[Wikimedia-l] Proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia and a new Wikipedia project

[Denny Vrandečić]

As some of you know, I have been working on the idea of a multilingual
Wikipedia for a few years now. Two other publications on this are here, I
have bothered you with mails about it here previously too:

https://research.google/pubs/pub48057/

https://wikipedia20.pubpub.org/pub/vyf7ksah

I've also been giving talks about the topic in several places about this
idea, some of them have also been recorded:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzVA7YLwhTE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLiJ6E9sG6U&list=PLQVG_tuf3Q2fji-CwqEDRJpZuf23wevrq&index=13

I gathered some awesome feedback in those few years (also from some members
of this list, thank you!), and I also implemented a few prototypes trying
out the idea, learning a lot from that.

All of this has helped to sharpen the idea and come up with a more concrete
proposal. In short, the proposal is that we do a two-step approach: first,
allow for capturing Wikipedia content in an abstract notation, and second,
allow for creating functions that translate this abstract notation into
natural language (For simplicity, I gave this two steps names, Abstract
Wikipedia for step 1, and Wikilambda for step 2. I realize that both names
are not perfect, but that is just one of the many things that we can figure
out together on the way).

I wrote up this proposal in a paper, which I uploaded to my Website almost
two weeks ago, and I also submitted it to Arxiv. And as soon as it was
published on Arxiv, I wanted to share it with you and see what you folks
think (I wanted to wait for it as Arxiv would allow the URLs to remains
table - my Website has gone down before and might so again).

https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.04733

The new proposal is much more concrete than the previous proposals (and
therefore there is much more to criticize). Also, obviously, nothing of
this is set in stone, and just like the names, I am very much looking
forward to hear suggestions for how to improve the whole thing, and I will
blatantly steal every good idea and proposal. I am not even sure what a
good venue for this discussion is, I guess, eventually it should be on
Meta?, but also about that I would like to hear proposals.

Abstract Wikipedia is a proposed extension to Wikidata that would capture
the content next to the Wikidata items. Think of it as a new namespace,
where we could create, maintain, and collaborate on the abstract content.
Similar to the Wikidata-bridge, there should be a way to allow
contributions from the Wikipedias to flow back without too much friction.
The individual Wikipedias - and I cannot stress this enough - have the
choice to use some or any or all or none of the content from Abstract
Wikipedia, but I most definitely do not expect the content of the current
Wikipedias to be replaced by this. In fact, I have no doubt that any decent
article in any language Wikipedia will remain superior to the outcome of
the proposed new architecture by far. This is a proposal for the places
where the current system left us with gaps, not a proposal to turn the
parts that are already brilliant today dull and terrible tomorrow.

Wikilambda is a proposed new Wikimedia project that allows us to share in a
new form of knowledge assets, functions. You can think of it as similar to
Modules or Templates, but a bit extended, with places for tests, different
languages, evaluation, and also for all kind of functions, not only those
that are immediately useful for one of the Wikimedia projects, and most
importantly, shared among the projects. So one of the first goals would be
to increasingly allow fo a place to have global templates, another idea
that has been discussed and asked for for a very long time. Wikilambda,
just as Wikidata, is expected to start as a project supporting the
immediate needs of the sister projects, and over time to grow to a project
that stands on its own merits as well.

We don't really have an effective process for starting new projects, so I
am trying to follow a similar path that we took for Wikidata back then. And
back then it all started with Markus Krötzsch, me and others talking about
the idea to anyone who would listen until everyone was bored of hearing it,
trying out prototypes, and then talking about it even more, and improving
all of it constantly based on your feedback. And then making increasingly
concrete proposals until we managed to show some kind of consensus from the
communities, you, and the Foundation to actually do it. And then, well, do
it.

So, I've done some of the talking, with researchers, with the public, with
some of you, and also with folks at the Foundation, to figure out what next
steps could be, and how this can be made to work. Here's a more concrete
proposal. Now I am here to see whether we can find consensus and be bold. I
want to hear from you. I want to hear what you think what the right place
is to discuss this (here, this list? Another mailing list? Meta? Wikidata?
Some Telegram or Facebook group? (OK, I was joking about the latter)).
Whic

[Wikimedia-l] Help smaller wiki communities grow their technical capacity!

[Srishti Sethi]

Hello all,

Small Wiki Toolkits (SWT) is an initiative to support small wiki
communities by sharing and developing technical skills needed to support,
maintain, and grow a language wiki. You can learn more about it here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits

As a next step for this initiative, we would like to share with you some
ideas on how you can be a part of this:

   - Contribute to a Starter kit 
   by proposing or helping develop and write recommendations for technical
   topics in simple English.
   - Develop toolkits using the recommendations
   
   on the SWT page. You can see existing toolkits in the
   Category:Small_wiki_toolkits
    on
   Wikimedia Commons.
   - Learn technical topics using the resources
    on the
   SWT page and apply the skills gained to provide technical support to a
   small wiki community.
   - Translate resources such as the SWT page itself and tutorials on
   technical topics linked from it.
   - Provide technical support
   

   on the support desk on mediawiki.org, mailing lists, etc.
   - Organize a technical workshop or a session to help a small wiki
   community.

If you want to help with any of the above or there is anything else you
would like to share around building local capacity in a small wiki,
please start
a discussion on the talk page
 and/or add your
name to the list of interested members
.

Cheers,
The Small Wiki Toolkits Initiative

*Srishti Sethi*
Developer Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation 
___
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] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Fæ]

A LOT of people worldwide are dying and have died today, some are
people we know or love, and this is the important and urgent
"community branding" project that WMF management wants to spend their
employee time and goodwill free volunteer effort on. Really?

