Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

2016-03-12 Thread Anthony Cole
Thanks Peter. It's not my work, I put it out to tender at Village Pump
(technical) and User:Makyen took it and did it. (It doesn't seem to be
working now, though.) I'm pretty confident it's technically possible to
make it accessible (readable by JAWS [1]) now. What's missing is the WMF's
decision to invest in reliability. Reliability, I'm discovering, is the
thing that must not be named. "We tried fixing reliability. Remember
Nupedia? Hahahahahahaha."

Magnus: I think we agree both ratios (Wikipedia's and Wikidata's) have a
long way to go. :o)

TTS: Yes. Why not? A simple button that smoothly reads an article to me,
like a podcast, with fast forward and rewind or skip, while I do the dishes
would be cool. I hope they're not going to try to re-invent JAWS, though.




Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:31 AM, Magnus Manske 
wrote:

> I like this for the interface, and as you said for the screen reading
> function. I hear WMF is working on some TTS thing now?
>
> Not sure it would significantly alter my ratios at the moment, especially
> given its rather low takeup (i presume). In your example, it would actually
> make the ratio worse for Wikipedia, providing evidence for more than one
> statement per sentence ;-)
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:53 PM Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > Ugh. This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2#Example
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ugh.I just edited the page and now it's not working. Try this:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2/Example
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Anthony Cole 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically
> > >> discern what a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph."
> Check
> > >> out the first paragraph and its references here:
> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral.
> > >>
> > >> Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your
> > >> MediaWiki preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what
> each
> > >> reference is supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting the
> > >> supported text on the page, rather than having it appear in a tool
> tip.
> > >>
> > >> I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that
> > screen
> > >> readers can read it.
> > >>
> > >> Anthony Cole
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske <
> > >> magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole 
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those
> at
> > >>> the
> > >>> > end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of
> references
> > >>> at
> > >>> > the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my
> point.
> > >>> Many
> > >>> > editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
> > >>> > paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences
> > after
> > >>> the
> > >>> > last footnote marker.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
> > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote
> > >>> marker
> > >>> > supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the sentences at
> the
> > >>> > beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be counted as
> > unsourced
> > >>> > statements.
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically
> discern
> > >>> what
> > >>> a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As described, my
> > >>> "one
> > >>> sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound of statement
> numbers.
> > So
> > >>> is my  count, then. I am certain you can find an article where
> my
> > >>> statement-to-reference ratio is off against WIkipedia; but I believe
> I
> > >>> could find more instances where it is in favour of Wikipedia.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> >
> > >>> > But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just
> > >>> doesn't
> > >>> > matter which project is more poorly referenced.
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>> Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care
> > :-)
> > >>>
> > >>> My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one
> > >>> can't
> > >>> "sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor
> referencing.
> > >>> Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things).
> That
> > >>> is
> > >>> all.
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers,
> > >>> Magnus
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Anthony Cole
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole <
> ahcole...@gmail.com>
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > > Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of
> > you
> > >>> only
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

2016-03-12 Thread Risker
Really, Andreas?  You're complaining that the resigning ED didn't do this
and the one appointed less than 36 hours ago hasn't got around to it?

This is not Maggie's responsibility - she is not responsible for employment
standards or expectations.  That would be the VP Human Resources...who has
just resigned, too, and has yet to be replaced.

Risker/Anne

On 12 March 2016 at 21:09, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On March 1, Jimmy Wales wrote:[1]
>
> things like standard boilerplate language to be signed by
> > all employees doesn't strike me as something in and of itself to be kept
> > private - there is a valid interest in showing that our policies are
> > fair and humane for employees, responsible in terms of the privacy of
> > personal information, etc.
> >
>
> Nothing appears to have happened since then – we seem to be no nearer to
> transparency about the non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement
> clauses WMF staff have to sign than we were two weeks ago, when discussion
> around this topic kicked off in another thread.[2]
>
> This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for
> transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a leadership
> position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are
> quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely
> desirable.
>
> At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring
> crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions arise
> again some weeks, months, years down the line.
>
> Maggie, is this something your department could take on? It would be good
> to have one identified person at the Foundation who is responsible for
> tracking such queries and reporting back to the community, one way or the
> other.
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082852.html
> [2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/685183#685183
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cross-wiki notifications beta feature now available on all wikis

2016-03-12 Thread Biplab Anand
This is amazing.
Thanks.
On 13 Mar 2016 03:20, "Andy Mabbett"  wrote:

> > Cross-wiki notifications
>
> This is great, thank you.
>
> Two requests:
>
> Please could we have two icons, one for local notifications, another for
> those from elsewhere?
>
> And could we have some way to avoid mass notifications when we are
> mentioned in a newsletter like The Signpost, This Week in GLAM, or the
> Wikidata Weekly Summary, which are posted to many talk pages?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

2016-03-12 Thread Anthony Cole
Gnangarra,

I was away when Andy was here, and am really regretting missing his
presentation. Can you explain to me why the Wikidata people have to make a
wikidata item of every source before they can cite it?

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Sorry, there's a typo in that last paragraph. It should read:
>
> The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
> that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata *statements*.
> If that is so, you should fix that.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
>> Hi Magnus.
>>
>> I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1]
>> earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing
>> me.
>>
>> Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe a
>> formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable sources.
>> Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
>> contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with the
>> number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references per
>> statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS
>> ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
>> en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
>> Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
>>
>> Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because whole
>> paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears
>> only once at the end of the paragraph.
>>
>> But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it should
>> be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
>> arguments.
>>
>> The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
>> that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If
>> that is so, you should fix that.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
>>> new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
>>> exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
>>> as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
>>> had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
>>> editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to
>>> be, because I know you have done many good things.
>>>
>>> And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
>>> Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering
>>> skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did,
>>> they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
>>> term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
>>> it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
>>> disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
>>> etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.
>>>
>>> I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
>>> in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
>>> see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
>>> large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
>>> resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
>>> forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the
>>> issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is
>>> instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
>>> resistance against the product as a whole.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
>>>  wrote:
>>> > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this
>>> thread. I
>>> > have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I do
>>> well
>>> > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not
>>> quite up
>>> > to the job.
>>> >
>>> > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical or
>>> > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even
>>> > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have seen
>>> time
>>> > and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
>>> >
>>> > It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
>>> >
>>> > It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not
>>> Made
>>> > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple
>>> of
>>> >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

2016-03-12 Thread Anthony Cole
Sorry, there's a typo in that last paragraph. It should read:

The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata *statements*.
If that is so, you should fix that.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Hi Magnus.
>
> I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1]
> earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing
> me.
>
> Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe a
> formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable sources.
> Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
> contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with the
> number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references per
> statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS
> ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
> en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
> Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
>
> Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because whole
> paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears
> only once at the end of the paragraph.
>
> But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it should
> be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
> arguments.
>
> The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
> that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If
> that is so, you should fix that.
>
>
>
> 1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels 
> wrote:
>
>> The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
>> new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
>> exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
>> as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
>> had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
>> editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to
>> be, because I know you have done many good things.
>>
>> And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
>> Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering
>> skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did,
>> they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
>> term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
>> it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
>> disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
>> etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.
>>
>> I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
>> in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
>> see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
>> large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
>> resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
>> forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the
>> issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is
>> instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
>> resistance against the product as a whole.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
>>  wrote:
>> > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this
>> thread. I
>> > have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I do
>> well
>> > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not
>> quite up
>> > to the job.
>> >
>> > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical or
>> > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even
>> > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have seen
>> time
>> > and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
>> >
>> > It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
>> >
>> > It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not Made
>> > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple
>> of
>> >> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
>> >> persisting with your idée fixe.
>> >>
>> >> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The
>> >> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not
>> newbies.
>> >> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an edit.
>> It
>> >> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
>> >>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

2016-03-12 Thread Anthony Cole
Hi Magnus.

