 19:15, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> History does not require a judge. It's the storiography to be judge.
>
> Here the problem is to give relevance to some sources and to neglect
> (completely) others.
>
> If a single not neutral source is considered as the Holy Bible, the same
> pillars of Wikipedia are infringed.
>
> Kind regards
>
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, 14:06 Dennis During 
> > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al
> as
> > the new press barons?
> > ___
> > 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] What's making you happy this week? (Week of 11 November 2018)

2018-11-17 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Wikipedia being Wikipedia, we aim to bring information in a NPOV way.
Particularly when it is about conflicts, it is hard to provide exactly
that. The victory of one party is the defeat of another. The battlefronts
of France and Belgium were only one part of the great war.

The Ottoman Empire was bigger than the Roman Empire, it was present for a
longer time and its demise is not even one hundred years ago. We do not
know the succession of the Beylerbeys of the eyalets and vilayets.
Personally I make an effort of making such lists but when I hit a roadblock
when Wikipedias do not agree on the facts I am stuck. There is no one I can
turn to.

Many soldiers died in the great war but we only report about one side, its
war efforts, its war memorials. While this is easy to explain, it is not
what we say we stand for,
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 04:06, Pine W  wrote:

> This is a more solemn email than is usual. I recognize that this email
> reflects my personal view, and if this email is not something that you
> appreciate then I invite you to disregard it and write your own email
> regarding something that makes you happy or grateful this week.
>
> The 11th of November is commemorated in some parts of the world as
> Armistice Day, Remembrance Sunday, or Veterans Day. The year 2018 marks the
> 100th anniversary of Armistice Day. I would like to take a moment to
> reflect on the subject of Armistice Day, and on the roles of Wikimedia --
> especially Wikipedia -- in sharing knowledge of history and being a
> repository of our collective memory.
>
> "Armistice Day is commemorated... to mark the armistice signed between the
> Allies of World War I and Germany at Compiègne, France, for the cessation
> of hostilities on the Western Front of World War I, which took effect at
> eleven o'clock in the morning—the "eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the
> eleventh month" of 1918." [1  >]
> World War I was one of the deadliest conflicts in human history, with a
> total of approximately 17 million civilian and military deaths. [2
> ]
>
> I would like to share a story.
>
> John McCrae (photo here
>  >)
> was a medical doctor and Canadian soldier during World War I. He wrote a
> famous poem, “In Flanders Fields
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In_Flanders_fields_and_other_poems,_handwritten.png
> >”.
> The poem refers to the red poppies that grew over the graves of soldiers
> who died in the Second Battle of Ypres in Belgium. There are variants of
> the wording of the poem. I quote one of them below.
>
> In Flanders fields the poppies blow
> Between the crosses, row on row,
>   That mark our place; and in the sky
>   The larks, still bravely singing, fly
> Scarce heard amid the guns below.
>
> We are the Dead. Short days ago
> We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
>   Loved and were loved, and now we lie
>   In Flanders fields.
>
> Take up our quarrel with the foe:
> To you from failing hands we throw
>   The torch; be yours to hold it high!
>   If ye break faith with us who die
> We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
>   In Flanders fields."
>
> Here are a few images:
>
> * Poppies in the sunset on Lake Geneva, Montreux, Switzerland
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poppies_in_the_Sunset_on_Lake_Geneva.jpg
> >
>
> * Canadian Tomb of the Unknown Soldier
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canadian_Tomb_of_the_Unknown_Soldier_with_poppies.jpg
> >
>
> * Remembrance Day 2010 in Ottawa, Canada
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Remembrance_Day_National_War_Memorial_Ottawa_2010.jpg
> >
>
> * Memorial of "In Flanders Fields"
> 
>
> In our contemporary world where there are many disputes about history,
> resources are limited, and sometimes it is difficult to be optimistic about
> human nature, I am especially grateful for Wikipedia's aspiration to be a
> place to share neutral, reliable, and verifiable information with an open
> license.
>
> Wikimedia has remarkable success at being a collaborative endeavor for the
> education and information of humanity. Wikimedia content is collaboratively
> developed by thousands of diverse individuals, many of whom are volunteers
> and never meet in person. Content that is shared on Wikimedia sites is
> viewed by millions of people around the world. Although we sometimes
> caution the public that Wikipedia is not a primary source, for many people
> Wikipedia seems to be a good starting point, and the references that we
> provide allow people to perform their own research regarding history and
> many other topics.
>
> Thank you to everyone who documents history on Wikimedia, and to the people
> who support this effort behind the scenes. We all benefit from your
> generosity to our common 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] convert from BitCoin to FoldingCoin and other proofs of useful work

2018-11-01 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Bitcoin and its ilk rely on an overabundance of energy. In this day and age
the speculation of these "currencies" is irresponsible. The best attack on
this pyramide game is to stay away from it.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 10:38, Robert Rohde  wrote:

> > What is a 51% attack?
>
> A 51% attack is when a single malicious entity controls >51% of the
> computing power being used to validate the blockchain of a particular
> digital currency.  Blockchain-based digital currencies rely on a consensus
> of computing participants acting in good faith to verify transactions and
> coin ownership.  However, if a single entity controls a majority of the
> compute power, then it is possible for them to maliciously validate bad
> transactions to steal, double spend, and otherwise commit fraud using the
> currency.
>
> Smaller digital currencies, with fewer participants acting to maintain
> their blockchain, are generally more vulnerable to this kind of attack.  A
> bad actor can rent a large block of computing power and then use it to
> attack a small blockchain.   Such attacks have been becoming more common,
> though the largest coins (e.g. BTC) are still resistant due to the size of
> their community.
> https://www.coindesk.com/blockchains-feared-51-attack-now-becoming-regular/
>
> I don't know anything about FoldingCoin and whether it is more or less
> vulnerable to this kind of fraud than other cryptocurrencies.
>
> However, the 51% attack may just be the death of many smaller alt-coins,
> unless an effective countermeasure can be developed.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:23 AM James Salsman  wrote:
>
> > Geni, it's the "Day of the Dead" now so I want to attempt to resurrect
> > this thread.
> >
> > Is FoldingCoin still vulnerable to a 51% attack? What is a 51% attack?
> >
> > Do you think it is reasonable for the Foundation to convert bitcoin to
> > FoldingCoin as part of its program to source clean electricity?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 7:21 AM James Salsman 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Cryptocurrency. If your first thought isn't "how could a scammer
> > > > exploit this" you are doing it wrong.
> > >
> > > I've thought about that for several hours now, and I'm sure scammers
> > > far prefer bitcoin. Folding@Home's lab director is a partner
> > > Andreessen Horowitz, so he has certainly had no lack of resources to
> > > defend against the possibility, and I am persuaded that the Indiana
> > > nonprofit behind FLDC is sincere and acting in good faith at present.
> > > If the Foundation is hesitant, they might sponsor an audit of either
> > > or both, but the Folding@Home project is so established that its
> > > article is featured on enwiki.
> > >
> > > I have no financial interest in any cryptocurrency, and I never have,
> > > and I don't have a familial interest with anyone who I am aware has
> > > any either.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jim
> >
> > ___
> > 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] FY1718 Fundraising Report now published

2018-09-30 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Is there a map of the world with the spending of the WMF per continent?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 00:16, Thea Skaff  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I am writing to share with you our fundraising report for fiscal year 2018
> . This report
> is a collaborative effort on behalf of many teams: fundraising tech, ops
> and donor services, major gifts, online fundraising, legal, communications,
> and more.
>
> The fundraising report offers us an opportunity to pause and reflect on
> learnings from last year and also consider where we're headed, particularly
> as we approach one of our busiest times of the year for fundraising. It's
> also an inspiring reminder of how many people across the world support the
> work of the community and WMF staff.
>
> We welcome your questions and feedback.
>
> Thank you,
> Thea
>
>
>
> --
> *Thea Skaff*
> Fundraising Program Manager
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> San Francisco, CA 94104
> ___
> 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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

2018-07-31 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
How about Portuguese from Africa?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 27 July 2018 at 16:41, Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> Hello Jane,
>
> Yes, maybe I have been lucky for having to deal with a Wikipedia that,
> despite having its fair share of problems, actually has not that kind of
> strife. We have 2 major linguistic varieties there (different to the point
> that stuff in European Portuguese is often subtitled in Brazil), and I
> can't remember the last time we had any problem related to that. We used to
> have some episodic problems, but since we passed a rule around 2011
> declaring that articles directly related to a geographic region should use
> the variety spoken in that geographic region, it ceased to be a problem.
> Language/variety diversity is often seen there as a source of richness and
> knowledge, and not as some kind of downside that people have to endure in
> order to participate.
>
> Some people of wiki.pt are also very active at the Mirandese and Galician
> wikis, projects with which we often engage in close collaboration.
>
> I'm also quite active at Commons, where we use mostly English, but a bit of
> everything as well (many categories are written using 2 different
> languages, for instance, and we often communicate in our native languages
> over there, often in the same thread).
>
> I wouldn't doubt that there are some people that despise languages
> different from the one they speak, but I don't believe it's anywhere "split
> down the middle". At least that is not my experience, at all.
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Paulo
>
>
> 2018-07-27 14:57 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell :
>
> > Well just speaking from my experience with the nlwiki community, there is
> > often a tendency to e.g. delete Belgian versions of local folklore or
> > cuisine, or merge these into Dutch local folklore or cuisine articles. I
> > think in general, you could say that most mono-lingualists are fairly
> > certain their country and by association, their language is the best, and
> > any other speakers of their language should either conform or start their
> > own wiki, never mind local grammar rules, etc. I am surprised you haven't
> > come across this at all - consider yourself lucky!
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Jane,
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think that we are in fact
> > split down the middle into parties that believe
> > > "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> > > languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and
> > > offline".
> > >
> > > I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression, at
> > > all. We are split by languages since the Babel Tower was embargoed by
> > God,
> > > but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting that
> > > "some languages are better than others".
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > >
> > > 2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell :
> > >
> > > > Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
> > > interesting
> > > > selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into
> > > > forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians
> at
> > > > heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
> > > whether
> > > > the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
> > > >
> > > > I think
> > > > that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
> > "some
> > > > languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> > languages
> > > on
> > > > the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline".
> > Then
> > > > there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the
> folks
> > > who
> > > > work in just one language and never think of language as a movement
> > topic
> > > > at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe
> to
> > > any
> > > > mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping
> groups
> > > > between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field
> > workers
> > > > tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
> > > workers"
> > > > tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully
> > > submit
> > > > that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all
> > have
> > > > enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong
> > > gets
> > > > proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something
> was
> > > > really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me
> being
> > > > unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
> > > personally
> > > > I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
> > > seeing
> > > > they are useful - even on Wikidata.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> > > > m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimania-l] Celebrating Wikimania 2018 online

2018-07-28 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I have added the minimal I have to do for  Mozambique [1].  They are three
Listeria lists and consequently they will update. I do work on the data but
my objective is not to complete them all.  I add the relation to the higher
level "administrative and territorial entity". To do this I often add new
ones and change items that are a combination of two levels (eg a town and
an entity). These are different, require different statements.

What I also do is copy these queries to Wikipedias. I do that when I do
that. Now I am working on the Zulu Wikipedia so the Yoruba and other
Wikipedias have to wait.

My wish is for people to notice this work, contribute to it and use the
result in templates. In the Celtic Knot conference, at the recent
Wikimania, presentations were made how information can be provided from
Wikidata using infoboxes that require little expertise and work. When a
small Wikipedia does not have basic information like the places where
people were born or died, that information has to be available from
something different from articles. When it is not possible to link, the
article will quickly become rather empty.

There is an ongoing discussion to update the Incubator project by providing
them with wikis. Supporting them with data is something I have advocated
for years. Particularly Africa has not been treated equally, the
information / data gap is huge. Have a look at this as well when you care
for Mozambique [2].
Thanks,
  GerardM



[1]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Geography_of_Mozambique
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Africa#Mozambique

On 27 July 2018 at 00:25, Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> Hi
> ​
> Yaroslav ,
>
> I'm working with Mozambique as well. I've been thinking about adding all
> those divisions to Wikidata, and then generating the Wikipédia articles
> from that info (not "live", though, just copying the information). I
> believe it would be much quicker, and would fill and correct Wikidata
> entries on the way.
>
> If you are interested in using something like that, please drop me a note.
>
> ​All the best,
>
> Paulo​
>
>
> 2018-07-26 17:25 GMT+01:00 Yaroslav Blanter :
>
> > Hi Gerard,
> >
> > when you come to Mozambique, pls let me know, there are reliable sources
> > down to the third level administrative divisions. For example, the two
> > sources present in
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzi_District
> >
> > are available for every district (though I so far only added about half
> of
> > them to the English Wikipedia articles).
> >
> > Cheers
> > ​​
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > I do blog and tweet using #AfricaGap..  At this time I am adding
> > countries
> > > and their "administrative and territorial entities" in Wikidata. In
> many
> > a
> > > Wikipedia, they want to have "human settlements" linked to the lowest
> > level
> > > and these to every time a higher level.
> > >
> > > What I do is add more and more countries. The information is
> incomplete.
> > It
> > > takes a lot of people and a lot of time to get this done. To gain
> > > participation, I add Listeria list to a set of Wikipedias. I work on
> > > cleaning up the data but there is much to be done. One of the benefits
> of
> > > the Listeria lists for me is that I notice any and all activity. After
> > > Wikimania there was a spike, thanks to some bot work.
> > >
> > > What I have noticed is that information on Wikipedias did not keep up
> > with
> > > changes that rearanged these "territories". Consequently start and end
> > > dates are missing on many items. For me, the current situation is most
> > > relevant and historic "territories" are not really considered by me.
> > >
> > > You find what I am working on here [1]. You will find much of the same
> > data
> > > on several (African language) Wikipedias.
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Africa#African_
> > > geographical_subdivisions
> > >
> > > On 26 July 2018 at 12:33, KuboF Hromoslav 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Great idea Romaine!
> > > >
> > > > I am now working on Esperanto Wikivoyage (in Incubator), mostly to
> make
> > > it
> > > > fully working. Now I am finishing Europe and immediately after that I
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "State of Wikimedia Research" presentation at Wikimania 2018

2018-07-28 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Thank you Pine, you had me interested and I watched the presentation. I
even blogged about it. Benjamin mentioned some numbers and sadly at this
time Wikidata cannot corroborate what he had to say. Doing that is a
challenge but hey, it is our own dogfood.
Thanks,
 GerardM

https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2018/07/wikipedia-where-is-all-that-research.html

On 27 July 2018 at 22:26, Pine W  wrote:

> In case people are interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE2UQu3r6vE
>
>
> The topics covered include:
> * Media and images
> * Talk page debates
> * Comparisons of Wikipedia language editions
> * Who is not participating?
> * Wikipedia as a source of data
>
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> 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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

2018-07-28 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I have. I have heard a very senior person in the WMF state that English is
the only relevant language..

PS We did not agree on that one ..

Thanks,
   GerardM

On 27 July 2018 at 13:35, Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> Hello Jane,
>
> >
> ​
> I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
> "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and
> offline".
>
> ​I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression, at
> all. We are split by languages since ​the Babel Tower was embargoed by God,
> but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting that
> "some languages are better than others".
>
> All the best,
>
> Paulo
>
>
> 2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell :
>
> > Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
> interesting
> > selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into
> > forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at
> > heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
> whether
> > the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
> > ​​
> > I think
> > that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some
> > languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages
> on
> > the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline". Then
> > there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks
> who
> > work in just one language and never think of language as a movement topic
> > at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to
> any
> > mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups
> > between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field workers
> > tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
> workers"
> > tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully
> submit
> > that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all have
> > enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong
> gets
> > proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was
> > really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being
> > unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
> personally
> > I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
> seeing
> > they are useful - even on Wikidata.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> > m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
> >
> > > As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the
> > > movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects
> > are
> > > not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people running
> > > worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the hard
> > > core contributes.
> > >
> > > This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders,
> fully
> > > in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
> > weakness,
> > > as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our
> > > communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
> accepted.
> > >
> > > Facts
> > >
> > > The vision  was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > >
> > > The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > >
> > > The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up  to include
> > (only)
> > > functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
> > candidates
> > > should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not
> > > done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss"
> > > selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
> > company,
> > > not the vibrant communities)
> > >
> > > Anders
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
> dacu...@gmail.com
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been
> said
> > >> here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the
> > >> Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are
> > not
> > >> associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not
> attend
> > >> real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
> > >>
> > >> If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I
> have
> > >> net
> > >> see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >> Yaroslav
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > >> i/Wikimedia-l
> > >> New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimania-l] Celebrating Wikimania 2018 online

2018-07-26 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I do blog and tweet using #AfricaGap..  At this time I am adding countries
and their "administrative and territorial entities" in Wikidata. In many a
Wikipedia, they want to have "human settlements" linked to the lowest level
and these to every time a higher level.

What I do is add more and more countries. The information is incomplete. It
takes a lot of people and a lot of time to get this done. To gain
participation, I add Listeria list to a set of Wikipedias. I work on
cleaning up the data but there is much to be done. One of the benefits of
the Listeria lists for me is that I notice any and all activity. After
Wikimania there was a spike, thanks to some bot work.

What I have noticed is that information on Wikipedias did not keep up with
changes that rearanged these "territories". Consequently start and end
dates are missing on many items. For me, the current situation is most
relevant and historic "territories" are not really considered by me.

You find what I am working on here [1]. You will find much of the same data
on several (African language) Wikipedias.
Thanks,
 GerardM


[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Africa#African_geographical_subdivisions

On 26 July 2018 at 12:33, KuboF Hromoslav  wrote:

> Great idea Romaine!
>
> I am now working on Esperanto Wikivoyage (in Incubator), mostly to make it
> fully working. Now I am finishing Europe and immediately after that I will
> focus on Africa (not only for the Africagap and to help our colleagues but
> also to support tourism and facilitate meetings in Africa).
>
> See you online!
> KuboF Hromoslav
>
>
> po 23. 7. 2018 o 20:25 Romaine Wiki  napísal(a):
>
> > The official part of Wikimania is over, this does not prevent ourselves
> > from celebrating Africa's first Wikimania online, in more particular:
> > writing Wikipedia articles.
> >
> > Africa is under represented in Wikipedia, by writing about it we both
> > celebrate our great conference as well as we work on solving the
> Africagap
> >
> > With some Dutchies we started the idea of having a list of like 10-20
> > articles of subjects from Cape Town and surrounding area. For example:
> >
> >
> > Well-known park in Cape Town:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company%27s_Garden
> >
> > The often referred to Dassie:
> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q323847
> >
> > Input needed!
> >
> > Romaine
> > ___
> > Wikimania-l mailing list
> > wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

2018-07-26 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
An other problem with participation by proxy is that you are likely to
strengthen current bias. Wikimania 2018 has come and gone and we want more
and better information about subjects like Africa, There are many
approaches possible. Crucial is what it is we are to achieve.

* Do we want a better representation on "our" Wikipedia for the subject at
hand
* Do we want sufficient information for best practices like all the places
related from lowest to highest level of administrative and territorial
representation
* Do we want the information gap that has not even one percent of humans
coming from Africa to be filled
* Do we want our projects to be available for the people in Africa
* Do we want the projects in African language to thrive

The problem is that in order to make these things happen, truly happen, you
have to make it happen. By killing Wikipedia Zero for "obvious" reasons, we
will not have a second generation of students in Africa benefiting from
what we provided. It does not matter that we celebrate the first
generation, we failed them.

