Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization

2014-05-19 Thread Rand McRanderson
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 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.


 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.

 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Wikipedia Gap

2013-12-10 Thread Rand McRanderson
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 wrote:

 In terms of specific articles to create, there is also

 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.


 On 12/9/13, 9:07 PM, Peter Coombe wrote:

 The English Wikipedia has attempted a (non-exhaustive) list at


 On 9 December 2013 07:35, Romaine Wiki 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?


 Wikimedia-l mailing list

 Wikimedia-l mailing list

 Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Some of Wikipedia's most important tools are broken

2013-09-09 Thread Rand McRanderson
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) 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:**glamtools/treeviews/

 I ping Magnus all the time and he does his best to fix any issues and now
 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.

 The lack of basic pageview stats service from WMF has also been briefly
 discussed at**pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-**


 Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] PRISM

2013-06-10 Thread Rand McRanderson
I think the key here is not to keep more information about users than

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 wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 7:31 PM, John Vandenberg 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

  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.


 Wikimedia-l mailing list

Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero wins!

2013-03-17 Thread Rand McRanderson
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 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 wrote:

  On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Balázs Viczián wrote:
   the favorit social media site in Brazil is Orkut. Far far more popular
   facebook. If you wish to have a strong social media presence there,
   have to be present on that.
   cheers, Balázs
   Tom or someone else from Brazi would know better then me I'm sure but
  doesn't seem to have been true since 2011 (
  . Looking at the numbers now ( looks like FB is the #1 site
  now (of course, it IS Alexa ;) ).
  Wikimedia-l mailing list

 Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
 +55 11 979 718 884
 Wikimedia-l mailing list

Wikimedia-l mailing list