Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

+ Footnotes. On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Lila Tretikov wrote: > Hi Mike, > > We plan to publish a blog tomorrow that addresses some of the questions > raised here and confusion in the press. To briefly address your questions > specifically, here is where we are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hi Mike, We plan to publish a blog tomorrow that addresses some of the questions raised here and confusion in the press. To briefly address your questions specifically, here is where we are today: the the grant allows us to pursue strictly (1) -- a better Wiki search. In that, it supports testing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hoi, Reasonator is at this stage at best and at most as good as bot generated articles. Generally they suck but provide a service. Reasonator does not provide adequate service. Try this [1] for instance. Reasonator will not create proper texts for many if not most languages because Wikidata does

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 15 days to create (at least) 15 biographies on notable African women!

This is great news. Thank you. Warmly, /a On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Alex Wang wrote: > Congrats! So wonderful to see so many new articles and a great number of > participants. Looking forward to more Wiki Loves Women activities! > > Cheers, > > Alex > > On Mon, Feb

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 15 days to create (at least) 15 biographies on notable African women!

Congrats! So wonderful to see so many new articles and a great number of participants. Looking forward to more Wiki Loves Women activities! Cheers, Alex On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Chris Schilling wrote: > Fantastic news, Florence. Thanks for sharing. : ) > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: February 2016 Lightning Talks

Reminder that these lightning talks are happening tomorrow, Tuesday February 16, at 1900 UTC / 11:00 AM Pacific. Because there are 3 presenters and a 1-hour block of time, each presenter has about 15 minutes including time for questions. We might finish early. On the agenda: * Pine: "LearnWIki"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Mike, If we're thinking about having article generators produce articles "on the fly" and deliver them to millions of readers in response to queries, especially in foreign languages, then that doesn't meet my definition of "that isn't what is intended at all, obviously". Andreas On Tue, Feb 16,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

> On 16 Feb 2016, at 00:26, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > Here is another such example. Jimmy Wales has tonight told[1] a volunteer > > ---o0o--- > > First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with "no > need for editors to edit actual article content"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Here is another such example. Jimmy Wales has tonight told[1] a volunteer ---o0o--- First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with "no need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this Michael. Reading the documents I've seen, it seemed like (1) to me, but a lot of the assumptions seem to lean towards (3). If it is (1), then that is an entirely reasonable thing for the Foundation to be putting development effort into. The problem is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hoi, Amen Thanks, GerardM On 15 February 2016 at 23:36, Leinonen Teemu wrote: > > On 12.2.2016, at 18.31, Liam Wyatt wrote: > > - Lack of Strategy - > > > > Now, maybe an open-source search engine would be a good thing for the > > WMF to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

> On 12.2.2016, at 18.31, Liam Wyatt wrote: > - Lack of Strategy - > > Now, maybe an open-source search engine would be a good thing for the > WMF to create! But that would be a major strategic decision. Search is a critical feature in all online services, especially for a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 15 days to create (at least) 15 biographies on notable African women!

Fantastic news, Florence. Thanks for sharing. : ) - Jethro On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Florence Devouard wrote: > Good evening everyone ! > > Results of the contest are published ! > > > At the end of the contest, > > 15 Anglophone teams (27 participants) > 18

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Looking for Wikipedians in the Balkans, Caucasus and Turkey for project with Osservatorio Balcani-Caucaso

Hi all, I am forwarding you this message from Davide, the Wikipedian in Residence at Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso in Rovereto (TN). You find him in copy, please contact him directly if you interested in the projec. Cristian On behalf of Wikimedia Italia --- Dear Wikimedians, I am the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 15 days to create (at least) 15 biographies on notable African women!