When we are to celebrate African academia, it is to be found in Africa, not
on American universities. The African American have sources, our sources to
their name, making them notable. When we are to accept African academia it
should be on their terms, their notability. When we want to see African
language Wikipedias thrive, we have to invest in their education, in
African education and not start at universities but at high schools, the
children of that first and second generation. When they write articles in
their language, never mind the subject of their class, there is room for
new articles. There is room for many students, classes, schools to make a
difference.

The mayors of Africa are as notable as "our" mayors. We need pictures in a
same manner like the Geograph project in the UK. But we have to leave it to
them what they write. Without them it is not for them.

The gender gap is important and yes, it exists at least in the same measure
in Africa. However, the #AfricaGap is at least as discriminatory and they
have to come from much father behind.

When the professionals are to take care of "our" interest and make a
difference, they might find it interesting that (probably) the first GLAM
project was to share material outside of our own comfort zone. Its major
impact was Indonesia, not the Netherlands.  it might "inspire"
.
Thanks,
GerardM


On 23 July 2018 at 15:20, Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> "*Given the extensive time commitment required for participation in the
> WGs, I think that it's reasonable to  expect that a significant percentage
> of the members will be staff who are  paid to participate because the time
> commitment is probably too heavy for many volunteers *" (
> ​
> 2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00
> ​​
> Pine W )
>
> Isn't that a problem of "bias by design"? If the design of the groups
> favors the participation of staffers, who are paid by the chapters to look
> after their interests, isn't this an obvious conflict of interest? Why
> would a staffer of Wikimedia Antarctida, whose relation to the Movement is
> mainly defined by the salary (s)he gets at the end of the month, paid by
> his/her chapter, be interested in participating in strategy discussions for
> other reason than to advance the points and interests of Wikimedia
> Antarctida? Even assuming those interests do not conflict with those of the
> Wikimedia Movement (which is not granted), the expected input would still
> be very limited in scope.
>
> All the best,
>
> Paulo
>
>
> ​​
> 2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00
> ​​
> Pine W :
>
> > Speaking in general terms about diversity of the WGs, this is a
> challenging
> > topic even for people who have the best of intentions. What do we mean by
> > "diversity" and "bias" in regards to the composition of the WGs? That
> > discussion alone could be extensive and there might not be consensus on
> the
> > definitions.
> >
> > If the goal in general is maximum diversity on as many factors as
> possible,
> > that is a difficult goal to achieve. Given the extensive time commitment
> > required for participation in the WGs, I think that it's reasonable to
> > expect that a significant percentage of the members will be staff who are
> > paid to participate because the time commitment is probably too heavy for
> > many volunteers, and our existing volunteers already have plenty of
> > important activities to do.
> >
> > There are other ways that this phase of the strategy development process
> > could be run that would be less burdensome for volunteers - and I
> > personally would advocate for such an approach - but the downsides that I
> > could foresee are that (1) the staff involved would likely also not be
> > sufficiently diverse for the aspirations of many of us, and (2) the
> culture
> > and mindset of staff can be very different from those of the volunteers,
> so
> > there would almost inevitably be some loss in terms of the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees appointments and officer positions 2018

2018-07-20 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I have started to collect some information..
PS Tanya Welcome !!
Thanks,
 GerardM

https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q55655418

On 19 July 2018 at 17:33, Christophe Henner  wrote:

> And because I can't step down properly, a part of the email was missing,
> here is the complete version
>
>
>
> *Hello everyone,*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *I am happy to make some announcements about the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> of Trustees. As of today, Tanya Capuano has formally joined the Board.
> Tanya is an experienced financial professional who has worked as a Vice
> President of Finance for Intuit, and more recently as CFO for the software
> firm G5. She is passionate about education, having served on the boards of
> various educational nonprofits.Tanya will enrich the financial and
> accounting skills critical to the oversight of the Foundation and to her
> role as Chair of the Foundation’s Audit Committee, to which she was also
> elected today. Please join me in warming welcoming her in the Wikimedia
> movement. As Tanya joins us, we also see Kelly Battles and Alice Wiegand,
> two very valuable trustees, leave us as their terms of service come to a
> close. Both of them have been stellar trustees who helped the board and the
> Foundation grow and become a more robust organisation.Kelly and Alice, you
> have brought so much to the Foundation and to the movement, and it has been
> an immense pleasure serving with you. I can only hope, as has often been
> the case with other former trustees, our movement will be lucky enough we
> keep seeing both of you around and that you keep on bringing your
> experience, skills, and wisdom to all of us. As you might have noticed we
> still are one trustee short, with a total of nine. We are currently
> searching for a tenth Trustee, with a technology and platform background;
> you can read the profile here on Commons
>  Recruiting_Candidate_Packet_May_2018.pdf>.
> Today the Board also voted to appoint María Sefidari as Chair and
> Christophe Henner as Vice Chair. After serving as Chair for two terms, I
> decided to step down and support María as Chair, hopefully as effectively
> as she served me and the organization when she was my Vice Chair. María and
> I both have a long history of involvement in the Wikimedia community, and
> prior to coming to the Foundation, held leadership roles in local Wikimedia
> organizations.In addition, the Board re-elected Nataliia Tymkiv as Chair of
> the Board Governance Committee, supported by BGC members James Heilman and
> Dariusz Jemielniak, and alternates Raju Narisetti and María. We also
> elected Raju as Chair of the Human Resources Committee, with members María
> and Dariusz.  Finally, as noted, we elected Tanya Capuano as Chair of the
> Audit Committee, with Christophe and Raju as members and María and Jimmy as
> alternates.  More about Christophe, María, and the Committee Chairs are
> below. I hope you will join me in congratulating them on their new
> positions and wish them success in their terms ahead.On a more personal
> note, I would like to thank everyone for the last two years. This is not
> farewell, but the last two years have been a roller coaster and I am proud
> I had the chance to serve as Chair and helped us building up the future of
> the movement. We have achieved a lot in the last 24 months, and the best is
> yet to come!ChristopheAbout Tanya CapuanoTanya Pine Capuano most recently
> was the chief financial officer (CFO) of the data-driven marketing company
> G5 in Bend, Oregon. Originally from San Jose, California, she has
> wide-ranging experience including strategy and financial planning and
> analysis in technology. In addition to her recent role at G5, she has also
> worked for Hewlett-Packard and Intuit.She has also supported numerous
> education initiatives throughout her career; including serving on the
> boards of Education Pioneers, Los Altos Educational Foundation, and “I Have
> a Dream” Foundation San Francisco, an organization whose San Francisco
> chapter she co-founded.She is very involved with Stanford University alumni
> life, having earned a bachelor's in economics, a master's in education, and
> a master of business administration from the university. After graduating,
> she worked as the university’s Director of Alumni Relations and Development
> Director for the Initiative on Improving K-12 Education. She has also
> served on the board of the Stanford University Graduate School of
> Business.Tanya lives in the San Francisco Bay Area with her husband and two
> children. They enjoy traveling as a family and outdoor sports.About María
> SefidariMaría Sefidari Huici is a professor in the Digital Communications,
> Culture and Citizenship Master's degree program of Rey Juan Carlos
> University at the MediaLab-Prado.Born in Madrid, Spain, where she still
> lives today, María 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Curating YOUR Wikipedia

2018-07-20 Thread Gerard Meijssen
ith specific
> necessary knowledge in the workflow.
>
> So my core advice remain the same: create a dedicated project, ask users
> interested in the topic, teach them wikidata. You can teach them without a
> project too, but I guess the project could help.
>
> I made you one example in the private mail, the situation of the Italian
> hamlets imported by some archive on some minor wikipedians (to pick a
> theme among possible dozens). Some of them are correct, some of them are
> weird . They are still there but, as I said, if you want to get rid of
> the trash I can find you 30 users now willing to clean up in a short amount
> of time and leave only what has a real meaning. So it's not so bad. I
> could have written general emails and the structural starting point would
> have not changed this way.
>
> What I am trying to say is that you probably have around the human
> resources to tackle most of this cluster of work, you just have to find
> them. I see the energy inside the communities. Your mail is more centered
> on the issue, the guideline, the possible tool... it 's not "warm". You
> don't seem to consider the people who should do the continuous, constant
> work. You describe something where you are alone and I might say, if I ask
> this help inside the wikidata community, I have the same feeling sometimes.
> That is true, since there are many small tasks that are much simpler, very
> generic tasks that are interesting to write a nerdy post on ablog, or
> virgin areas ready to be conquered massively importing data from
> archives... and many established wikidata users prefer to focus on these
> things. But when I look for users at the level of local communities, I had
> much less problems, i had good feedback. That's it. And that is why I am
> basically optimistic.
>
> When I see a situation that is not evolving inside wikidata, my instinct
> remains to ask around to people who create real content wherever they are.
>
> About this specific problem, did you contact the users who created these
> contents on local wikipedias? 50% of them should have a decent English
> working proficiency, in my experience. Did you scroll the history of the
> pages here and there, found the most common usernames dedicated to their
> creation and maintennace, and left the a message in their user talks?
> that's what I am trying to understand.
>
> Il Lunedì 16 Luglio 2018 8:13, Gerard Meijssen 
> ha scritto:
>
>
> Hoi,
> Thanks for your reply. There is one big issue that you do not address and,
> it is best explained using a Wikipedia "best practice". The best practice
> is that a town, a village whatever is known to be in the next
> level "administrative territorial entities". This is done properly for the
> first world. Where Wikidata does not hold data, as it often does, it cannot
> help in info boxes but what I find is that the data of the Wikipedia is
> wrong for more than 6% when I add information.
>
> It does not matter that the information is fractured; coming from many
> sources. The data for Egyptian subdivisions is largely in Arabic. This is
> not something I can curate but it is something that can be presented.
>
> What does matter is that differences between Wikipedias and Wikidata are
> not noticed. Of particular importance is where the data is biased or wrong.
> Particularly where the data is wrong and is about "administrative
> territorial entities", I have had push back because English Wikipedia was
> said to be wrong [1]... My interpretation of the facts is that the German
> article was better written but out of date.
>
> In this mail thread, I raise the issue of differences between Wikipedias,
> differences between projects and Wikidata. Particularly where the
> data/articles are biased or wrong our quality suffers. When for a subject
> the error rate is more than 6%, the error rate is more than can be expected
> of human adding good faith information to a project. The data I am adding
> at this time supports Wikipedia best practices. It is particularly intended
> for the "minority languages" [2] but the quality of all our data will be
> improved when we are aware of the differences and curate them everywhere.
>
> This is distinctly different from the issue with Commons; its data is good
> enough for its current use case but is what holds it back from becoming the
> resource you goto because you can "find" what you are seeking.
>
> In a nutshell our problem is that we work in an insular fashion. We do not
> have ways to find the differences, the errors, the bias between our
> projects. We could do, suggestions for a basic mechanism have been made.
> Our quality suffers and it does not need to [3].
> Thanks,
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Curating YOUR Wikipedia

2018-07-16 Thread Gerard Meijssen
f them are simply effects of gray
> areas that need to wait to be resolved even at the level of the sources.
> Insome fields, such as taxonomy, there is some confusion and asymmetric
> organization of the content and will never be solved easily. But in the
> other areas they probably will.
> Alex
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Il Domenica 15 Luglio 2018 22:37, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>
>  Hoi,
> Wikidata is a reflection of all the Wikimedia projects, particularly the
> Wikipedias. Both Wikidata and Wikipedia are secondary sources and when two
> Wikipedias have opposing information on singular information, it is a cop
> out to state both "opinions" on Wikidata and leave it at that.
>
> Given that Wikidata largely reflects what a Wikipedia indicates, it is
> important to curate such differences. The first thing to consider is are we
> interested at all in knowing about "false facts" and then how we can
> indicate differences to our editing and reading community.
>
> I have been editing about Africa for a long time now and I find that the
> content about Africa is woefully underdeveloped. Best Wikipedia practice
> has it that cities and villages are linked to "administrative territorial
> entities" like provinces and districts and I have added such relations from
> primary to secondary entities. Adding such information to villages and
> cities as well is too much for me. The basic principle is that I am being
> bold in doing so. I do relate to existing items and I have curated a lot of
> crap data so far. The result is that Wikidata in places differs
> considerably from Wikipedias, particularly the English Wikipedia.
>
> As topics like the ones about Africa are severely underdeveloped, just
> adding new data is a 100% improvement even when arguably adding sources is
> a good thing. By being bold, by starting from a Wikipedia as a base line,
> it is important to note that not adding sources is established practice in
> Wikidata.
>
> The issue I raise is that when "another" Wikipedia considers its
> information superior, it is all too easy to make accusations of adding
> "fake facts" particularly when it is not obvious that the "other" Wikipedia
> provides better information. To counter such insular behaviour, it becomes
> relevant to consider how we can indicate discrepancies between stated facts
> in any Wikimedia project vis a vis Wikidata. Obviously it would be
> wonderful when the total of all our projects are considered in a
> visualisation.
>
> Particularly when a subject is of little interest to our current editor
> community, the data in the Wikipedias and by inference in Wikidata is weak.
> Many of the subjects, Africa just as one example, are relevant to a public,
> both a reading and editing public, that we want to develop. Without tools
> that help us curate our differences we will rely on insular opinions and
> every project is only a part of what we aim to achieve in all our projects.
> We will have a hard time growing our audience.
>
> NB this is an old, old issue and it is not going away.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-
> fruit-from.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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Curating YOUR Wikipedia

2018-07-15 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Wikidata is a reflection of all the Wikimedia projects, particularly the
Wikipedias. Both Wikidata and Wikipedia are secondary sources and when two
Wikipedias have opposing information on singular information, it is a cop
out to state both "opinions" on Wikidata and leave it at that.

Given that Wikidata largely reflects what a Wikipedia indicates, it is
important to curate such differences. The first thing to consider is are we
interested at all in knowing about "false facts" and then how we can
indicate differences to our editing and reading community.

I have been editing about Africa for a long time now and I find that the
content about Africa is woefully underdeveloped. Best Wikipedia practice
has it that cities and villages are linked to "administrative territorial
entities" like provinces and districts and I have added such relations from
primary to secondary entities. Adding such information to villages and
cities as well is too much for me. The basic principle is that I am being
bold in doing so. I do relate to existing items and I have curated a lot of
crap data so far. The result is that Wikidata in places differs
considerably from Wikipedias, particularly the English Wikipedia.

As topics like the ones about Africa are severely underdeveloped, just
adding new data is a 100% improvement even when arguably adding sources is
a good thing. By being bold, by starting from a Wikipedia as a base line,
it is important to note that not adding sources is established practice in
Wikidata.

The issue I raise is that when "another" Wikipedia considers its
information superior, it is all too easy to make accusations of adding
"fake facts" particularly when it is not obvious that the "other" Wikipedia
provides better information. To counter such insular behaviour, it becomes
relevant to consider how we can indicate discrepancies between stated facts
in any Wikimedia project vis a vis Wikidata. Obviously it would be
wonderful when the total of all our projects are considered in a
visualisation.

Particularly when a subject is of little interest to our current editor
community, the data in the Wikipedias and by inference in Wikidata is weak.
Many of the subjects, Africa just as one example, are relevant to a public,
both a reading and editing public, that we want to develop. Without tools
that help us curate our differences we will rely on insular opinions and
every project is only a part of what we aim to achieve in all our projects.
We will have a hard time growing our audience.

NB this is an old, old issue and it is not going away.
Thanks,
  GerardM

https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-fruit-from.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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] On traceability and reliability of data we publish [was Re: [Wikidata] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata]

2018-07-08 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
This same mail was send at the same time to the Wikidata mailing list.. The
answer there is argued in a different way with an utterly different
outcome.. This is an example of forum shopping and the result is that there
is no single outcome, it is great example why forum shopping does not help.
It divides more than brings together.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 9 July 2018 at 04:17, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Hello Mathieu!  I agree that tracing the full history of a data cite is
> important, independent of license.  I'm thinking about scalable solutions
> for this.
> It's definitely not the only factor in reliability; but it does matter who
> entered the data (for instance) as one way to estimate the importance of
> doublechecking a cited source to confirm that the data is found there.
>
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 11:59 AM mathieu lovato stumpf guntz <
> psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote:
>
>
> > I agree this is misconception that a copyright license make any direct
> > change to data reliability. But attribution requirement does somewhat
> > indirectly have an impact on it, as it... enforces traceability.
> > That is I strongly disagree with the following assertion: "a license
> > that requires BY sucks so hard for data [because] attribution
> > requirements grow very quickly". To my mind it is equivalent to say that
> > we will throw away traceability because it is subjectively judged too
> > large a burden, without providing any start of evidence that it indeed
> > can't be managed, at least with Wikimedia current ressources.
> >
> > Now, I don't say traceability is the sole factor one should take into
> > account in data reliability, but certainly it is one of them.
> ___
> 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] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

2018-07-07 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hell NO!

We are not neutral and it will be a particular sad situation when we forget
what we are there for, what our objectives are only to "avoid compromising
the appearance of
the projects and the movement as neutral providers of information; to avoid
bad publicity; to avoid antagonizing governments or corporate interests; to
avoid compromising the Foundation's tax-exempt status; to avoid fragmenting
the resources and attention of the movement; to avoid creating divisions
within the projects and the movement that would make it more difficult for
volunteers to work together."

We just won a major victory in our battle to keep the internet free, an
internet where we can write our projects. A victory where one of our
opponents said "Wikipedia should be nationalised"; there is no neutral
ground for us. We have antagonised governments. Our Turkish Wikipedia and
other Wikipedias is not available in Turkey. Our established positions are
against corporate interests. And to be honest, when we lose our tax status
in the USA because of all this, we will make us even more money.

Our objectives, our reliance on a free internet, free software and free
licenses are an integral part of who we are. We will not squander it to
appease any two bit dictator.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 7 July 2018 at 01:10, Benjamin Lees  wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 3:33 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
> > Are there any specific reasons that the Foundation should remain
> > neutral on any topic, economic, political, or otherwise, which clearly
> > impacts the readership or community?
>
> Well, off the top of my head: to avoid compromising the appearance of
> the projects and the movement as neutral providers of information; to
> avoid bad publicity; to avoid antagonizing governments or corporate
> interests; to avoid compromising the Foundation's tax-exempt status;
> to avoid fragmenting the resources and attention of the movement; to
> avoid creating divisions within the projects and the movement that
> would make it more difficult for volunteers to work together.
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:01 AM, James Salsman  wrote:
> > I've spoken with perhaps fifty wikimedians over the past couple years,
> > and I simply do not believe that more than 20% could wish such ill
> > will on their peers.
>
> Let me be bold and suggest that around 99% of the people on this list
> disagree with the percentages you keep making up.
>
> Emufarmers
>
> ___
> 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] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

2018-06-18 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Are you seriously asking what African, Indian or Chinese Wikipedian ...
does not want Americans or British to have what they do not have either?
What makes them so special that they deserve this!

