[Wikimedia-l] [Re]-Introducing the Participation Support program

[Asaf Bartov]

Dear all:

Here are two announcements and one request from the Participation Support
Program Committee (formerly the Participation Grants Committee) and the WMF
regarding the Participation Support Program (formerly the Participation
Grants Program).

==A note from the Participation Support Program Committee regarding the
Participation Support Program's name change==

In order to better comply with US tax regulations that affect the Wikimedia
Foundation, we must change the name of the "Participation Grants Program"
to "Participation Support Program" to more consistently reflect the nature
of these transactions as reimbursements rather than grants. This will allow
WMF and WMDE to continue to administer this program without imposing
additional burdensome technical requirements on recipients of these funds,
while still keeping us in compliance with US regulations. We will not be
changing this program substantially or procedurally: we are only naming it
more accurately.

To read more about this program, see [1].

If you'd like to discuss the name change, see [2].

==A related note from the WMF grants team regarding funding participation
in Wikimedia-organized events==

The Participation Support Program (a partnership between WMF and WMDE
distinct from the WMF Grants Program) will not fund individual
participation in "Wikimedia-organized events" (defined as events organized
by Wikimedia chapters, the WMF, or other Wikimedian groups). However, WMF
is likely to fund participation in Wikimedia-organized events when the
event organizers apply for funding through the WMF grants program.
Therefore, individuals seeking funds for participation in
Wikimedia-organized events should apply through the event organizers during
the planning stages of the event so that the organizers can budget
appropriately to cover these costs.

This note applies especially to event organizers and to individuals who may
apply for funding to participate in Wikimedia-organized events. Our hope is
that these guidelines will streamline this process for event organizers and
attendees alike and that we might avoid duplication of efforts and
excessive administrative burdens for all.

For more details on this policy how may affect participants and event
organizers, see the Q&A[3].

==Please help make this accessible to all==

We need your help in bringing the news about the availability of this
program to our non-English-speaking colleagues.  Please help translate the
program information page by clicking the "Translate this page" in [1].
 Please relay this message to your local chapter/community mailing lists to
help us find volunteer translators to make this program as accessible as
possible.

Thanks,

   Asaf Bartov (WMF)
   Johannes Rohr (WMDE)

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Participation:Support
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Participation:Support/Program_Name
[3]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Participation:Support/Guidelines_on_funding_participation_in_Wikimedia-organized_events
-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Academics and accessible writing

[Ziko van Dijk]

2012/5/29 David Gerard :
> No, I think it's incorrect to assume "readable" is a euphemism for
> "dumbed down". Frankly, many academics are terrible writers. Because
> most people are terrible writers.

Indeed. As Wikipedia is a general reference work I think that
readability is part of the quality. A text that is not understood by
the supposed readers is a bad text. In the Wikipedia lessons at
Stuttgart School for the Media, which I accompany, I try to stress out
how important this quality element is.

Frequently I don't understand Wikipedia articles which deal with
technical and (natural) science subjects. We historians have the
reputation to be some of the best writers among scientists, but
sometimes I wonder whether my articles are as comprehensible as I
believe they are. I would like to see more feedback from readers, but
am afraid that the Article Feedback Tool is still not a good solution.

I am afraid that most of those Wikipedians who could need readability
lessons are not aware of the problems they cause to readers.

Kind regards
Ziko




-- 

---
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/

Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht
---

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] next Wikidata office hours

[Lydia Pintscher]

Hey :)

just a quick reminder that this is in 45 minutes.


Cheers
Lydia


On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Lydia Pintscher
 wrote:
> Heya folks,
>
> I just wanted to let you know that the next Wikidata office hours will
> be on Tuesday and Wednesday next week. Denny and I will be around on
> IRC in #wikimedia-wikidata to answer any question you might have and
> discuss. I assume there will be a few more questions than usual now
> that we have a demo system. Logs will be published afterwards.
>
> English: May 29 at 16:30 UTC
> (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=16&min=30&sec=0&day=29&month=05&year=2012)
> German: May 30 at 16:30 UTC
> (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=16&min=30&sec=0&day=30&month=05&year=2012)
>
>
> Cheers
> Lydia
>
> --
> Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
> Community Communications for Wikidata
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
> Obentrautstr. 72
> 10963 Berlin
> www.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
>
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
> Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.



