Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?

[Mitar]

Hi!

Ehm, that looks great, but I have no idea what a project is and how to
I join? The talk page on the Edit_Review_Improvements has just some
suggestions? How is communication being done here? Sorry if this is
obvious.


Mitar

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Brill Lyle  wrote:
> Saw this on the latest issue of Tech News (
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/News/2016/26). Thought it might be
> interest as it's directly related to this thread.
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_Review_Improvements
>
> see also: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/edit-review-improvements/
>
> @Mitar -- you might want to volunteer to participate in this process, as
> you have a lot of suggestions. I think the first way into the project is
> via the Talk page, though :-)
>
> - Erika
>
>
> *Erika Herzog*
> Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle *
> ___
> 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, 
> 



-- 
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m

___
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] Board Governance Committee update

[Samuel Klein]

On Jun 28, 2016 00:42, "MZMcBride"  wrote:
>
> Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> >this is an update on the work of the Board Governance Committee over the
> >last months that some of you have requested.
> >
> >[...]
>
> Thank you for this update!

Warmly seconded.  Following up on one of the threads from Wikimania: this
is the sort of practical transparency that helps us all improve in our own
work :)
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Board appointment of Executive Director

[Christophe Henner]

Hi everyone,

On top of the formal announcement, I’d like to share a few personal
thoughts.

Katherine Maher has been interim ED of the Wikimedia Foundation since
March. In the past few months, we’ve had the pleasure to witness her
ability to provide healthy leadership to Wikimedia Foundation staff. Thanks
to her abilities, she took the organisation to one with more engaged and
motivated teams.

But not only that, her contribution to Board meetings has been exemplary.
She opened up possibilities and discussions that will allow us to move
forward and become a better organisation. Katherine deeply shares our
values, and fits naturally within our movement.

I am really happy that she agreed to take on the permanent job, and can’t
wait for us to dive into making Wikimedia Foundation a better organisation.

At the same time, I would like to personally thank Frieda and Patricio for
the time they served as Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, as last week
was the conclusion of their Board terms. It also feels weird not to serve
with them as I’ve known the two of them for 10 years and would have love to
spend more time with them.

They served our movement during difficult times. I hope we’ll have the
pleasure to see them keep on wandering in the Wikimedia sphere, and wish
them to enjoy all the free time they’ve just got back with their loved
ones.

Please take the opportunity to share your thanks to Frieda and Patricio,
and to congratulate and welcome Katherine in her new position.

All the best,


Christophe
___
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] Why are articles being deleted?

[Brill Lyle]

Saw this on the latest issue of Tech News (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/News/2016/26). Thought it might be
interest as it's directly related to this thread.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_Review_Improvements

see also: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/edit-review-improvements/

@Mitar -- you might want to volunteer to participate in this process, as
you have a lot of suggestions. I think the first way into the project is
via the Talk page, though :-)

- Erika


*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle *
___
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] Why are articles being deleted?

[Kevin Smith]

I'm an infrequent editor. Naively, I don't understand:

1. Why the author's attempt at a discussion/clarification was ignored
2. Given point #1, why this was deleted *so* quickly, when it was merely
"insignificant", and not actively harmful (e.g. copyright violation)
3. Given point #1, why the article was deleted, instead of being moved into
some draft space

If any of those three had been handled differently, at a minimum, this
potential new editor would have felt more welcomed. In most cases, this
article would have disappeared. It was only because Mitar spoke up that the
article was resurrected and turned into what is, which is apparently an
article of positive value for wikipedia.

It's not clear to me how much of what happened was in line with existing
policies. Perhaps some of what happened leaned toward the harsh end of
normal. It's not clear to me how easy it would be to shift the policies, or
implementations, slightly in the direction of being more welcoming.

I think the process "worked" as far as keeping a dodgy article out, and
making efficient use of admin time. I don't think the process "worked" as
far as growing the editor community, nor in terms of helping appropriate
content get added.

Maybe things are as they need to be, for admin efficiency. But I think it's
worth considering whether that is the case. Could we do something to
improve the situation?

Thinking outside the box, perhaps by default new articles should be created
in a private sandbox, so inexperienced editors won't run into this trap. A
user setting could allow experienced editors to create articles directly in
the main namespace, I suppose that has been discussed before, and there's
probably a good reason why it won't work. Still, it seems like we should be
able to find processes that are win-win-win, for new editors, admins, and
readers.

NOTE: I am not speaking as a foundation employee here. This is strictly
personal opinion.


Kevin Smith



On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen <
list-wikime...@funcrunch.org> wrote:

> Without weighing in on the specific's of Mitar's case, I think this is a
> good suggestion. I created my first Wikipedia article in 2009, after I'd
> been registered on the site for a few months but only had a few edits to my
> name. My article was on a living musician/composer, and was, rightfully I
> think, tagged for notability. It wasn't deleted though (I did improve it
> with more sources), and that article is still up today.
>
> Regardless, it would have been good for me to get more experience by
> improving other articles before creating one myself. Even now, seven years
> later, I don't create many new articles, preferring to work on existing
> ones. Whenever I do create a new article, I always work up a solid version,
> with good sources, in my userspace first.
>
> - Pax, aka Funcrunch
>
>
>
> On 6/27/16 12:40 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>
>> Or may be just to emphasize again David's point. Every new editor
>> starting an article about a living person or an existing organization with
>> a not-so-obvious notability is always suspected of promotional (payed of
>> fan-like) editing. Always. And promotional editing is always a red tape.
>>
>> As a new editor, do not start with articles which can be thought of as
>> promotional. Write about history, localities, natural history, improve
>> existing articles. Establish your name on the project. Become an
>> autopatrolled. Then it is much safer to go to the areas attractive for
>> promotional editors.
>>
>> This is not how it should be, but how it is. This is so far our only
>> response to promotional editing.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Why are articles being deleted?