I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1]
earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing
me.

Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe a
formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable sources.
Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with the
number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references per
statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS
ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.

Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because whole
paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears
only once at the end of the paragraph.

But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it should
be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
arguments.

The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If
that is so, you should fix that.



1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels  wrote:

> The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
> new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
> exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
> as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
> had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
> editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to
> be, because I know you have done many good things.
>
> And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
> Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering
> skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did,
> they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
> term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
> it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
> disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
> etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.
>
> I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
> in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
> see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
> large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
> resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
> forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the
> issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is
> instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
> resistance against the product as a whole.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
>  wrote:
> > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this
> thread. I
> > have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I do
> well
> > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not quite
> up
> > to the job.
> >
> > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical or
> > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even
> > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have seen
> time
> > and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
> >
> > It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
> >
> > It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not Made
> > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple of
> >> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
> >> persisting with your idée fixe.
> >>
> >> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The
> >> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not
> newbies.
> >> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an edit.
> It
> >> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
> >>
> >> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors were
> >> unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then most
> of
> >> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community arrogantly
> >> characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an ignorant,
> >> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation now.
> >>
> >> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have
> >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-ambassadors] Wikipedia.org portal page update!

2016-03-12 Thread David Abián
It looks great, well done.

However, I leave some comments:

* With my configuration, contents slightly overflow the page when using
a window of between 481 and 560 px wide. I would increase the border
between mobile and desktop view from 480 px to ~550 px (or would modify
contents so that we didn't need to modify that limit).

http://davidabian.com/screenshots/wikimedia/wikipedia-org-485.png

* Having written a topic in the search box, the selected summary
overflows the box after clicking.

http://davidabian.com/screenshots/wikimedia/wikipedia-org-results-overflowing.png

* While a license (CC BY-SA 3.0) is specified in the HTML (), no
license is displayed to the user.

And some questions:

* Are you planning to make something similar with wikimedia.org?

* Do you follow a specific order when linking to the sister projects? I
see that wikipedia.org and wikimedia.org show the projects in a
different order.

Thank you!

El 11/03/16 a las 19:18, Deborah Tankersley escribió:
> Hello!
> 
> I'm very pleased to announce that we've updated the Wikipedia.org
>  portal page with a brand new search box that is
> more prominent and will now display meta data with images (as available)
> in the search results (link
> ).
> 
> This was a large effort by the Discovery Portal team to develop a
> JavaScript-only version of the language picker, so that JavaScript
> enabled browsers will see all the new meta data. Alongside that effort,
> we also ensured that in JavaScript (JS) disabled browsers (or older
> Internet Explorer versions), our visitors won't have a bad experience
> when choosing a language to search in. (Note 1: in older IE versions and
> JS disabled browsers, the type-ahead and meta data search results
> information will not be displayed.) 
> 
> We also implemented a shorter language code (ie: EN for English, ES for
> Spanish, etc) to allow for more characters to be typed into the search
> box. When a user toggles the language selector, the full language name
> will be displayed in the dropdown for easy finding of the language you
> prefer to search in. For the more technical minded - I've also uploaded,
> to Commons, a screenshot
>  of
> one of the ways we test our code, visually.
> 
> We're interested in hearing your feedback or if you have any questions!
> (Note 2: My apologies for not getting this email out yesterday, but I
> had had issues with size limitations of my screenshots.)
> 
> On behalf of the very happy Wikipedia.org Portal Team,
> 
> Deb
> --
> Deb Tankersley
> Product Manager, Discovery
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list
> wikitech-ambassad...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors
> 

-- 
David Abián - davidabian.com
Vocal de Comunicación

Wikimedia España
Vega Sicilia, 2
47008 - Valladolid
https://wikimedia.es

Wikimedia España es una asociación sin ánimo de lucro española con
CIF G-10413698 inscrita en el Registro Nacional de Asociaciones,
Grupo 1, Sección 1, Núm. Nacional 597390.

«Imagina un mundo en el que cada persona
tenga acceso libre a todo el conocimiento»


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

2016-03-12 Thread Anthony Cole
Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those at the
end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of references at
the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my point. Many
editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences after the
last footnote marker.

There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote marker
supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the sentences at the
beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be counted as unsourced
statements.

But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just doesn't
matter which project is more poorly referenced.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of you only
> counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of
> paragraphs.
>
> And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a paragraph if,
> as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph often
> supports all statements in the paragraph?
>
> Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
>
> Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in his
> response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because,
> provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source in the
> body of an article, citations are not expected or required in en.Wikipedia
> article leads.
>
> Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating Wikipedia's
> lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
> reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is
> appalling.
>
> Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is worse".
> You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's true but
> still an invalid argument.
>
> It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument.
>
> Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding references is
> difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it is easy
> to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more difficult than adding
> them to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will you?
>
> You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the media viewer
> and visual editor was the stoopid power users.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Magnus Manske <
> magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Magnus.
>> >
>> > I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay
>> [1]
>> > earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were
>> addressing
>> > me.
>> >
>> > Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe
>> a
>> > formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable
>> sources.
>> > Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
>> > contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with
>> the
>> > number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references
>> per
>> > statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS
>> > ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
>> > en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
>> > Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
>> >
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> >
>> > Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because
>> whole
>> > paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears
>> > only once at the end of the paragraph.
>> >
>>
>> Which is why I am counting reference markers within the paragraphs, not
>> references at the end. Every  is sacred ;-)
>>
>> Actually, I think my statement count for entire Wikipedia articles is low
>> (and thus, favourable to Wikipedia). Take jsut the first sentence at
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams
>> This sentence alone contains nine statements (first names, last name,
>> birth
>> date, death date, nationality, the fact he's human, and three
>> occupations).
>> But I would only count that as one statement, as it is one sentence. This
>> reduces the number of statements I count in the article, but the number of
>> references (btw, only one in the entire lead section) remains constant,
>> thus pushing the RPS ratio in favour of Wikipedia.
>>
>> >
>> > But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it
>> should
>> > be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
>> > arguments.
>> >
>>
>> I agree. Which is why I never made such arguments. Please don't put them
>> in
>> my mouth; I don't know you well enough for that.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

2016-03-12 Thread Anthony Cole
Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of you only
counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of
paragraphs.