English Wikipedia is only 50% of our traffic. The attention it is given is
excessive.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 18 June 2018 at 15:57, James Salsman  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Dennis During  wrote:
> > Yes. I think I am. I wouldn't have thought that WMF would be so driven by
> > economics.
>
> Have you looked at the ED's CV?
>
> > I would bail from this project and find another that was less partisan
>
> If the ED told donors to take steps that might get American editors
> health care, UK editors free college, German editors shorter work
> weeks, or Greek editors a two-bracket tax structure, that would be
> enough to make you want to stop participating? Why?
>
> > fewer and fewer institutions seem nonpartisan to me.
>
> I wish I could say the same. The Denver Post was just taken over by a
> hedge fund a couple months ago, and the newsroom staff gutted. That
> was certainly the kind of libertarian partisanship which the
> Foundation certainly supported through early support of civil
> liberties groups to the exclusion of tax and transfer equity groups,
> not to mention the Objectivist bent of most of the wikipedias'
> economics articles. Now the reporters are jumping ship and forming a
> new employee-owned newspaper, the Colorado Sun, using blockchain
> technology to facilitate a new equity structure.
>
> Being nonpartisan is like being neutral: relative to what? I am merely
> asking that the Foundation's default partisan position be modified for
> instead of against individual wikimedian editors.
>
> > the WMF projects would be more to your liking without people of my
> > beliefs intruding on policy discussions.
>
> Nonsense! Some of my best friends believe
>  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfs1nG_UwAEsST3.jpg
>
> > I favor the WMF focusing its efforts on serving a vast public by offering
> > content that is not
>
> Not what? Not biased like the enwiki's "Economics" article implying
> that the government never spends taxes in a pathetic sophomorish
> attempt to claim that taxes are always bad?
>
> >> We should measure how much donors are likely
> >> to donate more or less for each of the issues.
> >
> > That is a short-run view.
>
> No, measurement to optimize donations is how we have always built the long
> run.
>
> > I prefer institutions that seem committed to a minimal core set of
> values.
>
> Such as fighting for the economic health of their volunteers thus
> enlarging the pool of potential volunteers and winning the concordant
> PR?
>
> > I am also surprised that you believe that the economics of donations
> > and grants should be driving the projects.
>
> I was not surprised when others confirmed that the articles I've been
> monitoring as quality barometers turned out to be heavily correlated
> with articles likely to be associated with above-average donations.
>
> > Is WMF for sale to corporate donors, to large private donors, or to
> those who
> > craft seductive fund-raising messages?
>
> Well obviously not because there are still hundreds of banner messages
> which have never been measured.
>
> >> I would also like to know the proportion of wikimedians who think the
> Mission
> >> is so restrictive.
> >
> > Facts are always nice
>
> The idea that more than a few percent of wikimedians think that the
> Mission limits political advocacy to libertarian copyright and
> internet law organizations is absurd. It may be 10% tops. If there is
> an actual question, we can and should measure the quantity.
>
> > What is an "optimized influence likelihood"?
>
> For example, the arguments for free college, shorter work weeks,
> payroll subsidies, and two-bracket taxation are appropriate for the
> UK, but single payer health care is not, because they've already won
> that a long time ago. Instead, the ED could substitute mental health
> care increases for her letter to UK donors, for example.
>
> But seriously, what kind of a UK wikimedian or donor is going to be
> offended by a one-size-fits-all-nations letter asking for donors to
> work for single payer in America? What kind of an African, Indian, or
> Chinese Wikipedian wouldn't want American and UK wikipedians to have
> free health care, shorter work weeks, and a more equitable tax and
> transfer incidence?
>
> Best regards,
> Jim
>
> >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Dennis During 
> wrote:
> >> > I'd reconsider contributing content to WMF projects if WMF became a
> >> > partisan on issues outside its basic remit.
> >> >
> >> > On Jun 15, 2018 16:11, "James Salsman"  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Regarding https://twitter.com/SuePGardner/status/998302792946102273
> >> >
> >> > I propose that the Executive Director resume regular periodic
> >> > correspondence with donors on other ways they can support the
> >> > movement, beyond copyright and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Volunteering and Appreciation (was: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF)

2018-06-11 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
You read me wrong. I am not happy because in contrast to you I find that
meta is too much of a time sync. To follow the diverse conversations that
are taking place it almost takes a full time job. When you add the
animosity when you come with arguments that are not considered, it is too
much.

The notion that you get to cooperate and have mutual understanding is a
myth.

It does not mean that I give up, I do the things that I feel are important.
Things that are often contrarian. I feel that we should concentrate on high
schools for languages like Zulu and Yoruba because Wikipedia fellows will
not have any impact there. I feel that too much attention is given to
English Wikipedia; it is not 50% of our traffic and with an equal attention
to all other Wikipedias it would be even less. Even a success story like
gender gap is overrated because other gaps exist that are even worse:
Africa for instance has no percent of humans in Wikidata.

So no, I disagree with you. Your premises are wrong. They do not even work
for you.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 11 June 2018 at 10:25, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

> @Richard:
> Thanks for your words, they matter to me!
> I took a look to the page that you linked and I did some changes (I
> explained them on the talk page), I hope you are ok with them.
> In principle it is a good idea, but as always a group of people is needed
> to put it in practice, and it doesn't seem that there is enough social
> capital to start that.
>
> @Gerard:
> It is true that Meta takes time, but it is the only place that can help us
> coordinating a global movement so diverse as ours. It is also the only
> neutral place where people from different projects can come and talk
> without feeling that they are going to someone else's house (for instance
> that is how it feels to go as a Wikidatan to Wikipedia and vice versa). And
> without dialogue there cannot be real cooperation and mutual understanding.
>
> Your private blog is fine, your work is fine, you can work your whole life
> in isolation and be fine. However, if you want to listen to all the voices
> and do something for them and for you, then you need some infrastructure,
> social and technical. Meta is that place.
>
> You seem to oppose volunteers receiving donations because of the overhead
> that it will generate. I think that if that is the issue, then an effort
> should be done to create shorter reports. Normally reports are long because
> readers want them to be long, if there would be some understanding that
> they take time from everyone, they could be shorter, or at least there
> could be summaries.
>
> Every person has a different situation and finds fulfillment in different
> things, you cannot expect your situation to be universal, and if you are
> fine with yours great for you. I am not so pleased with my situation, that
> is why I want a change for myself, and of course for everyone that wants a
> change too.
>
> Regards,
> Micru
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:14 AM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > One reason why you do not get much traction is because many people,
> myself
> > included, found that there is little purpose in spending time on Meta. It
> > is time spend in a frustrating way and it hardly ever results in the kind
> > of results you hope for. The time necessary to keep up with what is
> written
> > there robs you of the time for projects. Projects are practical and
> expand
> > on the things you really care for. For me that is work on subjects that
> do
> > not get the light of day from most others.
> >
> > My meta thoughts I publish on my blog [1], subjects are my projects and
> my
> > thoughts as I progress .I write there and to be honest, I do not expect
> > much of anyone; I am happy with a single person seeing the benefits and
> > contributing in what I do. Currently I work on African politicians, my
> > interest on Ottoman and Islamic history is on hold for the moment. I find
> > that my thinking is often controversial.
> >
> > Currently there are some moves about paying admins, maybe others. I am
> > strongly opposed because what you sponsor is not so much the work done
> but
> > the ability to do the work *and *read Meta. Given reports of ninety
> pages,
> > it is hardly feasible to keep up even with Wiki as a full time job. It is
> > why we should not sponsor what are in effect policy tigers.
> >
> > When people talk about fulfilment and having a life, in my current job, I
> > work 51 hours a week, I have plenty of slack time; a few minutes here and
> > there. For that Wikidata is excellent. In addition I have to shop, cook,
> > wash the dishes... and be loving to my wife.
> > Thanks,
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ?מה עושה אותך מאושר השבוע / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 10 June 2018)

2018-06-10 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I am happy because someone asked me if it was an idea to have a list of
African women performers and base it on [1], we did a similar thing for 100
women BBC [2]. I love the idea :)
Thanks,
  GerardM


[1] https://100women.okayafrica.com
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/100_Women_-_BBC

On 10 June 2018 at 02:17, Pine W  wrote:

> Here are some highlights:
>
> * "Improved geocoding in CiviCRM", by Eileen McNaughton:
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/06/05/improved-geocoding-in-civicrm/
>
> * "Thank you week-end thread", with posts by hashar (
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2018-June/090126.html)
> and
> legoktm (
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2018-June/090142.html)
>
> * You may be familiar with the United Nations Sustainable Development
> Goals. WMF commented on a draft text that is being considered by UNESCO in
> regards to Sustainable Development Goal 4. You can read about SDG 4 at
> https://en.unesco.org/education2030-sdg4/targets and
> https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg4. Nichole Saad published WMF's
> comments about the draft document at
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_
> Foundation_Comment_on_the_UNESCO_OER_Recommendation_Draft.pdf.
>
>
> * "Rebuilding Wikimédia France", by Charlotte Matoussowsky:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-June/090413.html
>
> * "Stats re new users per gender per year in Hebrew Wikipedia", by Shani
> Evenstein Sigalov:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-June/090429.html.
> Asaf Bartov uploaded a screenshot of the data table here that may be easier
> to read:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:User_gender_on_
> Hebrew_Wikipedia,_by_year,_through_May_2018.png
>
>
> What's making you happy this week? You are welcome to comment in any
> language.
>
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> 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] Volunteering and Appreciation (was: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF)

2018-06-10 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
One reason why you do not get much traction is because many people, myself
included, found that there is little purpose in spending time on Meta. It
is time spend in a frustrating way and it hardly ever results in the kind
of results you hope for. The time necessary to keep up with what is written
there robs you of the time for projects. Projects are practical and expand
on the things you really care for. For me that is work on subjects that do
not get the light of day from most others.

My meta thoughts I publish on my blog [1], subjects are my projects and my
thoughts as I progress .I write there and to be honest, I do not expect
much of anyone; I am happy with a single person seeing the benefits and
contributing in what I do. Currently I work on African politicians, my
interest on Ottoman and Islamic history is on hold for the moment. I find
that my thinking is often controversial.

Currently there are some moves about paying admins, maybe others. I am
strongly opposed because what you sponsor is not so much the work done but
the ability to do the work *and *read Meta. Given reports of ninety pages,
it is hardly feasible to keep up even with Wiki as a full time job. It is
why we should not sponsor what are in effect policy tigers.

When people talk about fulfilment and having a life, in my current job, I
work 51 hours a week, I have plenty of slack time; a few minutes here and
there. For that Wikidata is excellent. In addition I have to shop, cook,
wash the dishes... and be loving to my wife.
Thanks,
 GerardM

[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/

On 10 June 2018 at 02:08, Richard Ames  wrote:

> Micru,
>
> I think a lot of us care.  I wish you well!
>
> Some time ago I tried to put some thoughts around volunteering at the WMF.
> I thought it needed to be better planed / managed.
>
> I could not get enough interest to progress the conversation.
>
> You may wish to read https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Management
> and the talk page thereof.
>
> Regards, Richard.
>
> On 10 June 2018 at 06:25, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
>
> > Aubrey,
> >
> > You speak so much truth in your words that I'm feeling overwhelmed right
> >
>
> 
> ___
> 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] Are we losing out against bad editing?

2018-05-31 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Just a question. When you pay volunteers, where does it stop? Is it only
for admins and if so why and, is it only for English Wikipedia and if so
why?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 28 May 2018 at 15:48, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

> Gnangarra, you have been showing a lot of generosity towards the community
> and that is laudable. As you, over the years I have also spent countless
> hours in this community, and I do not regret it either, I feel it has been
> and it still is a good investment of my time, and my dedication. You, as
> me, are able to do all that because we are not financially disadvantaged.
> You are not in need of any donation, you can do what you are doing without
> support and that is great. However that you do not need those resources
> does not mean that other people might not need them.
>
> Every volunteer can work in this community as long as their material needs
> are covered. If they cannot support themselves, we leave them to their own
> devices. That is totally opposite to cultivating a sense of community. In
> that regard I do not consider my comment disingenuous, but a reflection of
> what is common practice now.
> In my view if the community has resources, and a member of the community
> (more specifically, a dedicated member) needs them, then the community also
> should be generous with them, so that they don't have to leave.
>
> When I imagine what would be my ideal case scenario, I would also avoid
> giving disadvantaged volunteers money, I would give them food and a place
> to stay instead, but since that is even harder to materialize (at least at
> this point of time given the geographic dispersion and lack of real
> estate), I feel that donating resources to volunteers (that in turn have
> been donated, remember that) is a good idea to further the sense of
> community.
>
> I'm confused by your comment, can you please explain what makes you think
> that by donating to volunteers "they stop being volunteers in that aspect
> of what they do"?
>
> Regards,
> Micru
> ___
> 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] Are we losing out against bad editing?

2018-05-25 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
You compare two things that are not related and where there is a conflict
of interest. As it is, we are severely lacking in information in many of
our Wikipedias. Given that not even percent of the humans in Wikidata is
from Africa, the #AfricaGap is bigger than the #GenderGap (no percent vs
16/17% of humans). This gets us into issues about English Wikipedia
administration versus what it covers and how we can get people to write
about for instance Africa and Gender.

Your interest of keeping up with vandalism and the fight against massive
POV pushing, paid editing is something else altogether. I have no interest
at all in your struggles, I will not volunteer to become an admin. I find
that admins do and what I would expect from them is incompatible with what
I want to spend time on. The aggression in many conversations I have come
across makes me cringe.

When you want to improve issues that have to do with vandalism, POV, there
are possibilities in tooling. One partial solution that I have in mind
would improve the quality in articles, makes it obvious where there is a
difference allowing for more focus. The point/problem is that this will not
be specific to any one Wikipedia, it will show differences between projects
and consequently it is not specifically a tool with a focus on POV pushing.
With sufficient UI attention it may get more of the focus you are seeking.

As you seek control of our data, quality is king, it is what we should
build upon. When you seek to exclude the interest of others over your own,
I would hate to see you succeed.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 25 May 2018 at 11:59, Anders Wennersten  wrote:

> My main worry, during my daily patrolling, is if we manage to neutralize
> the bad editing (vandalism, POV pushing) or if the destructive editing is
> slowly successfully degenerating the great content we have created in our
> projects.
>
> In todays Sign-post it indicates an accelerating rate of decrease of
> admins on enwp, and some likewise tendency on dewp. Is this a sign that the
> "good" powers are losing out to the "bad" ones?
>
> I also seen a very passive response to two massPOV editing . One, on 35
> versions, is related to Hans Asperger, to state he was a nazi doctor
> (false, even if he was somewhat passive in some cases). Here dewp reacted
> quickly and after a while enwp, so these articles are OK, but in most of
> the other 35 this false info lies unchanged. Also I react to the effort
> from GazProm promoting their  propaganda article /Football for Friendship /
> in up to 80 version, and where almost noone has neutralized it.
>
> Are  we  slowly losing the battle against the "evil" forces? And if so, is
> then our new strategy (being good in itself) and the plan to implement  it
> all too naive? For example I like very much the ambition to help out on
> areas in the world where Wikipedia etc is not established, but would it be
> more correct to put effort in regaining control of the very many Wikipedia
> versions, that is definitely degenerating and we are loosing what has been
> done on these. (as a test look at "latest changes" on some of the versions
> with low editing, it is depressing to see that there often are more vandal
> editing, not being undone, then proper new material)
>
> Would it be most appropriate if we all in a 2-3 years effort concentrated
> on getting (back) control on our material in our projects, before we start
> efforts in implementing the strategy we have agreed upon. Perhaps a number
> of paid admins, vandal/pov fighters, about as many as there are stewards
> today, would be necessary not to lose out.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> //
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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] ⠠⠺⠓⠁⠞⠄⠎ ⠍⠁⠅⠊⠝⠛ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠓⠁⠏⠏⠽ ⠞⠓⠊⠎ ⠺⠑⠑⠅⠦ / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 20 May 2018)

2018-05-21 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I learned that Asaf was at the Nigerian Senate ... A present from me for
the Nigerian people; Nigerian politicians but in Yoruba :) Quite impressive
actually what they already have (compared with English)..
Thanks,
  GerardM

https://yo.wikipedia.org/wiki/On%C3%AD%E1%B9%A3e:GerardM

On 20 May 2018 at 06:20, Pine W  wrote:

> *Between the Brackets*
> Yaron Koren produced a 30 minute digest of previous episodes of this
> podcast. Much of the episode will be understandable by people who are not
> developers but are familiar with how MediaWiki works. I enjoyed listening
> to this: https://betweenthebrackets.libsyn.com/episode-8-btb-digest-1
>
>
>
> *WMF awards of Project Grants and Rapid Grants*
> * Nine Rapid Grants, with maximum amounts of $2000 each, were awarded to
> promote readership:
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/05/16/rapid-grants-awarded/
> * Eleven Project Grants, totaling $354,654, were awarded for diverse
> projects:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-May/090291.html.
> There will be a Project Showcase video meeting on June 14.
>
>
> *Reports from Wikimedia Conference 2018 participants*
> I especially appreciated this detailed report from Peaceray and Joe Mabel
> which mentions a wide range of subjects including Structured Data on
> Commons, Learning Days, possible ways to incorporate more diverse citations
> into Wikipedia, lightning talks, libraries and partnerships, and general
> thoughts about the conference:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_Wikimedians/
> 2018_Wikimedia_Conference_report.
> Conference reports are currently available in English, Thai, French,
> Ukrainian, Latvian, German, and Polish:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Further_reports.
>
>
> *Report from the Wikimedia Conference 2018 Strategy Track*
> Significant good-faith effort appears to be invested in the strategy
> process:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_
> 2018/Documentation/Movement_Strategy_track
>
>
> What's making you happy this week? You are welcome to comment in any
> language.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> 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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-19 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
When you imply that I do not support Creative Commons and its work on
licenses, you are explicitly wrong. It is because of the CC that a
harmonisation has taken place. It it thanks to this harmonisation that a
lot of material gained a license, becoming accessible. This does not mean
that the practice of copyright is not evil, it means that thanks to CC
copyright became less open to abuse.

I am old school Wikipedia. I strongly believe that our mission is to "share
the sum of all knowledge". When people like you aim to claim copyright on
Wikipedia articles, you do not argue how this would play. You do not
consider how this is a knife that cuts both ways and most prominently will
hinder our quest to share the sum of all knowledge to all people. When a
company abuses our content by ignoring the license, they gain a public for
our content. When this is done right, we benefit; there is a symbiotic
relation with Google for instance. The only disadvantage happens when
because of a lack of attribution people do not come to Wikipedia or
Wikidata to curate the data. Practically the whole license issue of
Wikipedia is a mess because it is not enforced and because there are too
many copyright warriors claiming that things should be different, never
stop arguing  and never coming to a practical point.

What I am saying is that when multiple sources claim the same thing, it
follows that any and all of them can not claim exclusive copyright to it.
For me the databus that DBpeida will show how little is original in
databases. On the one hand this is cool because it will indicate that such
things are likely correct on the other hand it is cool because it will
indicate what to curate in order to gain a better understanding. It also
follows that in order to bring things into doubt, you must publish facts
and strongly support the underlying data in order to be noticed. This is
why the work on the gender gap is so important. This is why work needs to
be done where all of us / all the databases are weak. This is why fake news
is so easy, there is nothing that easily finds where the data goes off the
rails.

 so then we get to  This is why we need the databus of
DBpedia, this is why we should stop mocking DBpedia and collaborate with
them in stead of what some say: "everything you can do, we can do better".
The fact of the matter is that they do what we might do and we have to
learn to collaborate.

Now why would you use Wikidata when DBpedia by definition can include all
of Wikidata and is better equipped to bring all the data together? You
would because it is not the copyright, it is superior functionality.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 17 May 2018 at 17:39, Rob Speer <r...@luminoso.com> wrote:

> > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
> enemy of science and knowledge
>
> Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
>
> I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
> which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to multiple
> Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
> by CC-By-SA.
>
> Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against CC-By-SA.
> I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude
> toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding us
> back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
> us follow it", etc.
>
> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is
> > predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
> > knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
> > welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere
> > and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
> >
> > In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
> Wikipedia,
> > it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
> > feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
> > maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as
> > well as "we" do it.
> >
> > When we are to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-16 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is
predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere
and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.

In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use Wikipedia,
it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as
well as "we" do it.

When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things
we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be uploaded
(Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and
operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a
consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the copyright
holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that, annoying.

