Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as Wikidata...
HU
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF  wrote:

> Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of
> revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped off by a
> tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that displays
> the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where Wikidata
> overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
>
> [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
>
> Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
>
> [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py
> Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401
> 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
>
> Have a nice day!
>
> Ariel
>
> [1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

[Ariel Glenn WMF]

Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of
revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped off by a
tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that displays
the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where Wikidata
overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):

[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z

Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:

[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py
Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401
2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422

Have a nice day!

Ariel

[1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[David Goodman]

Peter, all of these would be useful .  The most useful of all would be a
list of those that have been deleted as drafts that were not improved for 6
months--I havre a partial list, but there is no easy way of screening it. A
spreadsheet with links to the deleted versions and to the google scholar
and worldcat records would be an enormous help--I became an admin 12 years
ago specifically to rescue deleted articles, but there is no systematic way
of finding them.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 1:33 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> David,
> Would your work be influenced by an analysis of the academic biographies
> which are most searched for that are not on Wikipedia yet? (assuming that
> such an targeted analysis was available)
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> PS. An analysis that included a check of whether the topic was likely to
> be notable and a listing of possible sources would also save a lot of
> wasted effort. Also a check against articles that have been deleted for
> good reasons, and articles in other languages with a reasonable accessible
> reference list.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of David Goodman
> Sent: 12 March 2019 07:15
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?
>
> "with popular topics cannibalizing resources."
>
> What resources can be cannibalized?   The limiting resource in WP is
> interested people writing, improving, and validating  articles.  People
> choose their own topics.  This is different from an organization where
> staff can be directed to work on what the management think is important.
>
> I, for example, almost totally avoid most aspects of what is popular
> culture--I am neither competent nor interested. ) The topics I work on are
> those that interest me, mainly academic biographies. I'm sure most  people
> do not think them important.  We're volunteers, and must tolerate each
> others interests.
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 5:06 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > We should be using a grid for what people are reading about, instead
> > of using countries. That will give a better representation of large
> > countries vs small countries. It will also better reflect local ethnic
> > groups.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:53 PM Amir E. Aharoni
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > ‫בתאריך יום א׳, 10 במרץ 2019 ב-23:27 מאת ‪Gerard Meijssen‬‏ <‪
> > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > I have been thinking about it.. There is a place for research but
> > really
> > > > why can we not have the data that allows us to seek out what people
> are
> > > > actually looking for and do not find.. Why can we not promote what
> > proves
> > > > to be of interest [1] ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually, there was some work done around it. Here are some examples:
> > >
> > > 1. The Discovery (Search) team in the Foundation researched searches in
> > > Wikimedia sites' search box that yielded zero results. This was done in
> > > 2016 or so, led by Dan Garry as the product manager, and this lead to
> > some
> > > improvements in the functionality of Wikimedia sites' internal search
> > > engine, although I don't remember what they were exactly.
> > >
> > > 2. Google's Project Tiger provided lists of articles for which people
> > often
> > > search in the Google search engine in India, and about which there are
> no
> > > articles in Wikipedias in languages of India. See
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Supporting_Indian_Language_Wikipedias_Program
> > >
> > > 3. Last year I made a list of articles that people search for in their
> > > language using the interlanguage links search box and cannot find. You
> > can
> > > see a sample here:
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amire80/WEIRD/2018-04-09%E2%80%932018-04-15
> > > . I plan to make this list nicer-looking and auto-updating some time
> > soon.
> > >
> > > 4. The GapFinder project is another tool that helps people find
> articles
> > > that are missing in some wikis:
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/GapFinder
> > >
> > > 5. This is just an idea, but it's written down, which is a bit better
> > than
> > > nothing: Show the most popular articles by country in the PageViews
> tool,
> > > rather than just by language. It's documented at
> > > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T207171 . The rationale for this is
> > that
> > > the most popular English Wikipedia articles in the U.S., Nigeria,
> India,
> > > the Philippines, and South Africa are significantly different. The
> > English
> > > Wikipedia is the most popular one in all these countries, but whereas
> it
> > is
> > > sensible that it's popular in the U.S., it's a bit depressing that it's
> > > also the most popular in the other four countries, even though
> languages
> > > other than English are spoken there. The reason for this situation is,
> of
> > > course, that there is little content in the Wikipedias in the l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open Science Portal? And Other Open * Portals?