-- 
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Community Communications for Wikidata

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Obentrautstr. 72
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.

Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Anthony]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Tom Morris  wrote:
> On 29 May 2012 15:28, Anthony  wrote:
>> And I don't foresee OSM ever being able to catch up.  Google is very
>> much a moving target.  While OSM is working on catching up on
>> geolocation (address to lat/lon) information, Google is micromapping
>> to the level of detail needed to program a self-driving auto.
>>
>
> OpenStreetMap is working on whatever the contributors want. ;-)

Whereas Google is working on whatever the users want.  :-)

That said, even this is somewhat problematic.  There is somewhat of a
tension in OSM between micromappers and non-micromappers.  Not quite
as bad as in Wikipedia between "inclusionists" and "deletionists" -
for the most part OSM mappers aren't going to outright delete
additional information.  But there have been disputes over, for
example, whether or not it is okay to include short turning lanes in
the lane count.

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Strainu  wrote:
> 2012/5/29 Anthony :
>>> ...if you wanna go this way, I wonder if you "go to en.wikipedia.org
>>> and just use it" if you want to plant tomatoes in your garden. I know
>>> I wouldn't.
>>
>> I wouldn't use Britannica either.  The context of the article is GPS
>> navigation for automobiles.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't quite get it. When you said that Wikipedia was
> usable in the real world, I assumed you meant that you can use
> Wikipedia as an encyclopedia for reference in different aspects of
> daily life. Now you're saying that you can somehow use Wikipedia for
> GPS navigation for automobiles?

Nope.  I am challenging the following assertion (put in SAT jargon):
OSM:tomtom::Wikipedia:Britannica (that is, "OSM is to tomtom as
Wikipedia is to Britannica).

In the case of Wikipedia:Britannica, they are compared based on their
usefulness as encyclopedia articles, not on their usefulness as how-to
books.

In the case of OSM:tomtom, in the context of the tomtom article, they
are being compared based on the their usefulness for GPS navigation
for automobiles.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Tom Morris]

On 29 May 2012 15:28, Anthony  wrote:
> And I don't foresee OSM ever being able to catch up.  Google is very
> much a moving target.  While OSM is working on catching up on
> geolocation (address to lat/lon) information, Google is micromapping
> to the level of detail needed to program a self-driving auto.
>

OpenStreetMap is working on whatever the contributors want. ;-)

For some of us, that's footpaths, for some of us it's business
metadata, for some it's mapping out baseball fields, or adding post
boxes or any number of other things.

-- 
Tom Morris


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Strainu]

2012/5/29 Anthony :
>> ...if you wanna go this way, I wonder if you "go to en.wikipedia.org
>> and just use it" if you want to plant tomatoes in your garden. I know
>> I wouldn't.
>
> I wouldn't use Britannica either.  The context of the article is GPS
> navigation for automobiles.

I'm sorry, I don't quite get it. When you said that Wikipedia was
usable in the real world, I assumed you meant that you can use
Wikipedia as an encyclopedia for reference in different aspects of
daily life. Now you're saying that you can somehow use Wikipedia for
GPS navigation for automobiles?

>
> One thing I do have to admit is that my experience with OSM has mostly
> been in the United States, which I hear is a place that OSM has been
> especially poor, and a place where Google (which is what I do use) is
> especially good.

That appears to be the case. In Romania, as well as most Eastern
European countries and some Asian countries, the Google development
model is _identical_ to the one used by OSM: crowdsourcing.

Before Google Mapper, the number of roads in Romania on Google maps
was a staggering... 3. Now the number of paved roads is indeed better
than OSM (due mainly to better satellite imagery), but the level of
details doesn't even come close, and geolocation is at street level
for both.