As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from
Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data
from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view there
is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good because it
is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is superior
as a tool for disambiguation.

About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do you
copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is
about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that is
corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This
negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of the
data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the notion
that data that is only present in single sources is what needs attention.
It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish
credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright
moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process negating
the copyright held on databases.

I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However our
attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get
around existing copyright and how can we protect our own.  As argued,
Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place
that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to be
used as a repository of quality, open and linked data.
Thanks,
   GerardM

[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-copyright-and-linked-data.html

On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer  wrote:

> Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects that
> change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no idea
> that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative Commons
> violation is coming from inside the house!
>
> On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata
> >  that you might be interested
> > to look at and participate in.
> >
> > As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through the
> > discussion on the Wikidata chat
> > <
> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
> Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
> >
> > I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Gendergap approach causing problems

2018-05-11 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
"The summary of the canon of knowledge".. Wow.. I just tweeted that thanks
to the German Wikipedia we know about 20% more members of Parliament from
Chad. Now we know about 12. My #AfricaGap project will follow developments
around African national politicians. We suck when Africa is considered.
What we have in Wikidata reflects this.

It is relatively easy to add information in Wikidata about Africa.
Importing lists of politicians, I once did after South African national
elections and it shows, is easy. From our mouths we hear that we want to do
more about / for Africa but the proof is in what we see. What could be is
in our hands.
Thanks,
   GerardM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Africa

On 10 May 2018 at 11:53, FRED BAUDER  wrote:

>
> - Original Message -
> From: Jane Darnell 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be able
> to correct it."
>
> Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
>
> The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia will
> reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias issues
> are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full correction
> of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
>
> Fred
>
>
> ___
> 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] Apa yang membuat anda gembira minggu ini? / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 6 May 2018)

2018-05-07 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I am adding a page with national politicians from Africa.. When people add
any of them, add their nationality or their terms, it will update in a
Listeria page. Currently there are some twenty countries I follow. The good
news:  an interest from people from Nigeria :)
Thanks,
  GerardM

PS Africa has more people than 1% of the world population, I would like to
know the number of people from Africa we cover, doubt that it is more than
1%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Africa
https://twitter.com/hashtag/AfricaGap?src=hash

On 6 May 2018 at 19:57, Pine W  wrote:

> I was happy to read about the new features in the latest release of the
> Wikimedia Commons app for Android. My understanding is the app is developed
> and maintained by community members with funding from WMF and GSoC in
> addition to volunteer time.
>
>
> Also, I was happy to see GSoC participants introducing themselves and
> their projects on Wikitech-l.
>
>
> I am grateful to the WMF staff who are listening and responding civilly to
> the questions and comments on MediaWiki regarding the page previews
> feature. The project plan appears to have been designed thoughtfully.
>
> Finally, I liked reading portions of English Wikipedia's article about
> CubeSats.
>
>
> What's making you happy this week? You are welcome to comment in any
> language.
>
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> 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] Τι σας κάνει ευτυχισμένη αυτήν την εβδομάδα? / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 22 April 2018)

2018-04-23 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Regularly there are awards conferred by stellar organisations like Amnesty
International or Creative Commons. In the last week I was able to add their
2018 winners.. The good news is that increasingly the awards are complete
except for the latest. My hope / expectation for the future is that I will
find nothing to do. :) It already happens occasionally.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 22 April 2018 at 04:02, Pine W  wrote:

> *"To be, or not to be"*
>
> A phrase from Shakespeare's *Hamlet 
> *is
> "To be, or not to be, that is the question"*.*
>
> Chris Koerner from WMF Discovery published some interesting information
> about the verb "to be", and how on-wiki search deals with it, in this issue
> 
> of
> the *Discovery Weekly Update*:
>
> "The English verb "to be" is kind of weird—the infinitive "be" and
> participles "being, been" start with "b-", while the preterite forms
> "was, were" start with "w-", and the present forms "am, is, are" start
> with vowels. The conjugations originally come from three or four
> different verbs! Why "three or four"? Wiktionary disagrees with itself
> a bit, listing four on the etymology of "is" [5] and three on the
> etymology of "be". [6] The conflation goes back at least to
> Proto-Germanic, [7] so German is similarly weird. [8] Dutch has a
> greatly simplified paradigm, but still shows some trace of the
> multiple sources. [9] Other languages, including ASL, Arabic, Bengali,
> Hawaiian, Hebrew, Indonesian, Japanese, Russian, Turkish, and
> Ukrainian at least partly avoid this mess by having a zero copula.
> [10] For search on-wiki, we deal with this problem in part with
> stemming [11] and stop words. [12]
>
> "[5] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/is#Etymology_1
> [6] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/be#Etymology
> [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic_language
> [8] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sein#Conjugation
> [9] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zijn#Inflection
> [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_copula
> [11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stemming
> [12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_words;
>
>
>
>
>
> *Legal case ends well for Greek Wikipedia administrator*From the Wikimedia
> Blog: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/04/18/greece-legal-case-ended/
>
>
>
>
> *Photos from the 2018 Wikimedia Conference in Germany*
> Some photos of the 2018 Wikimedia Conference are available on Commons
> .
> Here are a few:
>
> * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_
> Conference_2018,_Group_photo.jpg
> * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_
> Conference_2018_by_ZUFAr_01.jpg
> * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMCON18_Sweets_Table_1.jpg
> *
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMCON18_by_Rehman_-_
> Posters_(2).jpg
> *
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_
> Conference_2018_%E2%80%93_091.jpg
>
>
> What's making you happy this week? You are welcome to comment in any
> language.
>
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> 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] The fact-checked encyclopedia

2018-04-18 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
The notion that unsourced articles need to be eradicated is fundamentally
so wrong. The notion should be; we are going to source the unsourced
articles and ensure that we provide the best information possible.

Hostility only ensures that the point of view of the person who is hostile
will dominate not that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 15 April 2018 at 16:50, Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> Indeed. It's a very noticeable problem at the Wikipedia in Portuguese.
> During a workshop with librarians from the National Library last month, I
> was kind of shocked by the huge amount of semi-automated warnings they were
> receiving, some of them completely useless, as they were directed to
> code-editing rather than the Visual Editor they were using. The librarians
> were also puzzled by the apparently pointless aggressivity and hostility
> coming from the environment they were trying to join.
>
> On the other hand, content is now much more reliable than it used to be -
> there is even a movement at our local wikipedia which is working to
> completely eradicate unsourced articles from there. Even more, we kind of
> justify that hostility against newbies with the notion that the project is
> being actively protected and surveilled against vandalism and fake claims.
>
> So yes, I concur that "fact-checked encyclopedia" is more appropriated
> today than "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" - at pt.wiki as well.
>
> Paulo
>
>
> 2018-04-15 15:21 GMT+01:00 Leigh Thelmadatter :
>
> > Not just English Wikipedia. All of the projects are hostile to
> "outsiders"
> > Those not in English might even be worse for several reasons
> >
> > Enviado desde mi LG de Telcel
> >
> > -- Original message--
> > From: Robert Fernandez
> > Date: Sun, Apr 15, 2018 9:17 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List;
> > Cc:
> > Subject:Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia
> >
> > Considering the barriers to entry, growing thicket of policies,
> > organized group harassment, and open hostility on the English
> > Wikipedia, I'm not sure we can even call it "the encyclopedia anyone
> > can edit" anymore.  So I'd say fact-checked is a more accurate and
> > relevant claim these days.
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> > > I just googled “wikipedia” and the first result was a Google ad linking
> > to
> > > wikipedia.org.[1] It calls Wikipedia the fact-checked encyclopedia. We
> > used
> > > to call it the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The latter seems more
> honest
> > > than this new formulation which to me implies a degree of reliability
> and
> > > oversight I'm not sure we can ethically assert. I missed the discussion
> > > about this new self-description. Did it happen on meta? Is anyone else
> > > uncomfortabe with this?
> > > --
> > > Anthony Cole
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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] Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

2018-04-18 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Maybe you know, but Katherine Mayer gave a talk at the CC conference The
subject was big companies using our content (it is not just writing) and
making a profit giving nothing / not much in return. The issue she raised
is that it may interfere with our collaboration model. People will
associate our content with the company that profits in this way and not
contribute their knowledge their expertise with us.

So no word from the WMF, far from it. When you want the WMF to sue.. There
is wonder if the effect it will have is really what we want. For me it is
first and foremost that people are properly informed and I prefer a YouTube
a Facebook to use our data over them not to do so over license issues.
Remember the days when Wikipedia was young; it was a wide held belief.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 16 April 2018 at 01:53, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Is someone from WMF monitoring wikimedia-l and notifying relevant employees
> when an issue arises under their remit? This issue - big companies using
> our writing without attribution and like-licensing - has been hanging with
> no word from the WMF for six months.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > I see this from Brian Heater at Tech Crunch on 25 March:
> >
> > "In a conversation earlier this week, Wikimedia’s Chief Revenue Office,
> > Lisa Gruwell told TechCrunch that this sort of usage doesn’t constitute
> any
> > sort of formal relationship. Most companies more or less hook into an API
> > to utilize that breadth of knowledge. It’s handy for sure, and *it’s all
> > well within Wikimedia’s fair use rules*, but as with Maher’s letter, the
> > CRO expressed some concerns about seemingly one-sided relationships ...
> *Smart
> > assistants are certainly playing by the applicable rules when it comes to
> > leveraging that information base.*"[1]
> >
> > That article I link to has both Katherine (WMF ED) and Lisa (Chief
> Revenue
> > Officer) asking the companies who use our work for free to "give back." I
> > want them to give back too, but I don't absolve them of their obligation
> to
> > meaningfully attribute my work and share it with the same rights
> attached.
> > If it is the opinion of the WMF that these smart assistants are not
> > breaching my rights, I'd like to see the legal advice that opinion is
> based
> > on.
> >
> > 1.https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/24/are-corporations-that-
> > use-wikipedia-giving-back/
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:47 PM, WereSpielChequers <
> > werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes of course the WMF can contact those who are detected reusing our
> >> content without fully complying with licenses and encourage them to
> >> comply.
> >>
> >> If a case were to go to court it would need to have one or more
> >> contributors who were willing to cooperate with WMF legal in the case.
> But
> >> I doubt there would be a shortage of contributors who were keen to do
> so.
> >>
> >> As for why the WMF should do so, here are three reasons:
> >>
> >> Each of our wikis is a crowd sourced project. Crowd sourcing requires a
> >> crowd, if a crowd settles down and stabilises it becomes a community.
> The
> >> community is broadly stable, but we need a steady flow of new
> wikimedians,
> >> and our only really effective way of recruiting new Wikimedians is for
> >> them
> >> to see the edit button on our sites. An increasing shift to our content
> >> being used without attribution is an existential threat to the project
> and
> >> hence to the WMF.
> >>
> >> Our communities are made up of volunteers with diverse motivations. For
> >> some of us the BY-SA part of the licensing is important, personally I
> feel
> >> good when i see one of my photos used by someone else but attributed to
> >> me.
> >> If the de facto policy of the WMF was to treat volunteer contributions
> as
> >> effectively CC0 this would be demotivating for some members of our
> >> community. I'm also active on another site where every member regularly
> >> gets stats on their readership, something I very much doubt would happen
> >> if
> >> it wasn't an effective mechanism to encourage continued participation.
> >>
> >> Every organisation needs money, the WMF gets most of its money by asking
> >> for it on wikipedia and other sites. Again, encouraging attribution back
> >> to
> >> Wikipedia etc tackles the existential threat of other sites treating
> >> wikipedia et al as CC0.
> >>
> >>
> >> WSC
> >>
> >> On 5 April 2018 at 08:04, 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > On 04/04/2018 08:36 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:
> >> > > I'm curious also. I release my articles under "attribution, share
> >> alike"
> >> > > and rely on WMF to preserve those rights.
> >> >
> >> > Why are you relying on the WMF? Wikipedia contributors (like yourself)
> >> > are the ones who own copyright to the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Wikimedia Foundation's FY18-19 Annual Plan is on Meta-wiki

2018-04-03 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Yes, MediaWiki is used for 290+ languages but that does not imply that it
is developed with these other languages in mind. The project descriptions
are firmly with the best known (ie English) implementation in mind and it
is the use and the users of the most used English implementation that
determine its project descriptions. One other way to determine it is the
lack of support for everything but Wikipedia. Wikidata is a success because
it is the German chapter who largely determines how it is developed. Then
again we are not seeing Wikidata improve all of Wikipedia, something it
could do with the association of blue and red links with Wikidata items.
Probably another cultural distance..

The notion that many people in the US are outside the powerstructures ...
It is not only about the US and, as an argument it only indicates how much
people outside the US and even more people not with a proper understanding
are marginalised.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 30 March 2018 at 21:00, Caroline Becker  wrote:

> Hi and thank you for your input,
>
> Please note that the WMF budget supports diversity in two ways :
> _software and technical support, the most basic exemple being Mediawiki
> which exists in a huge variety of languages
> _grants to non-US projects, such a rapid grants and project grants.
>
> Also, there is a lot of people left out of structures of power within the
> US.
>
>
> Le ven. 30 mars 2018 à 04:05, Michael Peel  a écrit :
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > This seems to be an increase of $15 million USD in the WMF’s budget, with
> > a $0.2 USD million increase in the international Wikimedia budget
> (through
> > grants to chapters and other affiliates).
> >
> > That goes against the movement direction of "As a social movement, we
> will
> > focus our efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left
> out
> > by structures of power and privilege”. Why aren’t we increasing our
> > spending in the global south (through local affiliates) at the same rate
> > that we are increasing it in the US?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> > > On 29 Mar 2018, at 17:42, Katherine Maher 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I'm delighted to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation's Annual Plan
> for
> > > FY18-19 is now on Meta[1].
> > >
> > > This year, we have organized our efforts around three goals that focus
> on
> > > making critical improvements to our systems and structures to ensure
> that
> > > we’re better positioned for our coming work against the strategic
> > > direction[2]. The Foundation’s goals for this year should not only move
> > us
> > > closer to knowledge equity and service, but will prepare us to execute
> > > against the 3- to 5-year strategic plan which we intend to develop this
> > > year in order to guide the Foundation’s work into the future.
> > >
> > > As you’ll see, we’ve made some changes to the structure of this year’s
> > > annual plan. This year’s plan is organized around three goals for the
> > > Foundation’s work in the year to come. By restructuring the Annual
> Plan,
> > we
> > > have written a plan for the whole Foundation,  rather than an
> aggregation
> > > of plans from all of our departments and teams. In this sense, we’re
> > > seeking to become a better-integrated institution, rather than a
> > collection
> > > of teams and departments with disparate goals.
> > >
> > > We’ve also reduced the overall length of the published Annual Plan. We
> > > wanted to make sure that the focus and goals of our work don’t get lost
> > in
> > > the details. Of course, we know that many community members enjoy
> reading
> > > the particulars of our planned work, so you can still access the
> details
> > of
> > > departmental programs through links to their descriptions on Meta or
> > > MediaWiki.org. These links will provide interested readers with
> detailed
> > > departmental programs, which describe the specific and detailed program
> > > goals, impact and outcomes. This change does not sacrifice the depth
> and
> > > rigor of our planning process, but rather, it is meant to keep the
> Annual
> > > Plan lean and focused while allowing interested readers to dive deep
> into
> > > the details.
> > >
> > > Finally, we’ve expanded the planning framework we instituted last year
> > for
> > > cross-departmental programs to all of our programs across the
> Foundation.
> > > This allows us to clearly link a program’s resources to outcomes and
> > > measures. As such, we’ve presented the Annual Plan budget in terms of
> our
> > > investments in the three defined goals rather than in terms of our
> > internal
> > > organizational structure.
> > >
> > > Thank you all for your support over the past year. I'm really looking
> > > forward to your feedback on this year's proposed plan during the open
> > > comment period -- a reminder it runs through May 15th.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Katherine
> > >
> > > [1] 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Wikimedia Foundation's FY18-19 Annual Plan is on Meta-wiki

2018-03-31 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
There is much in the 2018/19 plan that I like. What I like is that it aims
to align all Wikimedia efforts into one coherent plan.

There are a few things where a different approach can be considered.
Michael Peel made a good suggestion and complementary to this I would
increase the fund raising effort away from the United States. People who I
do not characterise as trolls tell me that it is justified to spend so much
money in the USA because it is where the money has been raised. In addition
to this proper fund raising raises visibility profoundly; Wikimedia is a
project that deserves (y)our money, (y)our effort!

As it is, too much money is spend on English Wikipedia related activities
(including software). The best way to point this out, is comparing it with
our traffic; less than 50% of our traffic is English Wikipedia.

While I applaud the use of artificial intelligence, it has one huge
problem. It is what the data is uses is based on. Arguably this works well
for the subjects we already cover well. But what about the subjects we do
not properly cover, the subjects that matter more outside our comfort zone.
Subjects like the Ottoman Empire, pre Raj India..

We also miss opportunities when we remain as inward looking as we have
been. We have done well is libraries and librarians (particularly in
English). The question is what is our aim? Is it our own good; citations
for articles so that we become more robust or is our intention to have our
audience, our readers read more (an objective we share with librarians).
Read more books for instance. Once the links hidden in Freebase pointers to
OpenLibrary becomes available, the OL folks will disambiguate its
identifiers and provide us with their latest links. As a consequence we can
easily open up books available for reading.. There are many high quality
citations in there, there is no cost and, it is legally ok.

So yes, we are doing well. It is just that we could be more effective.
Thanks,
   GerardM





[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?=12560



On 29 March 2018 at 22:42, Katherine Maher  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm delighted to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation's Annual Plan for
> FY18-19 is now on Meta[1].
>
> This year, we have organized our efforts around three goals that focus on
> making critical improvements to our systems and structures to ensure that
> we’re better positioned for our coming work against the strategic
> direction[2]. The Foundation’s goals for this year should not only move us
> closer to knowledge equity and service, but will prepare us to execute
> against the 3- to 5-year strategic plan which we intend to develop this
> year in order to guide the Foundation’s work into the future.
>
> As you’ll see, we’ve made some changes to the structure of this year’s
> annual plan. This year’s plan is organized around three goals for the
> Foundation’s work in the year to come. By restructuring the Annual Plan, we
> have written a plan for the whole Foundation,  rather than an aggregation
> of plans from all of our departments and teams. In this sense, we’re
> seeking to become a better-integrated institution, rather than a collection
> of teams and departments with disparate goals.
>
> We’ve also reduced the overall length of the published Annual Plan. We
> wanted to make sure that the focus and goals of our work don’t get lost in
> the details. Of course, we know that many community members enjoy reading
> the particulars of our planned work, so you can still access the details of
> departmental programs through links to their descriptions on Meta or
> MediaWiki.org. These links will provide interested readers with detailed
> departmental programs, which describe the specific and detailed program
> goals, impact and outcomes. This change does not sacrifice the depth and
> rigor of our planning process, but rather, it is meant to keep the Annual
> Plan lean and focused while allowing interested readers to dive deep into
> the details.
>
> Finally, we’ve expanded the planning framework we instituted last year for
> cross-departmental programs to all of our programs across the Foundation.
> This allows us to clearly link a program’s resources to outcomes and
> measures. As such, we’ve presented the Annual Plan budget in terms of our
> investments in the three defined goals rather than in terms of our internal
> organizational structure.
>
> Thank you all for your support over the past year. I'm really looking
> forward to your feedback on this year's proposed plan during the open
> comment period -- a reminder it runs through May 15th.
>
> Thanks!
> Katherine
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> Annual_Plan/2018-2019/Draft
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017
>
> --
> Katherine Maher
>
> Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> San Francisco, CA 94104
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Time to simplify the Bureaucracy ?