[Svetlana Belkin]

Quiddity,

Thank you for your reply!

On 3/19/19 9:06 PM, quiddity wrote:

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:58 AM Svetlana Belkin 
wrote:


Hello all,

I know there is a FOSS portal


Links/examples almost always help!
I'd guess you mean this page or the pages it links to:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FLOSS-Exchange
but many other people won't know what you're referring to. Please include
links when talking about something specific!

but are there any portals for other Open *

topics, such as Open Science (including citizen science), Open Access,


Yes!
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_access



ect.?


Maybe these (from a very quick search)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Index
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Open_data_publishing
and dozens of other local, or smaller, or older pages such as
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland/Open_Science_Fellows_Program
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_Residence_on_Open_Science


Looks like that I didn't do my homework before asking this question 
because I was really referring to the main Wikipedia not the metawiki 
and I didn't realize that this mailing-list for the metawiki- apologizes 
that for that!



The rationale behind is to have these portals as umbrella groups
for resources and what's there in these big movement topics and have
them in one place- which is Wikipedia. Would this idea be worth it for
the other movements?


Yes, please do update / improve the documentation.

If it's a major topic and after searching you cannot find anything central,
then perhaps start out by creating a disambiguation / linkhub  for the
pages that you can find, and expand from there - that way you can try to
make sure you've found all the existing pages to begin with, and don't
start off by accidentally re-inventing the wheel (portal)! We have a lot of
historic link-lists / portals that are started and then abandoned and then
accidentally reinvented elsewhere a few years later.


I will take on this advice and start working that on that. As a new 
contributor, I should take the advice of working on the low-hanging 
fruit rather than starting big.



Thank you again.

--
Svetlana Belkin
https://senseopenness.com/

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open Science Portal? And Other Open * Portals?

[quiddity]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:58 AM Svetlana Belkin 
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I know there is a FOSS portal


Links/examples almost always help!
I'd guess you mean this page or the pages it links to:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FLOSS-Exchange
but many other people won't know what you're referring to. Please include
links when talking about something specific!

but are there any portals for other Open *
> topics, such as Open Science (including citizen science), Open Access,
>

Yes!
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_access


> ect.?


Maybe these (from a very quick search)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Index
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Open_data_publishing
and dozens of other local, or smaller, or older pages such as
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland/Open_Science_Fellows_Program
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_Residence_on_Open_Science


> The rationale behind is to have these portals as umbrella groups
> for resources and what's there in these big movement topics and have
> them in one place- which is Wikipedia. Would this idea be worth it for
> the other movements?
>

Yes, please do update / improve the documentation.

If it's a major topic and after searching you cannot find anything central,
then perhaps start out by creating a disambiguation / linkhub  for the
pages that you can find, and expand from there - that way you can try to
make sure you've found all the existing pages to begin with, and don't
start off by accidentally re-inventing the wheel (portal)! We have a lot of
historic link-lists / portals that are started and then abandoned and then
accidentally reinvented elsewhere a few years later.

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

[Wikimedia-l] Join the conversations about Wikimedia 2030

[Kelsi Stine-Rowe]

Dear fellow Wikimedians,

In the coming weeks, we will host community conversations[1] around the
Movement Strategy Process[2]. To follow up on Nicole’s earlier email[3], we
invite you to join in to gain a deeper look at the work done by the nine
working groups and to bring the perspective of your community or group to
the discussion.

After months of work and diverse discussions, the nine working groups of
the Movement Strategy Process have each published a scoping document for
their thematic area. These documents outline a set of key questions about
how our Movement needs to change going forward.