Strainu

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Anthony]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Strainu  wrote:
> 2012/5/29 Anthony :
>> I'm not doubting that someone can take OSM data and make it into
>> something usable.  I'm not even doubting that someone *has* taken OSM
>> data and made it into something usable.
>
> You obviously have already made up you mind, so I doubt anything I'll
> say will change that, but...

It's not so much what you say.  Possibly you, or someone else, can
point me to a free OSM-based android app which I can use in my daily
driving.  If so, I will change my opinion.

If you're going to refer me to commercial products which were based
(in part) on OSM data, then that's not what I was talking about.

And if you're going to point to the places where OSM beats the
commercial products, that was already acknowledged in the very tomtom
article we're talking about:

"Open source mapping certainly has its benefits and can be extremely
useful, particularly for pedestrians and in city or town centres. The
way that the maps incorporate input from a wide community of
contributors can result in impressive international coverage, whilst
also driving down costs of production. However, when it comes to
automotive-grade mapping, open source has some quite serious
limitations, falling short on the levels of accuracy and reliability
required for safe navigation."

> ...if you wanna go this way, I wonder if you "go to en.wikipedia.org
> and just use it" if you want to plant tomatoes in your garden. I know
> I wouldn't.

I wouldn't use Britannica either.  The context of the article is GPS
navigation for automobiles.

One thing I do have to admit is that my experience with OSM has mostly
been in the United States, which I hear is a place that OSM has been
especially poor, and a place where Google (which is what I do use) is
especially good.

And I don't foresee OSM ever being able to catch up.  Google is very
much a moving target.  While OSM is working on catching up on
geolocation (address to lat/lon) information, Google is micromapping
to the level of detail needed to program a self-driving auto.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Strainu]

2012/5/29 Anthony :
> I'm not doubting that someone can take OSM data and make it into
> something usable.  I'm not even doubting that someone *has* taken OSM
> data and made it into something usable.

You obviously have already made up you mind, so I doubt anything I'll
say will change that, but...

>
> But I think the analogy between being able to take OSM data, probably
> add a lot of your own data (espectially for the geolocation
> information, which is fantastic in some locations, and horrible in
> others), and being able to go to en.wikipedia.org and just use it, is
> a very weak analogy.

...if you wanna go this way, I wonder if you "go to en.wikipedia.org
and just use it" if you want to plant tomatoes in your garden. I know
I wouldn't.

Strainu

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Anthony]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Strainu  wrote:
> 2012/5/29 Anthony :
>> I just tried osmand.  I can't even figure out how to put in an
>> address.  I then tried navfree usa.
>
> You're limiting yourself to Android, which isn't very fair. Try to get
> hold of a Garmin device with OSM maps and see if that makes a
> difference. I suspect it will. (Garmin also has some GPS apps for
> iPhone, but not for Android. I have no idea if you can load OSM maps
> on those apps)

I'm not doubting that someone can take OSM data and make it into
something usable.  I'm not even doubting that someone *has* taken OSM
data and made it into something usable.

But I think the analogy between being able to take OSM data, probably
add a lot of your own data (espectially for the geolocation
information, which is fantastic in some locations, and horrible in
others), and being able to go to en.wikipedia.org and just use it, is
a very weak analogy.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Strainu]

2012/5/29 Anthony :
> I just tried osmand.  I can't even figure out how to put in an
> address.  I then tried navfree usa.

You're limiting yourself to Android, which isn't very fair. Try to get
hold of a Garmin device with OSM maps and see if that makes a
difference. I suspect it will. (Garmin also has some GPS apps for
iPhone, but not for Android. I have no idea if you can load OSM maps
on those apps)

Strainu

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Anthony]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>  I then tried navfree usa.

Looking more closely at the directions it did give me, it is having me
get off the toll highway at basically every exit and then getting back
on it.  And the destination is off by 13 blocks (about a mile).

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Anthony]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Strainu  wrote:
> 2012/5/29 Anthony :
>> The difference is that Wikipedia is usable in the real world, whereas
>> OSM, for the most part, is not.
>
> I see it the other way around: OSM, for the most part, IS usable in
> the real world. One can easily navigate using OSM data on the main
> roads in a country, and even on major boulevards within the cities.
> The problems appear "in the last kilometer".