And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a paragraph if,
as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph often
supports all statements in the paragraph?

Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?

Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in his
response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because,
provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source in the
body of an article, citations are not expected or required in en.Wikipedia
article leads.

Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating Wikipedia's
lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is
appalling.

Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is worse".
You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's true but
still an invalid argument.

It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument.

Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding references is
difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it is easy to
add references to Wikidata, certainly not more difficult than adding them
to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will you?

You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the media viewer
and visual editor was the stoopid power users.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Magnus Manske  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > Hi Magnus.
> >
> > I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1]
> > earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing
> > me.
> >
> > Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe a
> > formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable
> sources.
> > Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
> > contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with
> the
> > number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references
> per
> > statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS
> > ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
> > en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
> > Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
> >
>
> Correct.
>
> >
> > Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because whole
> > paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears
> > only once at the end of the paragraph.
> >
>
> Which is why I am counting reference markers within the paragraphs, not
> references at the end. Every  is sacred ;-)
>
> Actually, I think my statement count for entire Wikipedia articles is low
> (and thus, favourable to Wikipedia). Take jsut the first sentence at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams
> This sentence alone contains nine statements (first names, last name, birth
> date, death date, nationality, the fact he's human, and three occupations).
> But I would only count that as one statement, as it is one sentence. This
> reduces the number of statements I count in the article, but the number of
> references (btw, only one in the entire lead section) remains constant,
> thus pushing the RPS ratio in favour of Wikipedia.
>
> >
> > But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it should
> > be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
> > arguments.
> >
>
> I agree. Which is why I never made such arguments. Please don't put them in
> my mouth; I don't know you well enough for that.
>
>
> >
> > The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
> > that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If
> > that is so, you should fix that.
> >
>
> Actually, it is easy to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more
> difficult than adding them to Wikipedia. I have written bots and
> drag'n'drop scripts to make it even easier. It is a little fiiddly to add
> book references, but still reasoably possible.
> What /is/ difficult is to do this automatically, by bot. But pick a random
> Wikidata entry, and with a little googling, many statements can be
> referenced to URLs. But this takes time.
> Which brings me back to my blog post: Even after ~3 years, Wikidata is
> referenced not too badly, compared to Wikipedia. And if we have learned one
> thing from Wikipedia, it is that the state in general, and references in
> particular, will improve over time.
> So to everyone who disses Wikidata because of "missing references", I say:
> 1. You're wrong (it's already OK)
> 2. Patience (it will get even better)
>
> Cheers,
> Magnus
>
>
> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [discovery] [Wikitech-ambassadors] Wikipedia.org portal page update!

2016-03-12 Thread Deborah Tankersley
Hi David,

Thanks for the kind comments!

> It looks great, well done.


I've created a phabricator ticket
 for this comment:

> With my configuration, contents slightly overflow the page when using a
> window of between 481 and 560 px wide. I would increase the border between
> mobile and desktop view from 480 px to ~550 px (or would modify contents so
> that we didn't need to modify that limit).


I've also updated this ticket 
with your screen shot:

> Having written a topic in the search box, the selected summary overflows
> the box after clicking.
>
> http://davidabian.com/screenshots/wikimedia/wikipedia-org-results-overflowing.png



I believe the license (and other icons that we don't display on the page)
are meant for browsers, app, etc that look for that type of information if
their site requires uses of it's display.

> While a license (CC BY-SA 3.0) is specified in the HTML
> (),
> no license is displayed to the user.


As for future work of this nature being completed on the wikimedia.org
portal site, that's TBD at this point. I'd like to investigate how much
traffic actually goes to that portal page (ticket
).

Also - there is no set order of the sister project links at the bottom of
the page as far as aligning with other wiki pages listing the sister
projects.

Thanks again!

Cheers,

Deb

--
Deb Tankersley
Product Manager, Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:46 AM, David Abián 
wrote:

> It looks great, well done.
>
> However, I leave some comments:
>
> * With my configuration, contents slightly overflow the page when using
> a window of between 481 and 560 px wide. I would increase the border
> between mobile and desktop view from 480 px to ~550 px (or would modify
> contents so that we didn't need to modify that limit).
>
> http://davidabian.com/screenshots/wikimedia/wikipedia-org-485.png
>
> * Having written a topic in the search box, the selected summary
> overflows the box after clicking.
>
>
> http://davidabian.com/screenshots/wikimedia/wikipedia-org-results-overflowing.png
>
> * While a license (CC BY-SA 3.0) is specified in the HTML ( rel="license" href="//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">), no
> license is displayed to the user.
>
> And some questions:
>
> * Are you planning to make something similar with wikimedia.org?
>
> * Do you follow a specific order when linking to the sister projects? I
> see that wikipedia.org and wikimedia.org show the projects in a
> different order.
>
> Thank you!
>
> El 11/03/16 a las 19:18, Deborah Tankersley escribió:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I'm very pleased to announce that we've updated the Wikipedia.org
> >  portal page with a brand new search box that is
> > more prominent and will now display meta data with images (as available)
> > in the search results (link
> >  >).
> >
> > This was a large effort by the Discovery Portal team to develop a
> > JavaScript-only version of the language picker, so that JavaScript
> > enabled browsers will see all the new meta data. Alongside that effort,
> > we also ensured that in JavaScript (JS) disabled browsers (or older
> > Internet Explorer versions), our visitors won't have a bad experience
> > when choosing a language to search in. (Note 1: in older IE versions and
> > JS disabled browsers, the type-ahead and meta data search results
> > information will not be displayed.)
> >
> > We also implemented a shorter language code (ie: EN for English, ES for
> > Spanish, etc) to allow for more characters to be typed into the search
> > box. When a user toggles the language selector, the full language name
> > will be displayed in the dropdown for easy finding of the language you
> > prefer to search in. For the more technical minded - I've also uploaded,
> > to Commons, a screenshot
> >  of
> > one of the ways we test our code, visually.
> >
> > We're interested in hearing your feedback or if you have any questions!
> > (Note 2: My apologies for not getting this email out yesterday, but I
> > had had issues with size limitations of my screenshots.)
> >
> > On behalf of the very happy Wikipedia.org Portal Team,
> >
> > Deb
> > --
> > Deb Tankersley
> > Product Manager, Discovery
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list
> > wikitech-ambassad...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors
> >
>
> --
> David Abián - davidabian.com
> Vocal de Comunicación
>
> Wikimedia España
> Vega Sicilia, 2
> 47008 - Valladolid
> https://wikimedia.es
>
> Wikimedia España es una asociación sin ánimo de lucro española con
> CIF G-10413698 inscrita en el Registro Nacional 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

2016-03-12 Thread Magnus Manske
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Hi Magnus.
>
> I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1]
> earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing
> me.
>
> Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe a
> formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable sources.
> Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
> contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with the
> number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references per
> statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS
> ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
> en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
> Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
>

Correct.