2018-03-12 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Yes, there are many rules. Yes, they have arisen because of the need felt
by some. It is totally obvious that these rules are created with the "best
intentions". Given the state of play these rules are not analysed for their
effect particularly not for their side effects.

The rules and the consensus associated with them are produced by an
in-crowd that is either directly affected because they get a result that
they seek because it enables them to manage whatever in the way they see
fit or they are in it because they made a career out of it. The
participation in these processes is low and consensus may be defined by a
functionary who has an interest in the result. It is true that there are
too few people involved in applying these rules but given the toxicity
involved and the power politics it is quite obvious for me that I keep an
arm length's distance as much as I can help it. My problem is that I seek
ways to share the information we have and seek mechanisms to share more
widely. I care passionately about this and the best personal reply is a ban
or a rejoinder that it is always the same thing I bring up. Even though
arguments have an effect in that they help change the models I propose I
seldom hear arguments probably because they expose the weaknesses in the
way "we do things".

When we are reminded that the rules are an impediment to joining our
projects as a volunteer. The best answer there is "because". The problem is
that "because" is not good enough because there are too few people
maintaining the texts, the data we hold. We do not seek mechanisms that
help all of us maintain known basic information. There are two options to
do more; it is to be smart at what we do, automate where we can or seek
more people. When we automate our way out of a problem, the existing biases
are maintained and get solidified. When this is noted, it is already even
more problematic even more difficult to change.

The consequence for me is that a different perspective to mitigate what
ails us is needed. The primary objective is and remains that we share in
the sum in the information that is available to us. This in the best way
possible to us. For me the sense of superiority of Wikipedians is a serious
impediment in achieving results. So to gain a foothold we should break down
things that will help us improve and things that will help us expand. Let
me explain this with an example that helps us improve: For winners of the
George Polk Award there is a list
 on the
English Wikipedia. It has over five hundred entries. It consists of blue
and red links. There are many false friends in both the blue and red links;
a reference is made to the wrong person or the person exist under a
different spelling/name. The winners are being added to Wikidata by me to
demonstrate the effect of a curated list. The differences between "my
Listeria list"
 and the
Wikipedia list are something I am willing to resolve when I know the result
is structural. It will be structural when, not noticed by readers or
uninterested Wikipedia editors all links are associated with Wikidata
items. We can expand our information provision from that for red links; we
can show data structured to be informative. We can even generate texts when
we so choose but that is politically hardly possible given that the
"dissemination of the knowledge we have" is not a priority by the Wikipedia
powers that be.

When information is shared among multiple Wikipedias, the benefits becomes
more pronounced. I have an interest in the Ottoman Empire and added
information for Sultans and Grand Viziers in the past. This query

brings the data together. It shows Sultans and their Grand Viziers. (Thank
you for the query Jheald). This query can be the basis for 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] #WeMissTurkey social media campaign

2018-03-06 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
One proposal is that we add data and text about Turkey and its Ottoman
Empire past. There is much information that is missing or needs expansion,
at that a hat tip to the Catalan Wikipedia.. They are really good in what
they report.

I will add data information in Wikidata. In the past I added information
for the Sultans, quite often about their wives and mothers (who were among
the power brokers at the time). There is much data to add; one of them are
the governors of the elayets. I would really welcome maps that show how the
Ottoman Empire changed over time.. The technology needed is something we
could also use of other countries.

Just to consider, the Ottoman empire has a similar relevance to many other
countries, arguably there is at least as much to say as there is for
Germany, France or Britain.
Thanks,
GerardM

PS I will also add information depending on the time and my location.

On 5 March 2018 at 20:44, Zachary McCune  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> For the last 10 months, several teams within the Wikimedia Foundation have
> been working with the local Turkish community to lift the block of
> Wikipedia in Turkey.
>
> Today, we have launched a social media campaign designed to help raise
> international awareness of the block and send a positive message to our
> friends in Turkey. We are asking individual volunteers, affiliates, and
> anyone else who would like to participate to join us in one of several
> ways. More details are below and on Meta-Wiki:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Communications/WeMissTurkey
>
> The campaign, based around the hashtag #WeMissTurkey, is an opportunity for
> all of us to tell our friends in Turkey that we miss them and help inform
> the world what impact their absence is having.
>
>
> == An overview of the #WeMissTurkey campaign ==
>
> From March 5-12, we will be reminding the world about the Turkish block of
> Wikipedia. We will communicate primarily on Twitter and Facebook- networks
> where advocates for Wikipedia can increase the reach of messages about the
> block.
>
> On Twitter, we will share a series of tweets about Turkish culture,
> history, sports, etc. from @Wikipedia . We’ll also be sharing messages that
> express sadness for missing the perspectives of Turkish people on our
> projects, and our hopes that access to Wikipedia will be restored in
> Turkey.
>
> On Facebook, we have developed a "photo frame" users can add to their
> profile picture to show support for Wikipedia in Turkey.
>
> In addition to posting messages, we will also be sharing some posters from
> Turkish artists which help visualize the culture and knowledge we are
> missing. The posters will be released throughout the week and available for
> you to utilize. We invite you to develop posters or graphics of your own.
>
> We hope that affiliates and volunteers around the world will join us! You
> can get involved in a number of ways, including by creating, sharing, and
> retweeting messages, sharing our posters and creating your own, and more!
> More details on how to get involved are on the Meta-Wiki campaign page:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/WeMissTurkey
>
>
> == On tone ==
>
> The messages for this campaign are being directed to the people of Turkey,
> and have a positive message and tone. We do not want to use this campaign
> to directly confront authorities in Turkey. We are asking that others
> managing Wikimedia social media accounts join us, and be respectful of the
> positive goal and message. This messaging approach for the campaign is part
> of a broader, ongoing strategy from the Wikimedia Foundation to lift the
> block of Wikipedia in Turkey.
>
>
> If you have any questions, let us know!
>
>
> Zack & the Comms team
>
>
> --
> Zachary McCune
> Global Audiences
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> zmcc...@wikimedia.org
> ___
> 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] Paid translation

2018-03-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
The Cebuano Wikipedia articles were created based on information available
in databases. So creating static articles is a known quantity. In
Reasonator there is functionality that creates text for humans. This has
been available for years as well  and when data changes, the text changes.

Consequently both static and dynamic texts based on data has been with us
for years. It is only in the opposition by some that we have not served the
data that is available to us as information for those who seek knowledge.
Technically there is nothing that stops us.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 26 February 2018 at 12:50, James Salsman  wrote:

> > wonder if creating dynamic articles from Wikidata is better
> > than creating static articles
>
> Not for years to decades.
>
> https://twitter.com/AustenAllred/status/967842020151603200
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:02 AM, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > I wonder if creating dynamic articles from Wikidata is better than
> creating
> > static articles. Because we lack tools for this, it is easier to do this
> > offline, and as a consequence we get the static bot-articles.
> >
> > Den søn. 25. feb. 2018, 16.26 skrev Gabriel Thullen  >:
> >
> >> I should have joined in this discussion a little earlier. I work a lot
> with
> >> the French Wikipedia, and we do not just translate articles from
> English (6
> >> million articles) to French (only 2 million articles). The French
> community
> >> is large and active, and provide a unique local perspective on the
> >> different articles that are written. And when I say local, I mean that
> >> things are seen differently in France than in the French speaking part
> of
> >> Switzerland or Belgium.
> >>
> >> I think that we are ignoring something very important here: putting it
> >> simply, Wikipedia contributors do two things. They add information to
> the
> >> encyclopedia by improving articles or writing new ones, and they curate
> or
> >> check the existing articles. All this talk about machine translation
> does
> >> not address the second aspect of what the volunteer contributors do.
> >> This means that we could have hundreds of thousands of articles in a
> >> language with  very few active contributors. Will that small community
> be
> >> able to oversee so many articles ?
> >>
> >> For example, have a look at the list of Wikipedias ordered by number of
> >> articles:
> >> 1. English - 5,578,081 articles - 138,479 active users - 1,230 admins
> >> 2. Cebuano - 5,383,108 articles - 162 active users - 5 admins
> >> 3. Swedish - 3,784,331 articles - 2,929 active users - 65 admins
> >> 4. German - 2,157,495 articles - 20, 085 active users - 194 admins
> >>
> >> When I have some time, I will look into different ratios like number or
> >> articles/active users or number of articles/number of native language
> >> speakers... Now I am not saying that our Swedish friends have abused
> >> machine translation of articles, but I definetly that something is not
> >> quite right about the Cebuano wiki...
> >> Gabe
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> >> m...@anderswennersten.se
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > I am very happy to follow this thread as I believe it is addressing a
> >> very
> >> > relevant issue.
> >> >
> >> > In my mind we can divide up the different language version into 5
> >> > categories:
> >> >
> >> > 1.Enwp,
> >> >
> >> > 2.the next 6-7 (de,fr, es,jp,pt,ru..)
> >> >
> >> > 3.the next 20 or so, where the basic workprocesses are applied
> >> >
> >> > 4.the next 40-50 which are struggling to generate more input then
> what is
> >> > vandalised
> >> >
> >> > 5.the rest which in reality is no viable online encyclopedias
> >> >
> >> > And for me no 1 priority is to accept that there are these categories,
> >> and
> >> > that what is applicable for cat 1 and 2 is not so for 4 and 5.
> >> >
> >> > I believe the grant model could easily make room for subsiding good
> >> > initiatives addressing the problem for cat 4 and 5 (and perhaps 3).
> >> >
> >> > And I think it is very presumptuous to start talking of what
> technique to
> >> > use and things like translation. If we open up for creative
> brainstorming
> >> > (among the ones having the need) I think very many other ways can turn
> >> up.
> >> > Myself I am deeply impressed what you can create using Wikidata as a
> base
> >> > source of info, and being from a version of type 3 I see how much my
> >> > homeversion improve content with wikidata created infoboxes
> >> >
> >> > Anders
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Den 2018-02-24 kl. 13:51, skrev John Erling Blad:
> >> >
> >> >> This discussion is going to be fun! =D
> >> >>
> >> >> A little more than seventy Wikipedia-projects has more than 65k
> >> articles,
> >> >> the remaining two hundred or so are pretty small.
> >> >>
> >> >> What if a base set of articles were opened for paid translators?
> There
> >> are
> >> >> several lists of 

[Wikimedia-l] Who if not Wikipedia

2018-03-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
There is a lot of data available to us that is not presented as information
in any and all languages. Our mission is one where we share in the sum of
all knowledge. There is however a big difference between knowledge and
information.

We do not provide knowledge, we provide information. When the information
is in a digistable format, people understand the information and it is
integrated in their knowledge. It takes knowledge to provide information.
It is needed by the authors of Wikipedia articles, it is needed by the
people adding data to any and all of the Wikimedia projects.

When we have enough data in Wikidata to provide information, we could
provide this information when this data is sought. This award [1] does not
have an article in any language, it is a prestigeous award that I added
because I learned that [2] received the award in 2017. There is a very
moving Youtube clip that explains what this organisation does [3]. When you
check the links you may be informed in any language, the youtube clip is
English only.

When we consider what we do, we overestimate what we achieve with
Wikipedia. We could inform our audience much better when we start providing
information. We can generate text in any language if we choose to. We would
probably do a better job when we write the prose but we fail completely
when we do not provide the information.

In answer to the question, who if not Wikipedia.. We could provide
generated information even text when there is nothing available. In this
way we will provide a better service in any language. We could do this
within any Wikipedia .. who / where if not Wikipedia?
Thanks,
GerardM


[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q50227997
[2] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?=49330
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDL1ADvimxg
___
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] Paid translation

2018-02-26 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I have been involved in a translation project with professional translators
translating featured articles of the English Wikipedia. The choice for
featured articles was done because we expected that the content would not
be in dispute. We found different. Several of the translated articles were
not accepted.. one of them was about World War II.

I have also toyed with the idea of content that is not available in the
language of a Wikipedia (including English). Translation is one solution an
other solution is generating basic information from the data available at
Wikidata. The benefit is not only to our readers; they will at least be
informed up to a point and another benefit will be the quality of the
Wikipedia involved. One problem that will be fixed is the one of false
friends, when red links are linked to Wikidata, the information provided
will always be implicitly correct. Another possibility is to provide the
text of a sister Wikipedia.

We can do a better job by providing the sum of all knowledge that is
available to us.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 25 February 2018 at 15:16, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Sorry, but this does not make sense. The core articles apply globally.
> There will although be articles in additions to a list of core articles,
> but I don't try to advocate any of those lists as the one and only list.
> Actually I have toyed with an idea of automatically create a list of core
> articles, and that would identify important articles no matter if they are
> from a big western language or a minority language.
>
> The main problem is NOT that minority languages should have articles about
> the major cities and important philosophers, *the main problem is that
> minor languages can't get started because they lack content*!
>
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 2:41 AM, Vi to  wrote:
>
> > Cultural appropriation is something different, by "forcing" the contents
> in
> > a minority language we would actually be at risk of implementing a form
> of
> > "cultural colonialism" which is the opposite of a cultural appropriation.
> >
> > NOTE: I refer to "the Western" in both cultural and "Wikipedian" sense: I
> > mean cultures with a strong presence on the web plus developed and
> > flourishing Wikipedia communities.
> >
> > Helping minority languages with funds/workforce is not bad in my opinion,
> > but I think a bottom-up process must be followed, with the "bottom" being
> > as closer as possible to relevant linguistic/cultural communities. A
> > Wikipedia full of "what the Westerns think is important" in a minority
> > non-Western language would definitely fail project scopes.
> >
> > This kind of problem almost does not arise with minority language
> > associated to Western cultures since they share the same cultural
> > backgrounds: back to my previous example the cultural background of
> > Sicilian is substantially equal to Italian one. Still, as I already
> wrote,
> > wikis in minority languages should focus on a certain aspect of wiki
> scope:
> > Wiki has roughly two main scopes: 1) sharing knowledge in a certain
> > language 2) also preserving the cultural heritage associated with
> different
> > languages. For languages mainly spoken as first language the "sharing
> > knowledge" aspect is predominant, while the second should take precedence
> > in languages whose speakers are native speakers of a "bigger" language.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > 2018-02-24 22:58 GMT+01:00 John Erling Blad :
> >
> > > Seems like this is mostly about cultural ownership and appropriation.
> Not
> > > sure if it is possible to agree on this.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 6:08 PM, Vi to  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'll reply to the most recent email just for laziness.
> > > >
> > > > I'm doubtful for a series of reasons, most of were already expressed
> > in a
> > > > better way by others:
> > > > *a remuneration in terms of quantity will weaken the quality of
> > > > translations unless there's a strong mechanism of quality
> verification
> > > > requiring a quantity of resources comparable to translations
> > themselves;
> > > > *articles are the result of a long process which reflects cultural
> > > identity
> > > > of different communities, I'm not confident with transferring them
> to a
> > > > different "weaker" cultures. My usage of "weaker" adjective only
> > focuses
> > > > about the strength of a cultural presence on the Internet;
> > > > *articles to be translated are at high risk of reflecting the
> cultural
> > > > identity (and biases) of the Western culture;
> > > > *finally I think paid translators would hardly turn into stable
> > > > Wikipedians.
> > > >
> > > > IMHO some paid editing may be better exploited in order to digitalise
> > > texts
> > > > of unrepresented cultures (wikisource) or preserving their
> vocabularies
> > > > (wiktionary).
> > > >
> > > > Also those languages which are secondary for all their 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategy Report Released: Wikimedia 2030: Wikimedia’s role in shaping the future of the information commons

2018-02-21 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Nina Simon wrote a blog post [1] that I think has a lot of merit for what
we could do to gain relevance. Nina is big in the GLAM world and the museum
she works for has an approach that will have a big effect when we consider
it carefully and implement it in the best way we can.
Thanks,
  GerardM

[1]
http://museumtwo.blogspot.nl/2018/02/are-participant-demographics-most.html

On 19 February 2018 at 01:26, Pine W  wrote:

> Caitlin, thanks for sharing this.
>
> My general thoughts are below. These are not directed at Caitlin or anyone
> else in particular.
>
> I think that the document does a generally good job of outlining trends and
> asking questions. I think that I agree with about 95% of what's in the
> document. I agree especially strongly that there should be more emphasis on
> improving the user experience for those who wish to contribute content
> using mobile devices.
>
> My most significant concern is with the question that the document asks
> staff: "How will the Wikimedia Foundation assert and balance leadership of
> the Wikimedia movement with its role fostering a robust volunteer culture?"
> WMF's role is that of a public service organization, not a central
> management agency, and "assert(ing)" leadership is the opposite of what WMF
> should do. Wikimedia's culture is collective rather than monarchical. Staff
> and Board members should be trained to understand that their role is to
> serve the public interest, and not to manage or supervise the community.
>
> Leadership of individual projects, initiatives, and teams happens in many
> ways inside and outside of WMF, and leadership skills are important.
> However, I believe that leadership of the entire movement is not and should
> not be WMF's role. WMF can be the facilitator, but should not be the
> manager. In the recent past we had a vivid demonstration of what happens
> when there are governance problems in WMF.
>
> I think that good questions would be:
>
> 1. How can WMF better align its internal priorities with those of the
> community? There has been progress on this during the past few years, and I
> would like to see continued progress.
>
> 2. How can WMF evolve such that if WMF became dysfunctional or inoperable,
> the remaining organizations and people in the Wikimedia ecosystem could
> continue to thrive?
>
> I also would like to see questions about the governance and financial
> transparency of the Wikimedia Foundation, for example by asking questions
> such as "Should WMF decentralize some of its current functions?", "Should
> WMF become a membership organization?", and "Should WMF increase its
> financial transparency?"
>
> After reading the document, I'm left wondering how to make progress on some
> of the issues that the document outlines. We've known about some of these
> issues for years, and in a number of cases WMF has funded efforts to
> address them, but in multiple cases we have had limited success.
>
> Even when we have agreement about the nature of challenges and that we'd
> like to address them, we don't necessarily know how to address them
> effectively. I think that the document does a good job of asking us
> questions that we should explore, and probably will continue to explore for
> many years.
>
> We need considerably more human resources than we have now on many fronts,
> including more contributors in diverse languages, contributors with the
> skills and tools improve the visual experience of Wikimedia content, and
> contributors who can protect the sites from interference from people who
> harm the integrity of the information on Wikimedia sites. I am not sure how
> we make that happen, or that it will happen. I fear that it will only
> happen after AI takes over a considerable number of jobs that humans do
> today, so that there is a significant increase of global unemployment and
> under-employment of people who have the skills and the will to contribute
> to Wikimedia. I hope that I'm wrong.
>
> I realize that this email sounds a bit pessimistic. I think that there are
> numerous significant challenges for us. I am hoping for the best. In the
> short term we are doing okay, and we continue to numerous incremental
> successes. In the long term, I am worried.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What's making you happy this week? (Week of 4 February 2018)

2018-02-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Carla Hayden received an award [1] and as I do so often I added it to
Wikidata. I could not find info on the award and was only able to add two
award winners. A friend found more information and added several more
winners. It is an award relating to libraries and librarians, I am
confident more information will become known.
Thanks,
  GerardM

[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?=47542681

On 4 February 2018 at 07:38, geni  wrote:

> On 4 February 2018 at 06:13, Pine W  wrote:
> > What's making you happy this week?
> >
>
>
> I discovered we got an article on a ridiculously obscure media format
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiPac ) due to a techmoan episode:
>
> https://youtu.be/Q_9IBIcsYj4?t=996
>
> Now we just need a photo of the thing.
>
> Meanwhile Norwich continues to be Norwich:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_urination_devices_in_Norwich
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> 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] New language code for Western Armenian language

2018-02-03 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
If anything it is proof that a quality standard allows for change.