I just tried osmand.  I can't even figure out how to put in an
address.  I then tried navfree usa.  I eventually put in an address
(why I can't just type in, or better yet speak, the address, i don't
know).  But the route it gave me included tolls.  When I told it to
avoid tolls, it failed to do so.  (Either the app is broken, or the
information about what roads have tolls is broken.)

There's probably some other app I just don't know about.  But so far I
find it impossible to use OSM data to get the route that I follow
every day to work (which Google's navigation app finds readily, and
even updates on the fly due to changing traffic conditions).

> 2012/5/29 Anthony :
>> And yeah, there are apps that use OSM data.  And there will probably
>> be more now that OSM has abandoned copyleft for data.
>
> Why do you say that? ODbL is still a copyleft license, although a much
> weaker copyleft.

Rather than nitpick over details, I'll go with "much weaker copyleft".

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Strainu]

2012/5/29 Anthony :
> The difference is that Wikipedia is usable in the real world, whereas
> OSM, for the most part, is not.

I see it the other way around: OSM, for the most part, IS usable in
the real world. One can easily navigate using OSM data on the main
roads in a country, and even on major boulevards within the cities.
The problems appear "in the last kilometer".

And that's just the tip of the iceberg (i.e. the rendered data).
Invisible data, for instance road quality, can lead to impressive
mashups, such as http://openmap.ro/auto/ (click on one of the top
buttons to see the "comfort speeds", which is basically how messed up
a road is).  I never go for a long drive around Romania without
consulting this. While some of the data is old, more often than not
you can tell if you'll wreck your car on a road or not.

2012/5/29 Anthony :
> And yeah, there are apps that use OSM data.  And there will probably
> be more now that OSM has abandoned copyleft for data.

Why do you say that? ODbL is still a copyleft license, although a much
weaker copyleft.

Strainu

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Tom Morris]

On 29 May 2012 13:38, Richard Symonds  wrote:
> Tom: Is there a way to find out where OSM isn't very accurate/complete?
>

Well, there's OSM "bugs". Basically, there is a way you can file a bug
on the map, sort of like how you might leave a note on a talk page
(only there is some actual bug semantics) or whack a big warning
template on the top of an article. If you are editing in Potlatch,
it'll show the bugs as little red ladybugs! ;-)

Of course, the only way to really know is to compare OpenStreetMap to
reality or to another map or to a data source. Comparing to reality is
time-consuming, and is basically what OSMers do every time they go out
and trace new paths. Comparing to another map is hard because of
copyright issues and getting the data from that map in a usable form.
Comparing to a data source is a very limited way of measuring
completeness. One way that would be fairly good for the United
Kingdom, for instance, would be to get hold of some dataset from the
government of every institution of a similar type (hospitals and
doctor's surgery information is available from the NHS, for instance,
and I believe school data might be available also) and then write a
script to see if there is something with a very similar name in the
vicinity on OSM.

Personally, I find that whenever I look something up about somewhere I
know, work or live, OSM is pretty good. There are issues: occasionally
I'll find a street name that's wrong. But when using Google Maps, I
find all sorts of inaccuracies, mostly derived from SEOers spamming
Google Maps. I saw an SEO consultant who managed to get their business
listing bang in the centre of the Houses of Parliament once.

-- 
Tom Morris


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Anthony]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Richard Symonds
 wrote:
> Tom: Is there a way to find out where OSM isn't very accurate/complete?

Sure, but they all require comparison to something (a data source,
memory, the real world) which is accurate/complete.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Anthony]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:27 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 29 May 2012 13:08, Anthony  wrote:
>
>> The difference is that Wikipedia is usable in the real world, whereas
>> OSM, for the most part, is not.
>> Yes, TomTom is dying.  But it's because of Google, not because of OSM.
>
>
> I'd actually flag smartphones as the culprit. They're the good-enough
> cheap alternative that's disrupting the satnav business. TomTom's
> article is actually about an Android app that uses OSM data.

Well, yeah.  Smartphones were what allowed Google to create its free
satnav app.  And it's hard to compete with free.