Good evening everyone ! Results of the contest are published ! At the end of the contest, 15 Anglophone teams (27 participants) 18 Francophone teams (24 participants) and 1 team (4 participants) from Armenian language (completely unexpected ... but so very welcome!) produced no less than

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

> On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > Hoi, > The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that > kind of money. I'm still confused about what kind of 'search engine' is actually being proposed here. Is it: 1) Wikimedia

[Wikimedia-l] Portal Improvements wiki page update

Hi all, I've made multiple updates of text, images, ideas and more on the Wikipedia.org portal improvements page on Meta, go check it out! The page now displays what the Discovery Portal team has

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

These seem like reasonable ideas, Teemu, and I don't in any way oppose them. It sounds, however, like they would go through different channels at WMF (such as the grants programs, and/or business partnerships) than the Elsevier and JSTOR programs did. Nothing wrong with that, but I wanted to be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

> On 15 Feb 2016, at 19:08, Leinonen Teemu wrote: > >> On 15.2.2016, at 18.07, Pete Forsyth wrote: >> Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from >> partnering with PLoS? > > I think brand affiliation would be a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

> On 15.2.2016, at 18.07, Pete Forsyth wrote: > Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from > partnering with PLoS? I think brand affiliation would be a good start and could help PLoS, that is not so well known as the Wikipedia. I wouldn’t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > Gerard, you and I agree on most of these points. Certainly, there is room > for improvement on intra-Wikimedia search, and such work is important, and > I would assume more pressing for non-English projects. And I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hoi, When you harp on things that do not truly matter, you get the wrong results. It is not search that you are after, it is about aligning the needs you feel about communication and openness and the lack of trust you feel towards the WMF. I care about both. However, when Lila was hired it was

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Gerard, you and I agree on most of these points. Certainly, there is room for improvement on intra-Wikimedia search, and such work is important, and I would assume more pressing for non-English projects. And I agree, it is quite possible Siko's concerns about integrity are not directly related to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How WMF contracts are won

Hi, today it's a holiday for US-based WMF employees, so let me add the information already public while a more complete reply arrives: On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Fæ wrote: > Dear Jaime Villagomez, I have a question about a small example of > procurement governance that I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

On 15 February 2016 at 16:07, Pete Forsyth wrote: > Teemu, > These "partnerships" (which I think is an unfortunate word for them) are > about giving volunteers access to closed sources. > > Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Andrea Zanni wrote: > > As I said in previous discussion, what WMF really lacks is a precise > policy/project *in favor* of Open Access: we are not doing anything at > higher level, and very promising projects are frozen or waiting for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hoi, The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that kind of money. Search in the Wikimedia Foundation is much better but it is still easy for Magnus (for some time now) to improve the search results considerably. The notion that search should not be strategic is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Lila, The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales publicly

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hoi, Search is relatively stand alone. It has been improved in the past. As it is, there are gaping holes that are easily fixed with a hack by Magnus. Search for instance on the Tamil Wikipedia for an English Wikipedia article only or for an American like Valerie Simpson that does not. Improving

[Wikimedia-l] How WMF contracts are won

Dear Jaime Villagomez, I have a question about a small example of procurement governance that I hope you can help with as the WMF CFO; QUESTION Can you please publish the specification of work used to support contract review by WMF Finance and WMF Legal for the work placed with Valerie Aurora and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by the Wikimedia Foundation, in full consultation

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Teemu, These "partnerships" (which I think is an unfortunate word for them) are about giving volunteers access to closed sources. Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from partnering with PLoS? Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Feb 15, 2016 7:58 AM, "Leinonen Teemu"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Hoi, The problem with Elsevier is that it requires a project for people to gain access. With PLOS we do not need to partner because everybody can have all the access that they need. The biggest problem that I see with many sources is that many of them are no longer valid. They point they make has

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Hi Alex and all, I hope you / we already have a partnership with the PLOS? https://www.plos.org - Teemu > On 15.2.2016, at 17.27, Alex Stinson wrote: > > Hi all, > > As always, we are happy to see the conversations about the publishing and > research

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Hi all, As always, we are happy to see the conversations about the publishing and research industry within the Wikimedia community. We very much believe that our readers, and other researchers, should, whenever possible, have open, or at least toll-free, access to materials when possible. We

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Another goodbye

Dear Siko, Sad to read your mail. Thanks for your work & good luck. -Hasive WMBD On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Florence Devouard wrote: > Le 12/02/16 02:24, Siko Bouterse a écrit : > >> Dear friends and colleagues, >> >> I’ve had the amazing privilege of serving this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Hi Gnangarra, Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify this. Please expect to see something from us in next few days. Lila On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

+1 to Aubrey's words 2016-02-15 7:59 GMT+01:00 Andrea Zanni : > As much as I love Jake and Alex's work, > and I think they are doing a terrific job, we still have to acknowledge > that > "playing by the rules" here is not going to change anything. > Every time the