[Pax Ahimsa Gethen]

Without weighing in on the specific's of Mitar's case, I think this is a 
good suggestion. I created my first Wikipedia article in 2009, after I'd 
been registered on the site for a few months but only had a few edits to 
my name. My article was on a living musician/composer, and was, 
rightfully I think, tagged for notability. It wasn't deleted though (I 
did improve it with more sources), and that article is still up today.


Regardless, it would have been good for me to get more experience by 
improving other articles before creating one myself. Even now, seven 
years later, I don't create many new articles, preferring to work on 
existing ones. Whenever I do create a new article, I always work up a 
solid version, with good sources, in my userspace first.


- Pax, aka Funcrunch


On 6/27/16 12:40 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
Or may be just to emphasize again David's point. Every new editor 
starting an article about a living person or an existing organization 
with a not-so-obvious notability is always suspected of promotional 
(payed of fan-like) editing. Always. And promotional editing is always 
a red tape.


As a new editor, do not start with articles which can be thought of as 
promotional. Write about history, localities, natural history, improve 
existing articles. Establish your name on the project. Become an 
autopatrolled. Then it is much safer to go to the areas attractive for 
promotional editors.


This is not how it should be, but how it is. This is so far our only 
response to promotional editing.


Cheers
Yaroslav



___
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] Wikiobject - Project Proposal

[Quico Prol]

Hi, how about a wikipedia about objects?

Instead of generic articles of , for example, "Ballpoint pen" or  "Bic
cristal" it would be "Ballpoint pen Bic cristal 2014"

Doing these for millions of objects would allow people to have an open,
free, universal and central place to refer specific objects.

*Some possible applications:*


   - Creating neutral and standard lists:

   Nowadays if anyone create, for example, a tutorial for building
   something (DIY projects, receipts, ...) they have to link all items to a
   comercial or no-neutral web which could change its url in the future or
   redirect it to adds or whatever.

   Lists could be created in external webpages linking wikimedia objects
   webpage or/and could be created as category pages in Wikipedia. For
   example, currently, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_of_the_Year
   article lists cars which won COTY award but not links to the specific car
   (AUDI A3 Hatchback 2012 - Present) but generic serie (Audi A3).

   The good thing at this point it's that to start creating object
   lists only item name is necessary, no infoboxes or description needed.


   - Universal repository for inventories:

   Lot of business fill their inventories again and again with same data
   ("cardboard box 50x30x15", "step by step nema motor 17", ... ) they should
   be able to import  this data from a open website with their corresponding
   info like   GTIN , SKU , Barcode... and more in the future  weight, size,
   ...

- Encourage Recycling and Reutilitation:

   Imagine if we use wikidata properties  (
   https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:List_of_properties/Generic) like
   "has part" and "part of" , people will find other uses for objects, or
   discover were to find

   - Social activism and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

   Companies have info and metrics about their costumers (habits, location,
   ...) why not costumers have info about companies products, who manufacture
   what?, what products have a good carbon footprint
   ?, what products have
   been retired from some problem?, what are Fair Trade?. This also can moved
   companies do better.


*Very rough roadmap*:


   1. At the very begining, using wikidata infrestructure, objects would
   only have common info like "name", " image", "related  links"
   (datasheets?), GTIN.

   First use cases could be doing lists or grouping objects by categories.

   2. Step by step new fields could be added like "manufacturer" , "tags",
   ...

   3. A separated website could be created. wikiobject.org isn't availiabe
   so url could be something like objects.wikpedia.org

   4. In a long-term in order to explote all the possibilities of this
   project more complex fields and relations would have to be managed, like
for example "fridges with energy class A+++ and width less than 80 cm",
   which could be easy if all always were similar but nothing further from
   reality

   A friend of mine and me tried to build a demo version in an home-made
   apache cassandra cluster four years ago, but we don't have enough resources
   and knowledge for that.



*Funding*
In my humble opinion, problem with wikipedia funding It's that most part of
its users don't see culture as a need (sorry for that, I am a sporadic
donor). In Wikiobject case I think it could rather be different.

If part of companies business lies on this project, companies will be very
inclined to donate to improve performace, usability, etc.. maybe similar to
what happens in Linux.

Where came this need from? Data needed for some software to run, product
vissibility, costumer requests, etc ... , no advertisement needed, It could
be a need and standart.

I trully believe that world need something like this, and the correct
people to do it, to warranty openness and independence, are you.

thanks for your time and attention,
grettings
___
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] Why are articles being deleted?

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

Brill Lyle писал 2016-06-27 04:24:
That said, it's down to the quality of the first draft. In this 
instance,
the draft, in my opinion, did a disservice to the subject. Although 
there
were good citations, the content of the page was not strong enough or 
well

developed enough to reflect what the entity actually does. And didn't
establish notability or have the basic details needed to be up on
Wikipedia. It was a draft and belonged in a Draft, Sandbox, or user 
space.





Or may be just to emphasize again David's point. Every new editor 
starting an article about a living person or an existing organization 
with a not-so-obvious notability is always suspected of promotional 
(payed of fan-like) editing. Always. And promotional editing is always a 
red tape.


As a new editor, do not start with articles which can be thought of as 
promotional. Write about history, localities, natural history, improve 
existing articles. Establish your name on the project. Become an 
autopatrolled. Then it is much safer to go to the areas attractive for 
promotional editors.


This is not how it should be, but how it is. This is so far our only 
response to promotional editing.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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,