In Michael Everson, a member of the standards world, we have someone who
was asked to become a member of the Wikimedia language committee. Over the
years he has provided us with several important services. This is only one.

Once we had a really strong team of people who were at the forefront of
language technology. There is no longer the same attention for  supporting
languages and the scripts used by languages. What is done at this time by
people like Santosh is done in their spare time. We could do more and we
don't. We do not support the SignWriting font even though it will support
all sign languages.

Yes, congratulations are due to Michael, to ISO, to the people who took
their time to champion the Western Armenian language and indeed, the result
is wonderful.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 1 February 2018 at 18:23, Alphos OGame  wrote:

> That's fantastic !
>
> Proof, if it was ever needed, that the Wikimedia movement can have an
> effect on the "outside world" other than collecting and providing
> information ; Wikimedia Armenia actually took the leading part in bettering
> an international standard !
>
> My most heartfelt congratulations :-)
>
> Alphos
>
>
> > Le 1 févr. 2018 à 00:00, Delphine Ménard  a
> écrit :
> >
> > Congratulations to Wikimedia Armenia for those truly great efforts!
> >
> > best,
> >
> > Delphine
> >
> > 2018-01-31 11:39 GMT+01:00 David Saroyan :
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> I'm pleased to announce that the efforts of Wikimedia Armenia to get
> >> separate ISO 639-3 language code for Western Armenian [1] were finally
> >> succeeded. SIL International, the ISO 639-3 Registration Authority,
> decided
> >> to create the code element [hyw] for Western Armenian. [2]
> >>
> >> We initiated this process three years ago when we started the
> collaboration
> >> with the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation [3] in order to foster and
> improve
> >> free content in Western Armenian. This resulted in "Western Armenian
> >> project" where Wikimedia Armenia through different events and activities
> >> started to disseminate and support the creation of Western Armenian
> content
> >> with the help of local and diasporan Western Armenian community members.
> >>
> >> From the launch of the "Western Armenian project" we were challenged
> with
> >> the problem that Western Armenian has no ISO 639-3 language code which
> did
> >> not allow the community to split Western Armenian content into a
> separate
> >> language Wikipedia. This problem made lots of  trouble for us, as
> hy.wiki
> >> often had two versions of the same page.
> >>
> >> Wikimedia Armenia with Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation eventually
> decided to
> >> apply for code split. [4] This was done mainly with the help of Michael
> >> Everson. [5] Besides WM AM and Armenian Communities Department of
> Calouste
> >> Gulbenkian foundation there were also other parties involved, such as
> the
> >> department of Armenian Studies of the Institut National des Langues et
> >> Civilisations Orientales, Paris and other academic institutions.
> >>
> >> Today is a special day for Wikimedia Armenia and Western Armenian
> speaking
> >> community as our proposal was accepted. Thanks all Wikimedians who
> >> supported us in this work.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Davit Saroyan
> >> Program Manager
> >> Wikimedia Armenia
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Armenian
> >> 2.
> >> http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/cr_files/PastComments/CR_
> >> Comments_2017-023.pdf
> >> 3. https://gulbenkian.pt/en/
> >> 4. http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/cr_files/2017-023.pdf
> >> 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Everson
> >> ___
> >> 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,
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Delphine Ménard
> > Program Officer
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > User:Delphine_(WMF)  >
> > ___
> > 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] Fwd: [Publicpolicy] Update on FISA 702 reauthorization

2018-01-23 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
First, what the Foundation does is not in order to protect itself but to
protect its readers, its authors.

Second, when you consider security theatre, consider the other countries
and then consider the countries where security has a better chance than the
USA. Be advised that in many, most countries citizens of other countries
are fair game and that the USA is often an active participant in odious
regimes in many countries.

Third, when we give up on security we are complicit. We have to consider
what companies like Facebook do to create their own hardware and when we
can strengthen the move to a state where Cisco hardware is no longer used
(Cisco has a bad reputation for open backdoors).

Fourth, what was the use of HTTPS about if all we do is theatre? NO; it is
relevant and lets make it more so.
Thanks,
 GerrdM



On 22 January 2018 at 01:45, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> I think, as Geni says, that even that isn't going to provide any effective
> barrier.  If the NSA or other US Government spooks want to get into the
> servers, they will, regardless of what hardware it's running on, what
> software it uses, or what jurisdiction it is located in.  Anything that the
> Foundation does to "protect" itself is just going to be security theatre.
> Anyone doing anything that the current or future American administrations
> might object to should keep that in mind.  I assume that every place I go
> on the Internet is already compromised and act accordingly.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 21 January 2018 at 19:13, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > What about moving to another country? Still not an option?
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Lodewijk 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 1) still don't see the relevance. If better technology is needed, it's
> > > needed - that should be independent of any lobbying preferences. It
> looks
> > > like you're just pushing tangents again.
> > >
> > > 2) You do realize that the FTC and the FEC are very different
> > > organizations? But again, it seems you just used this statement as an
> > > opportunity to push a tangent.
> > >
> > > Please don't do that.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:43 PM, James Salsman 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > 1) I don't quite see how your question about servers and switches
> > > relates
> > > > > to Stephen's statement. Could you explain for us mere mortals how
> you
> > > > link
> > > > > the two?
> > > >
> > > > The NSA surveillance which was reauthorized by Congress can not
> depend
> > > > on eavesdropping alone with new HTTPS cyphers. It needs compromised
> > > > hardware to work, such as has been included in Dell servers since the
> > > > Foundation started purchasing them, and the design of which was
> > > > overseen by the Foundation's CTO, who worked then at Intel. This
> > > > provides us with the know-how, a teachable moment, and an excellent
> > > > opportunity to specify and acquire replacement open source hardware
> > > > which doesn't have the DIETYBOUNCE / System Management Mode OOB /
> iAMT
> > > > and related backdoors.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/01/nsa_exploit_of.html
> > > >
> > > > > 2) I somehow missed the commitment by the WMF to research "FEC
> > > > requirements
> > > > > of organized advocates for US political candidates' or anything
> that
> > > > > suggests that the WMF may advocate for specific political
> candidates
> > > > (which
> > > > > seems a change of course that would be hard to sweep under the
> rug).
> > > > Could
> > > > > you quote?
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_
> > > > talk:Conflict_of_interest=prev=815460492#
> > > > Note_from_Wikimedia_Legal
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slaporte_(WMF)#
> > > > Research_topic_request
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The 2016-2017 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Report

2018-01-23 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
As a document targeting donors it is effective.

For me, it is indeed an accomplished selly thingie that does not connect.
It is all Wikipedia and Wikipedia is not that shiny. It is a community
where infighting is common, where external knowledge and tools are seen as
problematic because they do not comply with Wikipedia hard fought
"compromises". They do not entertain the thought that compromises are often
sub optimal seen in a different light but that light is not considered in
the "beauty" of all of Wikipedias accomplishments.

It takes an external organisation to come begging to bring us comparison
between the facts offered in all the Wikipedias and, it compares them also
with Wikidata.. We have a community that transcribes books but we do not
care for their finished products. It is apparently not part of the sum of
what we consider all knowledge.

We are so enthralled with the shine of Wikipedia that we do not consider
our primary objectives. In a world where fake news is well established, we
are postage stamp collectors as we do not consider what news is fake and
how that effects the information we provide. When it has to do with
nursing, the effect can be deadly in the first degree [1]. Then again, it
is not part of the big plan and it is officially not considered that
relevant. When we consider "biographies of living people" something that
applies to Wikipedia, Wikidata has... data not biographies. We do not
consider that comparison brings out the differences between what is stated
in a Wikipedia article and is stated elsewhere. The point; when we
concentrate on differences, we concentrate on what is problematic and that
is where our effort has the most effect on what is wrong, problematic or
even fake. We don't because of policies and we.. Wikipedia.. do not think
others have anything to offer.

Usability is something that is seen as important but Wikidata is not seen
as a project used by "end users" and consequently it is not even considered
to bring a more informative display to Wikidata like Reasonator. What
Reasonator brings is instant context to the data and an instant interface
to add missing labels in *your* language.. I used it for Russian for this
very Russian / American subject [2]. As an editor with over two million
edits, many of them manual edits, I can tell you it is indispensable. When
this type of functionality becomes standard, we will gain many more
contributors to Wikidata.. Then again the WMF outreach officer cannot stand
to be told how important usability is so it is unlikely to happen, him
being considered the/a guru of Wikidata..

While this selly thingie is an accomplished product and it is, there is
much more money to be made when you consider local fundraising. In the
Netherlands people tend to give automatically with typically larger amounts
of money. They tend to leave organisations like Wikimedia in their will and
for some really big charities this is as much as 40% of their income. I am
convinced that with one or two persona in the Netherlands raising funds for
the WMF we would more start to grow income exponentially at first. One
reason to do this is to make Wikimedia less reliant on USA money and
consequently make it culturally easy to do more elsewhere and take a non
USA point of view.

I do appreciate that it is almost impossible to write an acceptable annual
report for us, the contributors. What is possible is to write a composite
of different takes on Wikimedia projects and its place in the world. 
one award winning Wikimedian I would love to hear his opinion ..  Egon
Willighagen.  I would also love to hear an external view on
Wikisource for instance from the Internet Archive.. What I would seek in
this composite is the use of our projects, our efforts and what it
effectively means for them. I do not want us to dwell on what divides us, I
want us to concentrate at what it is we achieve, our purpose.
Thanks,
  GerardM

[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/01/wikipedia-
fiduciary-responsibilities.html
[2] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q47455696=ru

On 19 January 2018 at 01:35, Zachary McCune  wrote:

> Hello all-
>
>
> Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation received more than 6 million donations
> to support free knowledge. Today, we would like to share the Foundation’s
> 2016 - 2017 Annual Report which helps document how those donations were put
> to use. [1]
>
> This Report is meant mostly for donors, but it may be of use to any
> audience looking to learn more about the Wikimedia Foundation, our
> activities, and our community support.
>
> In (very) brief, last year:
>
> * We worked on building safer communities with new tools like Abuse Filter
> and Mute to reduce harassment on Wikipedia.
>
> * We improved our services for mobile devices: making images smaller and
> articles load faster, streamlining our apps to assist users.
>
> * We partnered with international organizations to add missing languages
> and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

2017-12-01 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I would not call it research. You have an opinion and you are dead set on
hearing yourself talk, making your current opinion prevail. Fine. You start
from assumptions that are not proven.. "this is a wonderful community"
there are plenty of arguments possible why there is a dictatorship of the
mob. All kinds of arguments are possible; one of mine is that there is no
interest in investigating how Wikidata can help Wikipedia achieve a higher
level of quality (and yes, that would work both ways). Your argument is
based in BIG Wikipedia and does not consider at all what it is that
generated text can bring where our wonderful community did not have the
room to be interested or where it did not have the bandwidth.

When you mean by research that you will endeavour to find arguments to
support your position then I understand you well. When you mean actual
research, you have to reflect on your assumptions, you have to come up with
a hypothesis and seek out what it takes to find the arguments to support
it. When your research is only to establish a timeline, I would not be
interested really as I have been there done that. I do not research but do
have an objective: share the sum of all knowledge with everyone. I have
become more humble, practically it is more like share the sum of the
knowledge that is available to us with everyone. In my blog [1] you find
many of the arguments, observations that developed over time. Maybe it is
of interest to your research; it spans a period of twelve years.
Thanks,
GerardM

[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/

On 1 December 2017 at 03:43, mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote:

> Hello Markus,
>
> First rest assured that any feedback provided will be integrated in the
> research project on the topic with proper references, including this email.
> It might not come before beginning of next week however, as I'm already
> more than fully booked until then. But once again it's on a wiki, be bold.
>
> Le 01/12/2017 à 01:18, Markus Krötzsch a écrit :
>
>> Dear Mathieu,
>>
>> Your post demands my response since I was there when CC0 was first chosen
>> (i.e., in the April meeting). I won't discuss your other claims here -- the
>> discussions on the Wikidata list are already doing this, and I agree with
>> Lydia that no shouting is necessary here.
>>
>> Nevertheless, I must at least testify to what John wrote in his earlier
>> message (quote included below this email for reference): it was not Denny's
>> decision to go for CC0, but the outcome of a discussion among several
>> people who had worked with open data for some time before Wikidata was
>> born. I have personally supported this choice and still do. I have never
>> received any money directly or indirectly from Google, though -- full
>> disclosure -- I got several T-shirts for supervising in Summer of Code
>> projects.
>>
>
> Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that too, but to my mind the problem is not
> money but governance. Anyone with too much cash can throw it wherever
> wanted, and if some fall into Wikimedia pocket, that's fine.
>
> But the moment a decision that impact so deeply Wikimedia governance and
> future happen, then maximum transparency must be present, communication
> must be extensive, and taking into account community feedback is extremely
> preferable. No one is perfect, myself included, so its all the more
> important to listen to external feedback. I said earlier that I found the
> knowledge engine was a good idea, but for what I red it seems that
> transparency didn't reach expectation of the community.
>
> So, I was wrong my inferences around Denny, good news. Of course I would
> prefer to have other archived sources to confirm that. No mistrust
> intended, I think most of us are accustomed to put claims in perspective
> with sources and think critically.
>
> For completeness, was this discussion online or – to bring bag the earlier
> stated testimony – around a pizza? If possible, could you provide a list of
> involved people? Did a single person took the final decision, or was it a
> show of hands, or some consensus emerged from discussion? Or maybe the
> community was consulted with a vote, and if yes, where can I find the
> archive?
>
> Also archives show that lawyers were consulted on the topic, could we have
> a copy of their report?
>
> At no time did Google or any other company take part in our discussions in
>> the zeroth hour of Wikidata. And why should they? From what I can see on
>> their web page, Google has no problem with all kinds of different license
>> terms in the data they display.
>>
> Because they are more and more moving to a business model of providing
> themselves what people are looking for to keep users in their sphere of
> tracking and influence, probably with the sole idea of generating more
> revenue I guess.
>
>> Also, I can tell you that we would have reacted in a very allergic way to
>> such attempts, so if any company had approached us, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality

2017-11-26 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
While the USA is considered a developed country, the people in the USA who
have least to spend are probably as deserving of zero rated Wikimedia
service as many of the people who do get Wikipedia Zero elsewhere. The
article indicates that our mission is to bring information to people and
that is no different in the USA.  With Wikipedia and its sister projects
considered as a way to bring quality, neutral point of view information, it
would even serve as a means to combat the misinformation that will benefit
from zero rating of information.

Zero rating is bad in so many ways but your argument does only say that it
was originally intended for developed countries. When there is a benefit to
our readers I only see upsides in promoting the use of Wikimedia content in
this way and no reason not to have Wikimedia Zero in the USA.
Thanks,
  GerardM



On 26 November 2017 at 03:56, Mz7 <mz7.wikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The relationship between net neutrality and the Wikimedia Foundation has
> been described as “complicated” – see [1]. Considering the that the
> Wikimedia Foundation has a zero-rating program of its own (see [2][3]), I’m
> not exactly sure how much this would affect Wikimedia, whether positively
> or negatively. On the one hand, we could take advantage of the change by
> expanding Wikipedia Zero into the United States. On the other hand, that’s
> probably not a good idea because the program is designed to promote access
> to free knowledge in developing countries, where access to the Internet may
> be prohibitively expensive. In a developed country such as the United
> States, that’s not really a prioritized issue.
>
> Mz7
>
> [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/
> 11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
> [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
>
> --
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mz7
>
> > On Nov 24, 2017, at 5:06 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > With the demise of net neutrality in the USA, have their been
> consideration
> > for the impact it may have for the services provided by the Wikimedia
> > Foundation?
> >
> > We are reliant on servers in the USA, as the quality of the service in
> the
> > USA is no longer a given, what are the risks?
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> > ___
> > 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Legal status of Wikimeida lists [Was: Re: The other side of the crisis at WMFR]

2017-11-25 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
You deny the existence of copyright.. It being public does not mean that it
is fair game for any and all purposes.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 24 November 2017 at 14:39, Vi to  wrote:

> Archives are public, so, IMHO, the list is.
>
> Vito
>
> 2017-11-24 11:11 GMT+01:00 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> psychosl...@culture-libre.org>:
>
> > Saluton ĉiuj,
> >
> > Le 23/11/2017 à 20:54, Emeric Vallespi a écrit :
> >
> >> I think it was important to re-explain all those points so that the
> >> community, which is - again - unnecessarily taken as witness, is not
> >> deceived by a scenario built from scratch.
> >> Again, to discredit the movement by such erroneous but public
> accusations
> >> still shows that only personal interests and vainness matter in this
> >> conflict with some people.
> >>
> >> I seize the opportunity to ask: what is the legal status of the list? Is
> > it considered public?
> >
> > I mean, it's easy to subscribe for anyone, but you still have to
> > subscribe. And as far as I know, accessing archives require to login. Now
> > there are other website which make crawled archives publicly accessible,
> > but just because some do that doesn't mean it's legal.
> >
> > Also I'm not aware of any license regarding posted emails, so plain
> > copyright probably apply, minus any exception related to epistolary
> > material that might exist.
> >
> > It might be interesting to make any post to our mailing list a free
> > licensed material. I've been thinking about that as I had the idea to
> > extensively analyse the wikidata-l mailling list and publish a side by
> side
> > statements and extracted keywords elements, but from a legal point of
> view
> > it is probably not feasible. That might be circumvented with links, or
> > providing a software which generate the expected table from provided
> > references, but anyway it's less practical than a straight published
> table.
> > Having this material published under a free license would make it far
> more
> > useful in any kind of study with such an extensive goal in its
> publication.
> >
> > Now, switching to a free license would not make the change retroactive,
> > but it would already cover new material. Also it should be possible to
> > contact most posters through their email and ask permission to release
> > their previous publications under one or more free licenses and change
> > archive metadata accordingly.
> >
> > Legale,
> > mathieu
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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] Net neutrality

2017-11-25 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
With the demise of net neutrality in the USA, have their been consideration
for the impact it may have for the services provided by the Wikimedia
Foundation?

We are reliant on servers in the USA, as the quality of the service in the
USA is no longer a given, what are the risks?
Thanks,
  GerardM
___
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] Wikimedia movement under DMCA attack!