And yeah, there are apps that use OSM data.  And there will probably
be more now that OSM has abandoned copyleft for data.  But most of
them won't be free, let alone libre, so it's hard to consider them
part of OSM.  If there's a usable free satnav app based on OSM data,
I'd certainly like to see it.

> Heck, my Blackberry doesn't have a GPS, but I can navigate usably with
> the Vodafone app that just triangulates off the cell towers.
> Resolution is terrible (on the order of 100-200 metres), but it turns
> out to be mostly sufficient.

I guess we have a different notion of "usable" :).

And yes, I'm talking about for driving navigation, which is TomTom's
main market.  Although, while OSM shines in some places in terms of
walking navigation, it is woefully inadequate in others.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Richard Symonds]

Tom: Is there a way to find out where OSM isn't very accurate/complete?

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Disclaimer viewable at
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer
Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk



On 29 May 2012 13:29, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:

> On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:23:25 +0100, Tom Morris wrote:
>
>> On 29 May 2012 13:08, Anthony  wrote:
>>
>>> The difference is that Wikipedia is usable in the real world, whereas
>>> OSM, for the most part, is not.
>>>
>>> Yes, TomTom is dying.  But it's because of Google, not because of OSM.
>>>
>>>
>> I'd say OSM is beginning to be pretty usable in the real world. It's
>> usable for a lot of things where there's not so much commercial
>> interest in the map data...
>>
>>
> From my personal experience: Twice per year I travel into middle-size
> towns of Russia, usually visiting several of then on a single trip. Google
> maps suck badly; Google's Russian counterpart, Yandex Maps, are better, but
> they suck as well; TomTom is nonexistent, and OSM had for all places I
> visited in 2010 (with one exception - for the record, this was the city of
> Tayga, Kemerovo Region in Siberia) reasonably good maps, often with
> reliable house numbering.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:23:25 +0100, Tom Morris wrote:

On 29 May 2012 13:08, Anthony  wrote:
The difference is that Wikipedia is usable in the real world, 
whereas

OSM, for the most part, is not.

Yes, TomTom is dying.  But it's because of Google, not because of 
OSM.




I'd say OSM is beginning to be pretty usable in the real world. It's
usable for a lot of things where there's not so much commercial
interest in the map data...



From my personal experience: Twice per year I travel into middle-size 
towns of Russia, usually visiting several of then on a single trip. 
Google maps suck badly; Google's Russian counterpart, Yandex Maps, are 
better, but they suck as well; TomTom is nonexistent, and OSM had for 
all places I visited in 2010 (with one exception - for the record, this 
was the city of Tayga, Kemerovo Region in Siberia) reasonably good maps, 
often with reliable house numbering.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[David Gerard]

On 29 May 2012 13:08, Anthony  wrote:

> The difference is that Wikipedia is usable in the real world, whereas
> OSM, for the most part, is not.
> Yes, TomTom is dying.  But it's because of Google, not because of OSM.


I'd actually flag smartphones as the culprit. They're the good-enough
cheap alternative that's disrupting the satnav business. TomTom's
article is actually about an Android app that uses OSM data.

Heck, my Blackberry doesn't have a GPS, but I can navigate usably with
the Vodafone app that just triangulates off the cell towers.
Resolution is terrible (on the order of 100-200 metres), but it turns
out to be mostly sufficient.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Tom Morris]

On 29 May 2012 13:08, Anthony  wrote:
> The difference is that Wikipedia is usable in the real world, whereas
> OSM, for the most part, is not.
>
> Yes, TomTom is dying.  But it's because of Google, not because of OSM.
>

I'd say OSM is beginning to be pretty usable in the real world. It's
usable for a lot of things where there's not so much commercial
interest in the map data...

Wheelchair accessible maps: the work done by wheelmap.org that takes
OSM and lets you tag which businesses are wheelchair accessible.

Footpaths and cycle paths. There is a market for pedestrian and cycle
navigation tools, but it's a small fraction compared to the motorist
market. If you go out into rural Britain and want to know where the
footpaths, bridleways or cycle paths are, Google won't tell you. You
either have to pay Ordnance Survey for a map, or rely on OSM.