>
> Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because whole
> paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears
> only once at the end of the paragraph.
>

Which is why I am counting reference markers within the paragraphs, not
references at the end. Every  is sacred ;-)

Actually, I think my statement count for entire Wikipedia articles is low
(and thus, favourable to Wikipedia). Take jsut the first sentence at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams
This sentence alone contains nine statements (first names, last name, birth
date, death date, nationality, the fact he's human, and three occupations).
But I would only count that as one statement, as it is one sentence. This
reduces the number of statements I count in the article, but the number of
references (btw, only one in the entire lead section) remains constant,
thus pushing the RPS ratio in favour of Wikipedia.

>
> But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it should
> be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
> arguments.
>

I agree. Which is why I never made such arguments. Please don't put them in
my mouth; I don't know you well enough for that.


>
> The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
> that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If
> that is so, you should fix that.
>

Actually, it is easy to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more
difficult than adding them to Wikipedia. I have written bots and
drag'n'drop scripts to make it even easier. It is a little fiiddly to add
book references, but still reasoably possible.
What /is/ difficult is to do this automatically, by bot. But pick a random
Wikidata entry, and with a little googling, many statements can be
referenced to URLs. But this takes time.
Which brings me back to my blog post: Even after ~3 years, Wikidata is
referenced not too badly, compared to Wikipedia. And if we have learned one
thing from Wikipedia, it is that the state in general, and references in
particular, will improve over time.
So to everyone who disses Wikidata because of "missing references", I say:
1. You're wrong (it's already OK)
2. Patience (it will get even better)

Cheers,
Magnus


>
>
>
> 1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels 
> wrote:
>
> > The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
> > new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
> > exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
> > as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
> > had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
> > editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to
> > be, because I know you have done many good things.
> >
> > And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
> > Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering
> > skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did,
> > they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
> > term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
> > it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
> > disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
> > etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.
> >
> > I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
> > in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
> > see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
> > large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
> > resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
> > forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the
> > issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is
> > instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

2016-03-12 Thread Andre Engels
The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to
be, because I know you have done many good things.

And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering
skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did,
they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.

I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the
issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is
instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
resistance against the product as a whole.


On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
 wrote:
> Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this thread. I
> have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I do well
> remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not quite up
> to the job.
>
> What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical or
> early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even
> dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have seen time
> and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
>
> It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
>
> It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not Made
> Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
>> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple of
>> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
>> persisting with your idée fixe.
>>
>> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The
>> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not newbies.
>> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an edit. It
>> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
>>
>> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors were
>> unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then most of
>> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community arrogantly
>> characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an ignorant,
>> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation now.
>>
>> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have
>> fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and the
>> community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have.
>>
>> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the concurrent
>> thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny in
>> earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems to me there is
>> still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at least over
>> at WikiData.
>>
>> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly, about an
>> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down to them or
>> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't distinguish
>> them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and well-founded
>> criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your technical solutions
>> are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than those WMF staffers
>> who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career move.
>>
>> Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his project, and your
>> contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early visual editor
>> and its launch are both very disappointing.
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske <
>> magnusman...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do the basic
>> > functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at the same time. We
>> do
>> > not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our product. If we
>> can
>> > present the product in such a way that 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimania: Is it going to be once every two years?

2016-03-12 Thread Anthony Cole
I've lost track of where that's at.

Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania: Is it going to be once every two years?

2016-03-12 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
When it is only a nominal consideration but mostly a chuckle, what does it
say about the validity of those people and their assumptions? This is
exactly the infuriating kind of response that turns people off the
community.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 12 March 2016 at 14:45, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> On 2016-03-12 6:31 AM, Anthony Cole wrote:
>
>> I've lost track of where that's at.
>>
>
> Well, there was a consultation involving too few people that had a slight
> majority picking every other year out of a set of constrained options;
> followed by quite a bit of protestation; followed by the chair of the
> selection committee responding that the consultation will be given "all due
> consideration".
>
> I've very little doubt - knowing the selection committee people and their
> involvement in Wikimania since Frankfurt - that the so-called consultation
> /will/ be given all the consideration that it is due: very little, and a
> bit of chuckle.
>
> :-)
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

2016-03-12 Thread Anthony Cole
Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically
discern what a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph." Check
out the first paragraph and its references here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral.

Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your
MediaWiki preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what each
reference is supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting the
supported text on the page, rather than having it appear in a tool tip.

I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that screen
readers can read it.

Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske 
wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those at the
> > end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of references at
> > the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my point.
> Many
> > editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
> > paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences after
> the
> > last footnote marker.
> >
> > There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote marker
> > supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the sentences at the
> > beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be counted as unsourced
> > statements.
> >
>
> Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern what
> a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As described, my "one
> sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound of statement numbers. So
> is my  count, then. I am certain you can find an article where my
> statement-to-reference ratio is off against WIkipedia; but I believe I
> could find more instances where it is in favour of Wikipedia.
>
>
> >
> > But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just
> doesn't
> > matter which project is more poorly referenced.
> >
>
> Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care :-)
>
> My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one can't
> "sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor referencing.
> Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things). That is
> all.
>
> Cheers,
> Magnus
>
>
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of you
> only
> > > counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of
> > > paragraphs.
> > >
> > > And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a paragraph
> > if,
> > > as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph
> often
> > > supports all statements in the paragraph?
> > >
> > > Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
> > >
> > > Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in his
> > > response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because,
> > > provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source in
> > the
> > > body of an article, citations are not expected or required in
> > en.Wikipedia
> > > article leads.
> > >
> > > Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating
> > Wikipedia's
> > > lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
> > > reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is
> > > appalling.
> > >
> > > Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is
> worse".
> > > You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's true but
> > > still an invalid argument.
> > >
> > > It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument.
> > >
> > > Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding references
> > is
> > > difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it is easy
> > > to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more difficult than adding
> > > them to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will you?
> > >
> > > You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the media
> viewer
> > > and visual editor was the stoopid power users.
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Magnus Manske <
> > > magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi Magnus.
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an
> essay
> > >> [1]
> > >> > earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were
> > >> addressing
> > >> > me.
> > >> >
> > >> > Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You
> > describe
> > >> a
> > >> > formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable
> > >> sources.
> > >> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

2016-03-12 Thread Peter Southwood
That would be a useful feature in the long term
Cheers,
 Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Anthony Cole
Sent: Saturday, 12 March 2016 8:42 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern 
what a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph." Check out the first 
paragraph and its references here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral.

Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your MediaWiki 
preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what each reference is 
supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting the supported text on the 
page, rather than having it appear in a tool tip.

I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that screen 
readers can read it.

Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske 
wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those 
> > at the end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of 
> > references at the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing 
> > my point.
> Many
> > editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a 
> > paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences 
> > after
> the
> > last footnote marker.
> >
> > There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote 
> > marker supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the 
> > sentences at the beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be 
> > counted as unsourced statements.
> >
>
> Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern 
> what a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As 
> described, my "one sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound of 
> statement numbers. So is my  count, then. I am certain you can 
> find an article where my statement-to-reference ratio is off against 
> WIkipedia; but I believe I could find more instances where it is in favour of 
> Wikipedia.
>
>
> >
> > But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just
> doesn't
> > matter which project is more poorly referenced.
> >
>
> Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care 
> :-)
>
> My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one 
> can't "sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor referencing.
> Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things). 
> That is all.
>
> Cheers,
> Magnus
>
>
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of 
> > > you
> only
> > > counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end 
> > > of paragraphs.
> > >
> > > And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a 
> > > paragraph
> > if,
> > > as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a 
> > > paragraph
> often
> > > supports all statements in the paragraph?
> > >
> > > Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
> > >
> > > Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in 
> > > his response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading 
> > > because, provided statements are repeated and supported by a 
> > > reliable source in
> > the
> > > body of an article, citations are not expected or required in
> > en.Wikipedia
> > > article leads.
> > >
> > > Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating
> > Wikipedia's
> > > lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the 
> > > reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is 
> > > appalling.
> > >
> > > Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is
> worse".
> > > You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's 
> > > true but still an invalid argument.
> > >
> > > It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument.
> > >
> > > Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding 
> > > references
> > is
> > > difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it is 
> > > easy to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more difficult 
> > > than adding them to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will you?
> > >
> > > You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the media
> viewer
> > > and visual editor was the stoopid power users.
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Magnus Manske < 
> > > magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole 
> > >> 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi Magnus.
> > >> >
> > >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

2016-03-12 Thread Anthony Cole
Ugh. This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2#Example

Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Ugh.I just edited the page and now it's not working. Try this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2/Example
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
>> Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically
>> discern what a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph." Check
>> out the first paragraph and its references here:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral.
>>
>> Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your
>> MediaWiki preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what each
>> reference is supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting the
>> supported text on the page, rather than having it appear in a tool tip.
>>
>> I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that screen
>> readers can read it.
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske <
>> magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those at
>>> the
>>> > end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of references
>>> at
>>> > the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my point.
>>> Many
>>> > editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
>>> > paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences after
>>> the
>>> > last footnote marker.
>>> >
>>> > There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote
>>> marker
>>> > supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the sentences at the
>>> > beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be counted as unsourced
>>> > statements.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern
>>> what
>>> a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As described, my
>>> "one
>>> sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound of statement numbers. So
>>> is my  count, then. I am certain you can find an article where my
>>> statement-to-reference ratio is off against WIkipedia; but I believe I
>>> could find more instances where it is in favour of Wikipedia.
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just
>>> doesn't
>>> > matter which project is more poorly referenced.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care :-)
>>>
>>> My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one
>>> can't
>>> "sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor referencing.
>>> Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things). That
>>> is
>>> all.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Magnus
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Anthony Cole
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of you
>>> only
>>> > > counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of
>>> > > paragraphs.
>>> > >
>>> > > And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a
>>> paragraph
>>> > if,
>>> > > as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph
>>> often
>>> > > supports all statements in the paragraph?
>>> > >
>>> > > Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
>>> > >
>>> > > Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in his
>>> > > response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because,
>>> > > provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source
>>> in
>>> > the
>>> > > body of an article, citations are not expected or required in
>>> > en.Wikipedia
>>> > > article leads.
>>> > >
>>> > > Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating
>>> > Wikipedia's
>>> > > lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
>>> > > reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is
>>> > > appalling.
>>> > >
>>> > > Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is
>>> worse".
>>> > > You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's true
>>> but
>>> > > still an invalid argument.
>>> > >
>>> > > It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument.
>>> > >
>>> > > Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding
>>> references
>>> > is
>>> > > difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it is
>>> easy
>>> > > to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more difficult than
>>> adding
>>> > > them to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will you?
>>> > >
>>> > > You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the media
>>> viewer
>>> > > and visual editor was the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

2016-03-12 Thread Anthony Cole
I'd use it for most of my citations if it also worked for users of screen
readers. But I can't bring myself to add a feature to an article that isn't
accessible by the sight impaired.

Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> That would be a useful feature in the long term
> Cheers,
>  Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Anthony Cole
> Sent: Saturday, 12 March 2016 8:42 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
>
> Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically
> discern what a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph." Check
> out the first paragraph and its references here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral.
>
> Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your
> MediaWiki preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what each
> reference is supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting the
> supported text on the page, rather than having it appear in a tool tip.
>
> I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that screen
> readers can read it.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske <
> magnusman...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those
> > > at the end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of
> > > references at the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are
> missing my point.
> > Many
> > > editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
> > > paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences
> > > after
> > the
> > > last footnote marker.
> > >
> > > There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote
> > > marker supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the
> > > sentences at the beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be
> > > counted as unsourced statements.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern
> > what a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As
> > described, my "one sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound of
> > statement numbers. So is my  count, then. I am certain you can
> > find an article where my statement-to-reference ratio is off against
> > WIkipedia; but I believe I could find more instances where it is in
> favour of Wikipedia.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just
> > doesn't
> > > matter which project is more poorly referenced.
> > >
> >
> > Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care
> > :-)
> >
> > My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one
> > can't "sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor
> referencing.
> > Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things).
> > That is all.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Magnus
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of
> > > > you
> > only
> > > > counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end
> > > > of paragraphs.
> > > >
> > > > And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a
> > > > paragraph
> > > if,
> > > > as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a
> > > > paragraph
> > often
> > > > supports all statements in the paragraph?
> > > >
> > > > Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
> > > >
> > > > Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in
> > > > his response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading
> > > > because, provided statements are repeated and supported by a
> > > > reliable source in
> > > the
> > > > body of an article, citations are not expected or required in
> > > en.Wikipedia
> > > > article leads.
> > > >
> > > > Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating
> > > Wikipedia's
> > > > lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
> > > > reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is
> > > > appalling.
> > > >
> > > > Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is
> > worse".
> > > > You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's
> > > > true but still an invalid argument.
> > > >
> > > > It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument.
> > > >
> > > > Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding
> > > > references
> > > is
> > > > difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it is
> > > > easy to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

2016-03-12 Thread Anthony Cole
Ugh.I just edited the page and now it's not working. Try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2/Example

Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically
> discern what a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph." Check
> out the first paragraph and its references here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral.
>
> Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your
> MediaWiki preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what each
> reference is supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting the
> supported text on the page, rather than having it appear in a tool tip.
>
> I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that screen
> readers can read it.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske <
> magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole  wrote:
>>
>> > Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those at
>> the
>> > end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of references at
>> > the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my point.
>> Many
>> > editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
>> > paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences after
>> the
>> > last footnote marker.
>> >
>> > There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote marker
>> > supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the sentences at the
>> > beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be counted as unsourced
>> > statements.
>> >
>>
>> Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern
>> what
>> a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As described, my "one
>> sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound of statement numbers. So
>> is my  count, then. I am certain you can find an article where my
>> statement-to-reference ratio is off against WIkipedia; but I believe I
>> could find more instances where it is in favour of Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just
>> doesn't
>> > matter which project is more poorly referenced.
>> >
>>
>> Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care :-)
>>
>> My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one can't
>> "sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor referencing.
>> Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things). That is
>> all.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Magnus
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Anthony Cole
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of you
>> only
>> > > counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of
>> > > paragraphs.
>> > >
>> > > And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a paragraph
>> > if,
>> > > as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph
>> often
>> > > supports all statements in the paragraph?
>> > >
>> > > Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
>> > >
>> > > Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in his
>> > > response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because,
>> > > provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source in
>> > the
>> > > body of an article, citations are not expected or required in
>> > en.Wikipedia
>> > > article leads.
>> > >
>> > > Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating
>> > Wikipedia's
>> > > lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
>> > > reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is
>> > > appalling.
>> > >
>> > > Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is
>> worse".
>> > > You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's true
>> but
>> > > still an invalid argument.
>> > >
>> > > It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument.
>> > >
>> > > Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding
>> references
>> > is
>> > > difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it is
>> easy
>> > > to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more difficult than
>> adding
>> > > them to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will you?
>> > >
>> > > You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the media
>> viewer
>> > > and visual editor was the stoopid power users.
>> > >
>> > > Anthony Cole
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Magnus Manske <
>> > > magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole 
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > Hi Magnus.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I'm re-reading 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

