Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi Gerard, What I hear in email from Andreas and Liam is not as much the propagation of the error (which I am sure happens with some % of the cases), but the fact that the original source is obscured and therefore it is hard to identify and correct errors, biases, etc. Because if the source of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On 27 November 2015 at 15:16, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > How does the presence of that information in Wikidata help if the Google > user just gets the info in the Knowledge Graph without any indication that > it comes from Wikidata? Because CC0 specifically waives the right

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [GLAM] Video: "Wikipedia, an introduction - Erasmus Prize 2015"

On 26 November 2015 at 19:23, Jens Best wrote: > Well, then this is a cheap success for the propaganda for a project started > by the Foundation which has nothing to do with the community which is > creating and editing the Wikipedia. > > - WP0 is a clear violation of net

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, Sources are important. When we do not have data at Wikidata and we add it from anywhere, we have the basis to do some good. At this time we do not really add source information. It is too cumbersome and as long as the "primary sources tool", an "official" tool does not do it, why bother? My

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, When a benefit is "Wikimedia specific" and thereby dismissed, you miss much of what is going on. Exactly because of this link most items are well defined as to what they are about. It is not perfect but it is good. Consequently Wikidata is able to link Wikipedia in any language to sources

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, I happen to work on Dukes of Friuli. Compare the data from Wikidata and the information by Reasonator based on the same item for one of them. https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?=2471519 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2471519 Wikidata is not informative, you have to work hard to get the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Personally - I favor third party and community review to a committee of the board - unless the entire board is on that committee along with some skilled community members. IMHO, all of the tasks Pine mentioned the board members on the committee should do are things I would hope all the board

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On 27 November 2015 at 15:27, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Gnangarra wrote: > > > Would it not make more sense to import (and verify!) the reliable source > cited in the relevant Wikipedia version, along with the statement? > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature of Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an organization that has a similar scale. Lila On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Based on what I heard from Anasuya and members of the FDC over the years, I feel that asking the FDC to take on the WMF budget is too much of a scope expansion, unless a third round of reviews is added each year and is dedicated to the WMF budget. The only realistic alternative that I can see is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Gerard, On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > To start of, results from the past are no indications of results in the > future. It is the disclaimer insurance companies have to state in all their > adverts in the Netherlands. When you

[Wikimedia-l] Comments invited 2016 Affiliate Selected Board Seats process

Hello, It is only a few months until someone will need to organise the 2016 Affiliate Selected Board Seats process. Thinking about the process last time I have set up a discussion here:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On 27 November 2015 at 12:08, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > The Wikimedia movement has always had an important principle: that all > content should be traceable to a "reliable source". Throughout the first > decade of this movement and beyond, Wikimedia content has never been >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W wrote: > Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a similar > composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include > some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Disclaimer first - I'm not exactly conversant in the intricacies of WikiData, if I was to take the information on 14th Dalai Lama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama it links to Wikidata at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17293 the en article has 2 references that list his date of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Yes I agree. I think most of the discussion here has to do with people conflating the concept of text as in Wikipedia sentences and the concept of data as in Wikidata statements. When a user adds an image from Commons on Wikipedia, the source of the image is generally not added to Wikipedia, and I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

I meant User:Varnent. :) I blame the turkey chemicals. :p -greg (User:Varnent) > On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Gregory Varnum wrote: > > Personally - I favor third party and community review to a committee of the > board - unless the entire board is on that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

I keep saying 14-15. The current and problematic plan is 15-16. Sorry about that. Pine On Nov 27, 2015 12:02 PM, "Pine W" wrote: > > The public discussion on the 14-15 Annual Plan was quite limited and the Board didn't publish their deliberations, so I don't believe that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

The public discussion on the 14-15 Annual Plan was quite limited and the Board didn't publish their deliberations, so I don't believe that the Board's current arrangement is sufficiently transparent, and without that transparency it's impossible to know how detailed their review was. In any case,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

yes, and I agree that this is a very good idea to ponder. It addresses a couple of problems at once (including a major one, of FDC ability and capacity to tackle WMF as well). dj On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Lila Tretikov wrote: > One of the things proposed during our

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Lila Tretikov wrote: > What I hear in email from Andreas and Liam is not as much the propagation > of the error (which I am sure happens with some % of the cases), but the > fact that the original source is obscured and therefore it is hard

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

I think the 3rd party review might work, although it might be costly in terms of consulting fees. As a part of the 3rd party review, I hope that there would be an analysis of the costs and benefits of moving WMF to a more economical location than San Francisco. Pine

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Gergo, do you mind if people continue discussing this? I'm finding it very interesting and fruitful. I hadn't thought through these issues before, and there are likely to be others on this list who haven't either. Best! ,Wil On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Gergo Tisza

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Hoi, There is no problem considering these points. You go in a direction that has little to do with what we are and where we stand. Wikidata is a wiki. That implies that it does not have to be perfect. It implies that approaches are taken that arguably wacky and we will see in time how it pans

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

Liam, I am interested in anything demonstrating that the things I am concerned about are not a problem. Further Comments interspersed below. On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote: > On 27 November 2015 at 12:08, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Gnangarra wrote: > Disclaimer first - I'm not exactly conversant in the intricacies of > WikiData, if I was to take the information on 14th Dalai Lama > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama > > it links to Wikidata at > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

I wondered if anyone from FDC is going to respond to this? On 26 Nov 2015 17:04, "Nicola Zeuner" wrote: > Thanks everyone - WMDE welcomes and follows with interest community > discussions about our proposal, the relevance of Wikidata and the use of > community funds.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

On 27 November 2015 at 06:04, MZMcBride wrote: > I realize that the Funds Dissemination Committee is advisory, but I > thought it had been set up by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees > as "all large affiliate requests, including us," not "all large affiliate >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a similar composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year. I