Re: [Wikimedia-l] [OpenAccess] New Wikipedia Library Signups: Free Research Accounts!

2014-11-05 Thread Mitar
Hi!

This reminds me of ugly practices of proprietary software companies
giving free software to students so that they are able to learn the
tools and then later on have to pay. So we will be making links to
paywalled journals and we will be able to do it for free, but then our
readers will have to pay to read them? So Wikipedia will provide free
advertisements for paywalled content? Nicely done, nicely done.

This is not open access. This direct opposite to open access. We
should not be proud of this.

(Please don't take this as an attack on anybody personally and I think
The Wikipedia Library Team is doing a great job, but I really feel
this is a bad deal. And it was sent to the open access mailing list.
Which this is not.)


Mitar

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Jake Orlowitz jorlow...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi!
 The Wikipedia Library has new, free research donations available:

 NEW
 *DeGruyter: 1000 accounts for English and German-language research, sign up
 on one of two language Wikipedias:
   English signup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:De_Gruyter
   German signup https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:De_Gruyter
 *Fold3: 100 accounts for American history and military archives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fold3
 *Scotland's People: 100 accounts for Scottish Genealogy database
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ScotlandsPeople

 EXPANDED
 *British Newspaper Archive: 100+ new accounts for British Newspapers
 archives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BNA

 OPEN
 *Highbeam: 100+ accounts for newspapers and magazines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HighBeam
 *Questia: 100+ accounts for various aggregated journals and social science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Questia
 *JSTOR: 100+ accounts for journal archives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:JSTOR

 Accounts are available to ALL global editors with a 1 year old account and
 1000 edits.  Please notify your local community about the signups.  Signups
 for now are mostly on English Wikipedia, UNLESS you have started a local
 Wikipedia Library branch like we've done on Arabic, Chinese, and German.  To
 get started, please contact Ocaasi at [[m:User:Ocaasi (WMF)]] or
 oca...@wikimedia.org

 Thanks!

 The Wikipedia Library Team
  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Library

 ___
 OpenAccess mailing list
 openacc...@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess




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

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

2016-01-18 Thread Mitar
Hi!

I think this conversation is diverging from the question of the
*service* we should offer to others to licensing of the content.
Licensing does not say anything about the service one should offer for
the content. Any service, any API, is more or less something one does
extra on top of the licensing requirements. We could just offer dumps
of data and this is it. But if we offer more, some specialized
services, uptime and availability and so on, that does not have much
with the licensing of the content. That discussion should thus be on
some other layer. Investigating licensing will not give us much
insight into the question if we should go into the business of
offering data services or not.


Mitar

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:02 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:38 AM, Isaac David <isacdaa...@isacdaavid.info> 
> wrote:
>>
>> Le lun. 18 janv. 2016 à 3:17, Andrea Zanni <zanni.andre...@gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:59 AM, David Goodman <dgge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Nor am I concerned that our information might be used by people who
>>>> oppose
>>>>  our
>>>>  principles. We ask just the same of our contributors--that the
>>>> information
>>>>  they contribute may be used for ''any'' purpose.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My concern is when our CC-BY-SA (or CC0) user-generated information is not
>>> shared-alike AND it is a cost for the movement (ie a cost in terms of
>>> bandwidth and electricity).
>>> If Google harvests our information, using massively the API we provide,
>>> and
>>> they just make it a silo for them to use (for the Knowledge Graph, for
>>> example) and this hurts us, I'm wondering if
>>> we can do something about it. There are only very few players who can take
>>> all our information and use it as an internal asset, enriching it and NOT
>>> sharing it.
>>>
>>> I don't think in binary, so for me there is no contradiction to have a
>>> CC-BY-SA content, but some caveat for big, big, big players.
>>> I'm not saying (nobody is) that we have to shift to a NC license. Just
>>> that  I don't want our movement to be hurt by multi-billion dollars
>>> companies: I'm not an expert of the commons (I bet many people in this
>>> list
>>> are) so I'm genuinely interested in hearing opinions about this. Is such
>>> thing as "tragedy of the digital commons"? Can Google (or Amazon or
>>> Facebook) exploits us?
>>>
>>> Now please tell me (gently, :-D) where is my mistake in this line of
>>> thought.
>>>
>>> Aubrey
>>
>>
>> CC-BY-SA allows everyone (including big companies) to modify (for instance,
>> to enrich)
>> and not share-alike AS LONG AS their extended work is kept private. That
>> means
>> Facebook pages and Google infoboxes based on CC-BY-SA content ought to carry
>> the CC-BY-SA license too, because they are distributed to an audience wider
>> than the
>> changes' copyright owners (usually the companies themselves).
>
> By this logic, and it is reasonable but debatable, if a Google search
> infobox should be CC-BY-SA, then Wikidata items that contain all the
> same infobox values from a Wikipedia article should also be CC-BY-SA.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> 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, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

2016-01-18 Thread Mitar
Hi!