2016-03-12 Thread Magnus Manske
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those at the
> end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of references at
> the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my point. Many
> editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
> paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences after the
> last footnote marker.
>
> There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote marker
> supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the sentences at the
> beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be counted as unsourced
> statements.
>

Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern what
a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As described, my "one
sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound of statement numbers. So
is my  count, then. I am certain you can find an article where my
statement-to-reference ratio is off against WIkipedia; but I believe I
could find more instances where it is in favour of Wikipedia.


>
> But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just doesn't
> matter which project is more poorly referenced.
>

Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care :-)

My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one can't
"sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor referencing.
Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things). That is
all.

Cheers,
Magnus


>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
>
> > Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of you only
> > counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of
> > paragraphs.
> >
> > And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a paragraph
> if,
> > as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph often
> > supports all statements in the paragraph?
> >
> > Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
> >
> > Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in his
> > response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because,
> > provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source in
> the
> > body of an article, citations are not expected or required in
> en.Wikipedia
> > article leads.
> >
> > Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating
> Wikipedia's
> > lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
> > reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is
> > appalling.
> >
> > Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is worse".
> > You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's true but
> > still an invalid argument.
> >
> > It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument.
> >
> > Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding references
> is
> > difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it is easy
> > to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more difficult than adding
> > them to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will you?
> >
> > You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the media viewer
> > and visual editor was the stoopid power users.
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Magnus Manske <
> > magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Magnus.
> >> >
> >> > I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay
> >> [1]
> >> > earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were
> >> addressing
> >> > me.
> >> >
> >> > Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You
> describe
> >> a
> >> > formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable
> >> sources.
> >> > Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
> >> > contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences
> with
> >> the
> >> > number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references
> >> per
> >> > statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the
> RPS
> >> > ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
> >> > en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
> >> > Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Correct.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because
> >> whole
> >> > paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker
> appears
> >> > only once at the end of the paragraph.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Which is why I am counting reference markers within the paragraphs, not
> >> references at the end. Every  is sacred ;-)
> >>
> >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania: Is it going to be once every two years?

2016-03-12 Thread Anthony Cole
Thanks, Marc. That's a relief.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> On 2016-03-12 6:31 AM, Anthony Cole wrote:
>
>> I've lost track of where that's at.
>>
>
> Well, there was a consultation involving too few people that had a slight
> majority picking every other year out of a set of constrained options;
> followed by quite a bit of protestation; followed by the chair of the
> selection committee responding that the consultation will be given "all due
> consideration".
>
> I've very little doubt - knowing the selection committee people and their
> involvement in Wikimania since Frankfurt - that the so-called consultation
> /will/ be given all the consideration that it is due: very little, and a
> bit of chuckle.
>
> :-)
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania: Is it going to be once every two years?

2016-03-12 Thread James Heilman
Gerard not sure what you mean? In the Wikipedia world if a RfC is either
poorly formed or poorly participated in than it is not uncommon for another
one to occur.

J

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> When it is only a nominal consideration but mostly a chuckle, what does it
> say about the validity of those people and their assumptions? This is
> exactly the infuriating kind of response that turns people off the
> community.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 12 March 2016 at 14:45, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
>
> > On 2016-03-12 6:31 AM, Anthony Cole wrote:
> >
> >> I've lost track of where that's at.
> >>
> >
> > Well, there was a consultation involving too few people that had a slight
> > majority picking every other year out of a set of constrained options;
> > followed by quite a bit of protestation; followed by the chair of the
> > selection committee responding that the consultation will be given "all
> due
> > consideration".
> >
> > I've very little doubt - knowing the selection committee people and their
> > involvement in Wikimania since Frankfurt - that the so-called
> consultation
> > /will/ be given all the consideration that it is due: very little, and a
> > bit of chuckle.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > -- Coren / Marc
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

2016-03-12 Thread Magnus Manske
I like this for the interface, and as you said for the screen reading
function. I hear WMF is working on some TTS thing now?

Not sure it would significantly alter my ratios at the moment, especially
given its rather low takeup (i presume). In your example, it would actually
make the ratio worse for Wikipedia, providing evidence for more than one
statement per sentence ;-)


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:53 PM Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Ugh. This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2#Example
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > Ugh.I just edited the page and now it's not working. Try this:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2/Example
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically
> >> discern what a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph." Check
> >> out the first paragraph and its references here:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral.
> >>
> >> Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your
> >> MediaWiki preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what each
> >> reference is supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting the
> >> supported text on the page, rather than having it appear in a tool tip.
> >>
> >> I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that
> screen
> >> readers can read it.
> >>
> >> Anthony Cole
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske <
> >> magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those at
> >>> the
> >>> > end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of references
> >>> at
> >>> > the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my point.
> >>> Many
> >>> > editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
> >>> > paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences
> after
> >>> the
> >>> > last footnote marker.
> >>> >
> >>> > There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
> >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote
> >>> marker
> >>> > supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the sentences at the
> >>> > beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be counted as
> unsourced
> >>> > statements.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern
> >>> what
> >>> a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As described, my
> >>> "one
> >>> sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound of statement numbers.
> So
> >>> is my  count, then. I am certain you can find an article where my
> >>> statement-to-reference ratio is off against WIkipedia; but I believe I
> >>> could find more instances where it is in favour of Wikipedia.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just
> >>> doesn't
> >>> > matter which project is more poorly referenced.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care
> :-)
> >>>
> >>> My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one
> >>> can't
> >>> "sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor referencing.
> >>> Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things). That
> >>> is
> >>> all.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Magnus
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > Anthony Cole
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole 
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of
> you
> >>> only
> >>> > > counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end
> of
> >>> > > paragraphs.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a
> >>> paragraph
> >>> > if,
> >>> > > as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph
> >>> often
> >>> > > supports all statements in the paragraph?
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in
> his
> >>> > > response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because,
> >>> > > provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source
> >>> in
> >>> > the
> >>> > > body of an article, citations are not expected or required in
> >>> > en.Wikipedia
> >>> > > article leads.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating
> >>> > Wikipedia's
> >>> > > lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
> >>> > > reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is
> >>> > > appalling.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Forgive me for 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

2016-03-12 Thread Peter Southwood
Maybe it will become accessible with future technology, in which case your work 
would not be wasted.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Anthony Cole
Sent: Saturday, 12 March 2016 9:06 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

I'd use it for most of my citations if it also worked for users of screen 
readers. But I can't bring myself to add a feature to an article that isn't 
accessible by the sight impaired.

Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Peter Southwood < 
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> That would be a useful feature in the long term Cheers,  Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of Anthony Cole
> Sent: Saturday, 12 March 2016 8:42 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
>
> Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically 
> discern what a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph." 
> Check out the first paragraph and its references here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral.
>
> Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your 
> MediaWiki preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what 
> each reference is supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting 
> the supported text on the page, rather than having it appear in a tool tip.
>
> I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that 
> screen readers can read it.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske < 
> magnusman...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those 
> > > at the end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of 
> > > references at the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are
> missing my point.
> > Many
> > > editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a 
> > > paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences 
> > > after
> > the
> > > last footnote marker.
> > >
> > > There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in 
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote 
> > > marker supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the 
> > > sentences at the beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be 
> > > counted as unsourced statements.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically 
> > discern what a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As 
> > described, my "one sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound 
> > of statement numbers. So is my  count, then. I am certain you 
> > can find an article where my statement-to-reference ratio is off 
> > against WIkipedia; but I believe I could find more instances where 
> > it is in
> favour of Wikipedia.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just
> > doesn't
> > > matter which project is more poorly referenced.
> > >
> >
> > Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care
> > :-)
> >
> > My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one 
> > can't "sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor
> referencing.
> > Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things).
> > That is all.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Magnus
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole 
> > > 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of 
> > > > you
> > only
> > > > counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the 
> > > > end of paragraphs.
> > > >
> > > > And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a 
> > > > paragraph
> > > if,
> > > > as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a 
> > > > paragraph
> > often
> > > > supports all statements in the paragraph?
> > > >
> > > > Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
> > > >
> > > > Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in 
> > > > his response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading 
> > > > because, provided statements are repeated and supported by a 
> > > > reliable source in
> > > the
> > > > body of an article, citations are not expected or required in
> > > en.Wikipedia
> > > > article leads.
> > > >
> > > > Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating
> > > Wikipedia's
> > > > lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the 
> > > > reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia 
> > > > is appalling.
> > > >
> > > > Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia 
> > > > is
> > worse".
> > > > You appear to be 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cross-wiki notifications beta feature now available on all wikis

2016-03-12 Thread Andy Mabbett
> Cross-wiki notifications

This is great, thank you.

Two requests:

Please could we have two icons, one for local notifications, another for
those from elsewhere?

And could we have some way to avoid mass notifications when we are
mentioned in a newsletter like The Signpost, This Week in GLAM, or the
Wikidata Weekly Summary, which are posted to many talk pages?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

2016-03-12 Thread SarahSV
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

>
> This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for
> transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a leadership
> position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are
> quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely
> desirable.
>
> At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring
> crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions arise
> again some weeks, months, years down the line.
>
> ​It would be wonderful if we had a dedicated transparency officer within
the community engagement department. Perhaps we could open a page on meta
listing transparency requests.

Sarah​
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

2016-03-12 Thread Andreas Kolbe
Anne,

This is not a question of employment standards – it's not about what these
NDAs etc. should or shouldn't say. We are talking about publication of
existing boilerplate agreements that are in routine use.

It's a question of transparency. When volunteers talk to staff, it's useful
for them to have an accurate understanding of what staff can and can't talk
about, in particular as some staff members have raised this as an issue.

If preparing this for publication takes a month or two, because there are
more pressing things to do right now, I have no problem with that. What
isn't good is if the community is told in response to queries, "Yes,
publishing the NDAs etc. is a reasonable idea", and those words just fade
into the mist because the task has never been actioned and delegated.
Perhaps we can agree on that.

As Sarah says, a dedicated transparency officer within the community
engagement department would be a great idea, because this is a
community-facing issue. I'd be interested in hearing Maggie's views on that.

Andreas

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Risker  wrote:

> Really, Andreas?  You're complaining that the resigning ED didn't do this
> and the one appointed less than 36 hours ago hasn't got around to it?
>
> This is not Maggie's responsibility - she is not responsible for employment
> standards or expectations.  That would be the VP Human Resources...who has
> just resigned, too, and has yet to be replaced.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 12 March 2016 at 21:09, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > On March 1, Jimmy Wales wrote:[1]
> >
> > things like standard boilerplate language to be signed by
> > > all employees doesn't strike me as something in and of itself to be
> kept
> > > private - there is a valid interest in showing that our policies are
> > > fair and humane for employees, responsible in terms of the privacy of
> > > personal information, etc.
> > >
> >
> > Nothing appears to have happened since then – we seem to be no nearer to
> > transparency about the non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement
> > clauses WMF staff have to sign than we were two weeks ago, when
> discussion
> > around this topic kicked off in another thread.[2]
> >
> > This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for
> > transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a
> leadership
> > position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are
> > quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely
> > desirable.
> >
> > At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring
> > crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions
> arise
> > again some weeks, months, years down the line.
> >
> > Maggie, is this something your department could take on? It would be good
> > to have one identified person at the Foundation who is responsible for
> > tracking such queries and reporting back to the community, one way or the
> > other.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> > [1]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082852.html
> > [2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/685183#685183
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

2016-03-12 Thread SarahSV
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> As Sarah says, a dedicated transparency officer within the community
> engagement department would be a great idea, because this is a
> community-facing issue. I'd be interested in hearing Maggie's views on
> that.
>
​
I've started a page where we can post requests and keep track of replies.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_transparency

Sarah
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

2016-03-12 Thread Risker
Ummwhat the NDA says is very much a part of employment standards.  The
NDA is an employer-employee agreement.  It is not subject to the wishes of
the Wikimedia community, except in a very indirect way.  NDAs are used to
control people's behaviours - if they're employees, they get disciplined up
to and including termination should they violate them.  In the case of
volunteers (and yes, there are many volunteers who sign NDAs for various
types of access, myself included), their privileged access can be removed
and potentially they could face legal ramifications for disclosure
depending on the nature of the disclosure.

There have been transparency problems, no question about it.  But they had
nothing to do with NDAs.  Let's leave NDAs out of it at this point.
They're absolutely not within Community Engagement's purview.