It seems fair to repost my statement from a month ago, perhaps by
volunteers in the real "community" just keeping on repeating,
repeating and repeating how this is pointless and damaging, eventually
some of the management team might accidentally read some of the
negative feedback through their "supportive criticism" rose-tinted
jargon bubbles:

"WMF management, stop flushing away the donor's money on this, please.
It has already been overwhelmingly rejected, failed, and not firmly
ending it makes you appear unable to stop paying consultants to make
up more marketing jargon nonsense to justify their invoice." (14 March
2020)

How about you cancel the branding consultancy and direct 100% of that
pile of cash towards the range of Wikimedia Covid-19 projects to
create great factual content to combat commercial lobbying and fake
news, the type of fake news we see promoted by the President of the
United States every day in the global media?

Thanks!
Fae

On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 09:49, Samir Elsharbaty
 wrote:
>
> Hi, the Brand team has been watching the RfC and has written a summary
> about it [1] that was shared both in the RfC [2] and the project page [3]
> in Meta. The team has integrated the feedback of the RfC in the development
> process, just as we did with the activities organized by the project
> itself.
...

> Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
> Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
> Wikimedia Foundation 

___
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] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[David Gerard]

https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2018-11-9,10,11#Branding

So this has been dictated from above - the "community consultation" is
window dressing for a decision that's long been made.

Hence the nonsensical claims of massive community support by fiddling
the numbers, employing literal wiki spammers to do the consulting,
etc.

Samir's posts here are an attempt at managing messaging. Nothing a
community member does to "engage" with this process will change the
path that's been set.

Image Filter 2.0 anyone?


- d.

On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 21:38, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> It would be good to reflect the new changes/progress in the FAQ. 1.1–1.6,
> maybe revisited perhaps.
>
> An email above notifies about "slowing down the process", the /Timeline
> page also mentions a possible delay because of the crisis. FAQ 1.5 timeline
> has not been edited or contains such details (a link to the main timeline
> page might be a good idea).
>
> "Exploring new options" seem to be an important point in the last update.
> In the FAQ it is mentioned once at FAQ 2.4 while answering "Why is this
> project moving forward after the RfC?" However, this might be a separate
> FAQ point.
>
> FAQ 2.6: "... findings of the 2030 research and planning community review
> [link to email],"
> -- Perhaps a "link to email" is missing? If it so, it's a minor thing of
> course and can be fixed.
>
> Regards, in a personal capacity
>
> Thanks
> Tito Dutta
> Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to remind
> me over email or phone call.
>
>
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 23:22, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > I think at this point, someone needs to answer: who has predetermined
> > this outcome?
> >
> > It's clear nobody at (say) Samir's level can or will answer this
> > question - just repeat the same things again, as if nobody ever
> > objected.
> >
> > So precisely who is so gung-ho for this idea?
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 13:58, Tito Dutta  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > > My comments are in a personal capacity, and kindly note my posts are not
> > > directed towards anyone specifically/at all. Sincere thanks for
> > > understanding these two points.
> > >
> > > " We recommend you to have a look at these updates before making further
> > > conclusions here.
> > > -- Thanks for the recommendation. Kindly do not assume that we are not
> > > reading the updates "before making further conclusions here".
> > >
> > > " the Brand team has been watching the RfC and has written a summary
> > about
> > > it"
> > > --Yes, RfC needs a closure/summary, from which we get action points. Now,
> > > there is something called WP:INVOLVED. Someone who is
> > > supporting/opposing/promoting/demoting an idea or in other words someone
> > > who is "involved" often may not close or summarise a debate/discussion
> > with
> > > due weight to all the arguments. As a result, conclusions may be faulty,
> > > and action points may not reflect the actual opinion of the RfC. Example
> > > below.
> > >
> > > FAQ: Why is this project moving forward after the RfC resulted in clear
> > > majority opposition?
> > > (
> > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ#Why_is_this_project_moving_forward_after_the_RfC_resulted_in_clear_majority_opposition
> > > ?)
> > > -- Even after reading the answer I also don't understand "why?" A point I
> > > get there is "exploring further options". On the report page, "What is
> > > happening with the feedback?" (intended action points section perhaps) is
> > > taking me to FAQ page. From the FAQ page the last paragraph sends me back
> > > to the report page, making it a loop.
> > >
> > > " The team has integrated the feedback of the RfC in the development
> > > process, just as we did with the activities organized by the project
> > > itself. "
> > > -- unlike other statements here any footnote or reference is not given.
> > > Would love to learn what are those activities and how was the RfC
> > feedback
> > > integrated into the agenda/activity. (Please note that I have read the
> > > brand workshop report.)
> > >
> > > That's all for now, with regards, and good wishes during the global
> > > pandemic time,
> > > User:Titodutta
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 14:19, Samir Elsharbaty <
> > selsharb...@wikimedia.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi, the Brand team has been watching the RfC and has written a summary
> > > > about it [1] that was shared both in the RfC [2] and the project page
> > [3]
> > > > in Meta. The team has integrated the feedback of the RfC in the
> > development
> > > > process, just as we did with the activities organized by the project
> > > > itself.
> > > >
> > > > The RfC is covered in the main project page as well as in the FAQ [4].
> > The
> > > > RfC has been a recurrent topic of discussion in the Brand project talk
> > page
> > > > [5], where we are answering questions and discussing topics whenever
>