Even in cities, OSM is very, very useful for pedestrians. Here is Old
Street roundabout on Google Maps and OpenStreetMap.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.525611&lon=-0.086892&zoom=18&layers=M

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Old+Street,+London&hl=en&ll=51.525724,-0.08722&spn=0.001799,0.005284&sll=51.022157,0.280645&sspn=0.003638,0.014656&oq=Old+Street,+&hnear=Old+St,+London,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=18

Note how OSM shows the location of underpasses, traffic lights, ATMs,
petrol station and bike storage... that's what you get when you are
creating maps with a bit of love, care and attention. ;-)

-- 
Tom Morris


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Anthony]

The difference is that Wikipedia is usable in the real world, whereas
OSM, for the most part, is not.

Yes, TomTom is dying.  But it's because of Google, not because of OSM.

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 7:28 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> TomTom press release:
> http://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/licensing/newsletter/201205/didyouknow/
>
> OpenStreetMap volunteer response:
> http://www.systemed.net/blog/index.php?post=23 Flags TomTom
> quote-mining.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Deryck Chan]

I was skeptical with parent-like satnavs when they were first
introduced back then; I still am skeptical today. What's inadequate
about "Read map*, pay attention to the road, use brain"?

Deryck

*I'm a big fan of using the automatic route-planning features of map
systems like Google Maps or even TomTom to help me plan routes. It's
just that the assumption that a machine is correct about the real
world is simply wrong.

On 29 May 2012 12:32, Richard Symonds  wrote:
> Ha, makes for a good read. Thanks for sharing, David!
>
> Richard Symonds
> Wikimedia UK
> 0207 065 0992
> Disclaimer viewable at
> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer
> Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
>
>
>
> On 29 May 2012 12:28, David Gerard  wrote:
>
>> TomTom press release:
>> http://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/licensing/newsletter/201205/didyouknow/
>>
>> OpenStreetMap volunteer response:
>> http://www.systemed.net/blog/index.php?post=23 Flags TomTom
>> quote-mining.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[Richard Symonds]

Ha, makes for a good read. Thanks for sharing, David!

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Disclaimer viewable at
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer
Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk



On 29 May 2012 12:28, David Gerard  wrote:

> TomTom press release:
> http://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/licensing/newsletter/201205/didyouknow/
>
> OpenStreetMap volunteer response:
> http://www.systemed.net/blog/index.php?post=23 Flags TomTom
> quote-mining.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] TomTom does a Britannica

[David Gerard]

TomTom press release:
http://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/licensing/newsletter/201205/didyouknow/

OpenStreetMap volunteer response:
http://www.systemed.net/blog/index.php?post=23 Flags TomTom
quote-mining.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Academics and accessible writing

[David Gerard]

On 29 May 2012 05:41, Ms. Anne Frazer  wrote:

> However, when I read your words, the essence of your comments is clear in
> that part of your message is couched in attacking good prose because it is
> too difficult to read and understand. I remind myself that you don't mean to
> engage in a call for the dumbing down of articles in the 'Wikipedia
> Encyclopedia' when you suggest that they are too difficult to comprehend by
> 'the man in the street', (my phrase, and a commonly used one) by which I
> mean the 'ordinary citizen', the 'ordinary person'; it is a much used phrase
> I sardonically use in tandem with an apology to women. But here I have
> strayed from the clear and concise message I would like to be able to convey
> to you; so back on track...


No, I think it's incorrect to assume "readable" is a euphemism for
"dumbed down". Frankly, many academics are terrible writers. Because
most people are terrible writers. Being in the Internet era helps
(because everyone writes all the time), but a lot of academics are in
fact much less comprehensible than they think they are. Popular
science writing is *hard*.

Steven - one idea that occurs to me is to give them a target audience:
e.g. an extremely smart twelve-year-old. "A kid who is very smart and
who is really interested, but knows *nothing*. Can you inform them?
Use all the wikilink cross-references they would need." This will be
easy to visualise because smart adults tend to previously have been
smart kids.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l