Now, the Movement Strategy Process will shift gears and focus on bringing
in input from communities and organized groups that will help answer these
questions. To get the ball rolling, we are hosting community conversations
across eight languages and in various formats and stages from now until the
end of May, when we will begin formulating our draft recommendations. The
scoping documents will soon also be published in several additional
languages so that volunteers from these language communities can review and
discuss under their own initiative. We invite you to take part and offer
insight and context from your community at this stage of broad inquiry.

There are a number of ways you can get involved:


   -

   Join global conversations online: Share your thoughts directly on wiki.
   The scoping documents are available on the Meta page[4] and several
   language wikis. Details on how you can take part will be published on your
   community’s preferred channels.
   -

   Initiate community discussions: Reach out to your communities on their
   frequently used channels (village pump, social media, messenger apps) to
   discuss the scoping documents’ relevance and impact. You can then feed the
   key items back to the language wikis or Meta.
   -

   Take part in our forthcoming survey: 3 community-specific questions per
   Working Group/thematic area will be distributed in survey format. You can
   have your say by entering your answers directly into the form, which will
   be shared publicly in mid-April.


We‘d be delighted for you to take part. This is an opportunity for each
member of our community to help shape the bold ideas for how our Movement
could look in 2030. The more voices that join in, the better!

We look forward to chatting with you.

Best wishes,

Kelsi Stine-Rowe

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations

[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20

[3]
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-March/092023.html&sa=D&ust=1553018060831000&usg=AFQjCNEOgtXmONDlJvpdD-FeqHzgFcz2Mg

[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Participate

-- 

Kelsi Stine-Rowe

Community Relations Specialist, Movement Strategy

Wikimedia Foundation 

"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Open Science Portal? And Other Open * Portals?

[Svetlana Belkin]

Hello all,

I know there is a FOSS portal but are there any portals for other Open * 
topics, such as Open Science (including citizen science), Open Access, 
ect.? The rationale behind is to have these portals as umbrella groups 
for resources and what's there in these big movement topics and have 
them in one place- which is Wikipedia. Would this idea be worth it for 
the other movements?


Thank  you.

--
Svetlana Belkin
https://senseopenness.com/

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

[Wikimedia-l] [Movement Strategy] Your perspectives are needed to scope our future.

[Nicole Ebber]

Dear fellow Wikimedians,

In 2017, we set ourselves an ambitious goal of becoming the essential
infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and now we need a
path for how we get there. In the spirit of what got us started – we
will work together to find our path.

We now have a fundamental tool in place to help us get there: scoping
documents have been finalized and are now live on Meta[1]. These will
help us dive deeper into our movement’s structures than ever before
and discover exciting opportunities for our future.

The scoping documents have been created by the nine working groups of
the Movement Strategy Process. I would like to thank them
wholeheartedly for their enormous effort and dedication to making this
first step happen.[2]

These documents are a focused reflection of the discussions about our
future that have been happening for some time. The working groups have
captured these and boiled them down into a set of questions that will
guide their work going forward. These are the essential questions of
our movement. Now, we have the chance – and the mandate – to answer
them together.

Identifying how we need to adapt our structures and maximizing our
movement’s potential lie at the heart of these questions. We encourage
you to read the scoping documents about the topics you care about and
bring your ideas for possible solutions in to the the global
conversation about our future. The documents have been translated into
eight languages already, and we are working on translating more of our
meta content into more languages over the next couple of weeks.

I would also like to introduce a new addition to the core team, our
Community Relations Specialist Kelsi Stine-Rowe. Kelsi will be working
with members of Wikimedia communities and organized groups to
facilitate community conversations on the scoping documents.

Join in! Here’s how can you get involved:
* Sign up as a Strategy Liaison for your organized group and ensure
that your group’s perspectives are heard.[3]
* Take part in our community conversations happening until mid-April
on Meta, via survey, and within several communities.[4]

Kelsi will also be in touch later today with more concrete information
about joining the community conversations.

We look forward to hearing your voices and your perspectives.

Best wishes,
Nicole


[1] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Participate
[2] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups
[3] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/Strategy_Liaisons_Organized_Groups
[4] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations

-- 
Nicole Ebber
Adviser International Relations
Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
https://wikimedia.de

Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns
dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/029/42207.

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