Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > To cite a book just add the ISBN and page number. Leave it at that; or > perhaps you could devise a bot that follows up, converting ISBN + page > number into a full-blown reference. > Most of the time, I think your

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

On Jan 26, 2016 5:24 AM, "Magnus Manske" wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM Pete Forsyth wrote: > > If you have even minimum indications of "evil" WMF plans for Wikidata, > please share them! Saying "I know nothing about their plans,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Be careful with that "obvious" word... http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378 On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:56 PM Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske < > magnusman...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

To cite a book just add the ISBN and page number. Leave it at that; or perhaps you could devise a bot that follows up, converting ISBN + page number into a full-blown reference. On 26 Jan 2016 4:20 pm, "Andrea Zanni" wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Gerard

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

Hoi, You write about your fear, uncertainty and doubt .. Why have us waste time on it? Do something useful. Thanks, GerardM On 26 January 2016 at 11:33, Pete Forsyth wrote: > On Jan 26, 2016 5:24 AM, "Magnus Manske" > wrote: > > > > On

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

Pete, On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > Andreas Kolbe has argued in multiple threads that Wikidata is fundamentally > problematic, on the basis that it does not require citations. (Please > correct me if I am mistaken about this core premise.) I've

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Most editions of most books published in the last 40 years (certainly books from reliable publishers) have an ISBN that identifies one edition. Most reliable journal articles these days have a doi. For simple citing of web pages, you could automatically convert bare urls to archived versions of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Hoi, You want to compare it to the Reasonator item. It has all the right links for 43 award winners. That is 100% I did not have problems telling Wikipedians that there link was wrong. The information is there and there are more 'blue' links than in Wikipedia. The proof is in the pudding. For

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

On Jan 26, 2016 3:22 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" wrote: > Thanks for the FUD. "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt" are not the precise words I would choose, but they fairly adequately describe how I feel about the WMF these days. Of course, as a bit of jargon, FUD typically

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM Pete Forsyth wrote: > (Note: I'm creating a new thread which references several old ones; in the > most recent, "Profile of Magnus Manske," the conversation has drifted back > to Wikidata, so that subject line is no longer applicable.) > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Hoi, Anthony, having sources is desired. The point is not that we do not want them. We clearly do. My point is that it is not the only yardstick of success and quality. As I argued, Wikidata may be a tool to link links and red links properly. It will improve quality in both Wikipedia and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > Most editions of most books published in the last 40 years (certainly books > from reliable publishers) have an ISBN that identifies one edition. Most > reliable journal articles these days have a doi. For simple citing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

That is so true! Making book items is hard and then using them in reference statements is harder -Original Message- From: "Andrea Zanni" Sent: ‎26-‎1-‎2016 09:20 To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

It would be interesting to know if the people who participated in that decision actually had the legal authority to make it. They might have, but this would be worth further inquiry. Pine On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:03 PM, SarahSV wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:39

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

Although it can be argued whether Arnnon's reassurance will be enough to let him stay safely on Board for two whole years, there's little doubt that public debate will finally benefit from knowing his viewpoint. Il 26/01/2016 20:07, Arnnon Geshuri ha scritto: It has been almost three weeks

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

May I ask a question: Do you think it's ethical to ignore community demand for an explanation or a statement for *three weeks *and then issue a statement just within *three hours* after the story publishes in BBC ? Is publicity and public image of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

Hello Arnnon, It is good to hear something directly from you. I am sure your intentions in the position you were appointed to are positive and supportive. Yet while you may be entirely sincere in your desire to help, I find it extremely difficult to see a path forward in which your

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

If this was an article on Wikipedia it would already have been tagged for a speedy delete. Too little, too late, and looks like 100% spin. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Arnnon Geshuri Sent: Tuesday, 26

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

Hoi, Thanks for the FUD. You mention that the Wikimedia Foundation has plans. Really.. There are plans that are published and there has been time for you to consider them. They are the ones that the WMF has published, they are the only ones that exist as far as I know and I follow Wikidata

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Evidence supporting my statements

James, I agree you have little choice but to publish the facts in the light of Jimmy Wales' abysmal behaviour. For those that do not watch Wales' user talk page, yesterday evening he posted: "James has made a lot of noise about why he was dismissed which is utter and complete bullshit. He wrote a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] Reliable sources list validation for StrepHit

2016-01-26 17:20 GMT+01:00 Marco Fossati : > 2. *third-party*, i.e., not created by users of Wikimedia projects? Or better, that are not derived from the contect of the Wikimedia projects, to avoid circular references and citogenesis[1]. C [1] https://xkcd.com/978/

[Wikimedia-l] Meta is apparently down

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Meta is apparently down

Also Commons, and anything else at *.wikimedia.org. Apparently, "Bad deployment, being reverted currently." Thanks, Mike > On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:44, Pharos wrote: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > Thanks, > Pharos >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Meta is apparently down

On 2016-01-26 19:44, Pharos wrote: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ Thanks, Pharos Commons as well. Cheers Yaroslav ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Meta is apparently down

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124804 > On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:45, Michael Peel wrote: > > Also Commons, and anything else at *.wikimedia.org. Apparently, "Bad > deployment, being reverted currently." > > Thanks, > Mike > >>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Meta is apparently down

Indeed. I was rather shocked to find that I was winding up on the Wikimedia Foundation site every time I clicked on to Meta... Risker/Anne On 26 January 2016 at 13:45, Michael Peel wrote: > Also Commons, and anything else at *.wikimedia.org. Apparently, "Bad > deployment,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Meta is apparently down

And Commons. On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Pharos wrote: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > Thanks, > Pharos > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Evidence supporting my statements