2017-11-16 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Huh?
Thanks,
   GerardM

Op wo 15 nov. 2017 om 14:24 schreef Milos Rancic 

> On the other hand, I would like see WMF starts fixing harm done by its
> cultural neocolonial actions in Brazil and India.
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> wrote:
> > A message from your list moderators:
> >
> > This thread does not belong on this list.
> >
> > It is spillover of a long and bitter conflict in the Portuguese
> community,
> > and this list's membership is not well situated to contribute to a
> solution
> > through discussion on this list.  Those particularly interested and able
> > can participate in relevant threads on the Portuguese Wikipedia.
> >
> > However, moving the mutual recriminations onto this list is escalation
> that
> > can only upset people and exacerbate the conflict, and is not an
> effective
> > way to seek help.
> >
> > As was mentioned, the matter involves allegations of harassment --
> > investigated by the Support and Safety team in the Community Engagement
> > department at WMF -- as well as legal action.  Both avenues would not
> > benefit from partial and probably-biased context shared on this list.
> >
> > The parties in conflict should continue to seek a modus vivendi on the
> wiki
> > they share, on-wiki, as well as through the channels they are already
> > pursuing.  Smearing the other side on this list won't accomplish
> anything.
> >
> > Accordingly, *please stop posting on this thread*.  We have also placed
> the
> > Brazilians involved in this conflict on temporary moderation, to prevent
> > further escalation.
> >
> > (putting on my WMF hat for a moment -- As a further point of context,
> both
> > sides have at one point requested WMF intervention in Brazil.  WMF has
> not
> > yet announced whether and how it would intervene, though several
> > alternatives have been discussed. Stay tuned.)
> >
> >  A.
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 5:47 PM Vi to  wrote:
> >
> >> This is a very complex long-term "war" which, in my experience, never
> ends
> >> in a "reconciliation".
> >>
> >> Also, honestly, I don't think how can this comply with wikiversity
> mission.
> >>
> >> Vito
> >>
> >> <
> >>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> >> >
> >> Mail
> >> priva di virus. www.avast.com
> >> <
> >>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> >> >
> >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >>
> >> 2017-11-06 15:30 GMT+01:00 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> >> psychosl...@culture-libre.org>:
> >>
> >> > Thank Chico and Henrique for your reports and related links.
> >> >
> >> > I encourage both of you to document further this topic. But as the
> >> mailing
> >> > list format might quickly turn it into a flameware, to avoid list
> >> > moderators some disagreeable work, you could preferably find more
> suited
> >> > place to develop your points. Punctual feedback on the list to signal
> >> > creation or update of additional external resources is welcome, as
> far as
> >> > I'm concerned.
> >> >
> >> > You might, inter alia, use wikimedia-timeline[1] to generate an
> overview
> >> > of main statements you are claiming, each linked to related resources
> >> which
> >> > let reader deepen their inquiry on the topic if they have interest and
> >> > resources to do so.
> >> >
> >> > If you are interested to turn that in a research project as objective
> as
> >> > you might be able to create, I also encourage you to open a research
> >> > project on a Wikiversity instance, after a check of how such a project
> >> > might be conducted on the selected instance. You might also like to
> >> create
> >> > and conduct some interviews and publish them on Wikinews.
> >> >
> >> > I hope that the difficult situation you are passing through will end
> up
> >> in
> >> > the most contributive, positive and placid possible resolution.
> >> >
> >> > Kind regards,
> >> > mathieu
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://github.com/molly/wikimedia-timeline
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Le 06/11/2017 à 11:59, Chico Venancio a écrit :
> >> >
> >> >> Ended up with out the links, sorry:
> >> >> [1]http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/wikibrasil.org.html
> >> >> [2]https://www.whois.com/whois/107.180.2.118
> >> >> [3]http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L9610.htm#art24
> >> >>
> >> >> Chico Venancio
> >> >>
> >> >> 2017-11-06 7:53 GMT-03:00 Chico Venancio :
> >> >>
> >> >> To all on the list, *this is characterization is filled with obvious
> >> >>> lies.*
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The DMCA was filed a month ago simply *DID NOT TAKE the site
> down*.[1]
> >> >>> Henrique quickly took down the article offending copyright and
> Godaddy
> >> >>> allowed it to continue to be hosted.[2]
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Henrique is a paid contractor of the user group Wiki Education
> Brazil
> >> >>> that
> >> >>> has repeatedly harassed several 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Movement Strategy: Endorse the strategic direction today! #wikimedia2030

2017-10-27 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
You get it backwards; Yaroslav indicates that he EXPECTS not to be heard.
It does not follow that what people say will not be noticed and it does not
follow that they may not be involved in the process of realising the
strategy.

The option to be heard has nothing to do with the position on the strategic
vision but everything on the way an opinion is phrased. There is much in
the strategic vision that is not controversial and where we can easily
agree on a way forward. Lets be simple about this and collaborate. The
devil is in the detail and obviously the vision is not what will be
realised; it is a map of how we envision the future.

When you want to be heard, what you want to be involved in the process, be
part of the process. Do not say "no: this is wrong and I will do everything
in my power to see this plan dismissed for the crap I think it is".  Find
it in yourself to remain part of our community, involve yourself positively
in the ongoing processes because it is a Wikimedia tradition to be bold and
go where we have not gone before.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 27 October 2017 at 08:27, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> It would be interesting to know who made the decision that persons who do
> not endorse phase I will be excluded from further involvement in the
> process, and how that decision is justified in the context of Wikimedia
> project traditions.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 7:56 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Movement Strategy: Endorse the strategic
> direction today! #wikimedia2030
>
> For the record, at the talk page of the endorsement page,
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement
>
> we have a small number of contributors, including myself, who explain why
> they refuse to endorse the document. I do not expect us to be heard though.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Kaarel Vaidla 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear fellow Wikimedians,
> >
> > As a volunteer member of some of the support groups for phase 1 of
> > movement strategy process [1], I am excited about the Endorsement Day
> > and am one of the people who has *individually endorsed
> >  > movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement#Individual_contributors>*
> > strategic
> > direction
> >  > movement/2017/Direction>
> > .
> > With my letter to Wikimedia-l I would like to remind everyone that
> > there is this possibilty of individual endorsement that may not have
> > really been highlighted. So, if you personally feel like endorsing the
> > direction, you are more than welcome to do that!
> > I am happy to see already quite many endorsements on respective meta
> page.
> > I am also happy that there are people presenting their discord with
> > strategic direction in a constructive way on the endorsement
> > discussion page
> >  > movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement>.
> > I think that it is important not only to endorse or not endorse the
> > document, but also to give rationale why it is done. I believe that
> > this will help us in moving forward together with Phase 2 and learn as
> we go.
> > As a result I have written a small essay in my user namespace
> >  > Endorsement_of_Wikimedia2030>
> > presenting some of the reasons why I am happy with what we have
> > achieved in phase 1 and with having a strategic direction for our
> > movement. You may agree or disagree, but I feel it is important to
> express one's opinion.
> > Also I encourage everyone else to share their reasons for liking or
> > disliking the direction with wider Wikimedia public, so we can learn
> > more and have even more meaningful phase 2.
> > I thank you for your time and kind attention!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Kaarel Vaidla
> >
> > [1] Namely, Community Process Steering Committee
> >  > ess/
> > Steering_Committee>,
> > Track A Advisory Group
> >  > k_A/
> > Advisory_Group>
> > and Drafting Group
> >  > movement/2017/People/Drafting_Group>
> > ___
> > 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] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

2017-10-25 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
It is not that someone has nothing worthwhile to contribute, it is just
that once you have interviewed a group that is of sufficient variety the
likelyhood of hearing anything new will vanish. When too much information
is gathered it becomes unwieldy as well and the discussion will peter out.
Thanks,
GerardM


On 25 October 2017 at 14:24, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Theres never the perfect solution, even with carefully selected groups you
> will never know what else could have been brought to the table, it doesnt
> matter where that line is whether its 2, 200, or 2000 whoever, however,
> what ever the criteria that the carefully selected group is comprised of
> the selection process alone introduces some bias, creates a division and
> implies someones opinion isnt worth considering.
>
> Starting some where is the important aspect, doing so in a manageable way
> with the available resources is the only prudent way forward
>
>
>
> On 25 October 2017 at 19:19, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > When you do research, you know that there is a deminishing return on
> adding
> > more people that are asked the same question. It may seem to be
> empowering
> > but realistically the initial group comes up with the answers you are
> > seeking.
> >
> > So what do you think all these others have to add to what a carefull
> > selected group of people have to offer?
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 25 October 2017 at 12:52, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So will there be a broader discussion about the future of the
> > > Wikimedia Conference that's open to people who are not attending?
> > >
> > > I could certainly see a group of people in a conference hotel for a
> > > weekend deciding that they are a vital forum for important decisions
> > > about the future of the movement, but that wouldn't mean that it's a
> > > good idea to take that at face value without input from the 10,000 or
> > > so people who weren't invited to the conference. :)
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Cornelius Kibelka
> > > <cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> > > > Hi Lodewijk,
> > > >
> > > > One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an
> > agreement
> > > > upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia
> > Conference
> > > > in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also
> > > depend
> > > > on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy process,
> > for
> > > > example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement
> > organizations.
> > > > By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're talking
> > > about
> > > > 10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the
> > conference
> > > > for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a
> solution
> > to
> > > > the overall.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards
> > > > Cornelius
> > > >
> > > > On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also
> > > organizations
> > > >> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has
> been
> > > doing
> > > >> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for
> > most
> > > >> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user
> > > groups,
> > > >> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
> > > >>
> > > >> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have
> > > always
> > > >> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context
> > it
> > > >> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
> > > >> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
> > > >> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user
> > group
> > > >> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users
> that
> > > likes
> > > >> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
> > > >> community.
> > > >>
> > > >&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

2017-10-25 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
When you do research, you know that there is a deminishing return on adding
more people that are asked the same question. It may seem to be empowering
but realistically the initial group comes up with the answers you are
seeking.

So what do you think all these others have to add to what a carefull
selected group of people have to offer?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 25 October 2017 at 12:52, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> So will there be a broader discussion about the future of the
> Wikimedia Conference that's open to people who are not attending?
>
> I could certainly see a group of people in a conference hotel for a
> weekend deciding that they are a vital forum for important decisions
> about the future of the movement, but that wouldn't mean that it's a
> good idea to take that at face value without input from the 10,000 or
> so people who weren't invited to the conference. :)
>
> Chris
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Cornelius Kibelka
>  wrote:
> > Hi Lodewijk,
> >
> > One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an agreement
> > upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia Conference
> > in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also
> depend
> > on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy process, for
> > example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement organizations.
> > By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're talking
> about
> > 10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the conference
> > for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a solution to
> > the overall.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Cornelius
> >
> > On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk 
> wrote:
> >
> >> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also
> organizations
> >> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has been
> doing
> >> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for most
> >> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user
> groups,
> >> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
> >>
> >> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have
> always
> >> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context it
> >> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
> >> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
> >> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user group
> >> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users that
> likes
> >> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
> >> community.
> >>
> >> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies, this
> >> does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.
> >>
> >> If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either have
> to
> >> make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other people.
> >>
> >> I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying goal
> is
> >> for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is not
> >> cutting it yet.
> >>
> >> Lodewijk
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
> >> > representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and
> advantages,
> >> > the affiliate model has become very different.
> >> >
> >> > Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
> >> > topics to varying degrees.
> >> >
> >> > In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
> >> > representatives. There is a difference though between representative
> in
> >> an
> >> > outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
> >> > representative.
> >> >
> >> > The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates
> gain
> >> > in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new roles
> >> and
> >> > responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.
> >> >
> >> > Seddon
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michael Maggs 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose
> has
> >> > > always been to discuss matters of common interest to movement
> >> > > *organisations*.  Organisations attend on their own behalf and not
> as
> >> > > representatives for any wider groups such as speakers of a specific
> >> > > language, or editors of any particular Wikipedia.
> >> > >
> >> > > Michael
> >> > >
> >> > > > On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde <
> reachout2is...@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local
> >> > chapters
> >> > > > have no control/authority 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red

2017-10-15 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
When you read the article you link to, it is explicitly about
destubification and not about new stubs.

Given this intend, I do not see it as a problem. Actually I do not mind
more women entries in Wikidata.. But hey, that is my thing :_
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 15 October 2017 at 16:02, Gnangarra  wrote:

> I cant believe this
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_
> in_Red/The_World_Contest
> has
> got WMF funding, the idea of trying to create 100,000 stub articles on
> english wikipedia without any thought to how it'll impact on the
> community.
>
> I find it ironic that a competition is being funded to encourage current
> contributors to do what we wont accept from new editors.  If a new editor
> was to create an article it wouldnt pass through the Articles for Creation
> process because its half the size of the minimum set there. Many of the
> competition articles will just get tagged CSD - A1, A7, A9 even G2
>
> While there is a nice bot that will count the size of the prose, there is
> no automated process for checking copyright violations, checking for
> notability and most importantly checking for BLP with the aim of 100,000
> the community will years to clean up the mess that is about to be created.
>
> ​we are 15 days from this disaster commencing​
>
> --
> G
> nangarra
> ___
> 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] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

2017-09-28 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
For me this initiative raises more questions then it answers. As I
understand it, it is a change in vocabulary and it defines when a
Wikipedia  community is big enough to get "official" attention.

My problem is that it is very much standalone; it does not connect with
other practices. It does mention "incubating languages" but it does not
mention the incubator. In the language committee we have had organisations,
educational organisations who want to champion a language in their school.
This makes them bigger than the limit of 10 editors. At this time we do not
have a way to accomodate such requests. In my opinion for all the wrong
reasons. The wrong reasons because we know how effective schools are in
providing basic facts in a Wikipedia..

Once the Wikimedia Foundation had a group of technical people who worked on
language technology. Most of these people are still working at the WMF but
they are no longer involved in language tech. This became obvious when a
really worthy improvement for the Bashkir language, collation, was
implemented by a volunteer and Amir blogged that he had supported it as a
*volunteer*.. (he made a point of this). Particularly in the smaller
languages issues like collation are areas where the Wikimedia could make a
big difference. It is quite obvious that when we advertise the quality of
our language support (and because of our existing font support it is
already quite good) we can gain a lot of adventurous people.

In the current approach to languages and support it is imho very much
Wikipedia as we know it. We do not leverage the content in Wikidata as much
as we could. There has a lot of acrimoniousness regarding the Cebuano
Wikipedia. Millions of articles were generated as fixed text and
consequently it is currently impossible to maintain it.  The root cause is
our inability to cooperate. When this information was imported in Wikidata
(and cooperate with the original source) we could generate the text and
serve it as cached content. When the data is improved, the cached text gets
changed. The fact that such things are not considered is proof perfect of
opportunities wasted. Opportunities open to any language.

So it would be really cool when we consider how we can "share in the sum of
all our available knowledge". This is attainable if we dare to think
through what we can achieve and how we can make the most out of our
communities and the knowledge they hold.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 27 September 2017 at 19:28, 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 

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

2017-09-27 Thread 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 <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> 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 <srodl...@wikimedia.org> 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
> > > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/
> > 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 advanc

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

2017-09-27 Thread 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 <alexmar...@yahoo.it>
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 s

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

2017-09-27 Thread 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 <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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ---
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

2017-09-26 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

2017-09-26 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Attribution of external content

2017-08-30 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
With all due respect. These templates are probably English Wikipedia only.
Consequently they are not available on a Wikimedia level.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 29 August 2017 at 13:39, Richard Farmbrough 
wrote:

> We have a number of source specific templates, such  as {{EB1911}} for
> acknowledging re-used source material.  There is as yet no automatic
>  mechanism for changing these as and when the actual copying is replaced
> entirely.
>
> On 28 Aug 2017 01:18, "Gnangarra"  wrote:
>
> > but the information is exactly the same, url, date, author, title - the
> > refn template can include anything you need to add including license
> detail
> > ie cc-by all of which can be internal or external links
> >
> > On 28 August 2017 at 00:26, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> >
> > > Citation and reuse is two different things.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Gnangarra 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation where
> > the
> > > > text would add context by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > > > Template:Refn
> > > >
> > > > On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text, and
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > > case nor the author.
> > > > >
> > > > > The license is the contract with the author and the reason why the
> > text
> > > > can
> > > > > be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified, the
> by
> > > > > attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough. If
> > the
> > > > > share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give correct
> > > > credit,
> > > > > as the request for credit can be pretty weird.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something
> the
> > > > > external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at
> > some
> > > > > point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page
> may
> > > not
> > > > > even contain this content anymore.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on en
> at
> > > > least
> > > > > > specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed cc-by
> > > > content
> > > > > > within articles
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In some cases we need to attribute content created on external
> > > sites,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The
> > > creator
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > the right to be named according to good practice"
> ("Opphavsmannen
> > > har
> > > > > > krav
> > > > > > > på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our
> > content
> > > > that
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > page
> > > > > > > if possible, or if possible an entry in the history.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is
> > not
> > > > the
> > > > > > > page on our site that the external entity has provided, they
> have
> > > > > > provided
> > > > > > > the content at their site. So we must say that in some
> consistent
> > > > way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry
> > > injected
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full
> > or
> > > > part
> > > > > > > from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the
> > > editor
> > > > > or
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the
> > revision.
> > > > It
> > > > > > > should also be possible to delete such an entry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the
> > > summary
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > the description of the revision, not the source of the
> revision.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just
> > > > another
> > > > > > > level that makes things more confusing?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John Erling Blad
> > > > > > > ___
> > > > > > > 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,
> > > > > > >  > > unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > GN.
> > > > > > President 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist

2017-08-27 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Read Coleman, they are called unintended consequences.. You cannot please
everyone.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 27 August 2017 at 11:17, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Several emails on this topic have been essay length, including some from
> list moderators. If post limits are halved, this may become more common.
>
> Many readers, especially those like me viewing on a phone when scanning
> through emails, will skip essays which are several screens long. Please
> consider the good practice of opening with a one paragraph precis, or TLDR
> section, for any long post. This way, those who have tiny screens, or short
> attention spans, can get the point and will be much more likely to return
> to the essay later.
>
> Thanks, Fae (writing without a keyboard)
>
> On 27 Aug 2017 09:50, "Peter Southwood" <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> Hey, it is nearly the end of the month, I will expend another rationed
> posting to agree with  Gerard on this point because I think it is vitally
> important. He expresses my sentiments very closely on this point, and
> although I may disapprove of his tone occasionally, I think he is a fine
> example of someone who may not always echo the mainstream opinion, but I
> have never doubted his good faith intentions to improve the Wikimedia
> projects.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Sunday, 27 August 2017 8:25 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist
>
> Hoi,
> I was invited to positively give my opinion about the Wikimedia mailinglist
> and its use by one of the list managers.
>
> So the first thing to consider is what is the list for. This is largely a
> given because of its name; it is to discuss things that are primarily
> concerned with "Wikimedia" both as a movement and as an organisation. It is
> not about Wikipedia in general, it has its own list; wikipedia-l, and there
> are even lists for language specific Wikipedias.
>
> The topic of Wikimedia makes it very much a macro or high level. It follows
> that many of the subjects that are not topical elsewhere have there proper
> home on this list. When a post transcends a local list because there is a
> high level consideration, Wikimedia-l is also the right venue.
>
> Some topics that are of interest to me and are high level are: the multi
> linguality of our projects and its support. As a consequence the lack of
> funding and interest in other languages. As a movement we agree on the need
> to consider the gender gap. However there are other diversity issues that
> do not get attention. When quality improvements are possible in multiple
> projects, the discussion about this starts here.
>
> What I have found is that this whole notion of the purpose of this list is
> lost. When a topic raised on the list is answered with high level
> arguments, it is easily seen as "highjacking". That is normal because from
> a sociological point of view, high level considerations and low level
> considerations often work in different directions (think Coleman).
>
> Then there is another consideration; intent. The objective of this list is
> to discuss ways whereby we can understand and improve what is happening in
> our movement. For me it follows that when it is known for a list member to
> actively undermine our foundation, he has no place here. That *is *the kind
> of noise we can do without. When someone is punished for having a point of
> view that aims to improve what we do but has a position that is not the
> flavour of the month, it is a different story. The list itself has a
> problem when these to considerations are not part of the management of the
> list.
>
> The current proposals will not improve the Wikimedia-l because it is
> restrictive in its approach. It is what some people may want, a lower
> volume. But others like myself have weaned themselves of Meta because it is
> such a time sink. There are at this time other platforms as well where
> people obstruct (imho) probably with good intentions but without
> understanding of the arguments that it has become virtually impossible to
> come to a consensus anyway. Floating arguments on Wikimedia-l is one way to
> get a traction, actively working towards the hoped for outcome and blogging
> makes it complete for me.
>
> With the current restrictions proposed, I do not feel safe. There is no
> longer room to reflect on arguments. There is no longer room to reply
> because of this arbitrary limitation to post.
>
> Remember, this list is to make a positive difference for our movement. Few
&

[Wikimedia-l] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist

2017-08-27 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I was invited to positively give my opinion about the Wikimedia mailinglist
and its use by one of the list managers.