Risker/Anne

On 12 March 2016 at 22:11, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Anne,
>
> This is not a question of employment standards – it's not about what these
> NDAs etc. should or shouldn't say. We are talking about publication of
> existing boilerplate agreements that are in routine use.
>
> It's a question of transparency. When volunteers talk to staff, it's useful
> for them to have an accurate understanding of what staff can and can't talk
> about, in particular as some staff members have raised this as an issue.
>
> If preparing this for publication takes a month or two, because there are
> more pressing things to do right now, I have no problem with that. What
> isn't good is if the community is told in response to queries, "Yes,
> publishing the NDAs etc. is a reasonable idea", and those words just fade
> into the mist because the task has never been actioned and delegated.
> Perhaps we can agree on that.
>
> As Sarah says, a dedicated transparency officer within the community
> engagement department would be a great idea, because this is a
> community-facing issue. I'd be interested in hearing Maggie's views on
> that.
>
> Andreas
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Risker  wrote:
>
> > Really, Andreas?  You're complaining that the resigning ED didn't do this
> > and the one appointed less than 36 hours ago hasn't got around to it?
> >
> > This is not Maggie's responsibility - she is not responsible for
> employment
> > standards or expectations.  That would be the VP Human Resources...who
> has
> > just resigned, too, and has yet to be replaced.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On 12 March 2016 at 21:09, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> >
> > > On March 1, Jimmy Wales wrote:[1]
> > >
> > > things like standard boilerplate language to be signed by
> > > > all employees doesn't strike me as something in and of itself to be
> > kept
> > > > private - there is a valid interest in showing that our policies are
> > > > fair and humane for employees, responsible in terms of the privacy of
> > > > personal information, etc.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nothing appears to have happened since then – we seem to be no nearer
> to
> > > transparency about the non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement
> > > clauses WMF staff have to sign than we were two weeks ago, when
> > discussion
> > > around this topic kicked off in another thread.[2]
> > >
> > > This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for
> > > transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a
> > leadership
> > > position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue
> are
> > > quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely
> > > desirable.
> > >
> > > At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The
> clamouring
> > > crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions
> > arise
> > > again some weeks, months, years down the line.
> > >
> > > Maggie, is this something your department could take on? It would be
> good
> > > to have one identified person at the Foundation who is responsible for
> > > tracking such queries and reporting back to the community, one way or
> the
> > > other.
> > >
> > > Andreas
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082852.html
> > > [2]
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/685183#685183
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > 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
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

2016-03-12 Thread Risker
"Requests for transparency" is highly inaccurate; what you are requesting
is information.  The two are not synonymous.  I have moved the page to the
more correct name.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_information



On 12 March 2016 at 22:18, SarahSV  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > As Sarah says, a dedicated transparency officer within the community
> > engagement department would be a great idea, because this is a
> > community-facing issue. I'd be interested in hearing Maggie's views on
> > that.
> >
> ​
> I've started a page where we can post requests and keep track of replies.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_transparency
>
> Sarah
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

2016-03-12 Thread Risker
On 12 March 2016 at 22:02, SarahSV  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> >
> > This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for
> > transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a
> leadership
> > position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are
> > quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely
> > desirable.
> >
> > At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring
> > crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions
> arise
> > again some weeks, months, years down the line.
> >
> > ​It would be wonderful if we had a dedicated transparency officer within
> the community engagement department. Perhaps we could open a page on meta
> listing transparency requests.
>
>

Why would this be within the community engagement department?  I'm not
saying you're wrong, but I'm not actually seeing any logical explanation
for it being a CE issue.  It seems more a legal issue (in respect of
board/executive transparency) or human resources issue (in respect of
NDAs).  It's pretty obvious from what has bubbled to the surface over the
last few months that transparency was NOT just an issue from the community
perspective.  Perhaps a transparency officer in Legal might make sense.

Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

2016-03-12 Thread Pete Forsyth
Guys...gals...some perspective?

The important thing (as Andreas initially said) is that informal
commitments from Trustees, to seek transparency in specific areas, not
continue to get lost.

The questions about what department it belongs in, the speed at which they
get addressed, etc. are all very much secondary to that general point. If
and when somebody from the organization acknowledges the general point, all
those tactical questions go away, because that person will presumably find
the most sensible way to address them.

I don't think it makes sense to use this email list to evaluate the proper
department for a specific task. A suggestion here and there, sure. But
fully evaluating it and coming to a strong conclusion...that's a job for
the organization, not for whatever volunteers happen to be following the
list at any given moment.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Risker  wrote:

> Ummwhat the NDA says is very much a part of employment standards.  The
> NDA is an employer-employee agreement.  It is not subject to the wishes of
> the Wikimedia community, except in a very indirect way.  NDAs are used to
> control people's behaviours - if they're employees, they get disciplined up
> to and including termination should they violate them.  In the case of
> volunteers (and yes, there are many volunteers who sign NDAs for various
> types of access, myself included), their privileged access can be removed
> and potentially they could face legal ramifications for disclosure
> depending on the nature of the disclosure.
>
> There have been transparency problems, no question about it.  But they had
> nothing to do with NDAs.  Let's leave NDAs out of it at this point.
> They're absolutely not within Community Engagement's purview.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 12 March 2016 at 22:11, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > Anne,
> >
> > This is not a question of employment standards – it's not about what
> these
> > NDAs etc. should or shouldn't say. We are talking about publication of
> > existing boilerplate agreements that are in routine use.
> >
> > It's a question of transparency. When volunteers talk to staff, it's
> useful
> > for them to have an accurate understanding of what staff can and can't
> talk
> > about, in particular as some staff members have raised this as an issue.
> >
> > If preparing this for publication takes a month or two, because there are
> > more pressing things to do right now, I have no problem with that. What
> > isn't good is if the community is told in response to queries, "Yes,
> > publishing the NDAs etc. is a reasonable idea", and those words just fade
> > into the mist because the task has never been actioned and delegated.
> > Perhaps we can agree on that.
> >
> > As Sarah says, a dedicated transparency officer within the community
> > engagement department would be a great idea, because this is a
> > community-facing issue. I'd be interested in hearing Maggie's views on
> > that.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Risker  wrote:
> >
> > > Really, Andreas?  You're complaining that the resigning ED didn't do
> this
> > > and the one appointed less than 36 hours ago hasn't got around to it?
> > >
> > > This is not Maggie's responsibility - she is not responsible for
> > employment
> > > standards or expectations.  That would be the VP Human Resources...who
> > has
> > > just resigned, too, and has yet to be replaced.
> > >
> > > Risker/Anne
> > >
> > > On 12 March 2016 at 21:09, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On March 1, Jimmy Wales wrote:[1]
> > > >
> > > > things like standard boilerplate language to be signed by
> > > > > all employees doesn't strike me as something in and of itself to be
> > > kept
> > > > > private - there is a valid interest in showing that our policies
> are
> > > > > fair and humane for employees, responsible in terms of the privacy
> of
> > > > > personal information, etc.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nothing appears to have happened since then – we seem to be no nearer
> > to
> > > > transparency about the non-disclosure agreements and
> non-disparagement
> > > > clauses WMF staff have to sign than we were two weeks ago, when
> > > discussion
> > > > around this topic kicked off in another thread.[2]
> > > >
> > > > This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for
> > > > transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a
> > > leadership
> > > > position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue
> > are
> > > > quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely
> > > > desirable.
> > > >
> > > > At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The
> > clamouring
> > > > crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions
> > > arise
> > > > again some weeks, months, years down the line.
> > > >
> > > > Maggie, is this something your