It's...disturbing that this is necessary. Bad things are going to happen to the Wikimedia movement - or at least the Wikimedia Foundation -if the Board doesn't get it together. Bringing Arnnon on was a severe failure in due diligence and the fact that failing to respond promptly starting to look

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Meta is apparently down

...And Mediawikiwiki, where I tried to log into Phabricator... Risker/Anne On 26 January 2016 at 13:46, Lane Rasberry wrote: > And Commons. > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Pharos > wrote: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Meta is apparently down

All file page links to Commons are being redirected to foundationwiki. Techman224 > On Jan 26, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Risker wrote: > > Indeed. I was rather shocked to find that I was winding up on the > Wikimedia Foundation site every time I clicked on to Meta... > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Meta is apparently down

"Looks like some new code went wonky (needless to say). Operations is aware and working on reverting it. Everyone take deep breaths and hug a kitten while we wait for them to fix things! Kbrown (WMF) " <

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Meta is apparently down

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124804 Pine On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Lane Rasberry wrote: > "Looks like some new code went wonky (needless to say). Operations is aware > and working on reverting it. Everyone take deep breaths and hug a kitten > while we wait

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Meta is apparently down

Yay! It's working now - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hugging_cats Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos) On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Lane Rasberry wrote: > "Looks like some new code went wonky (needless to say). Operations is aware > and working on reverting

[Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from representative members of the community. My first reaction was how amazing the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest dialog, celebration

[Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

Dear all, the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you have raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the board are listening to your worries and talking with community members,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

Alice and Arnnon, Thank you for your recent messages and your efforts to grapple with these issues. I have two questions which have been much discussed; perhaps you can provide clarification, so we can better understand the process? On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Alice Wiegand

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

Hi Alice, thanks for the update. It's been quite a while - and you don't seem to give a clear time table for further updates. The silence is damaging, and I hope it goes away quickly, allowing some honest conversation. I can understand that you want full information, but please also note that the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

Hello Arnnon, I'm glad you've decided to join the discussion. (And do appreciate it; I'm sure by now you know exactly what you're walking into.) I don't, however, see that your statement says much. The heart of the issue is that you assisted in implementing and enforcing a "no poaching"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

On 26 January 2016 at 19:07, Arnnon Geshuri wrote: ... > Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely. > That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are > mitigating considerations. There are black and white facts which make

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

It's unfair of anyone to expect Arnnon to comment about the legal case or the circumstances surrounding it. I'm sure he has a stack of legal advice and corporate policies that specifically prevent him from answering Todd's questions or others. Even though I don't support the corporate collusion

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Alice Wiegand wrote: > the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you have > raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all > information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

On 26/01/2016 20:27, Pine W wrote: While I realize that staying on may be your personal preference, I believe that for the good of WMF and for our collective movement, you should resign. A quote from history would have been more succinct: http://quotationsbook.com/quote/29200/

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

RIP AGF. (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith needs work!) Mike > On 26 Jan 2016, at 21:11, Lilburne wrote: > > On 26/01/2016 20:27, Pine W wrote: >> >> While I realize that staying on may be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

Arnnon - This is about the first piece of polished communication put out by the board regarding either recent incident - and given your professional background, it doesn't really surprise me that you are the first person involved to put out a polished communication. I have no doubt that your

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

hi Lodewijk, On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Lodewijk wrote: > thanks for the update. It's been quite a while - and you don't seem to give > a clear time table for further updates. let me step in, since Alice is probably already asleep :) We're going to follow

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

Hello Arnnon, What you describe as an *inspirational* experience, I see as an extremely painful event to watch as it damages the Wikimedia Foundation and the wikimedia movement. Please keep in mind that you and the Board are not the only people who are living through this situation. I doubt

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

I hope that the Board will make clear in its longer statement that the value of competence is an unacceptable trade for the value of integrity, and will explain how the Board reconciles the history of this trustee with the values of WMF and the Wikimedia movement. Personally, I have great

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium

Thank you to the people who leave and welcome to the new members. Regards from Spain. El 2016-01-24 02:11, Romaine Wiki escribió: Hello all, We as Wikimedia Belgium now have a new board installed with the General Assembly of Saturday 23 January 2016. Three board members leave (due time

[Wikimedia-l] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

Dear friends, Recent events have made me curious to learn more about the Wikimedia Foundation's origins and history as a membership organization. The revelations about the Wikimedia Foundation Board elections being a recommendation for appointment rather than a direct vote seem to have been a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

Let me echo the call for more frequent, substantive updates from the board. Articles about the controversy are on Ars Techinca and the BBC

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

Hello Arnnon, and welcome. It is great that you are working hard to earn our trust. Unfortunately, your statement, which is somewhat self-serving, totally omits the issues that a very wide cross-section of the Wikimedia community has a MAJOR issue with. So perhaps you can answer some questions:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Eh, wrong link ... > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-20-error-rate.html > > On 25 January 2016 at 17:29, Gerard Meijssen > wrote: > > > Hoi, > > I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > You write about your fear, uncertainty and doubt .. Why have us waste time > on it? Do something useful. > Thanks, > I, for one, think that the mail Pete sent (both in content and tone) is perfectly fine and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

On 26 January 2016 at 11:24, Magnus Manske wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM Pete Forsyth > wrote: > > > (Note: I'm creating a new thread which references several old ones; in > the > > most recent, "Profile of Magnus Manske," the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Affiliations Committee appointments, January 2016

Congrats to all new members! On Jan 24, 2016 8:31 PM, "Kirill Lokshin" wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I'm pleased to announce that, following the recent call for applications, > the following candidates have been appointed to seats on the Affiliations > Committee: > > -

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > You want to compare it to the Reasonator item. It has all the right links > for 43 award winners. That is 100% I did not have problems telling > Wikipedians that there link was wrong. The information is