Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

One thing that grabs me about this is the Languages section, 750,000 speakers appears to be a rather high bar. To explain there 2.5m people in Western Australia most of could be classed as speaking nys at a basic level because of the way the Noongar language has been adopted into the English and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

On 9/27/2017 1:39 PM, Ariel Glenn WMF wrote: Would a name like "emerging knowledge communities" be clearer? Yes, you'd think that in the context of Wikipedia and related projects, the word 'knowledge' would be a given, but perhaps it isn't? Yes, let's keep brainstorming about this. No, I'm

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

Would a name like "emerging knowledge communities" be clearer? Yes, you'd think that in the context of Wikipedia and related projects, the word 'knowledge' would be a given, but perhaps it isn't? Ariel On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:36 PM, ViswaPrabha (വിശ്വപ്രഭ) < viswapra...@gmail.com> wrote: >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

As far as I can make out, James was referring to English Wikipedia articles on economics, not Wikidata. One of us is confused. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Wednesday, September 27,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

I find it a lot difficult to explain the phrase 'Emerging communities' among my crowds during any outreach event. The phrase still doesn't get to pass on the idea of 'knowledge empowerment' or 'open digital access'. Rather it still make people think it's all about economic and technological

[Wikimedia-l] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

Dear Wikimedians, Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South countries. That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the

[Wikimedia-l] The secret lives of new editors: research report and discussion sessions

Hello everyone! In May and June of this year, a team of researchers from the Wikimedia Foundation and Reboot [1] traveled to the South Korea and the Czech Republic to learn more about the experiences new editors have on the Czech and Korean Wikipedias. We interviewed 47 new editors and 17

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

The issue with Commons is actually not whether Wikipedia uses the picture or not. The issue is the validity of description. If an image depicts A and the description says it is B, then the data on Commons are obviously invalid, and this would be the analog of false info at Wikidata sources to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

Hoi, The problem is that sources become controversial when there is nothing that mitigates their validity when other sources indicate that they have been invalidated. This is of particular relevance when organisations like Cochrane indicate this. The wholesale import into Wikidata essentially

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

Hoi, When a database is linked to, there are many reasons for linking. One is it is "authoritative" so the data is of a high quality or it is the standard bearer in a particular field. Another reason is because there is a clear operational purpose. Linking to the Open Library for instance has such

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

Hoi, It is a fallacy to consider all Wikidata data as one big blob. As it is, the English Wikipedia accepts particular data from Wikidata and it is expressed in its articles. Arguably the quality of "Authority control" has improved as a consequence. In the same way "unsourced statements" exist

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

On 27 September 2017 at 10:01, Jane Darnell wrote: > We don't need to ban statements when we can just deprecate them with a > reason. I think the whole point is to allow differing views equal weight, > based on sourced statements. By allowing statements to reside side-by-side >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

Hi, Related to this is the issue of photographers on Commons: *Should contributors have a Creator template, and then a WD entry? *Should Flickr photographers have a Creator template, and then a WD entry? See discussion at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

We don't need to ban statements when we can just deprecate them with a reason. I think the whole point is to allow differing views equal weight, based on sourced statements. By allowing statements to reside side-by-side like this, it will be easy to see which Wikipedia projects (or sub-areas of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

Actually, I believe that at some point Wikidata will be ready to ban unsourced statements (including sources to other Wikimedia projects unless appropriate), which will automatically solve the BLP issue. Cheers Yaroslav On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Southwood <

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

Gerard, If someone sees a thing on Wikipedia that needs to be fixed, they can go ahead and do something about it. Please refer to the context of my comment. If James wants to start a project or task force to clean up economics articles, he is free to do so. I don’t think this has anything to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

Yes, this is one of the reasons why data from Wikidata must only be included in a Wikipedia at the discretion of users of that specific Wikipedia, like images from Commons. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

The winners of Dutch literature awards are IMHO fine for wikidata. I mean, what is the problem, that they are LP? Would be any difference form the relevance point of view, if they were asteroids or hamlets or small lakes or skerries on a nautical map? Some of them will get a page one day on