Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization
The difference between categories and tags is semantic but those semantics determine how the feature is used. I suppose from an abstract technical perspective what is needed is different classes of category-like objects based on the purpose it should serve and displayed separately and possibly differently On May 19, 2014 9:28 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: I think intersection is the most significant cause of the current categorisation system. My understanding of the current reasoning behind categorisation as seen on Commons and elsewhere is that: 1) the lack of category intersection causes the very specific categories, which are essentially saved category intersections. and 2) the category list at the bottom of the page being very literally the category names as listed in the page wikitext is why pages are only included in non-overlapping leaf node categories. On en.wp there are many useful specific categories which are deleted because they would only 'clutter' the category section of the page content footer. E.g. Spanish Paralympic competitors at the 2012 Summer Games. Most other multisport cohorts/intersections can have a category, but 'by country; by games' cohort is currently not permitted. Fair enough. I've seen stubs on en.wp where the category section of the page is larger than the page prose. IMO the 'future' of categories in wikimedia projects would be to replace the very specific 'intersection categories' with saved queries in wikidata, with the category list at the bottom of the page dynamically including the list of saved wikidata search query results that the page is a member of, if the local project has more than d pages that are members of the query. -- John ___ 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 ___ 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] The Wikipedia Gap
I wonder if we could do a survey of readers from underrepresented groups. Even if a group is underrepresented as editors that doesn't mean they ate underrepresented as readers (for example women) (plus survey results could be cited in potential deletion discussions) We may want to think about the WMF giving grants organizations that are doing research into the history and sociology etc. of these groups, so that the body of citable evidence becomes greater. On Dec 10, 2013 8:43 AM, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote: In terms of specific articles to create, there is also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_ encyclopedic_articles That project collects articles that exist in wide range of other encyclopedias, but don't yet exist on Wikipedia. However that's not covering quite the same concerns as the systemic-bias discussion, since many of those encyclopedias themselves have similar biases. Nonetheless this kind of comparison can be useful to find specific gaps in coverage that, equally importantly, are actionable in the sense that at least one source to base an article on exists. -Mark On 12/9/13, 9:07 PM, Peter Coombe wrote: The English Wikipedia has attempted a (non-exhaustive) list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias Peter On 9 December 2013 07:35, Romaine Wiki romaine_w...@yahoo.com wrote: In various research and media articles is written that in several subject groups Wikipedia is missing a lot of articles and those groups are relatively unrepresented. How can we as Wikipedia get clear which subject groups are missing? How can we get lists of less represented subject groups and the articles in those groups? Let us get practical, ow can we fill the gap? Greetings, Romaine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 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 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 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] Some of Wikipedia's most important tools are broken
Maybe it is time to consider taking highly useful but less maintained bots and adding them to Wikipedia architecture. Wmf can offer (not force) to take them over. On Sep 9, 2013 2:22 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Sarah Stierch, 09/09/2013 19:26: Yeah..I've noticed that with a lot of tools, whether on the toolserver or on labs. The tool I use monthly is: http://tools.wmflabs.org/**glamtools/treeviews/http://tools.wmflabs.org/glamtools/treeviews/ I ping Magnus all the time and he does his best to fix any issues and now i just feel like a broken record each month. It is stifling my reports as a Wikipedian in Residence to UNESCO and the Library of Congress :( It's really tough to function without it, and so many other tools anymore. That's https://bugzilla.wikimedia.**org/show_bug.cgi?id=42259https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42259 The lack of basic pageview stats service from WMF has also been briefly discussed at http://lists.wikimedia.org/**pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-** September/071714.htmlhttp://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-September/071714.html Nemo __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.orgwikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=**unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] PRISM
I think the key here is not to keep more information about users than necessary. Of course, there is the question of if the NSA asks for our checkuser data. I am relatively confident of WMF's honesty here. They have been pretty concerned about user privacy in general (I am sure that there is some WMF privacy mishap that happened at some point, but I am judging by my overall sense of the organization, make of it what you will. I think it would be a good idea for the WMF legal department to make a statement (which means I need to remember what mailing list legal is, it's not a burden but I am a lazy, lazy man) On Jun 10, 2013 10:39 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 7:31 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: Or DeCSS, or AACS, .. Or 2012 Benghazi attack, Efforts to impeach Barack Obama, Drone attacks in Pakistan, .. Or PRISM (surveillance program), Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, .. It would be good *if* the WMF can provide assurances to editors that they havent received any national security letters or other 'trawling' requests from any U.S. agency. If the WMF has received zero such requests, can the WMF say that? There wouldn't be any gag order. You mean like Yahoo, Facebook, Google and Microsoft did at this program's first disclosure[1]. They all denied it for the record. They also have long running campaigns about security, protecting user data and privacy. After Obama and the NSA chief admitted to it, everyone started re-examining the language of their denial and found loopholes and similarities between carefully worded responses which were written and revised by a team of lawyers. There isn't any personal data (more than IP addresses etc.) on Wikipedia to compromise. As a user, I would actually be more concerned if WMF put out a similar response along with the big guys. It would be analogous to walking in a police station and yelling I wasn't involved in that... - when no one actually knows or suspects anything. On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: They tap directly into the internet backbone. Only if there is some particular matter which interests them which they would need our help to decipher would they contact the Foundation. There are a few things out there that I can imagine them being interested in, but very few. For example, there are small groups of people in the United States that support The Shining Path or the Naxalites. Active steps to open a military front in the United States would probably kick them into gear and they might be interested in who edited our articles on these subjects as advocates for that tendency. Actually, it's still not clear the methodology they use - there are theories about lockboxes, about a beam splitter at Tier 1 service providers, or running a shadow copy from the service provider lines, or combination of those, or something else entirely. The original slide did mention upstream and downstream surveillance methods as some news stories pointed out. I have no possible way to extract who is a supporter of a cause, based on what article they edit or what they read. There can be some form of POV pushers but again there is nothing that would require this level of circumvention to use a secret government surveillance program to discern. More often than not, I and prob. a large number of editors just fix things, add something here and there and move on. They don't pay attention to the political ramifications of editing that article. The amount of false positive they would get from monitoring something like this would be several times more than anything resembling a useful and sustained pattern. Not to mention, this would require human interpretation to discern when someone supports a cause, pushes POV or just curates an article without any underlying feeling. Again, all this would be going the long way round to prove something they can easily get from a user's email, chat logs and searches- the perception of threat would also be more evident from their personal communication instead of public editing behavior. Regards Theo [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#Response_from_companies ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero wins!
Orkut used to dominate outside US and Europe. Then Google took over, neglected it and Facebook moved in. Classic big company takes small company and forgets about it On Mar 17, 2013 11:39 AM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com wrote: Facebook here is more used than Google and Orkut, but they are well used to, so... we really don't know why :) On 17 March 2013 05:29, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu wrote: the favorit social media site in Brazil is Orkut. Far far more popular than facebook. If you wish to have a strong social media presence there, you'll have to be present on that. cheers, Balázs Tom or someone else from Brazi would know better then me I'm sure but that doesn't seem to have been true since 2011 ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/ricardogeromel/2011/09/14/facebook-surpasses-orkut-owned-by-google-in-numbers-of-users-in-brazil/ ) . Looking at the numbers now ( http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/BR) looks like FB is the #1 site now (of course, it IS Alexa ;) ). James ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 979 718 884 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