Please see below the reply by Rob from MusicBrainz (forwarding because
he is not on the mailing list):

> On Jan 17, 2016, at 04:51, Mitar <mmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would suggest that anyone interested in monetizing APIs check how
> MusicBrainz (https://musicbrainz.org/) is doing it.
>
> An open encyclopedia for music metadata. Their data is all open,
> collaboratively made, and APIs are free to use, but big users are
> asked to pay. In this way they are getting money from Google, for
> example. You should contact them and check how they feel about issues
> raised here: Do they feel that they get strings attached for receiving
> money from Google? How do their contributors feel about them getting
> money in this way? How do they achieve that big players pay, but
> community projects, researchers, and others do not? What is the
> process to determine that? In fact, I am CCing Rob from MusicBrainz
> here.

Hello!

I wanted to give you an update on our business model, since we pivoted
on that back in May. If this sounds bad, it isn't -- we're actually
following along the path that Creative Commons has envisioned for
people using their licenses. For over 10 years we used Creative
Commons licenses to determine if people should or should not pay us
for the data they use in their business. That got us to $250k/year and
then we leveled off. (This is akin to an aspiring CC artist releasing
their content as they work to become known).

But then there comes a point when the business/aspiring artist can
stand on its/their own and start making its/their own rules. And this
is where we've arrived now -- today we have a support model where
people who make commercial use of our data are encouraged to support
us. There is no requirement for supporting us, but we're quick to
point out that a company that makes financial gains using our data
really ought to give something back to us in order for us to keep the
lights on and improve what we do.

And, this is working! Have a look at our growing list of supporters:

   https://metabrainz.org/supporters

The only major music tech company left that isn't supporting us is
Apple and maybe SoundCloud, but they are on my hit list for this year.
Have a look at the tiers of support we setup:

   https://metabrainz.org/supporters/account-type

Note that the tiers have guidelines that are a vague suggestion of
data usage and company size. While people get an idea what "support"
means, it isn't fully clear, so most will sign up as "stealth
start-up", which is great, because it lets us start a conversation
about their data use. In the course of the conversation we can
determine a fair level of support that suits the company's current
needs and ability to pay. Note that we hardly talk about "products" in
this case anymore -- we don't really care how people use our data.
(I've long joked about us operating under a drug dealer business
model, that "the first one is free". But, really, this is exactly what
we're doing. Lots of companies got hooked on our data and now we're
looping around asking for support)

I hope this makes sense -- if not, hit me up for questions!


--

--ruaok Excel is not a database!

Robert Kaye -- r...@musicbrainz.org --http://musicbrainz.org

-- 
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

2016-01-16 Thread Mitar
Hi!

I have been recently investigating business models for community based
and collaborative online services. You do not have to reinvent the
wheel (or discussions), there is some experience in this field from
other projects. So, to move the discussion away from just opinions and
feelings...

I would suggest that anyone interested in monetizing APIs check how
MusicBrainz (https://musicbrainz.org/) is doing it.

An open encyclopedia for music metadata. Their data is all open,
collaboratively made, and APIs are free to use, but big users are
asked to pay. In this way they are getting money from Google, for
example. You should contact them and check how they feel about issues
raised here: Do they feel that they get strings attached for receiving
money from Google? How do their contributors feel about them getting
money in this way? How do they achieve that big players pay, but
community projects, researchers, and others do not? What is the
process to determine that? In fact, I am CCing Rob from MusicBrainz
here.

You could also check Crossref, another non-profit serving APIs to the
community and commercial entities. To my knowledge their approach is
that they provide free API for everyone, but if you require uptime and
SLAs then you pay. CCing Geoffrey from Crossref.

Another project to look at is Arxiv, an archive of academic articles'
preprints. Their model is to look from which
universities/organizations the most requests are coming based on IPs
and then contacting them and suggesting that they pay/donate for their
service. In this way the service is free for users, but organizations
behind big groups of users are paying for service to be online for
everyone.


Mitar

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of thinking:
>
> Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
> Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to the
> services and APIs, expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
> providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia
> Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free
> access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in
> line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for innovation
> in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising strategies.
> The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these potential
> strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
> Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07
> -Pete[[User:Peteforsyth]]
> ___
> 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, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

2016-06-25 Thread Mitar
t in your Sandbox and make sure
> you have at least 5 (or even 10) very solid citations.

I had citations. It seems it was not enough.

> Have a friendly editor take a look at the article before attempting to move 
> it to the main
> space.

Friendly editor? How am I supposed to find one? I do not want to be
harsh, but I am here to write content, not to mingle with other
editors and socialize. I have enough other things in my life. I can
understand that for some editors this is their online social
space/forum and they know each other. But for me is something where I
get to occasionally, I want to fix a thing I care about, and I move
on. If I find trash on the floor I pick it up and carry it to the
nearest thrash can. I do not want to interact with city utilities
system or talk to supervisors.

(BTW, talking to a friendly editor comes back to the issue of really
strange talk pages. Probably all you got used to them, but they are
really a mess.)

> It is critical you use the citations to establish notability. Not
> everything is notable, and especially if the Wiki-en audience isn't
> knowledgeable of the subject matter, it's even more important.

I did that. Of course, citations were to Slovenian news articles in
Slovenian, only one was in English. And this is why I started the
Wikipedia article. To bring more international exposure to a local
thing.

> but their goal is to "protect" Wiki content, so

Hm, protect from what? Existence? If content is true, why it needs
protection? If content is not yet complete, guide it to being
complete.

> The IRC help channel (
> http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help) is also a great
> resource -- especially if it's a time zone issue.

BTW, you do realize that many of new people online and potential new
editors are not familiar with IRC? Mailing list are already

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 1:11 AM, carl hansen <carlhansen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have been hit by crossfire in the long running Inclusionist vs.
> Deletionist war.

Instead of waging war, could we open some discussion about middle
group solutions? For example, what is wrong with having such pages
tagged with "not an encyclopedia-grade article, possible lacking
notability and/or significance" and move on? And then we can discuss
the merits of that tag being applied to a particular article. Which is
much less new-editor-scary than a warning "page is nominated for
speedy deletion" and bam, deleted.

Has this ever been put up for a vote by the community?


Mitar

-- 
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

2016-06-25 Thread Mitar
Hi!

On Twitter I was pointed to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia

This is amazing. I think John Oliver should make a segment "Wikipedia
Deletionism - how is this still a thing?"

I mean, is this a failure of Wikipedia community governance? Reading
about this seems deletionists are just a vocal minority who benefit
from the fact that deletion is much stronger action than keeping
things. Destruction is always easier than creation.

There are 1536 inclusionists just on English Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians

And 280 deletionists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deletionist_Wikipedians

So, how is this still a thing? How can this be put to a vote and
finally move on? What is Wikipedia's governance process here? Does
Wikipedia has something like https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ ?


Mitar

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Mitar <mmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Thank you for your responses.
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Brill Lyle <wp.brilll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Please include your user name and the name of the article you were working
>> on. Without any context it's impossible to help you. Thankfully I was able
>> to dig and find the page, etc. But include identifying info if you want
>> help / resolution.
>
> I didn't want to include this information because I didn't want to
> make it about my issue in particular. I wanted to give feedback and
> discuss principles behind my experience.
>
> I otherwise had good experience editing Wikipedia. Other editors were
> constructive and often with patience helped me learn how to improve
> the content and related rules of Wikipedia, which also seemed
> reasonable. But this rule I do not get and cannot relate to, thus I am
> bringing it here.
>
> I read that Wikipedia is trying hard to get new editors and this is
> why I am sharing this story here. Because from all my experience this
> one is the most problematic. It really pushes you off.
>
> And it is pretty reasonable that it is problematic. Now that most
> clearly "notable" articles have been already written the one which are
> left will be increasingly more and more in the "gray zone". And
> increasingly local, specialized, where such mistakes might be common.
>
> Maybe this policy for notability and significance had its historic
> place. It focused the community on the core set of articles, improving
> the quality of existing articles and created a name for Wikipedia. But
> I think maybe it is time that it is relaxed and a new level of
> articles is invited in. As I said, a warning could be used to tell
> readers that they are reading such a new article.
>
> (Oh, and please improve talk pages, that way of communicating is also
> a mess, but that one I can understand, it is a technical legacy. It is
> cumbersome, but I can understand it. But it does influence other
> issues then, like this one when you have to discuss something about
> Wikipedia. Why Wikipedia does not simply use some issue-management
> system where people could be opening issues for articles and other
> people and have conversation through that? It would also allow much
> better statistics of how many issues were satisfactory resolved, for
> example, for all sides.)
>
>> Discussion (with reason):
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG#Please_remove_the_tag_from_Poligon_page
>
> Yes, it is clear that the editor who deleted it does not understand
> local importance of the article. They could read the news articles I
> cited and might get a better picture.
>
> The issue is here that while new editors can edit pages, see tags to
> improve sources and so on, that is all helpful. But once a page is
> deleted, they are pushed off and cannot do anything anymore. I just
> started with the article. I could improve it through time, get more
> information in why it is important and so on. But once it is deleted
> nothing of this is not possible. I have to go around and find ways how
> to object to this, and I have no idea how to do that. (This is also
> why I am writing to such general list like this.)
>
>> I don't have rights to view the deleted article, but if someone who does
>> moves it to your sandbox or a draft space you could work on it there, and I
>> would be happy to take a quick look at it / try to help.
>
> But the problem is systemic. It does not matter if we resolve it for
> this particular page. Also, if a page is in my sandbox then it is only
> on me to fix it and improve it. If it is its dedicated namespace then
> others can help edit it because they can find it. This is the whole
> power of Wikipedia, that it is not that one person has to write th

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

2016-06-27 Thread 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 <wp.brilll...@gmail.com> 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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

2016-06-25 Thread Mitar
Hi!

Thanks you for all the responses. It is really great to see this
various explanations.

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 4:27 PM, John <phoenixoverr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we do not have checks and balances in place wikipedia will quickly get
> overrun with articles on everyone and everything to ever exist regardless
> of the actual notability of the person/place/thing/event.

Hm, while I understand the goal of high quality content, I do not
understand why this has to be so black and white? Existence vs.
non-existence? Why not introducing a third level of content, so that
we would have something like:

- encyclopedic article in the main namespace
- non-encyclopedic draft/stub/sandbox article in the same main namespace
- deleted articles in a special namespace

There could be a special very small set of really deleted articles for
legal reasons.

The main idea I would propose is that all of those articles should be
editable. Even if article is deleted, people should be able to
continue editing it, it should just be made that robots cannot index
them, for example, and that they are under some special namespace. The
reason is that it is much easier if you can edit it and improve it and
then through time maybe things change, maybe somebody becomes notable
through time and their content can be brought back.

The same for so-called non-encyclopedic content which do not merit
entry by current standards. Some of those should be kept with clear
visual tags that content is not yet up to the standard of Wikipedia.
We could even make it so that you first get an full overlay warning
and you have to click through to get to the content.

I think the whole issue of inclusionists and deletionists is so
problematic because we do not step back and observe that there could
be ways to address both concerns with slight changes to the process,
and probably small technical changes.

It is really not necessary to be introducing artificial scarcity.

From what I read this has been going on from 2008 at least, when Paul
Graham included to fix this among his startup ideas:

http://old.ycombinator.com/ideas.html

This is 8 years ago.

I might really do not understand something here, but what is the plan
to solve this problem? Are we just waiting for something to happen?
Why are we not discussing how to find a solution which would find a
consensus in the community? In 8 years there should really already be
a solution?

So, what are issues people have with my proposal above? Why would not
this satisfy both groups?

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Brill Lyle <wp.brilll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mitar is not being specific about the entry and seems more into discussing
> the process.

Oh, I would of course like that we discuss the particular article and
get feedback on it, positive or negative. Anything helps. And I can
learn more. I just do not want us to digress from the topic which for
me is more even important: how to improve this experience for everyone
in the future as well. I will survive. But I am a privileged white
male with a good grasp of technology who experienced various online
communities through years. But what about others? What about people
who might have less command of the English language and would have
issues discussing all this through? Who do not have so much time to
discuss things through?

What we will do about that?

Maybe I should not care and I should just try to address the issues
with my article and move on. But when will then anything change?

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Brill Lyle <wp.brilll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gadzooks! The comments you made about friendly editors to a large community
> of Wikipedia editors, maybe re-think saying that. I'm having a hard time
> getting past these comments. *I* am a friendly editor, and am actually able
> to help you.

Oh, sorry. I didn't mean it like that. I more than appreciate all the
help and responses I am getting here. What I mean is that I would hope
that it is possible to edit the Wikipedia without knowing editors and
admins individually. But this would probably mean even more
bureaucratic process, so maybe it is even better like this.
Personally, I believe all editors are good people, with a common goal,
it seems we just disagree sometimes, but this probably also comes from
dissymmetry of information about particular things. Mine about
Wikipedia rules, theirs about a particular topic. Addressing this
dissymmetry is done through discussions.

I see how that comment might offended. Sorry again.

> But you have basically said you have too much of a life to
> engage, IRC is HARD, etc. Huh.

I am trying to present this as an occasional editor. Yes, one solution
to issues I have is to get to know Wikipedia rules and community more,
to get more engaged and integrated. This is a completely valid
approach.

But I wonder, is there an alternative path. What about occasional
editor who might not have resources to emba

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

2016-06-26 Thread Mitar
Hi!

This is restored version of the article with even more references (11)
than at the time of deletion (8):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mitar/Poligon


Mitar

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A number of us are currently discussing this situation on IRC. (: I believe
> that the immediate concern is being addressed, and we are also discussing
> ways of improving the deletion process on ENWP.
>
> Pine
>
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:21 PM, carl hansen <carlhansen1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mitar,
>> To get a deleted article back, ask an "Administrator" to move it to your
>> User_page draft
>> space so you can get your text/references . The text is still in the
>> system, just not accessible to public. There should be no
>> problem. You could even ask the Administrator who deleted it, via Talk page
>> , or make request at
>> Wikipedia:Community_portal
>> ___
>> 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,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> ___
> 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, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

2016-06-26 Thread Mitar
Hi!

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My activity at en.wiki only deals with crosswiki abuse and lta
> "management". So don't be afraid of me but frainkly I don't find your
> startup incubator to be notable. In other words I don't find it to be
> something I expect to find on an encyclopedia.

He he. No, the startup incubator is in the same building, but one
floor higher. :-)

http://hekovnik.com/

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Brill Lyle <wp.brilll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, I did a pretty thorough scrub and reworking of the article. I added
> the logo as well as moved it to the main space. As it stood the article
> needed help but of course that's typical of new articles.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poligon_Creative_Centre

Wow! This is amazing! Thank you so much! The article is alive and so
much better!

Hm, but while I agree that the article has not been of high quality
from the start, I am really not sure if the best approach was for it
to be deleted. What would be a better process in such cases? Why
articles are not asked to be deleted with more time?

My article was speedy deleted based on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7

What I do not understand is why there is a speedy deletion if article
does not explain why the subject of the article is not significant,
instead of deletion if article's subject is not significant? Because
the first thing could be improved, it is a content issue?

Anyway, what is the process to improve this process? Or should we just
leave it be and everything is great?


Mitar

-- 
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?

2016-06-24 Thread Mitar
ou will
have. Invite people to write about fiction they love, local spaces,
local events, everything. If it is true, if it has a form of an
encyclopedia article, why it could not exist?

We could create special tags instead deletion or a warning at the top
of the article:

"Warning: article has a small readerbase and might lack in quality. Be
extra wary of potential untruths and errors in the article."

Done. Wikipedia grows, Wikipedia is happy, and new editors do not get
frustrated. So simple.

Yes, people will say. But we are building encyclopedia. Encyclopedia
has to have only notable entries. Yes. In 20st century and before.
Maybe it is time we reinvent encyclopedia? And maybe we are doing more
than just encyclopedia, but "a collaborative source of all human
knowledge", in a form of encyclopedia.

I just hope this rule does not exist only so that Wikia has a business
model. You remove pages from Wikipedia so that people have to go to
Wikia. Why?

Why introducing artificial scarcity?

Without such rules to back them up, trigger happy editors would not be
deleting articles. Instead, editors like me would have time and
opportunity to improve them, and articles might through time be proven
significant because people would stumble upon them and you would see
stats of readerbase. Now, nobody can know how many readers are in fact
searching for that article on Google but cannot find it.

I know it is impossible to change anything in how Wikipedia operates.
It is just too big and has too big momentum in a way it is already
doing things. But please please consider changing this rules. No need
for deletion. Just mark them. Grey them out. Let's have another state
between "existing" and "non-existing". Like "articles in limbo". They
are not part of encyclopedia, but they are part of human knowledge. We
are unsure about them.

Thanks for your attention, to those who managed to read through my
long rant. Sorry.


Mitar

-- 
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

2016-06-26 Thread Mitar
of all companies producing milk in their area. Or maybe a
professor wants to determine which milk company the school should go
to for a trip and would like to see which are around.

In fact, the requirement for notability to me means that I have to
create great statements about this company. Why it is important. Why
it is the best. Why it should be included.

If, on the other hand, the article was plain and simple, this would be
easier. And then later on those students can come to the Wikipedia
article about a company they visited and add a photo of it to the
article, and explain what they learned during the visit about the
history of the company.


Mitar

-- 
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>