So the first thing to consider is what is the list for. This is largely a
given because of its name; it is to discuss things that are primarily
concerned with "Wikimedia" both as a movement and as an organisation. It is
not about Wikipedia in general, it has its own list; wikipedia-l, and there
are even lists for language specific Wikipedias.

The topic of Wikimedia makes it very much a macro or high level. It follows
that many of the subjects that are not topical elsewhere have there proper
home on this list. When a post transcends a local list because there is a
high level consideration, Wikimedia-l is also the right venue.

Some topics that are of interest to me and are high level are: the multi
linguality of our projects and its support. As a consequence the lack of
funding and interest in other languages. As a movement we agree on the need
to consider the gender gap. However there are other diversity issues that
do not get attention. When quality improvements are possible in multiple
projects, the discussion about this starts here.

What I have found is that this whole notion of the purpose of this list is
lost. When a topic raised on the list is answered with high level
arguments, it is easily seen as "highjacking". That is normal because from
a sociological point of view, high level considerations and low level
considerations often work in different directions (think Coleman).

Then there is another consideration; intent. The objective of this list is
to discuss ways whereby we can understand and improve what is happening in
our movement. For me it follows that when it is known for a list member to
actively undermine our foundation, he has no place here. That *is *the kind
of noise we can do without. When someone is punished for having a point of
view that aims to improve what we do but has a position that is not the
flavour of the month, it is a different story. The list itself has a
problem when these to considerations are not part of the management of the
list.

The current proposals will not improve the Wikimedia-l because it is
restrictive in its approach. It is what some people may want, a lower
volume. But others like myself have weaned themselves of Meta because it is
such a time sink. There are at this time other platforms as well where
people obstruct (imho) probably with good intentions but without
understanding of the arguments that it has become virtually impossible to
come to a consensus anyway. Floating arguments on Wikimedia-l is one way to
get a traction, actively working towards the hoped for outcome and blogging
makes it complete for me.

With the current restrictions proposed, I do not feel safe. There is no
longer room to reflect on arguments. There is no longer room to reply
because of this arbitrary limitation to post.

Remember, this list is to make a positive difference for our movement. Few
posts only allow for making statements and not for discussions. Many of the
arguments put forward are arguably wrong even detrimental to what we do.
Thanks,
  GerardM
___
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] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

2017-08-23 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
You indicate that you aim to reduce the volume. I think the number of posts
is at a record low. The notion that the number of edits per person must be
brought down is not a reflection of the number of posts made to this list.
When you disagree on this, show some statistics.

When you put people on moderation and then further reduce the number of
edits they can make, you are punishing twice. In this the moderators are
judge jury and executioner.

The notion that people prefer to post on a meta is also not a given.
Personally I do not have the time and the inclination. It is like facebook
a timesinc that is unlikely to make much of a difference because of the
vested interest of those at Meta.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 23 August 2017 at 06:03, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:

> Hi list members,
>
> The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani and I, your
> humble narrator) regularly receive complaints about the frequent
> posters on this list, as well as about the unpleasant atmosphere some
> posters (some of them frequent) create.
>
> It is natural that frequent posters will say specific things that more
> frequently annoy other list members, but often the complaints are due
> to the volume of messages rather than the content of the messages.
>
> We are floating some suggestions aimed specifically at reducing the
> volume, hopefully motivating frequent posters to self-moderate more,
> but these proposed limits are actually intending to increasing the
> quality of the discourse without heavy subjective moderation.
>
> The first proposal impacts all posters to this list, and the last
> three proposals are aimed at providing a more clear framework within
> which criticism and whistle-blowing are permitted, but that critics
> are prevented from drowning out other discussions. The bandwidth that
> will be given to critics should be established in advance, reducing
> need to use subjective moderation of the content when a limit to the
> volume will often achieve the same result.
> --
>
> Proposal #1: Monthly 'soft quota' reduced from 30 to 15
>
> The existing soft quota of 30 posts per person has practically never
> been exceeded in the past year, and yet many list subscribers still
> clearly feel that a few individuals overwhelm the list. This suggests
> the current quota is too high.
>
> A review of the stats at
> https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html show very few
> people go over 15 in a month, and quite often the reason for people
> exceeding 15 per month is because they are replying to other list
> members who have already exceeded 15 per month, and sometimes they are
> repeatedly directly or indirectly asking the person to stop repeating
> themselves to allow some space for other list members also have their
> opinion heard.
> --
>
> Proposal #2: Posts by globally banned people not permitted
>
> As WMF-banned people are already banned from mailing lists, this
> proposal is to apply the same ‘global’ approach to any people who have
> been globally banned by the community according to the
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans policy.
>
> This proposal does not prevent proxying, or canvassing, or “meat
> puppetry” as defined by English Wikipedia policy.  The list admins
> would prefer that globally banned people communicate their grievances
> via established members of our community who can guide them, rather
> than the list admins initially guiding these globally banned people on
> how to revise their posts so they are suitable for this audience, and
> then required to block them when they do not follow advice.  The role
> of list moderators is clearer and simpler if we are only patrolling
> the boundaries and not repeatedly personally engaged with helping
> globally banned users.
> --
>
> Proposal #3: Identity of an account locked / blocked / banned by two
> Wikimedia communities limited to five (5) posts per month
>
> This proposal is intended to strike a balance between openness and
> quality of discourse.
>
> Banned people occasionally use the wikimedia-l mailing list as a
> substitute of the meta Request for comment system, and banned people
> also occasionally provide constructive criticisms and thought
> provoking views.  This proposal hopes to allow that to continue.
>
> However people who have been banned on a few projects also use this
> list as their “last stand”, having already exhausted the community
> patience on the wikis.  Sometimes the last stand is brief, but
> occasionally a banned person is able to maintain sufficient decorum
> that they are not moderated or banned from the list, and mailing list
> readers need to suffer month after month of the banned person
> dominating the mailing lists with time that they would previously have
> spent editing on the wikis.
> --
>
> Proposal #4: Undisclosed alternative identities limited to five (5)
> posts per month
>
> Posting using fake identities allows people to shield their real life
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

2017-08-21 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
This exchange of views is limited to the views being in a narrow way
connected to what is originally posted. When a diametrically opposed view
is expressed it is easily confused with subject high jacking. Arguably this
thread has gone of the rails already and in direct reply no to your point,
it is not a free exchange of views.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 20 August 2017 at 08:35, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

> Peter
>
> ... and people who disagree post comments to that effect in a free, fair
> and frank exchange of views.  So all is well.
>
> Reynard
>
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > Funny thing,
> > That is what I would have said of Fae as well
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Rogol Domedonfors
> > Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 11:07 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on
> > public domain works
> >
> > Peter,
> > Thanks for the compliment.  I just call them as I see them.
> > Richard
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Rogol,
> > > Not everyone is blessed with your easy-going tolerance and automatic
> > > assumption of good faith.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Rogol Domedonfors
> > > Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 10:16 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on
> > > public domain works
> > >
> > > Fae,
> > >
> > > You seem rather too quick to leap to the conclusion that anyone who
> > > disagrees with you on intellectual property has an imperfect
> > > understanding or is consciously committing "copyfraud".  Have you made
> > > any attempts whatsoever to engage with the organisation in question to
> > > find what their position is and consider whether it might have some
> > > merits?  Have you considered that if you were to approach them in a
> > > less aggressive fashion, they might be happy to work with you or others
> > to release their collection?
> > >
> > > Alternatively, if you are absolutely confident that your understanding
> > > of the law is correct and theirs is not, then you are at no risk of
> > > being successfully prosecuted, so what is your problem?
> > >
> > > "Rogol"
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Canmore database, https://canmore.org.uk, describes itself as
> > > > the "online catalogue of the National Record of the Historic
> > Environment.
> > > > It holds detailed information and archive images for more than
> > > > 300,000 places in Scotland." Canmore is part of Historic Environment
> > > > Scotland (HES).
> > > >
> > > > I'm aware that Wikimedia UK has helped to fund several projects in
> > > > Scotland, so there is a network of contacts that could help take a
> > > > look at the problematic claims of copyright. Perhaps someone can
> > > > offer to take action to help Historic Environment Scotland reach a
> > > > better understanding of copyright and avoid basic copyfraud errors?
> > > >
> > > > In theory this could be a marvelous reference resource for open
> > > > knowledge about the history of Scotland, but the online catalogue
> > > > seems more like a retail outlet geared to maximise the cash to be
> > > > made from selling archive images, many of which are obviously public
> > > > domain. There are two basic problems:
> > > > * The online archive is limited to 800px width images, with website
> > > > users directed to buy higher resolutions which are claimed to be a
> > > > minimum of 3,000 pixels wide.
> > > > * Regardless of age, source or photographer all images are claimed
> > > > as copyright with the conditions including "No permission is given
> > > > for any commercial use, distribution or reproduction in these terms.
> > > > Please use the BUY option for these purposes and separate licences
> > > > will be provided."
> > > >
> > > > I would be delighted to release some of the public domain
> > > > collections from Canmore at high resolution to Wikimedia Commons,
> > > > but at the moment it's all locked down. In fact were I to try to
> > > > release the disappointingly small 800px versions of public domain
> > > > images, even using the "required" attribution to RCAHMS (which no
> > > > longer exists), I would be at personal risk of prosecution by HES
> > > > based on the site terms and conditions. See examples 1 and 2.
> > > >
> > > > Examples:
> > > > 1. Photograph of Hanover Street taken in 1870 by an unknown
> > > > photographer, making it likely to have been public domain from 1898.
> > > > https://canmore.org.uk/collection/466213
> > > > 2. Over 950 photographs 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

2017-07-23 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I have said before that we spend our money not equally over our audience.
Less than 50 % of our traffic is English Wikipedia and less than 40% of the
world population speak English well enough. Consequently we spend too much
on English.

It is stupid to suggest that we should defund our current projects that
primarily benefit English but we have the luxury to spend more on other
languages, cultures and audiences. There are plenty of pocket money
projects that will have a big impact on the smaller projects and will gain
us an insight on what we are missing in our sum of available knowledge. The
big thing is too leave the big project mentality behind us. Be bold,
experiment, learn from experiments and advertise the positive and negative
results. Regroup, think again and experiment again.

The question is do we dare to experiment leave some conventions behind us
that are ill fitting in other projects. Do we dare to spend more to achieve
more and ignore those "who know best".

When the outcome of this strategy thing is that we need to partner more,
consider what we have not considered then all the additional money has been
worth it.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 23 July 2017 at 19:01, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 5:39 PM, you wrote:
>
> Arguably we do not spend enough, we could achieve more.
> >
>
> I would say that it is about spending money differently, not just more.
> However, here are some things that one could achieve for a modest $2.5M, as
> suggested in a thread on this list in January – considering the enormous
> surplus value accruing to the Foundation as a result of the work of the
> Community, any or all of these suggestions seem to be to be quite modest
> returns to the Community for that work.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> 1. Fully-paid bursaies to Wikimania 2017 for one person from each of the
> 250 largest projects;
> 2. Purchase one reference book or similar for the 30,000 most active
> content contributors;
> 3. Purchase a one-year JSTOR subscription for the 10,000 most active
> content contributors;
> 4. Local travel bursaries to Wikimedia meetups and conferences for 50,000
> members of the Community;
> 5. An office with ten staff paid for a year to resolve the requirements for
> improved tools from the Community Tech programme.
>
> One could imagine folding some of these into the endowment at 4% as
> follows:
> 1'. Funding for 10 Wikimania bursaries per year for ever;
> 2'. Funding for 1,000 books per year for ever;
> 3'. Funding for 400 JSTOR subscriptions per year for ever;
> 4'. Funding for local travel for 2,000 people per year for ever.
> ___
> 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] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

2017-07-23 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
With all due respect, when that is the reason to put yourself forward,
given that it is possible to provide a negative assessment in the past. You
will have mine. The board and its responsibility is not that narrow.

Arguably we do not spend enough, we could achieve more.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 23 July 2017 at 18:18, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

> Pine
>
> It is for the Board members, collectively and individually, to oversee the
> management and affairs of the Foundation.  You should ask them as Trustees
> to comment.  I myself have had little success in that direction, but
> perhaps you will do better.  However, the staff of the Foundation are
> answerable only to the Board, and the Board members as Trustees are
> answerable only to themselves.  If you are unable to obtain the assurances
> you need, then your only recourse is to put your name forward for
> nomination to the Board yourself.
>
> Good luck!
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Hi WMF folks,
> > I'm still waiting. The issue of financial transparency isn't going away,
> > and the silence here is getting to be a point of concern.
> > Pine
> >  Original message From: Pine W 
> > Date: 7/14/17  11:31 AM  (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Mailing List <
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates]
> > June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)
> > Hi WMF folks,
> >
> > I'm still waiting for a reply to this question.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> > Having had time to reflect further on this matter, I'm having difficulty
> > with writing a comprehensive reply in a civil tone.
> >
> > Rather than try to address multiple topics at once, I'd like to start by
> > following up on a single topic. I'm hoping that this
> > will help to keep the conversation focused and civil.
> >
> > > Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
> > Board, the Board approved a spending resolution
> > > last year for expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5
> > million over Fiscal Year 2016-17 (July 2016 - June
> > > 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June 2018).
> >
> > Thanks for providing the project budget number, which is a good place to
> > start. How much is the timeline extension projected
> > to cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn? I imagine that
> an
> > analysis of the cost of the extension was done
> > before the extension was authorized, and that a funding source was
> > identified. I hope that WMF can provide that information
> > and that only a few minutes of staff time will be necessary to publish
> it.
> >
> > I'm hoping that we can address this topic first, and then move on to
> other
> > issues that have come up.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> > I have stayed away from this thread for awhile with the hope that I can
> > approach it in a businesslike tone. I want to acknowledge those who have
> > posted previously. I have drafted a response to the email that Greg sent,
> > and out of respect for the holiday for US staff I'll wait until Wednesday
> > to send that response. This matter is important, but I don't want WMF
> staff
> > to feel like they need to think about this or respond to it during a
> > holiday weekend. There will be time enough for more discussion after the
> > holiday. I'm not trying to close off discussion, but I thought that I
> > should explain why I'm planning to wait a few days before responding to
> > staff.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] What's making you happy this week? (Week of 25 June 2017)

2017-07-02 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I checked, the license is non commercial. I have been in contact with John
Cummings about this, he will look into what can be done.

To be honest, we are terrible at getting a public for the work that is done
at Wikisource. We could do so much more and this fact should be obvious as
there are websites dedicated to serving a public with the work done in
Wikisource.

So for me the maps and the artwork is the most we will really use under a
free license. The biggest benefit will be the use of these books as a
source for Wikipedia content. The existing eight books already are known in
Wikidata [1], there are links to the PDF's, what is needed are ISBN numbers
(the books are available in print), author info etc. to make them useful in
Citoid.
Thanks,
 GerardM

[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q31365548

On 2 July 2017 at 06:27, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If it is from UNESCO does that mean it is under a Wikimedia compatible
> license? One could put it on Wikisource :-)
>
> James
>
> On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I found a complete history of Africa that is available in PDF format from
> > UNESCO.. It is in eight parts and I am happy that it exists.. I added the
> > data in Wikidata but this is the link for the English version.. There are
> > versions in other languages as well :)
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> > http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/
> > themes/general-history-of-africa/volumes/
> >
> > On 27 June 2017 at 05:18, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I like a tool for Wikidata that Hay created which is called VizQuery.
> > More
> > > information about it is below.
> > >
> > > What's making you happy this week?
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > From: Hay (Husky) <hus...@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:10 PM
> > > Subject: [Wikidata] A visual way to query Wikidata
> > > To: "Discussion list for the Wikidata project." <
> > > wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > >
> > >
> > > Hey everyone,
> > > i've made a tool that allows you to query Wikidata in a visual way
> > > without using SPARQL. It's called VizQuery:
> > >
> > > http://tools.wmflabs.org/hay/vizquery/
> > >
> > > The possibilities of using Wikidata to do interesting queries are
> > > endless, and the current query service allows for very powerful
> > > queries indeed. However, i feel that for the general public,
> > > especially those who are not that technical, it might be a bit
> > > overwhelming and difficult for them to learn a complex language such
> > > as SPARQL. To make people familiar with the concept of queries i
> > > believe a somewhat less intimidating approach might be useful, hence
> > > this tool.
> > >
> > > VizQuery is only capable of doing a subset of possible queries. It's
> > > basically simple triples, variables (prefixed with '?') and literals
> > > (between "quotes"). You can do pretty powerful queries with only those
> > > things though. For example, here's a query with vegetarians who are
> > > married to a vegetarian:
> > >
> > > http://bit.ly/2sydpmW
> > >
> > > Under the hood VizQuery uses Ruben Verborgh's SPARQL.js library to
> > > convert between JSON and SPARQL, so theoretically every SPARQL query
> > > you could do in the regular query service can be done in VizQuery.
> > > However, many queries won't work because the visual interface only
> > > supports a subset of options: it's pretty hard to create user-friendly
> > > GUI representations of many of the complex SPARQL features. :)
> > >
> > > Anyway, i'd like to hear what you think. Bugs, feature request and
> > > pull requests are also welcome on my Github page:
> > > https://github.com/hay/wiki-tools
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > -- Hay
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikidata mailing list
> > > wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > Ne

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What's making you happy this week? (Week of 25 June 2017)

2017-07-01 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
I found a complete history of Africa that is available in PDF format from
UNESCO.. It is in eight parts and I am happy that it exists.. I added the
data in Wikidata but this is the link for the English version.. There are
versions in other languages as well :)
Thanks,
 GerardM

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/general-history-of-africa/volumes/

On 27 June 2017 at 05:18, Pine W  wrote:

> I like a tool for Wikidata that Hay created which is called VizQuery. More
> information about it is below.
>
> What's making you happy this week?
>
> Pine
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Hay (Husky) 
> Date: Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:10 PM
> Subject: [Wikidata] A visual way to query Wikidata
> To: "Discussion list for the Wikidata project." <
> wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> Hey everyone,
> i've made a tool that allows you to query Wikidata in a visual way
> without using SPARQL. It's called VizQuery:
>
> http://tools.wmflabs.org/hay/vizquery/
>
> The possibilities of using Wikidata to do interesting queries are
> endless, and the current query service allows for very powerful
> queries indeed. However, i feel that for the general public,
> especially those who are not that technical, it might be a bit
> overwhelming and difficult for them to learn a complex language such
> as SPARQL. To make people familiar with the concept of queries i
> believe a somewhat less intimidating approach might be useful, hence
> this tool.
>
> VizQuery is only capable of doing a subset of possible queries. It's
> basically simple triples, variables (prefixed with '?') and literals
> (between "quotes"). You can do pretty powerful queries with only those
> things though. For example, here's a query with vegetarians who are
> married to a vegetarian:
>
> http://bit.ly/2sydpmW
>
> Under the hood VizQuery uses Ruben Verborgh's SPARQL.js library to
> convert between JSON and SPARQL, so theoretically every SPARQL query
> you could do in the regular query service can be done in VizQuery.
> However, many queries won't work because the visual interface only
> supports a subset of options: it's pretty hard to create user-friendly
> GUI representations of many of the complex SPARQL features. :)
>
> Anyway, i'd like to hear what you think. Bugs, feature request and
> pull requests are also welcome on my Github page:
> https://github.com/hay/wiki-tools
>
> Kind regards,
> -- Hay
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
> ___
> 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, 


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >