Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcing a new Wikimedia project: Abstract Wikipedia

2020-08-06 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Scott,

thank you for raising this really important issue, and I whole-heartedly
agree. Since I heard of Ibram X. Kendi's argument to not just be not racist
but rather be actively anti-racist, I thought a lot about it (I have a long
essay trying to sort my thoughts on that, but I am not sure my voice is
helpful in that conversation). But yes, I agree with the sentiment and the
idea.

Another statement that has deeply influenced my thinking in preparation for
this project was the statement "nothing about us without us", and the
implications of that for the Abstract Wikipedia project (and how,
currently, we are not really achieving it).

So, in short, yes, I want to commit to both of these as guidelines for how
the project will unfold.

Having a specific, non-European and underrepresented language as a
first-class development target is a great suggestion, and having someone on
the core team with a native-level grasp of that language is, I think, a
very good suggestion. Whether and when we can actually implement this
depends on a number of factors, such as funding, but yes, ensuring such
representation is very much a high priority for myself, and I am very much
(and painfully) aware that we are not fulfilling this promise yet.

For the choice of language I hope to go through a process similar as we did
for Wikidata, where we worked with the Wikipedia communities to identify
potential language communities that would be interested and willing to work
together with us. I am planning for us to have a similar process within the
next few months.

One advantage of the current state is that the focus for the first part of
the project will be solely on the wiki of functions, not yet on the part
that generates natural language, and that the current plan calls for
additional hires when this second part starts. So all of these decisions
and preparations are not blockers during the first part of the project, but
will be so for the second - and obviously I want to have them resolved well
before.

Also, one correction - we are fortunately not blocked by the availability
of language models in a given language. Since the natural language
generation, as we plan it, is developed by the communities using functions,
we do not need to have a good language model, or in fact, any language
model at all, for the system to work. So we have that going for us.

Finally, as answered to Phoebe, I want to tackle these issues heads-on with
a call for discussing the ethical implications of this project. Your
suggestions are good, and will inform our planning and development, but I
am also aware that, in order to have a fuller picture, we need to hear more
voices and figure out how to have these conversations. This will happen
within the next few months.

Thanks again for raising this important issue! I hope my thoughts on that
make sense, and I am happy to further work on them,
Denny




On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 11:19 PM Nick Wilson (Quiddity) <
nwil...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:01 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> > We used to have a roughly weighted list of major world languages by
> > (spoken, written; primary, secondary) and how well covered they were by
> wp
> > (articles, contributors).  Is there something like that still?
> >
>
> I think you might be referring to the links in the 3rd and 4th line of
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Lists_of_Wikipedias ?
> Looking more closely, it appears that the "speakers per article" listing is
> unfortunately a few years out of date, as the column of "Speakers" was
> being manually updated from Ethnologue stats (which are now paywalled).
> I've started a tangential discussion on the talkpage there, about using
> Wikidata instead.
> Additionally, none of those links contain the "primary / secondary
> language" statistics, for which I think we'd need to cross-reference with
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers
> (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1394450) Or perhaps Wikidata can resolve
> it
> again, as at least some languages' items include a split of the statistics
> for that, e.g. Q150. Let's discuss further onwiki?
>
> And +1 to the overall recommendation from C. Scott. :)
> ___
> 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Government of Navarre will fund BWUG

2020-07-25 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Congratulations! Looking forward to see the results of this initiative!

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 2:54 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
> It is a real pleasure to announce the agreement reached between Basque
> Wikimedians User Group and the Government of Navarre to finance projects
> for the knowledge of Wikimedia platforms in that region.
>
> The agreement, of an initial duration of 6 months and endowed with
> 25,000€, will serve to initiate work related to local knowledge, GLAM and
> to multiply the educational program that we have already been carrying out.
>
> You can read more about this agreement in our blog:
> http://wikimedia.eus/2020/07/wikipedian-euskarazko-eduki-digitalak-sortu-zabaldu-eta-kontsumitzea-sustatuko-du-nafarroako-gobernuak/
>
> And you can learn more about it in Spanish in the Governments website:
> https://www.navarra.es/es/noticias/2020/07/23/el-gobierno-de-navarra-fomentara-la-creacion-difusion-y-consumo-de-contenidos-digitales-en-euskera-en-wikipedia
>
> Sincerely
>
> Galder
> ___
> 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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcing a new Wikimedia project: Abstract Wikipedia

2020-07-05 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Thank you Gnangarra! And Butch, and Lodewijk, and Brion, and Erik, and
Joāo, and Christophe, and Isaac, and Galder, and Daniel, and SJ, and
Phoebe, and everyone else, thank you all for the congratulations, and for
your interest!

I am also very excited, and looking forward to it - and thanks in
particular to everyone who expressed willingness to help - there will be
plenty of opportunity for that :)

Thank you all,
Denny



On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:05 PM Gnangarra  wrote:

> sounds like a wonderful project that will help connect cultures and
> languages in a helpful way for the users, look forward to seeing and
> helping its development
>
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 09:26, Butch Bustria  wrote:
>
> > Congratulations on this new opportunity!
> >
> > Once it rolls out to us content contributors, we will be glad to be a
> part
> > of it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Butch Bustria
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 3, 2020, 12:39 AM Denny Vrandečić 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Katherine, thank you for the warm welcome and your kind words!
> > >
> > > I am very happy to be given the opportunity to start this new project,
> > and
> > > deeply honored by the trust and confidence of the Board and the
> > Foundation.
> > >
> > > Thanks to the many who have listened to me talking about this project
> in
> > > the last few years, read my papers and plans, commented on them,
> > > scrutinized them, and offered encouragement, criticism, and advice.
> > Thanks
> > > to everyone who expressed their support and raised their concerns on
> the
> > > proposal page on Meta [1]. It is thanks to you that the Board was
> > confident
> > > enough to make this decision.
> > >
> > > There is a lot of work in front of us, and I will continue to rely on
> > your
> > > guidance and collective wisdom. We will need to foster a new community.
> > > Just as with Wikidata, I hope that some of you will become active in
> the
> > > new community, and I also want to make sure that we will be welcoming
> to
> > > new contributors. We want to extend and grow the Wikimedia movement not
> > > only with new functionalities, but also with new people.
> > >
> > > Settling in this new position will take quite a bit of my attention in
> > the
> > > next few weeks, so please forgive me if I may be slow with answering
> your
> > > questions between now and then. One of the first things we’ll do is to
> > set
> > > up new communication channels. We will continue discussing the project
> > and
> > > planning on Meta [2] for now and also welcome you to the new, dedicated
> > > mailing list [3].
> > >
> > > One of our first tasks together will be to find a name for the
> project. A
> > > first set of proposals have already been made [4], and I invite you all
> > to
> > > come up with more ideas. We will start that off in July or August. Did
> I
> > > mention that you can join us on Meta [2] to discuss proposals for
> names,
> > > the project itself, and much more?
> > >
> > > Again, thank you all! I am super excited about figuring this thing out
> > with
> > > you, and am looking forward to coming back to Wikimedia full-time.
> > >
> > > Stay safe,
> > > Denny
> > >
> > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abstract_Wikipedia
> > > [2]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Abstract_Wikipedia
> > > [3] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
> > > [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Name
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:24 AM Brion Vibber 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm extremely excited about this project!
> > > >
> > > > Not only will this be directly useful on its own (and a fascinating
> > > project
> > > > in its own right!), but it will help our volunteer editors to ramp up
> > > good
> > > > base material to work with on the "prose" Wikipedias we already know
> > and
> > > > love.
> > > >
> > > > The idea is really to make the structured data we've all been putting
> > > into
> > > > Wikidata available in a human-readable form at a big scale, that's
> > still
> > > > able to be shaped and made into something real and readable by human
> > > > editors. By moving around where in the chain the data gets e

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcing a new Wikimedia project: Abstract Wikipedia

2020-07-03 Thread Denny Vrandečić
in
> their own language; we believe in an aspirational better world. As a part
> of this mission, we must take questions of ethics seriously -- and we do.
> We have collectively spent thousands of hours trying to expand our
> contributor base; thinking about systemic bias; thinking about sources and
> provenance; trying to open up copyright to make knowledge accessible;
> working with communities on indigenous knowledge; building UIs that are
> easier to contribute to. These are all efforts related to our ethics and
> values. With our new projects, we can set precedent. We can explore the
> problems that we face today on Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Commons and
> consider not just how to avoid them but how to build a better project. We
> can do this in a multilingual context with perspectives from volunteers and
> staff around the world, in a way that almost no other projects online --
> certainly no single university or research group -- can. We can, without
> much legacy infrastructure to hamper us, spin out worst-case and best case
> scenarios, ask questions about our data and who might participate, think
> about downstream consequences. And *that* is truly exciting.
>
> best,
> -- Phoebe
>
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Computer_Science_and_Artificial_Intelligence_Laboratory
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 12:04 PM Katherine Maher 
> wrote:
>
>> (A translatable version of this announcement can be found on Meta [1])
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It is my honor to introduce Abstract Wikipedia [1], a new project that
>> has been unanimously approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>> Trustees. Abstract Wikipedia proposes a new way to generate baseline
>> encyclopedic content in a multilingual fashion, allowing more contributors
>> and more readers to share more knowledge in more languages. It is an
>> approach that aims to make cross-lingual cooperation easier on our
>> projects, increase the sustainability of our movement through expanding
>> access to participation, improve the user experience for readers of all
>> languages, and innovate in free knowledge by connecting some of the
>> strengths of our movement to create something new.
>>
>> This is our first new project in over seven years. Abstract Wikipedia was
>> submitted as a project proposal by Denny Vrandečić in May of 2020 [2] after
>> years of preparation and research, leading to a detailed plan and lively
>> discussions in the Wikimedia communities. We know that the energy and the
>> creativity of the community often runs up against language barriers, and
>> information that is available in one language may not make it to other
>> language Wikipedias. Abstract Wikipedia intends to look and feel like a
>> Wikipedia, but build on the powerful, language-independent conceptual
>> models of Wikidata, with the goal of letting volunteers create and maintain
>> Wikipedia articles across our polyglot Wikimedia world.
>>
>> The project will allow volunteers to assemble the fundamentals of an
>> article using words and entities from Wikidata. Because Wikidata uses
>> conceptual models that are meant to be universal across languages, it
>> should be possible to use and extend these building blocks of knowledge to
>> create models for articles that also have universal value. Using code,
>> volunteers will be able to translate these abstract “articles” into their
>> own languages. If successful, this could eventually allow everyone to read
>> about any topic in Wikidata in their own language.
>>
>> As you can imagine, this work will require a lot of software development,
>> and a lot of cooperation among Wikimedians. In order to make this effort
>> possible, Denny will join the Foundation as a staff member in July and lead
>> this initiative. You may know Denny as the creator of Wikidata, a long-time
>> community member, a former staff member at Wikimedia Deutschland, and a
>> former Trustee at the Wikimedia Foundation[3]. We are very excited that
>> Denny will bring his skills and expertise to work on this project alongside
>> the Foundation’s product, technology, and community liaison teams.
>>
>> It is important to acknowledge that this is an experimental project and
>> that every Wikipedia community has different needs. This project may offer
>> some communities great advantages. Other communities may engage less. Every
>> language Wikipedia community will be free to choose and moderate whether or
>> how they would use content from this project.
>>
>> We are excited that this new wiki-project has the possibility to advance
>> knowledge equity through increased a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcing a new Wikimedia project: Abstract Wikipedia

2020-07-03 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Thank you SJ, thank you all, for your very welcoming words, and your
congratulations!

Regarding Wikispore, yes, this is one of the first conversations that we
will have - where the preparatory discussions should happen. I am very much
in favor of Wikispore for that, as it is literally meant for that, but we
need to figure out a few things together.

I'll kick that off next week :)

And I agree, this way we can help each other to create even more fertile
ground for new ideas. I am very excited about that!


On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:25 AM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Best news all year. Thank you for moving swiftly on this :)
>
> It has been a fine thing too, to see WikiLambda experiments on Wikispore.
> https://wikispore.wmflabs.org
>
> I hope this may Herald a new wave of new and complementary projects.
> There are yet so many types of knowledge that have not found a home in our
> wikiverse -- we are devising more every year (here's looking at you,
> thingiverse & ML model hubs) -- and most of them do not naturally end up
> with free knowledge platforms of their own.
>
> SJ
>
> 
>
> On Thu., Jul. 2, 2020, 12:04 p.m. Katherine Maher, 
> wrote:
>
>> (A translatable version of this announcement can be found on Meta [1])
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It is my honor to introduce Abstract Wikipedia [1], a new project that
>> has been unanimously approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>> Trustees. Abstract Wikipedia proposes a new way to generate baseline
>> encyclopedic content in a multilingual fashion, allowing more contributors
>> and more readers to share more knowledge in more languages. It is an
>> approach that aims to make cross-lingual cooperation easier on our
>> projects, increase the sustainability of our movement through expanding
>> access to participation, improve the user experience for readers of all
>> languages, and innovate in free knowledge by connecting some of the
>> strengths of our movement to create something new.
>>
>> This is our first new project in over seven years. Abstract Wikipedia was
>> submitted as a project proposal by Denny Vrandečić in May of 2020 [2] after
>> years of preparation and research, leading to a detailed plan and lively
>> discussions in the Wikimedia communities. We know that the energy and the
>> creativity of the community often runs up against language barriers, and
>> information that is available in one language may not make it to other
>> language Wikipedias. Abstract Wikipedia intends to look and feel like a
>> Wikipedia, but build on the powerful, language-independent conceptual
>> models of Wikidata, with the goal of letting volunteers create and maintain
>> Wikipedia articles across our polyglot Wikimedia world.
>>
>> The project will allow volunteers to assemble the fundamentals of an
>> article using words and entities from Wikidata. Because Wikidata uses
>> conceptual models that are meant to be universal across languages, it
>> should be possible to use and extend these building blocks of knowledge to
>> create models for articles that also have universal value. Using code,
>> volunteers will be able to translate these abstract “articles” into their
>> own languages. If successful, this could eventually allow everyone to read
>> about any topic in Wikidata in their own language.
>>
>> As you can imagine, this work will require a lot of software development,
>> and a lot of cooperation among Wikimedians. In order to make this effort
>> possible, Denny will join the Foundation as a staff member in July and lead
>> this initiative. You may know Denny as the creator of Wikidata, a long-time
>> community member, a former staff member at Wikimedia Deutschland, and a
>> former Trustee at the Wikimedia Foundation[3]. We are very excited that
>> Denny will bring his skills and expertise to work on this project alongside
>> the Foundation’s product, technology, and community liaison teams.
>>
>> It is important to acknowledge that this is an experimental project and
>> that every Wikipedia community has different needs. This project may offer
>> some communities great advantages. Other communities may engage less. Every
>> language Wikipedia community will be free to choose and moderate whether or
>> how they would use content from this project.
>>
>> We are excited that this new wiki-project has the possibility to advance
>> knowledge equity through increased access to knowledge. It also invites us
>> to consider and engage with critical questions about how and by whom
>> knowledge is constructed. We look forward to working in cooperation with
>> the communities to think throu

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcing a new Wikimedia project: Abstract Wikipedia

2020-07-02 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Katherine, thank you for the warm welcome and your kind words!

I am very happy to be given the opportunity to start this new project, and
deeply honored by the trust and confidence of the Board and the Foundation.

Thanks to the many who have listened to me talking about this project in
the last few years, read my papers and plans, commented on them,
scrutinized them, and offered encouragement, criticism, and advice. Thanks
to everyone who expressed their support and raised their concerns on the
proposal page on Meta [1]. It is thanks to you that the Board was confident
enough to make this decision.

There is a lot of work in front of us, and I will continue to rely on your
guidance and collective wisdom. We will need to foster a new community.
Just as with Wikidata, I hope that some of you will become active in the
new community, and I also want to make sure that we will be welcoming to
new contributors. We want to extend and grow the Wikimedia movement not
only with new functionalities, but also with new people.

Settling in this new position will take quite a bit of my attention in the
next few weeks, so please forgive me if I may be slow with answering your
questions between now and then. One of the first things we’ll do is to set
up new communication channels. We will continue discussing the project and
planning on Meta [2] for now and also welcome you to the new, dedicated
mailing list [3].

One of our first tasks together will be to find a name for the project. A
first set of proposals have already been made [4], and I invite you all to
come up with more ideas. We will start that off in July or August. Did I
mention that you can join us on Meta [2] to discuss proposals for names,
the project itself, and much more?

Again, thank you all! I am super excited about figuring this thing out with
you, and am looking forward to coming back to Wikimedia full-time.

Stay safe,
Denny

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abstract_Wikipedia
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Abstract_Wikipedia
[3] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Name



On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:24 AM Brion Vibber  wrote:

> I'm extremely excited about this project!
>
> Not only will this be directly useful on its own (and a fascinating project
> in its own right!), but it will help our volunteer editors to ramp up good
> base material to work with on the "prose" Wikipedias we already know and
> love.
>
> The idea is really to make the structured data we've all been putting into
> Wikidata available in a human-readable form at a big scale, that's still
> able to be shaped and made into something real and readable by human
> editors. By moving around where in the chain the data gets expressed as
> human language, we hope to make something that's just as editable but much
> more maintainable in the future and across multiple languages.
>
> -- brion
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:04 AM Katherine Maher 
> wrote:
>
> > (A translatable version of this announcement can be found on Meta [1])
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It is my honor to introduce Abstract Wikipedia [1], a new project that
> has
> > been unanimously approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
> > Abstract Wikipedia proposes a new way to generate baseline encyclopedic
> > content in a multilingual fashion, allowing more contributors and more
> > readers to share more knowledge in more languages. It is an approach that
> > aims to make cross-lingual cooperation easier on our projects, increase
> the
> > sustainability of our movement through expanding access to participation,
> > improve the user experience for readers of all languages, and innovate in
> > free knowledge by connecting some of the strengths of our movement to
> > create something new.
> >
> > This is our first new project in over seven years. Abstract Wikipedia was
> > submitted as a project proposal by Denny Vrandečić in May of 2020 [2]
> after
> > years of preparation and research, leading to a detailed plan and lively
> > discussions in the Wikimedia communities. We know that the energy and the
> > creativity of the community often runs up against language barriers, and
> > information that is available in one language may not make it to other
> > language Wikipedias. Abstract Wikipedia intends to look and feel like a
> > Wikipedia, but build on the powerful, language-independent conceptual
> > models of Wikidata, with the goal of letting volunteers create and
> maintain
> > Wikipedia articles across our polyglot Wikimedia world.
> >
> > The project will allow volunteers to assemble the fundamentals of an
> > article using words and entities from Wikidata. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal for a multilingual Wikipedia

2020-05-07 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Thank you so much for your encouraging words, SJ!

I am still trying to figure out how to proceed, and it depends on how the
proposal is received (so please, take a look and vote!). As I said
previously, I also have talked with people at the Foundation to see what
can be done to turn this from a silly Denny-idea to a proper project, and
all the feedback on the material so far has been super useful. I am not
sure if we should start with the P1.1 - which has a number of legal and
trademark considerations and would benefit from the Foundation already be
committed - but P1.2 is certainly something where we could start.

Regarding the abstracttext code base, I am super happy to see already
people making it easier to dockerize (Thank you Arthur!) and fixing errors
in the spec (Thank you Lucas!), which is awesome. I still feel very wary
about offering a publicly editable instance due to the security issues, but
I am thinking about having a read-only public instance or a
restricted-write public instance.

I am not sure how we could drive it on Wikispore, given that it needs so
much additional software, and it would be rather unwise to add abstracttext
to Wikispore I guess. Did you have something in mind?

Again, thank you!
Denny






On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:44 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Great!  The time seems right.  Is the idea to begin with P1.1 and P1.2, on
> a test wiki, and have a branch of abstracttext that anyone can submit
> functions to, while working on the proposal and setting this up formally as
> a sibling projet?
>
> Is there anything Wikispore could do to help get something like this
> underway?  //S
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 3:28 PM Denny Vrandečić 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > after talking about it a few times here, the official proposal for
> creating
> > the multilingual Wikipedia proposal is now on Meta.
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilambda
> >
> > The idea is to create abstract, language-independent content in Wikidata,
> > and then translate it into natural language using function. These
> functions
> > will be defined and maintained in a new Wikimedia project, which I
> > preliminary called Wikilambda.
> >
> > Wikilambda will be a new Wikimedia project that allows to create,
> maintain,
> > catalog, and evaluate functions about all kind of things. You can find a
> > lot of further details in the link above. If you have any questions, I am
> > happy to answer them.
> >
> > The official project proposal process basically says, make the proposal
> > here, and then go and tell everyone, and at some point, the Board might
> > look at this and say, yes good idea.
> >
> > So I would love to collect many of your voices and support signatures, so
> > that I can go to the Board and tell them look at this :) So please sign
> > here:
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikilambda
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Denny
> > ___
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Proposal for a multilingual Wikipedia

2020-05-05 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Hello all,

after talking about it a few times here, the official proposal for creating
the multilingual Wikipedia proposal is now on Meta.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilambda

The idea is to create abstract, language-independent content in Wikidata,
and then translate it into natural language using function. These functions
will be defined and maintained in a new Wikimedia project, which I
preliminary called Wikilambda.

Wikilambda will be a new Wikimedia project that allows to create, maintain,
catalog, and evaluate functions about all kind of things. You can find a
lot of further details in the link above. If you have any questions, I am
happy to answer them.

The official project proposal process basically says, make the proposal
here, and then go and tell everyone, and at some point, the Board might
look at this and say, yes good idea.

So I would love to collect many of your voices and support signatures, so
that I can go to the Board and tell them look at this :) So please sign
here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikilambda

Thank you,
Denny
___
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] Proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia and a new Wikipedia project

2020-04-20 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Thank you, Scott,

this is a great and important question. I go into more detail about the
changes to the incentives structures for the contributors in the
Wikipedia @ 20 essay here:

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

In short: it relies heavily on getting the user experience just right, and
this will be one of the hardest parts of the project. But there are a few
forces that conspire to improve the incentives for the contributors, such
as more reach, making a current and complete Wikipedia in a smaller
language editions seem feasible, reactivating previous contributors, and
tailor a user experience for mobile devices.

In the end, only the future will tell, but I certainly hope that this will
lead to a vibrant and large community with thousands of contributors.

Stay safe,
Denny



On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:54 PM Info WorldUniversity <
i...@worlduniversityandschool.org> wrote:

> Denny, and Wikimedians,
>
> How to maintain the diversity of contributions, edits, individual knowledge
> generators / writers, et al, on the human side of Wikipedia, by many
> different language communities if these were to grow, I wonder? Is this
> already part of your proposal, which I haven't come across yet? Thank you
> for this great development!
>
> Cheers,
> Scott
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 5:49 PM Denny Vrandečić 
> wrote:
>
> > Elevator pitch:
> >
> > Many Wikipedia language editions have large gaps in knowledge. We want to
> > close these gaps by allowing to create and maintain content in one place
> > and allow the Wikipedias to use this content if they choose so, instead
> of
> > doing that in each of the Wikipedia language editions individually. This
> > will allow more people to access and create more knowledge in more
> > languages in the Wikipedias.
> >
> > In order to do this, we need to represent the content in a way that can
> be
> > translated to many different natural languages with high fidelity. We do
> > this by introducing a new project that allows to create, maintain,
> > catalogue and evaluate functions as a new form of knowledge the
> communities
> > work on. This will allow completely new use cases, and allow more people
> to
> > share in more forms of knowledge than today.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:48 PM Andy Mabbett 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 01:52, Denny Vrandečić 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > As some of you know, I have been working on the idea of a
> multilingual
> > > > Wikipedia for a few years now.
> > >
> > > What's the elevator pitch for this?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andy Mabbett
> > > @pigsonthewing
> > > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> - Scott MacLeod - Founder & President
> - https://twitter.com/WorldUnivAndSch
> - World University and School
> - http://worlduniversityandschool.org
> - http://scottmacleod.com
>
> - CC World University and School - like CC Wikipedia with best STEM-centric
> CC OpenCourseWare - incorporated as a nonprofit university and school in
> California, and is a U.S. 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt educational organization.
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

2020-04-14 Thread Denny Vrandečić
dia can ask people on Abstract WP and
> Wikilambda. You would need enough volunteers on AWP-WL to help; and you
> would need at least some people on local WP who can communicate its wishes
> to the helpers on AWP-WL. For very small WP communities, that would be an
> enourmous challenge.
>

Agreed. Both Wikidata and English Wikipedia have managed to create such
environments to help contributors, be it the Teahouse or the "Ask a SPARQL
query" page. I very much hope that we will foster a community that will
live this spirit.

But I do think that this project is more complicated than any of the other
projects we currently have, and I think that it would be important to
initially provide this kind of support also coming from the development
team. I hope that from this seed, a community-owned support system will
grow.


>
> My personal approach would be the following, based on experiences with
> German language encyclopedia for children, Klexikon. It would be great for
> small Wikipedias to find a corpus of ca. 3000-5000 encyclopedic articles.
> Well chosen by relevance for at least most parts of the world. In
> easy-to-understand English, not too long, with a good strcuture, written in
> a way that you can easily translate and adapt them for your own language.
> (Many people will now say: "Simple English Wikipedia already exists", but I
> think it is not there yet.)


> Those 3000-5000 articles would be a wonderful encyclopedia already. The
> local Wikipedians would enrich the content then with some hundred or
> thousand articles of their own. In my experience, you do not need millions
> of articles to fulfill the knowledge hunger of most readers.
>

I see and understand your approach, but respectfully disagree. I do not
think that, whoever runs the development of this project, should be in the
business of guiding the content creation of the project. I firmly believe
that creating the content and deciding on which content to create should be
solely in the hand of the community.

Having said that, I also will absolutely welcome community members from
initiating a project where they decide on a corpus of say 3000-5000
encyclopaedic articles chosen by relevance for at least most parts of the
world, and make it their aim to create a good structure for these and adapt
them to their own languages. In fact, I hope that people who have
experience with running such projects will become contributors and do that.
I do think that this would be a promising early strategy to create content.

But such a project obviously should not be exclusive.


>
> I think that your "content translation framework" approach goes a little
> bit into this direction. Part of the framework could be to make suggestions
> about "localization". For example, the article about "Dogs" could have a
> note saying: "After this paragraph, you could add some sentences with
> regard to dogs in your own country/region."
>

Whereas I would love to claim that the content translation framework is
mine, it very much isn't. There is a wonderful team at the Foundation that
has created and maintained this over years, and they recently had a rather
stormy uptick in translations, having lead to more than 600,000 translated
articles. I cannot praise their hard work enough, and I am thankful to them
for having enabled so many people to create so much content in so many
languages already.


>
> Kind regards,
> Ziko
>

Thank you for your comments, and stay safe,
Denny


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am Di., 14. Apr. 2020 um 02:53 Uhr schrieb Denny Vrandečić <
> vrande...@gmail.com>:
>
> > 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=PLQVG_tuf3Q2fji-CwqEDRJpZuf23wevrq=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 abs

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

2020-04-14 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Elevator pitch:

Many Wikipedia language editions have large gaps in knowledge. We want to
close these gaps by allowing to create and maintain content in one place
and allow the Wikipedias to use this content if they choose so, instead of
doing that in each of the Wikipedia language editions individually. This
will allow more people to access and create more knowledge in more
languages in the Wikipedias.

In order to do this, we need to represent the content in a way that can be
translated to many different natural languages with high fidelity. We do
this by introducing a new project that allows to create, maintain,
catalogue and evaluate functions as a new form of knowledge the communities
work on. This will allow completely new use cases, and allow more people to
share in more forms of knowledge than today.


On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:48 PM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 01:52, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:
>
> > As some of you know, I have been working on the idea of a multilingual
> > Wikipedia for a few years now.
>
> What's the elevator pitch for this?
>
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

2020-04-14 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Yay! Thanks for the positive note! This is appreciated!

Stay safe,
Denny

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 1:44 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Based on my first read-through of the paper, I think this would be
> something worth doing.
> Cheers,
> Peter.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Denny Vrandecic
> Sent: 14 April 2020 02:53
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia and a new
> Wikipedia project
>
> 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=PLQVG_tuf3Q2fji-CwqEDRJpZuf23wevrq=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 

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

2020-04-13 Thread 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=PLQVG_tuf3Q2fji-CwqEDRJpZuf23wevrq=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)).
Which parts of 

[Wikimedia-l] Feedback for chapter: "Collaborating on the sum of all knowledge across languages"

2019-07-06 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Hi all!

I really try not to spam the chat too much with pointers to my work on the
Abstract Wikipedia, but this one is probably also interesting for Wikidata
contributors. It is the draft for a chapter submitted to Koerner and
Reagle's Wikipedia@20 book, and talks about knowledge diversity under the
light of centralisation through projects such as Wikidata.

Public commenting phase is open until July 19, and very welcome:
"Collaborating on the sum of all knowledge across languages"

About the book: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia@20
Link to chapter: https://wikipedia20.pubpub.org/pub/vyf7ksah

Cheers,
Denny
___
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] Wikipedia in an abstract language

2018-12-10 Thread Denny Vrandečić
e language of the text is only one
> part of that.
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:40 AM Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> > Denny, thanks for writing and rewriting this piece. I finally got a
> chance
> > to go through it end-to-end. Challenge accepted! :)
> >
> > Here are a few early thoughts, and I look forward to discussing it with
> you
> > and others further.
> >
> > * I tend to agree with you that the challenges of artificial intelligence
> > are a superset of the challenges of bringing to life the abstract
> > Wikipedia. Quite a few items you list in "Unique advantages" section make
> > the abstract-Wikipedia space more easily approachable.
> >
> > * I agree with you that if we are to take the content of Wikipedia to
> many
> > of the languages spoken in the world today, and engage their speakers to
> > share in, the current model won't work/scale (at least soon enough).
> >
> > * You've raised a great point about "Graceful degradation". A very nice
> > challenge.
> >
> > * In "Unique advantages" you talk about "a single genre of text,
> > encyclopedias" and I wonder what it takes to expand our thinking to
> include
> > images as well. Will we need to rethink your current construct? Including
> > images is attractive for at least two reasons: Because in terms of
> learning
> > people have different needs and we will likely need to (continue to)
> > include images as we create the abstractions, but also because one can
> > potentially think of images as representations that are already abstract.
> >
> > Best,
> > Leila
> >
> > --
> > Leila Zia
> > Senior Research Scientist, Lead
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:13 AM Dariusz Jemielniak 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > an interesting concept indeed!
> > >
> > > dj
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:36 PM Denny Vrandečić  > > <mailto:vrande...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > The extended whitepaper that was presented at the DL workshop is now
> > > available here:
> > >
> > > http://simia.net/download/abstractwikipedia_whitepaper.pdf
> > >
> > > Still not a proper scientific paper (no references, notv situated in
> > > related work), but going into a bit more detail on the ideas on the
> first
> > > paper published previously.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018, 11:32 Denny Vrandečić   > > vrande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Semantic Web languages allow to express ontologies and knowledge
> bases
> > in
> > > > a way meant to be particularly amenable to the Web. Ontologies
> > formalize
> > > > the shared understanding of a domain. But the most expressive and
> > > > widespread languages that we know of are human natural languages, and
> > the
> > > > largest knowledge base we have is the wealth of text written in human
> > > > languages.
> > > >
> > > > We looks for a path to bridge the gap between knowledge
> representation
> > > > languages such as OWL and human natural languages such as English. We
> > > > propose a project to simultaneously expose that gap, allow to
> > collaborate
> > > > on closing it, make progress widely visible, and is highly attractive
> > and
> > > > valuable in its own right: a Wikipedia written in an abstract
> language
> > to
> > > > be rendered into any natural language on request. This would make
> > current
> > > > Wikipedia editors about 100x more productive, and increase the
> content
> > of
> > > > Wikipedia by 10x. For billions of users this will unlock knowledge
> they
> > > > currently do not have access to.
> > > >
> > > > My first talk on this topic will be on October 10, 2018, 16:45-17:00,
> > at
> > > > the Asilomar in Monterey, CA during the Blue Sky track of ISWC. My
> > > second,
> > > > longer talk on the topic will be at the DL workshop in Tempe, AZ,
> > October
> > > > 27-29. Comments are very welcome as I prepare the slides and the
> talk.
> > > >
> > > > Link to the paper: http://simia.net/download/abstractwikipedia.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Denny
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Maili

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia in an abstract language

2018-11-13 Thread Denny Vrandečić
The extended whitepaper that was presented at the DL workshop is now
available here:

http://simia.net/download/abstractwikipedia_whitepaper.pdf

Still not a proper scientific paper (no references, notv situated in
related work), but going into a bit more detail on the ideas on the first
paper published previously.

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018, 11:32 Denny Vrandečić  Semantic Web languages allow to express ontologies and knowledge bases in
> a way meant to be particularly amenable to the Web. Ontologies formalize
> the shared understanding of a domain. But the most expressive and
> widespread languages that we know of are human natural languages, and the
> largest knowledge base we have is the wealth of text written in human
> languages.
>
> We looks for a path to bridge the gap between knowledge representation
> languages such as OWL and human natural languages such as English. We
> propose a project to simultaneously expose that gap, allow to collaborate
> on closing it, make progress widely visible, and is highly attractive and
> valuable in its own right: a Wikipedia written in an abstract language to
> be rendered into any natural language on request. This would make current
> Wikipedia editors about 100x more productive, and increase the content of
> Wikipedia by 10x. For billions of users this will unlock knowledge they
> currently do not have access to.
>
> My first talk on this topic will be on October 10, 2018, 16:45-17:00, at
> the Asilomar in Monterey, CA during the Blue Sky track of ISWC. My second,
> longer talk on the topic will be at the DL workshop in Tempe, AZ, October
> 27-29. Comments are very welcome as I prepare the slides and the talk.
>
> Link to the paper: http://simia.net/download/abstractwikipedia.pdf
>
> Cheers,
> Denny
>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia in an abstract language

2018-09-29 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Semantic Web languages allow to express ontologies and knowledge bases in a
way meant to be particularly amenable to the Web. Ontologies formalize the
shared understanding of a domain. But the most expressive and widespread
languages that we know of are human natural languages, and the largest
knowledge base we have is the wealth of text written in human languages.

We looks for a path to bridge the gap between knowledge representation
languages such as OWL and human natural languages such as English. We
propose a project to simultaneously expose that gap, allow to collaborate
on closing it, make progress widely visible, and is highly attractive and
valuable in its own right: a Wikipedia written in an abstract language to
be rendered into any natural language on request. This would make current
Wikipedia editors about 100x more productive, and increase the content of
Wikipedia by 10x. For billions of users this will unlock knowledge they
currently do not have access to.

My first talk on this topic will be on October 10, 2018, 16:45-17:00, at
the Asilomar in Monterey, CA during the Blue Sky track of ISWC. My second,
longer talk on the topic will be at the DL workshop in Tempe, AZ, October
27-29. Comments are very welcome as I prepare the slides and the talk.

Link to the paper: http://simia.net/download/abstractwikipedia.pdf

Cheers,
Denny
___
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] [Wikidata] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-18 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Thank you for your answer, Sebastian.

Publishing the Gutachten would be fantastic! That would be very helpful and
deeply appreciated.

Regarding the relicensing, I agree with you. You can just go and do that,
and given that you ask for attribution to DBpedia, and not to Wikipedia, I
would claim that's what you're doing. And I think that's fine.

Regarding attribution, commonly it is assumed that you have to respect it
transitively. That is one of the reasons a license that requires BY sucks
so hard for data: unlike with text, the attribution requirements grow very
quickly. It is the same as with modified images and collages: it is not
sufficient to attribute the last author, but all contributors have to be
attributed.

This is why I think that whoever wants to be part of a large federation of
data on the web, should publish under CC0.

That is very different from licensing texts or images. But for data
anything else is just weird and will bite is in the long run more than we
might ever benefit.

So, just to say it again: if the Gutachten you mentioned could be made
available, that would be very very awesome!

Thank you, Denny



On Thu, May 17, 2018, 23:06 Sebastian Hellmann <
hellm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:

> Hi Denny,
>
> On 18.05.2018 02:54, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
>
> Rob Speer wrote:
> > The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> > versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> > resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> > Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use
> DBPedia
> > and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> > Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
>
> The comparison to DBpedia is interesting: the terms for DBpedia state
> "Attribution in this case means keep DBpedia URIs visible and active
> through at least one (preferably all) of @href, , or "Link:". If
> live links are impossible (e.g., when printed on paper), a textual
> blurb-based attribution is acceptable."
> http://wiki.dbpedia.org/terms-imprint
>
> So according to these terms, when someone displays data from DBpedia, it
> is entirely sufficient to attribute DBpedia.
>
> What that means is that DBpedia follows exactly the same theory as
> Wikidata: it is OK to extract data from Wikipedia and republish it as your
> own dataset under your own copyright without requiring attribution to the
> original source of the extraction.
>
> (A bit more problematic might be the fact that DBpedia also republishes
> whole paragraphs of Text under these terms, but that's another story)
>
>
> My understanding is that all that Wikidata has extracted from Wikipedia is
> non-copyrightable in the first place and thus republishing it under a
> different license (or, as in the case of DBpedia for simple triples, with a
> different attribution) is legally sound.
>
>
> In the SmartDataWeb project https://www.smartdataweb.de/ we hired lawyers
> to write a legal review about the extraction situation. Facts can be
> extracted and republished under CC-0 without problem as is the case of
> infoboxes.. Copying a whole database is a different because database rights
> hold. If you only extract ~ two sentences it falls under citation, which is
> also easy. If it is more than two sentence, then copyright applies.
>
> I can check whether it is ready and shareable. The legal review
> (Gutachten) is quite a big thing as it has some legal relevancy and can be
> cited in court.
>
> Hence we can switch to ODC-BY with facts as CC-0 and the text as
> share-alike. However the attribution mentioned in the imprint is still
> fine, since it is under database and not the content/facts.
> I am still uncertain about the attribution. If you remix and publish you
> need to cite the direct sources. But if somebody takes from you, does he
> only attribute to you or to everybody you used in a transitive way.
>
> Anyhow, we are sharpening the whole model towards technology, not
> data/content. So the databus will be a transparent layer and it is much
> easier to find the source like Wikipedia and Wikidata and do contributions
> there, which is actually one of the intentions of share-alike (getting work
> pushed back/upstream).
>
> All the best,
> Sebastian
>
>
> If there is disagreement with that, I would be interested which content
> exactly is considered to be under copyright and where license has not been
> followed on Wikidata.
>
> For completion: the discussion is going on in parallel on the Wikidata
> project chat and in Phabricator:
>
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4212728
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Wikipedia_and_other

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-17 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Rob Speer wrote:
> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?

The comparison to DBpedia is interesting: the terms for DBpedia state
"Attribution in this case means keep DBpedia URIs visible and active
through at least one (preferably all) of @href, , or "Link:". If
live links are impossible (e.g., when printed on paper), a textual
blurb-based attribution is acceptable."
http://wiki.dbpedia.org/terms-imprint

So according to these terms, when someone displays data from DBpedia, it is
entirely sufficient to attribute DBpedia.

What that means is that DBpedia follows exactly the same theory as
Wikidata: it is OK to extract data from Wikipedia and republish it as your
own dataset under your own copyright without requiring attribution to the
original source of the extraction.

(A bit more problematic might be the fact that DBpedia also republishes
whole paragraphs of Text under these terms, but that's another story)

My understanding is that all that Wikidata has extracted from Wikipedia is
non-copyrightable in the first place and thus republishing it under a
different license (or, as in the case of DBpedia for simple triples, with a
different attribution) is legally sound.

If there is disagreement with that, I would be interested which content
exactly is considered to be under copyright and where license has not been
followed on Wikidata.

For completion: the discussion is going on in parallel on the Wikidata
project chat and in Phabricator:

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4212728
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Wikipedia_and_other_Wikimedia_projects


I would appreciate if we could keep the discussion in a single place.

Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but we
need to come up with the questions that we want to ask. If it should be,
for example, as Rob Speer states on the bug, "has the copyright of
interwiki links been breached by having them be moved to Wikidata?", I'd be
quite happy with that question - if that's the disagreement, let us ask
Legal help and see if my understanding or yours is correct.

Does this sound like a reasonable question? Or which other question would
you like to ask instead?


On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Rob Speer  wrote:

> > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
> enemy of science and knowledge
>
> Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
>
> I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
> which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to multiple
> Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
> by CC-By-SA.
>
> Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against CC-By-SA.
> I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude
> toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding us
> back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
> us follow it", etc.
>
> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is
> > predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
> > knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
> > welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere
> > and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
> >
> > In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
> Wikipedia,
> > it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
> > feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
> > maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as
> > well as "we" do it.
> >
> > When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things
> > we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
> uploaded
> > (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and
> > operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a
> > consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as 

[Wikimedia-l] Request for status update on CC-BY-SA 4.0

2018-05-13 Thread Denny Vrandečić
About one and a half years ago, there was a consultation process about
updating the Wikimedia Terms of Use to move from CC 3.0 to 4.0 licenses.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Creative_Commons_4.0

I would like to ask what the status of this proposal is, and whom to bother
to get this unstuck in case it is stuck.

Cheers,
Denny
___
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] Tool to help reaching community consensus

2017-12-08 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Ah, thanks for the clarification. Sorry for having missed the irony.

Cheers,
Denny


On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:39 AM mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote:

>
>
> Le 07/12/2017 à 18:12, Denny Vrandečić a écrit :
>
> Mathieu,
>
> you wrote
>
>
> Despite the fact that reaching community consensus is an easy task,
>
> I just wanted to check whether that was a typo, irony, or actually meant
> that way. In the latter case, I would like to ask for {{cn}}.
>
> Sorry, some emoticon was missing here to make things more clear. It's
> plain irony here.
>
> Reaching and establishing community consensus seems to me one of the
> hardest tasks we are facing, which is why this sentence astonished me, and
> made me think whether I missed something fundamental.
>
> I completely agree with you that this is among the most hardest tasks.
> More broadly, to my mind, communication and empathy are among the less well
> developed topic in education relatively to their prominent importance in
> all domain where humans have to pay attention.
>
> Kind regards
>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Tool to help reaching community consensus

2017-12-07 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Mathieu,

you wrote

> Despite the fact that reaching community consensus is an easy task,

I just wanted to check whether that was a typo, irony, or actually meant
that way. In the latter case, I would like to ask for {{cn}}.

Reaching and establishing community consensus seems to me one of the
hardest tasks we are facing, which is why this sentence astonished me, and
made me think whether I missed something fundamental.

Cheers,
Denny

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:56 AM Kunal Mehta  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hi,
>
> On 12/07/2017 04:51 AM, mathieu stumpf guntz wrote:
> > Loomio offers free use for community cases. But it's non-free
> > software, as far as I can see, but I didn't made deep inquiry. So I
> > wondered if anyone was aware of a free software equivalent.
>
> Loomio is free software, it's licensed under the GNU Affero General
> Public License[1][2].
>
> [1] https://github.com/loomio/loomio/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
> [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html
>
> - -- Legoktm
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> iQJLBAEBCgA1FiEE+h6fmkHn9DUCyl1jUvyOe+23/KIFAlopcpMXHGxlZ29rdG1A
> bWVtYmVyLmZzZi5vcmcACgkQUvyOe+23/KK+WQ//ZyUymxC6DZVhSjvm82v9ZCkU
> BBR7ctq0f2Mqj+eH7CSyZdvxw6FZlA5Vw9/iu/kA5THzPnnu1YwkX45KZ8o2mbSs
> T0vjN81Rht62y3Ynfn/smCi4VG9+vIJUou/fW9fdh5zQcEeeLON+fPv5n5+zLBlr
> cGjijDqACDUFefUIs72jcBMZwISORcrNTecCYq2Zocu2E0CCEMHmMefGjkxLLNgm
> 1ONM8ZNwa8uHFuPp/Prl1lf9KOq16xDmFXiP0fKB8B+iLmEr3BT14ARCa1FV91AT
> fke2Fc5o6PQmr8cJvDraclQzTq5Rwnz76nbleujBqXe/po8ikwkh53MJGSaFcHwd
> +2w+w9Uku/p07o2u+mBzY2gmBHjt4fXYTog2Jvr8liBQBnn7jxPXtyyT0TMCwy2i
> y/LyCtbnXfSa3URSKq5OSXNGXRbqETJsEWwIscCmeRko/jQhJxv44Avu9Qm27czM
> Ft9Pm894Hk5muW/ZttzDWAT2VMxbxHFubJFqXDPb8x4qLElMoFaPYu92MVpeubJi
> KE+A98lbh5YyWUj1BCFdMIODwUE6ld7hUa9SMx7QENzp0pqDURnmshVLJXpgtFxo
> 9+PYklncFDTUrxhrW68AsmNYqT4WwlLmIZBBuVM6UblozAV+ROoj1Ho+44Skl4IN
> 8PtQSKEA8FHMF6KJFMQ=
> =GzLD
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> ___
> 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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

2017-11-30 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Scott,

The NC license clause is problematic in a number of jurisdictions. For
example, at least in Germany, as I remember from my law classes, it also
would definitively include not-for-profits, NGOs, and even say bloggers,
with or without ads on their sites. One must always be careful in the
choice of a license in order to avoid unintended consequences.

Just food for thought
Denny

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 20:51 John Erling Blad  wrote:

> My reference was to in-place discussions at WMDE, not the open meetings
> with Markus. Each week we had an open demo where Markus usually attended.
> As I remember the May-discussion, it was just a discussion in the office,
> there was a reference to an earlier meeting. It is although easy to mix up
> old memories, so what happen first and what happen next should not be taken
> to be facts. If Markus also says the same it is although a reasonable
> chance we have got it right.
>
> As to the questions about archives on open discussions with the community.
> This was in April-May 2012. There was no community, there were only
> concerned individuals. The community started to emerge in August with the
> first attempts to go public. On Wikidata_talk:Introduction there are some
> posts from 15. August 2012,[1] while first post on the subject page is from
> 30. October. The stuff from before October comes from a copy-paste from
> Meta.[3] Note that Denny writes "The data in Wikidata is published under a
> free license, allowing the reuse of the data in many different scenarios."
> but Whittylama changes this to "The data in Wikidata is published under [
> http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ a free license],
> allowing
> the reuse of the data in many different scenarios.",[4] and at that point
> there were a community on an open site and had been for a week. When
> Whittylama did his post it was the 4504th post on the site, so it was
> hardly the first! The license was initially a CC-SA.[8] I'm not quite sure
> when it was changed to CC0 in the footer,[9] but it seems to have happen
> before 31 October 2012, at 19:09. First post on Q1 is from 29. October
> 2012,[5] this is one of several items updated this evening.
>
> It is quite enlightening to start at oldid=1 [6] and stepping forward. You
> will find that our present incarnation went live 25. October 2012. So much
> for the "birthday". To ask for archived community discussions before 25th
> October does not make sense, there were no site, and the only people
> involved were mostly devs posting at Meta. Note for example that the page
> Wikidata:Introduction is from Meta.[7]
>
> [1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Introduction
> [2]
> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Introduction=2677
> [3]
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Introduction=133569705=128154617
> [4]
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Introduction=next=4504
> [5] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1=103
> [6] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?oldid=1
> [7]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata/Introduction=4030743
> [8]
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20121027015501/http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page
> [9]
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20121102074347/http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Markus Krötzsch <
> mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
>
> > Dear Mathieu,
> >
> > Your post demands my response since I was there when CC0 was first chosen
> > (i.e., in the April meeting). I won't discuss your other claims here --
> the
> > discussions on the Wikidata list are already doing this, and I agree with
> > Lydia that no shouting is necessary here.
> >
> > Nevertheless, I must at least testify to what John wrote in his earlier
> > message (quote included below this email for reference): it was not
> Denny's
> > decision to go for CC0, but the outcome of a discussion among several
> > people who had worked with open data for some time before Wikidata was
> > born. I have personally supported this choice and still do. I have never
> > received any money directly or indirectly from Google, though -- full
> > disclosure -- I got several T-shirts for supervising in Summer of Code
> > projects.
> >
> > At no time did Google or any other company take part in our discussions
> in
> > the zeroth hour of Wikidata. And why should they? From what I can see on
> > their web page, Google has no problem with all kinds of different license
> > terms in the data they display. Also, I can tell you that we would have
> > reacted in a very allergic way to such attempts, so if any company had
> > approached us, this would quite likely have backfired. But, believe it or
> > not, when we started it was all but clear that this would become a
> relevant
> > project at all, and no major company even cared to lobby us. It was still
> > mostly a few hackers getting together in varying 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

2017-01-10 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Hi Rogol,

that is why I pointed you to the links in that document, which go all the
way back to 2004 discussions of such a project, and further discussions
over the years. These pretty much establish for me that this item has been
a topic for commons for more than a decade now. But it seems I am
misunderstanding you, and you are not looking for a documentation of the
shared understanding of the roadmap for Commons and other Wikimedia
products, but for a singular Foundation-written document that fixes the
Wikimedia product roadmap over several years instead?

Cheers,
Denny


On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Denny
>
> Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our high-level
> roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in Commons
> project.  Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our product
> roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the Structured
> Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a pointer
> to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development roadmap, and
> in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred to in Wes
> Moran's initial post on this topic:
>
> But I appreciate the speed of your reply.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Denny Vrandečić <vrande...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Rogol,
> >
> > this was the link previously provided on this project:
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview
> > including
> > links to previous documents.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Denny
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:32 AM Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Lisa
> > >
> > > You say that "Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so
> > > this grant is not diverting our attention.  The grant simply enables us
> > to
> > > accelerate the work we were planning to do".  Please would you publish,
> > or
> > > point to, a version of that product roadmap that can inform the
> > community's
> > > participation in such planning exercises as the 2017 Wikimedia Movement
> > > Strategy and other more tactical product planning processes.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > > "Rogol"
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Lisa Gruwell <lgruw...@wikimedia.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Pete and Gerard-
> > > >
> > > > I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts.  Like most
> > things,
> > > > there are both good and bad restricted gifts.  They can be bad if a
> > > funder
> > > > is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the
> > > organization
> > > > in direction that they were not planning to go.  Or even worse, when
> a
> > > > funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has ongoing
> > > > maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant.
> > > >
> > > > This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our gift
> > > policy
> > > > <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Gift_policy>.  Those are the
> > types
> > > > of
> > > > dynamics that the board considers when they review a restricted
> grant.
> > > >
> > > > Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this grant
> is
> > > not
> > > > diverting our attention.  The grant simply enables us to accelerate
> the
> > > > work we were planning to do.  In terms of restrictions, we have to
> > follow
> > > > through with the plan we submitted.  In other words, do what we said
> we
> > > are
> > > > going to do.  I think that accountability is a good thing.  And the
> > Sloan
> > > > Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF.  If something changes
> as
> > > the
> > > > work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable
> conversation
> > > with
> > > > them about adjusting the plan.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Lisa
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want
> > anyway.
> &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

2017-01-10 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Rogol,

this was the link previously provided on this project:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview including
links to previous documents.

Cheers,
Denny


On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:32 AM Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Lisa
>
> You say that "Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so
> this grant is not diverting our attention.  The grant simply enables us to
> accelerate the work we were planning to do".  Please would you publish, or
> point to, a version of that product roadmap that can inform the community's
> participation in such planning exercises as the 2017 Wikimedia Movement
> Strategy and other more tactical product planning processes.
>
> Thanks in advance
> "Rogol"
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Lisa Gruwell 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Pete and Gerard-
> >
> > I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts.  Like most things,
> > there are both good and bad restricted gifts.  They can be bad if a
> funder
> > is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the
> organization
> > in direction that they were not planning to go.  Or even worse, when a
> > funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has ongoing
> > maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant.
> >
> > This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our gift
> policy
> > .  Those are the types
> > of
> > dynamics that the board considers when they review a restricted grant.
> >
> > Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this grant is
> not
> > diverting our attention.  The grant simply enables us to accelerate the
> > work we were planning to do.  In terms of restrictions, we have to follow
> > through with the plan we submitted.  In other words, do what we said we
> are
> > going to do.  I think that accountability is a good thing.  And the Sloan
> > Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF.  If something changes as
> the
> > work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable conversation
> with
> > them about adjusting the plan.
> >
> > Best,
> > Lisa
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want anyway.
> > > Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in stone and
> > > stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever. With more
> money
> > > it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it more
> > manageable.
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > > On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one
> > thing,
> > > > the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly if
> > > there
> > > > were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan
> for
> > > the
> > > > focus on this issue!
> > > >
> > > > If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant restricted
> > grant
> > > > in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's
> usability
> > > > grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant ($1.2
> > million
> > > > in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past, WMF
> board
> > > > members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically -- the
> > > Sloan
> > > > Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in WMF
> > board
> > > > meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length about
> > the
> > > > dangers of restricted grants.
> > > >
> > > > It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted grants.
> Will
> > > > somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of
> > publishing
> > > > the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3]
> > > >
> > > > -Pete
> > > > --
> > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability-
> > > > in-our-future/
> > > > [2]
> > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_
> > > > 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_
> > > > and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information
> > > > [3]
> > > > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_
> > > > Initiative_project_details
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Wikimedia community,
> > > > >
> > > > > It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000
> grant
> > > from
> > > > > the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
> > > > >  [1] to
> > > > expedite
> > > > > development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given
> > over
> > > > the
> > > > > course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in
> > > > > collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

2017-01-09 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Also, to add, for this particular grant I can really only look positively
at the openness surrounding the writing of the grant. There have been
emails on this list inviting input and discussion when the grant proposal
was underway, a lot of content was available on-wiki, and an effort was
made to ensure that the project was not only aligned with the planning of
the Foundation but also with the community - which is indeed particularly
important given the restricted nature of the funding.

I congratulate everyone involved for securing this grant, for the process
with its improved transparency, and I am very much looking forward to see
the project implemented!

Denny




On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:01 PM Lisa Gruwell  wrote:

Hi Pete and Gerard-

I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts.  Like most things,
there are both good and bad restricted gifts.  They can be bad if a funder
is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the organization
in direction that they were not planning to go.  Or even worse, when a
funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has ongoing
maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant.

This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our gift policy
.  Those are the types of
dynamics that the board considers when they review a restricted grant.

Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this grant is not
diverting our attention.  The grant simply enables us to accelerate the
work we were planning to do.  In terms of restrictions, we have to follow
through with the plan we submitted.  In other words, do what we said we are
going to do.  I think that accountability is a good thing.  And the Sloan
Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF.  If something changes as the
work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable conversation with
them about adjusting the plan.

Best,
Lisa

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want anyway.
> Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in stone and
> stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever. With more money
> it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it more manageable.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
> > Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one
thing,
> > the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly if
> there
> > were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan for
> the
> > focus on this issue!
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant restricted
grant
> > in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's usability
> > grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant ($1.2
million
> > in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past, WMF board
> > members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically -- the
> Sloan
> > Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in WMF board
> > meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length about
the
> > dangers of restricted grants.
> >
> > It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted grants. Will
> > somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of publishing
> > the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3]
> >
> > -Pete
> > --
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability-
> > in-our-future/
> > [2]
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_
> > 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_
> > and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information
> > [3]
> > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_
> > Initiative_project_details
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Wikimedia community,
> > >
> > > It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant
> from
> > > the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
> > >  [1] to
> > expedite
> > > development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given
over
> > the
> > > course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in
> > > collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that
can
> > > focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into
> > > describing the media files on Commons.
> > >
> > > This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata
> > > development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement
> > > stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders,
> > and
> > > external partners who contribute heavily to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] GPS data shift

2016-10-07 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Uh, I leave the details to someone who knows better :) - it is a while
since I checked, and it might indeed be underspecified right now.

To the best of my knowledge, there is only one widely used coordinate
system for each Mars and Titan. I might be wrong. But in the worst case we
would need to specify the default system for either.

I am not saying that the whole thing is not a problem - I am just saying
that the data model, as spec'ed and implemented, has a space for solving
it. It is obvious that without support in the UI the whole thing is
slightly moot anyway.



On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:23 PM Jan Macura <macura...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 2016-10-07 20:34 GMT+02:00 Denny Vrandečić <vrande...@gmail.com>:
>
> Wikidata allows to set a coordinate system - it is called a globe or
> coordinate system - on every coordinate. This would be the natural place to
> specify whether it is WGS84 or GDA94 or another system. Most of them are
> Q2, which, as per data model, is indeed WGS84
>
>
> Hi Denny,
>
> can you be more specific about this? So when there is no explicit value in
> the *globe* parametre of GlobeCoordinate, then it is treated as Q2 (this
> corelates with the dumps and every RDF serialization)? It would imply
> geographic coordinates (not the same as WGS84!!). Or is it considered to be
> specifically WGS84, which is Q11902211?
> And how you tell the coordinate system for other celestial bodies like
> Q111 (Mars) or Q2565 (Titan)?
>
> Thanks a lot
>  Jan
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
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] GPS data shift

2016-10-07 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Wikidata allows to set a coordinate system - it is called a globe or
coordinate system - on every coordinate. This would be the natural place to
specify whether it is WGS84 or GDA94 or another system. Most of them are
Q2, which, as per data model, is indeed WGS84.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase/DataModel#Geographic_locations

Unfortunately this is currently not being displayed or edited in the UI,
but the backend has the data. In theory.



On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:17 PM Sam Klein  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
> > currently there is no clear indication within Wikipedia articles
> > and as far as I can tell within Wikidata as to both what *datum* and what
> > *version* any particular coordinate relates to, there is no guarantee
> that
> > any particular coordinate would be any more correct than it was before.
> >
>
> This definitely should be fixed on the wikidata side.  Whether article
> editors are savvy enough to know and enter this data is another question;
> but at least the geotemplates should have fields for it and you can assume
> that if those are empty some {person/bot hybrid} that understands that
> nuance should fill them in.
>
> ~S
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-06 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Just a few points of clarification:

* I have, to the best of my memory, passed on information only with the
understanding of my sources. If any of my sources disagrees with that,
please send me a message - I want to know and understand that I made a
mistake there.
* We are not talking about the information being shared with the whole
Board (this was not clear from my account, sorry). No one was asked to
forward information to the whole Board. Instead, external legal counsel was
collecting the documents: they were sent to the lawyers, under
attorney-client privilege, not to the whole Board or the Task Force.
* I am surprised to see James state that he was informed at a later point
that his duty as a trustee is towards the WMF, although that explains a few
things. He was sitting in the same room when we received legal training at
our first Board meeting, and he also signed (and, I assume, read) the same
documents I had.

I am rather sad to see so many assumptions of bad faith. I was hoping that
by being more open about the events, it would help with transparency and
healing. It was not easy to have this account published in the first place,
and now I start to see that it was possibly a mistake.

It strengthens my resolution to stay away from Wikimedia politics, and I
hope that this will free up the time and energy to get more things done. I
am thankful and full of respect for anyone who is willing to deal with that
topic in a constructive manner.


On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:46 AM Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:

> 04.05.2016 22:00 "Katie Horn"  napisał(a):
>
> >
> > Either way, I would be deeply encouraged to see progress in creating a
> more
> > robust and predictable connection between the board and WMF staff.
> Whether
> > that connection ends up being a board liaison or something else, I
> suspect
> > that well-established lines of communication would go a very long way
> > toward eliminating the possibility that large numbers of staff will feel
> > like they have to disassemble the whistleblower policy in the first
> place.
>
> A conversation on how to address (a) connection with the staff and (b)
> revise the whistleblower policy has started and we will try to address both
> of these issues in the near future.
> Best,
>
> Dj
>
> >
> > -Katie
> >
> > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Tim Starling 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 04/05/16 12:02, MZMcBride wrote:
> > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_policy
> > > >
> > > > You mention anonymous complaints and serious concerns, but the
> current
> > > > whistleblower policy seems to be pretty clear that it only applies to
> > > > laws, rules, and regulations. The text of the policy indicates, to me
> at
> > > > least, that even alleged violations of other Wikimedia Foundation
> > > policies
> > > > would not be covered by the whistleblower policy. Would you extend
> the
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation whistleblower policy to cover regular (i.e.,
> > > > non-legal and non-regulatory) grievances?
> > >
> > > The third and fourth paragraphs are not so narrow, but otherwise, yes,
> > > I think it should be extended.
> > >
> > > > My understanding is that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> > > sought
> > > > out and then appointed a tech-minded chief executive, who came from a
> > > tech
> > > > organization, in order to "transform" the Wikimedia Foundation from
> an
> > > > educational non-profit to be more like a traditional tech company.
> Many
> > > > employees of the Wikimedia Foundation disagreed with this decision
> and
> > > the
> > > > chief executive made a series of poor hires who ran amok (looking at
> you,
> > > > Damon), but I don't think anything rose to the level of illegal
> behavior.
> > >
> > > You are just regurgitating Lila's email. No transformation was
> > > attempted or executed. The first time I heard about this supposed
> > > conflict over strategy was when Lila posted her claims about it to
> > > this list, shortly before her resignation.
> > >
> > > In fact, employees disagreed with Lila's decision to pursue large
> > > restricted grants for a stupid pet project, in secret, supported by
> > > almost nobody, without Board knowledge let alone approval. This has
> > > nothing to do with education versus technology (if such a dichotomy
> > > can even be said to exist).
> > >
> > > Damon merely suggested the project in question, he did not "run amok".
> > >
> > > -- Tim Starling
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-02 Thread Denny Vrandečić
The protection of any personal or confidential information was, to the best
of my knowledge, at all time guaranteed and has not been compromised. The
official task force, set up by the Trustees, worked under the standards of
keeping confidentiality, obviously. I thought this goes without saying, but
I am explicating it.



On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:44 AM Adam Wight <awi...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> What Michel said...  This is a very interesting story, but I'm left to
> imagine some crucial, looming details.
>
> I have no first-hand knowledge of what really happened, but your
> description of staff contacting a small number of Board members, and asking
> for confidentiality, strongly indicates that the staff were fearful of some
> sort of retribution, and each chose Board members who they personally
> believed would protect them.  This is an educated guess, based on our siege
> mentality at the Foundation last November.
>
> When the four of you were asked to hand over all information about the
> case, that would naturally include any personal email communications.  If I
> were in your position, I would have respected the agreement of confidence
> with anyone who had contacted me, up to and maybe even beyond a subpoena,
> unless I had the authors' permission to release.  If there is some legal
> reason the Board members are not allowed behave according to this standard,
> we need to make it very clear going forward.  I doubt the staff would have
> had these conversations if this is the case, and they had been informed so.
>
> I'm also concerned that there seems to be a conflation between several
> incidents--the original "Gang of Four" investigation was clearly a huge
> mess and I would hope that apologies were made all around for what happened
> there.  However, protecting some sort of possibly compromising or personal
> information is another thing entirely.
>
> Hoping for more clarity,
> Adam
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipe...@zog.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Just to be sure I understand the issue: staff members reached out
> > specifically to the four of you and asked for confidentiality, and then
> the
> > Board demanded 'all documents', presumably including some confidential
> > staff information, and James only very reluctantly shared it?
> >
> > Michel
> > On 2 May 2016 19:10, "Denny Vrandečić" <vrande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In the following I want to present a personal account of events leading
> > to
> > > James’ removal as a Board member, as I remember them. It was written
> > while
> > > I was still on the Board, and the Board agreed on having it sent. The
> > text
> > > was heavily discussed and edited amongst members of the Board, but in
> the
> > > end it remains my personal account. I realize that it potentially
> > includes
> > > post-factum sensemaking, affecting my recollection of events.
> > >
> > > October 1 and 2 2015, Dariusz, James, Patricio and I received phone
> calls
> > > from a small number of Wikimedia Foundation staff expressing concerns
> > about
> > > the Foundation. They asked explicitly for confidentiality. I wanted to
> > > approach the whole Board immediately, but due to considerations for
> > > confidentiality, the sensitive nature of the topic, and the lack of an
> HR
> > > head at the time, the others decided against at this moment.
> Effectively,
> > > this created a conspiracy within the Board from then on for the
> following
> > > weeks.
> > >
> > > With Patricio’s approval, Dariusz and James started to personally
> collect
> > > and ask for reports from staff. Unfortunately, this investigation was
> not
> > > formally approved by the whole Board. It was also conducted in a manner
> > > that would not secure a professional and impartial process. After a few
> > > weeks, we finally reached out to the rest of Board members. They
> > > immediately recognized the necessity for a separate formal task force
> > which
> > > was set up very quickly.
> > >
> > > The formal task force was created end of October. This task force
> > involved
> > > outside legal counsel and conducted professional fact finding. The
> first
> > > request of the task force to the Board members was to ask for all
> > documents
> > > and notes pertaining to the case. Unfortunately, although there has
> been
> > > more than a week of time, this has not happened in full.
> > >
> > > The task force presented its result at the November Board mee

[Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-02 Thread Denny Vrandečić
In the following I want to present a personal account of events leading to
James’ removal as a Board member, as I remember them. It was written while
I was still on the Board, and the Board agreed on having it sent. The text
was heavily discussed and edited amongst members of the Board, but in the
end it remains my personal account. I realize that it potentially includes
post-factum sensemaking, affecting my recollection of events.

October 1 and 2 2015, Dariusz, James, Patricio and I received phone calls
from a small number of Wikimedia Foundation staff expressing concerns about
the Foundation. They asked explicitly for confidentiality. I wanted to
approach the whole Board immediately, but due to considerations for
confidentiality, the sensitive nature of the topic, and the lack of an HR
head at the time, the others decided against at this moment. Effectively,
this created a conspiracy within the Board from then on for the following
weeks.

With Patricio’s approval, Dariusz and James started to personally collect
and ask for reports from staff. Unfortunately, this investigation was not
formally approved by the whole Board. It was also conducted in a manner
that would not secure a professional and impartial process. After a few
weeks, we finally reached out to the rest of Board members. They
immediately recognized the necessity for a separate formal task force which
was set up very quickly.

The formal task force was created end of October. This task force involved
outside legal counsel and conducted professional fact finding. The first
request of the task force to the Board members was to ask for all documents
and notes pertaining to the case. Unfortunately, although there has been
more than a week of time, this has not happened in full.

The task force presented its result at the November Board meeting, where it
was discovered during the second day of the Board meeting that the previous
investigation has not provided all available information. Thus, the fact
finding had to be extended into the Board meeting. At the Board meeting
itself, James in particular was repeatedly asked to share his documents,
which only happened on the very last day of the retreat and after several,
increasingly vigorous requests. Some members of the Board were left with an
impression that James was reluctant to cooperate, even though it was
expected that since he participated in an investigation done in an improper
manner, that he would be more collaborative to make up for these mistakes.

Due to that lack of transparency and information sharing, the Board retreat
in November turned out to be extremely ineffective. If we had all
information that was gathered available to the Board in due time, and if
that information was gathered more openly in the first place, the Board
could have acted more effectively.

I was worried that the confidentiality of the Board would not be
maintained, and I was particularly worried about James’ lack of
understanding of confidential matters, a perception also fueled by his
noncooperation and conduct. Some of his behaviour since unfortunately
confirmed my worries. I raised this as an issue to the Board.

While discussing the situation, James remained defensive, in my eyes
answered questions partially, and, while formally expressing apologies,
never conveyed that he really took ownership of his actions or understood
what he did wrong. This lead to a malfunctioning Board, and in order to fix
the situation I suggested James’ removal.

I voted for James’ removal from the Board because of his perceived
reluctance to cooperate with the formal investigation, his withholding of
information when asked for, his secrecy towards other Board members, even
once the conspiracy was lifted, and him never convincingly taking
responsibility for and ownership of his actions and mistakes. This is why I
get triggered if he positions himself as an avatar of transparency. The
whole topic of the Knowledge Engine - although it played a part in the
events that lead to the November meeting - did not, for me, in any way
influence the vote on James’ removal. It was solely his conduct during and
following the November meeting.

I am glad to see that, since James’ removal until I left, the Board has
been functioning better.

I hope that this account helps a little bit towards renewing our culture of
transparency, but even more I hope for understanding. The Board consists of
volunteers and of humans - they cannot react in real-time to events, as the
Board was never set up to do so. Trustees - myself included - made
mistakes. By opening up about them, I hope that we can facilitate a faster
and more complete healing process, and also have this knowledge and
experience available for future Board members and the community.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

2015-12-11 Thread Denny Vrandečić
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 4:18 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> According to Denny, Wikidata, under its CC0 licence, must not import data
> from Share-Alike sources. He reconfirmed this yesterday when I asked him
> whether he still stood by that.
>
> In practice though we have Wikidata importing massive amounts of data from
> Wikipedia, which was a Share-Alike source last time I looked. Isn't
> Wikidata then infringing Wikipedia contributors' rights?
>
> Why is it okay to import data from the CC BY-SA Wikipedia, but not from
> European CC BY-SA population statistics?
>
>
Andreas, what I said was that Wikidata must not import data from a data
source licensed under Share-Alike date source.

The important thing that differentiates what I said from what you think I
said is "import data from a data source". Wikipedia is not a data source,
but text. Extracting facts or data from a text is a very different thing
than taking data from one place and put it in another place. There was no
database that contains the content of Wikipedia and that can be queried.
Indeed, that is the whole reason why Wikidata has been started in the first
place.

In fact, extracting facts or data from one text and then writing a
Wikipedia article is what Wikipedians do all the time, and the license of
the original text we read has no effect on the license of the output text.

So, there is no such thing as an import of data from Wikipedia, because
Wikipedia is not a database.

I have repeatedly pointed you to
   http://simia.net/wiki/Free_data
and you yourself have repeatedly pointed to
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights
so I would assume that you would have by now read these and developed an
understanding of these issues. I am not a lawyer, and my understanding of
these issues is also lacking, but I wanted at least to point out that you
are misquoting me.

Please, would you mind to correct your misquoting of me in the places where
you did so, or at least point to this email for further context?
___
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, 


[Wikimedia-l] On toxic communities

2015-11-13 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Very interesting read (via Brandon Harris):

http://recode.net/2015/07/07/doing-something-about-the-impossible-problem-of-abuse-in-online-games/

"the vast majority of negative behavior ... did not originate from the
persistently negative online citizens; in fact, 87 percent of online
toxicity came from the neutral and positive citizens just having a bad day
here or there."

"... incidences of homophobia, sexism and racism ... have fallen to a
combined 2 percent of all games. Verbal abuse has dropped by more than 40
percent, and 91.6 percent of negative players change their act and never
commit another offense after just one reported penalty."

I have plenty of ideas how to apply this to Wikipedia, but I am sure Dario
and his team as well :) - and some opportunity for the communities to use
such results.

Cheers,
Denny
___
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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] GA Stats using Wikimedia Stats

2015-08-21 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Wikidata should know whether an article has a badge or not (see here:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1156 )


On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:14 AM Tito Dutta trulyt...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thanks a lot. It was very helpful
 No, most of these Wikipedias don't have such categories. I'll check
 further.
 Regards.

 On 19 August 2015 at 16:40, Erik Zachte ezac...@wikimedia.org wrote:

  Hi Tito,
 
  Wikistats can collect pageviews for a certain category and its
  subcategories.
 
  In English Wikipedia I just ran the script for categories
  WikiProject_Featured_articles and WikiProject_Good_articles
 
  Featured articles, 1 pageviews 2 categories included
  1
 
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/pageviews/categorized/wp-en/2015-06/pageviews_wp-en_cat_WikiProject_Featured_articles_2015-06.html
  2
 
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/pageviews/categorized/wp-en/2015-06/categories_wp-en_cat_WikiProject_Featured_articles_2015-06.html
 
  Good articles, 1 pageviews 2 categories included
  1
 
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/pageviews/categorized/wp-en/2015-06/pageviews_wp-en_cat_WikiProject_Good_articles_2015-06.html
  2
 
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/pageviews/categorized/wp-en/2015-06/categories_wp-en_cat_WikiProject_Good_articles_2015-06.html
 
  I you have similar categories for the Indian languages I can try to parse
  those  as well
  (I say 'try' as I vaguely remember an open bug with non western letters
 in
  category name not being parsed well, I might need to look into that)
 
  Cheers,
  Erik
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
  wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Asaf Bartov
  Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 4:39
  To: Wikimedia Mailing List
  Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] GA Stats using Wikimedia Stats
 
  No.  That site does not provide that data.
 
 A.
 
  On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Tito Dutta trulyt...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   Hello,
   Is there any way to find Good article stats/details (of mainly Indian
   Language Wikis) using http://stats.wikimedia.org/?
   ___
   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
 
 
 
 
  --
  Asaf Bartov
  Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
 
  Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
  sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
  https://donate.wikimedia.org
  ___
  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
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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] While Election committee counts the votes...

2015-05-31 Thread Denny Vrandečić
25% turnout is amazing!! Thank you, and congratulations to WM UA,
particularly given the political situation at home.

I also collected a few thoughts about the elections here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Denny/Thoughts_Board_Election_2015

Thanks to the Election Committee and everyone else out there getting the
word out, fellow voters, and fellow candidates!



On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 5:34 PM James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org
wrote:

 On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 3:20 PM, James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org
 
 wrote:

  Ukraine has done great this year! Your work clearly paid off, currently
  11.74% of the eligible users on ukWiki have voted (making it one of the
  highest % wikis, and the highest if you only count medium/large wikis
 some
  of the smaller ones get an advantage when % is factored in). It also
  accounts for 2.58% of the total votes compared to less then 1% (.99%) of
  the whole electorate.
 
 
 Mea Culpa: For the record I was double counting many of the eligible voters
 here (we had an old voter list that was also being counted). The correct
 numbers for ukWiki would be just over 25% of eligible voters voting and
 2.61% of the total votes (still .99% of the electorate).

 We will certainly be releasing more detailed results for projects with
 results and in the post mortem.

 James Alexander
 Community Advocacy
 Wikimedia Foundation
 (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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] A transition and a new chapter.

2015-04-14 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Erik,

thank you! Thank you for so many, many things. Even though we did not
always agree in all details, I was always very happy to know to have
someone who believes in the same ideals and who is effective in promoting
actions towards common goals.

WMF will be a different place without you.

Again, thank you for your service to our vision,
Denny



On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 3:30 AM Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 3:10 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  Every so often when we talk, you will surprise me by telling me about
  one more thing in the Wikimedia universe that you thought of or
  created or were involved in over the past many years that I didn't
  realize you had a role in. It seems the list is never-ending.
 

 /me looks at the MediaWiki logo [1], thinking that perhaps *now* really
 starts to be the time to update it...  ;)

  I’m very interested in the technical challenges of federated
 collaboration

 See you in the Federation, then (pun intended, but below two layers of joke
 I'm serious). Something tells me that it will be very difficult for you to
 stop contributing to Wikimedia in innovative ways. When you joined, the
 innovative way of contributing was from the inside. Chances are that
 nowadays the innovative collaboration will come increasingly from the
 outside, through APIs and, er, federated collaboration. Let's have a
 conversation with beer, or vice versa.

 But what I'm really really curious about is what Erik Möller will do when
 he recovers his individual freedom, not having to act and speak on behalf
 of hundred employees and 'the movement'. Ten years is a lot of time [2],
 but then again not so much. Thank you, good luck, and please send a URL to
 subscribe to or watch.

 [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MediaWiki_logo.png
 [2] http://www.infoanarchy.org/en/User:Erik (shared with tremendous
 respect
 and a smile)
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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] Q on the 2013 elections re voter breakdown

2015-04-07 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Thanks, Katie, James,

yes, the list on vote.wikimedia.org was quite useful for a first check.
What I was looking for was exactly such a list, but annotated with which
requirements they fulfilled, but as James says, it can be surmised mostly.

I was curious whether staff and contractors of the Foundation or the
MediaWiki developers had a particularly large impact on the results,
especially considering that the number of voters have declined so much last
time, but looking through that list it does not seem like that.

Thank you for the help,
Denny


On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 5:25 PM James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org
wrote:

 Aye, as Katie said we do not keep track of who voted under what
 requirements (and many of them are, indeed, eligible under multiple
 requirements). You can see a list at
 https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/290 and probably
 surmise some of it from there but once they voted, if they were eligible,
 they went into one giant bucket.

 James Alexander
 Community Advocacy
 Wikimedia Foundation
 (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

 On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:

  On 06/04/2015 18:14, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
   Hi,
  
   regarding the Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013, I was trying to
 find a
   breakdown of the voters, i.e. how many voted based on which
 requirements,
   i.e. as editors, developers, staff and contractors, and board members,
  but
   I could not find anything.
  
   I would appreciate a pointer to that data.
 
  As far as I can remember, that's not something that's collected. A list
  of eligible voters are created and fed to the software, which either let
  or don't let someone vote. All votes are recorded the same regardless of
  how someone is qualified to vote, which may of course be via more than
  one way.
 
  Katie
 
 
  --
  Katie Chan
  Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the
  author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the
  author is associated with or employed by.
 
 
  Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
  - Heinrich Heine
 
  ---
  This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
  http://www.avast.com
 
 
  ___
  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
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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

[Wikimedia-l] Q on the 2013 elections re voter breakdown

2015-04-06 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Hi,

regarding the Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013, I was trying to find a
breakdown of the voters, i.e. how many voted based on which requirements,
i.e. as editors, developers, staff and contractors, and board members, but
I could not find anything.

I would appreciate a pointer to that data.

Cheers,
Denny
___
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] Fwd: [Wikidata-l] Birthday gift: Missing Wikipedia links (was Re: Wikidata turns two!)

2014-10-29 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Forwarding to Wikimedia-l to five context to James' reply. Sorry for
cross-posting.

-- Forwarded message -
From: Denny Vrandečić vrande...@google.com
Date: Wed Oct 29 2014 at 10:56:48 AM
Subject: [Wikidata-l] Birthday gift: Missing Wikipedia links (was Re:
Wikidata turns two!)
To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project. 
wikidat...@lists.wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Mailing List 
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org


Folks,

as you know, many Googlers are huge fans of Wikipedia. So here’s a little
gift for Wikidata’s second birthday.

Some of my smart colleagues at Google have run a few heuristics and
algorithms in order to discover Wikipedia articles in different languages
about the same topic which are missing language links between the articles.
The results contain more than 35,000 missing links with a high confidence
according to these algorithms. We estimate a precision of about 92+% (i.e.
we assume that less than 8% of those are wrong, based on our evaluation).
The dataset covers 60 Wikipedia language editions.

Here are the missing links, available for download from the WMF labs
servers:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/yichengtry/merge_candidate.20141028.csv

The data is published under CC-0.

What can you do with the data? Since it is CC-0, you can do anything you
want, obviously, but here are a few suggestions:

There’s a small tool on WMF labs that you can use to verify the links (it
displays the articles side by side from a language pair you select, and
then you can confirm or contradict the merge):

https://tools.wmflabs.org/yichengtry

The tool does not do the change in Wikidata itself, though (we thought it
would be too invasive if we did that). Instead, the results of the human
evaluation are saved on WMF labs. You are welcome to take the tool and
extend it with the possibility to upload the change directly on Wikidata,
if you so wish, or, once the data is verified, to upload the results.

Also, Magnus Manske is already busy uploading the data to the Wikidata
game, so you can very soon also play the merge game on the data directly.
He is also creating the missing items on Wikidata. Thanks Magnus for a very
pleasant cooperation!

I want to call out to my colleagues at Google who created the dataset -
Jiang Bian and Si Li - and to Yicheng Huang, the intern who developed the
tool on labs.

I hope that this small data release can help a little with further
improving the quality of Wikidata and Wikipedia! Thank you all, you are
awesome!

Cheers,
Denny



On Wed Oct 29 2014 at 10:52:05 AM Lydia Pintscher 
lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de wrote:

Hey folks :)

Today Wikidata is turning two. It amazes me what we've achieved in
just 2 years. We've built an incredible project that is set out to
change the world. Thank you everyone who has been a part of this so
far.
We've put together some notes and opinions. And there are presents as
well! Check them out and leave your birthday wishes:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Second_Birthday


Cheers
Lydia

--
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Product Manager for Wikidata

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.

Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
wikidat...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
wikidat...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
___
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] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?

2013-08-27 Thread Denny Vrandečić
If customers would be signing up for access to the net, and if the ISP
would charge differently whether they access Wikipedia or whether they
access Facebook, yes, that would be a violation of net neutrality.

But in this case we are not talking about providing access to the net. We
are talking about providing access to Wikipedia. That's like saying
printing out an article of Wikipedia and giving it to a student is a
violation of net neutrality because we didn't print out the rest of the Web
and gave it to them too.

I still think the question does Wikipedia zero violate net neutrality is
simply a categorical error (i.e. it errs in the sense that the categories
in the question do not match), and nothing I have seen convinced me
otherwise so far.

P.S., and just a sidenote: Britannica did not loose most of its reach due
to Wikipedia, but most of its business crumbled due to Encarta and cheap
CD-ROM based encyclopedias. When Wikipedia appeared in 2001, Encyclopedias
were already in a dismal state.




2013/8/27 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com

 On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM, George Herbert
 george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
 snip
  Again: with Wikipedia, we do not have particular mutually beneficial
  relationships which this would be encouraging, and the service provider
  isn't really in a position to damage a Wikipedia competitor by doing
 this,
  as far as I can see.
 
 snip
 
  If you can explain a manner in which the underlying monopoly / advantage
  issue IS a problem here, please point it out.  If there is one that I do
  not see then that forms a valid reason to reconsider.

 I'm willing to play devil's advocate here.  Personally, I don't see
 Wikipedia Zero as bad or a serious threat to net neutrality, but I can
 certainly understand the argument that free access to Wikipedia might
 disadvantage other content providers and discourage people from paying
 for mobile internet.

 To give a timely (if rather American) example, the Video Music Awards
 were last night.  If I wanted to know what happened, I could visit the
 VMA site, or many news sites, or Wikipedia which was updated in near
 real time.  In the framework of Wikipedia Zero, getting the info from
 Wikipedia is free which would rationally discourage traffic to other
 news sites or VMA's own site.

 The same argument can be made for other reference websites (e.g.
 About.com, Encyclopedia Britannica Online).  If they cost money to
 visit and we don't, then they are at a disadvantage when it comes to
 getting traffic.

 Free information is incredibly powerful, and I think we all agree that
 it is generally a Good Thing.  This is doubly true in many of the poor
 nations where Wikipedia Zero partnerships have been formed, as poverty
 can make data charges seem prohibitive.  However, the presence of free
 information is also disruptive to for-profit information providers.
 For example, we all know how the internet has impacted newspaper
 sales, or how the internet (and sites like Wikipedia) ultimately led
 Encyclopedia Britannica to close their print operation.  Free
 information is powerful, and sometimes that power will disrupt or
 destroy for-profit information providers.

 Consider for a moment, how the story might sound if we changed the
 names a bit.  Suppose National Monopoly Telecom partnered with Google
 to bring Maps and News to poor people with no data charges?  Is that
 just as good?  What if they had ads on the pages which were presented
 without data charges?  What if it were Microsoft instead of Google?
 Etc.  The end users get a free service, and presumably that service is
 useful, and quite possibly most users will be glad they have it.
 Still, it is true that Wikipedia Zero and similar programs do cause
 some content to have a privileged place in the marketplace over other
 content, and that will drive traffic to the free option and reduce
 traffic to competitors.  Depending on your point of view, maybe that's
 not a big deal, but if you are a hardcore advocate of net neutrality
 then one might well argue that ISPs should treat all content equally
 and not have different rates for equivalent amounts of data coming
 from different sources.  It is well-formed criticism of the Wikipedia
 Zero project.  Personally, I don't think the principle of net
 neutrality should be so rigidly adhered to as to discourage the broad
 dissemination of knowledge among people who have historically lacked
 access to it, but I suppose some people might disagree.

 -Robert Rohde

 ___
 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




-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?

2013-08-26 Thread Denny Vrandečić
There is a crucial difference: Wikipedia Zero is not a general way to
provide access to the Internet for free, it provides access to parts of
Wikipedia for free through partnering carriers. Wikipedia Zero is not in
violation of net neutrality in the first place, as Wikipedia Zero is not an
internet service provider and thus it cannot violate net neutrality.

I cannot see how Wikipedia Zero can violate any net neutrality laws in any
countries, as they simply do not apply in this case.

Having said that, I wonder what even the motivation is in trying to suggest
to close programs that provide easier and affordable access to the contents
of Wikimedia sites to a wider population.

The usual disclaimers apply, IANAL, etc.

Cheers,
Denny




2013/8/25 rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com

 hi,

 most people know some advantage of wikipedia zero and everybody can
 look up the advantages by just typing wikipedia zero into some search
 engine. as i am not sure about the answer and anyway get asked in rare
 cases what i think of wp:zero i guess it should be best answered on
 the mailing list:

 is wikipedia zero illegal in some countries because it violates net
 neutrality? and if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
 netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
 countries where the law is less developed? or should wikimedia
 foundation apply a higher moral standard and just abstain from any
 activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere?

 just for the ones not so sure about net neutrality [1]:
 Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on
 the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by
 user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached
 equipment, and modes of communication.

 [1]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

 rupert.

 ___
 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




-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.
___
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] A proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia

2013-08-23 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Using a rather simple pair like Afrikaans - Dutch or a heavily researched
one like English - Spanish would be giving us a wrong impression of how
this will scale. We should at least add a few random pairs like Yoruba -
Gujarati or Kazakh - Lombard. Most of our 67,000 language pairs that we
will have to cover will fall in the latter group, not in the first two.


2013/8/23 David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com

 On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:

 
   As with so many things, it will be hard to assess cost/benefits without
   making some effort. A safe bet could be to try with an existing pair or
   develop a pair with an estimated high demand.
 
  Is there a pair where some work has already been done?
 

 For Apertium there are quite a few already done:
 http://wiki.apertium.org/wiki/Main_Page

 Regarding new language pairs, no idea if the priorities for Wikipedia would
 be the same as the priorities the Apertium community has.
 It might be worth considering which languages to prioritize and how to
 measure success or lack thereof.

 Cheers,
 Micru
 ___
 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




-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.
___
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] [Wikidata-l] Meeting about the support of Wiktionary in Wikidata

2013-08-10 Thread Denny Vrandečić
[Sorry for cross-posting]

Yes, I agree that the OmegaWiki community should be involved in the
discussions, and I pointed GerardM to our proposals whenever and
discussions, using him as a liaison. We also looked and keep looking at the
OmegaWiki data model to see what we are missing.

Our latest proposal is different from OmegaWiki in two major points:

* our primary goal is to provide support for structured data in the
Wiktionaries. We do not plan to be the main resource ourselves, where
readers come to in order to look up something, we merely provide structured
data that a Wiktionary may or may not use. This parallels the role of
Wikidata has with regards to Wikipedia. This also highlights the difference
between Wikidata and OmegaWiki, since OmegaWiki's goal is to create a
dictionary of all words of all languages, including lexical, terminological
and ontological information.

* a smaller difference is the data model. Wikidata's latest proposal to
support Wiktionary is centered around lexemes, and we do not assume that
there is such a things as a language-independent defined meaning. But no
matter what model we end up with, it is important to ensure that the bulk
of the data could freely flow between the projects, and even though we
might disagree on this issue in the modeling, it is ensured that the
exchange of data is widely possible.

We tried to keep notes on the discussion we had today: 
http://epl.wikimedia.org/p/WiktionaryAndWikidata

My major take home message for me is that:
* the proposal needs more visual elements, especially a mock-up or sketch
of how it would look like and how it could be used on the Wiktionaries
* there is no generally accepted place for a discussion that involves all
Wiktionary projects. Still, my initial decision to have the discussion on
the Wikidata wiki was not a good one, and it should and will be moved to
Meta.

Having said that, the current proposal for the data model of how to support
Wiktionary with Wikidata seems to have garnered a lot of support so far. So
this is what I will continue building upon. Further comments are extremely
welcomed. You can find it here:

http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary

As said, it will be moved to Meta, as soon as the requested mockups and
extensions are done.

Cheers,
Denny





2013/8/10 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com

 Hello,

  On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com wrote:
  I agree. We also need to include the Omegawiki community.

 Agreed.

 On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote:
  Why? The question of moving them into the WMF fold was pretty much no,
  because the project has an overlapping purpose with Wiktionary,

 This is not actually the case.
 There was overwhelming community support for adopting Omegawiki - at
 least simply providing hosting.  It stalled because the code needed a
 security and style review, and Kip (the lead developer) was going to
 put some time into that.  The OW editors and dev were very interested
 in finding a way forward that involved Wikidata and led to a combined
 project with a single repository of terms, meanings, definitions and
 translations.

 Recap: The page describing the OmegaWiki project satisfies all of the
 criteria for requesting WMF adoption.
 * It is well-defined on Meta http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Omegawiki
 * It describes an interesting idea clearly aligned with expanding the
 scope of free knowledge
 * It is not a 'competing' project to Wiktionaries; it is an idea that
 grew out of the Wiktionary community, has been developed for years
 alongside it, and shares many active contributors and linguiaphiles.
 * It started an RfC which garnered 85% support for adoption.
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki

 Even if the current OW code is not used at all for a future Wiktionary
 update -- and this idea was proposed and taken seriously by the OW
 devs -- their community of contributors should be part of discussions
 about how to solve the Wiktionary problem that they were the first to
 dedicate themselves to.

 Regards,
 Sam.

 ___
 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




-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata-l] Meeting about the support of Wiktionary in Wikidata

2013-08-09 Thread Denny Vrandečić
We are keeping notes on Etherpad
http://epl.wikimedia.org/p/WiktionaryAndWikidata

If connectivity allows, you can also try to connect via Hangout or Skype or
IRC. Ping aude or me on #wikimedia-wikidata on IRC.

Cheers,
Denny




2013/8/10 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com

 Hello,

  On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com wrote:
  I agree. We also need to include the Omegawiki community.

 Agreed.

 On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote:
  Why? The question of moving them into the WMF fold was pretty much no,
  because the project has an overlapping purpose with Wiktionary,

 This is not actually the case.
 There was overwhelming community support for adopting Omegawiki - at
 least simply providing hosting.  It stalled because the code needed a
 security and style review, and Kip (the lead developer) was going to
 put some time into that.  The OW editors and dev were very interested
 in finding a way forward that involved Wikidata and led to a combined
 project with a single repository of terms, meanings, definitions and
 translations.

 Recap: The page describing the OmegaWiki project satisfies all of the
 criteria for requesting WMF adoption.
 * It is well-defined on Meta http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Omegawiki
 * It describes an interesting idea clearly aligned with expanding the
 scope of free knowledge
 * It is not a 'competing' project to Wiktionaries; it is an idea that
 grew out of the Wiktionary community, has been developed for years
 alongside it, and shares many active contributors and linguiaphiles.
 * It started an RfC which garnered 85% support for adoption.
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki

 Even if the current OW code is not used at all for a future Wiktionary
 update -- and this idea was proposed and taken seriously by the OW
 devs -- their community of contributors should be part of discussions
 about how to solve the Wiktionary problem that they were the first to
 dedicate themselves to.

 Regards,
 Sam.

 ___
 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




-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.
___
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] A proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia

2013-08-07 Thread Denny Vrandečić
I thought so myself, but then I did a bit of research to figure out the
state of natural language generation. I could not find easily a current
state of the art, but I found this list of examples on the KPML website
that is linked from the proposal, they are from 1998:


http://www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/anglistik/langpro/kpml/genbank/R3b12-English/Docu/ENGLISH-reuters-mismatches-19981209/index.html


http://www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/anglistik/langpro/kpml/genbank/R3b12-English/Docu/ENGLISH-nigel-exerciseset-mismatches-19981209/index.html


There are examples like:
Analysts say that the private position is far more sensible, because it
leads to much needed capital for European computer and semiconductor
companies, while giving them a toehold in the lucrative Japanese domestic
market.

Because of its importance, any reaction of the sixty people whose
televisions are attached to the system is monitored closely.

Since they managed it 15 years ago, I believe we can do it too. At least
try and fail.
Even if the complexity of our sentences does not raise that high, it seems
to me that there is plenty of content that would be beneficial to make
available.

Cheers,
Denny





2013/8/7 Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada emi...@gmail.com

 This may work very fine for little stubs about repetitive stuff, like the
 introductions of cities (location, population, foundation date, country,
 etc). But, how will that work for the rest of sections of Berlin (history,
 geography, politics...)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin


 2013/8/7 Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de

  I have been thinking about this for a while, and now finally managed to
  write it down as a proposal. Details are on meta on the following link,
  below is the intro to the proposal:
 
  
 
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia
  
 
  I tried to anticipate some possible questions and provide answers on the
  page. Besides that, I obviously hope that Wikimania could provide a place
  to start this conversation. And yes, I am aware that the proposal would
  lead to a very restrictive solution, but imagine what good it already
 could
  achieve! And since it is not meant to replace anything, but enrich our
  current projects... well, read for yourself.
 
  Cheers,
  Denny
 
 
  Wikipedia provides knowledge in more than 200 languages. Whereas a small
  number of languages are fortunate enough to have a large Wikipedia, many
 of
  the language editions are far away from providing a comprehensive
  encyclopedia by any measure. There are several approaches towards closing
  this gap, mostly focusing on increasing the number of contributors to the
  small language editions or to improve the provision of automatic or
  semi-automatic translations of articles. Both are viable. In the
 following
  we present a proposal for a different approach, which is based on the
 idea
  of multilingual Wikipedia.
 
  Imagine a small extension to the template system, where a template call
  like *{{F12}}* would not be expanded by a call to the template
  Template:F12, but rather to Template:F12/en, i.e. the template name with
  the selected language code of the reader of the page. A template call
 such
  as *{{F12:Q64|Q5519|Q183}}* can be expanded by Template:F12/en into
  *“Berlin
  is the capital of Germany.”* and by Template:F12/de into *“Berlin ist die
  Hauptstadt Deutschlands.”* (in the example, the template parameters
 Q5119,
  Q64 and Q183 refer to the Wikidata items for capital, Berlin and Germany
  respectively, which the templates query for the label in the respective
  language). Sentence by sentence could be created in order to provide for
 a
  simple article.
 
  That wiki would consist of *content*, i.e. the article pages, possibly
 just
  a simple series of template calls, and *frames*, i.e. the templates that
  lexicalize the parameters of a given template call into a sentence (Note
  that “sentence” here should not be considered literally. It could be a
  table, an image, anything). The implementation of the frames can be done
 in
  normal wiki template syntax, in Lua, in a novel mechanism, or a mix of
  these. This would be up to the communities creating them.
 
  Read the rest here:
  
 
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia
  
 
  --
  Project director Wikidata
  Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
  Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.
  ___
  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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia

2013-08-07 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Thank you, Anders. Yes, I published the idea in order to garner feedback
and further evolve it. It is by no means ready-perfect-finished, it is
rather really just a first draft. So suggestions, constructive critique,
and improvements are obviously extremely welcome. --


2013/8/7 Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se

 Thanks for sharing your very interesting ideas. While I am not fully
 support your idea of implementation, I share your basic view of the need
 and think some of the concepts you introduce has a very high potential to
 better utilize the power of us having many versions.

 I have put in my feedback on the talkpage and hope there will be a
 possibility to evolve this concept further in some type of workgroup. I
 also see an interesting relation to the talk of machine translation where I
 believe we can do a lot very quickly if we limit the vocabulary to be
 included in such a tool

 Anders


 Denny Vrandečić skrev 2013-08-07 02:20:

 I have been thinking about this for a while, and now finally managed to
 write it down as a proposal. Details are on meta on the following link,
 below is the intro to the proposal:

 http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_**
 multilingual_Wikipediahttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia
 

 I tried to anticipate some possible questions and provide answers on the
 page. Besides that, I obviously hope that Wikimania could provide a place
 to start this conversation. And yes, I am aware that the proposal would
 lead to a very restrictive solution, but imagine what good it already
 could
 achieve! And since it is not meant to replace anything, but enrich our
 current projects... well, read for yourself.

 Cheers,
 Denny


 Wikipedia provides knowledge in more than 200 languages. Whereas a small
 number of languages are fortunate enough to have a large Wikipedia, many
 of
 the language editions are far away from providing a comprehensive
 encyclopedia by any measure. There are several approaches towards closing
 this gap, mostly focusing on increasing the number of contributors to the
 small language editions or to improve the provision of automatic or
 semi-automatic translations of articles. Both are viable. In the following
 we present a proposal for a different approach, which is based on the idea
 of multilingual Wikipedia.

 Imagine a small extension to the template system, where a template call
 like *{{F12}}* would not be expanded by a call to the template

 Template:F12, but rather to Template:F12/en, i.e. the template name with
 the selected language code of the reader of the page. A template call such
 as *{{F12:Q64|Q5519|Q183}}* can be expanded by Template:F12/en into
 *“Berlin
 is the capital of Germany.”* and by Template:F12/de into *“Berlin ist die
 Hauptstadt Deutschlands.”* (in the example, the template parameters Q5119,

 Q64 and Q183 refer to the Wikidata items for capital, Berlin and Germany
 respectively, which the templates query for the label in the respective
 language). Sentence by sentence could be created in order to provide for a
 simple article.

 That wiki would consist of *content*, i.e. the article pages, possibly
 just
 a simple series of template calls, and *frames*, i.e. the templates that

 lexicalize the parameters of a given template call into a sentence (Note
 that “sentence” here should not be considered literally. It could be a
 table, an image, anything). The implementation of the frames can be done
 in
 normal wiki template syntax, in Lua, in a novel mechanism, or a mix of
 these. This would be up to the communities creating them.

 Read the rest here:
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_**
 multilingual_Wikipediahttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia
 



 __**_
 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




-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.
___
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] A proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia

2013-08-07 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Obviously, this system should be only used as far as it carries. I don't
know how far it might carry us - it might fail miserably, and not get
beyond the Rome is a city. Rome is in Italy. Rome is known for The
Colosseum, coffee and Vatican City (state). stage. It might lead to a
glorious future, where we really create an open source system that allows
everyone to write in every language and express a wide range of human
thought.

I am personally hesitant about automatic translations, and whether we can
achieve the coverage (in language pairs) and the quality (of Wikipedia).
But that is only my opinion. A hybrid approach, if we can support it and
build it, would obviously be the safest bet, as both endeavors are rather
risky. I see a lot of possible space for a hybrid system, as you describe
it.

One advantage of my proposal is that it's cost is rather small. For
supporting translation I haven't seen yet a sufficiently sketched proposal
that allows to estimate the potential cost and potential benefit.

Cheers,
Denny






2013/8/7 Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada emi...@gmail.com

 Most times the best approach is a compilation of several approaches.

 Perhaps we can use the Denny system for the little introduction of articles
 (for example: geography, biographies) and optional automatic translation
 for the rest of the article.

 I mean, if you follow a red link in a little Wikipedia, it loads the i18n
 template + wikidata bits, so you have a brief summary about the topic. Then
 you can save that live generated stub, and expand it (using
 autotraslation from other WIkipedia).


 2013/8/7 Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se

  Thanks for sharing your very interesting ideas. While I am not fully
  support your idea of implementation, I share your basic view of the need
  and think some of the concepts you introduce has a very high potential to
  better utilize the power of us having many versions.
 
  I have put in my feedback on the talkpage and hope there will be a
  possibility to evolve this concept further in some type of workgroup. I
  also see an interesting relation to the talk of machine translation
 where I
  believe we can do a lot very quickly if we limit the vocabulary to be
  included in such a tool
 
  Anders
 
 
  Denny Vrandečić skrev 2013-08-07 02:20:
 
   I have been thinking about this for a while, and now finally managed to
  write it down as a proposal. Details are on meta on the following link,
  below is the intro to the proposal:
 
  http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_**
  multilingual_Wikipedia
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia
 
  
 
  I tried to anticipate some possible questions and provide answers on the
  page. Besides that, I obviously hope that Wikimania could provide a
 place
  to start this conversation. And yes, I am aware that the proposal would
  lead to a very restrictive solution, but imagine what good it already
  could
  achieve! And since it is not meant to replace anything, but enrich our
  current projects... well, read for yourself.
 
  Cheers,
  Denny
 
 
  Wikipedia provides knowledge in more than 200 languages. Whereas a small
  number of languages are fortunate enough to have a large Wikipedia, many
  of
  the language editions are far away from providing a comprehensive
  encyclopedia by any measure. There are several approaches towards
 closing
  this gap, mostly focusing on increasing the number of contributors to
 the
  small language editions or to improve the provision of automatic or
  semi-automatic translations of articles. Both are viable. In the
 following
  we present a proposal for a different approach, which is based on the
 idea
  of multilingual Wikipedia.
 
  Imagine a small extension to the template system, where a template call
  like *{{F12}}* would not be expanded by a call to the template
  Template:F12, but rather to Template:F12/en, i.e. the template name with
  the selected language code of the reader of the page. A template call
 such
  as *{{F12:Q64|Q5519|Q183}}* can be expanded by Template:F12/en into
  *“Berlin
  is the capital of Germany.”* and by Template:F12/de into *“Berlin ist
 die
  Hauptstadt Deutschlands.”* (in the example, the template parameters
 Q5119,
  Q64 and Q183 refer to the Wikidata items for capital, Berlin and Germany
  respectively, which the templates query for the label in the respective
  language). Sentence by sentence could be created in order to provide
 for a
  simple article.
 
  That wiki would consist of *content*, i.e. the article pages, possibly
  just
  a simple series of template calls, and *frames*, i.e. the templates that
  lexicalize the parameters of a given template call into a sentence (Note
  that “sentence” here should not be considered literally. It could be a
  table, an image, anything). The implementation of the frames can be done
  in
  normal wiki template syntax, in Lua, in a novel mechanism, or a mix

[Wikimedia-l] A proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia

2013-08-06 Thread Denny Vrandečić
I have been thinking about this for a while, and now finally managed to
write it down as a proposal. Details are on meta on the following link,
below is the intro to the proposal:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia

I tried to anticipate some possible questions and provide answers on the
page. Besides that, I obviously hope that Wikimania could provide a place
to start this conversation. And yes, I am aware that the proposal would
lead to a very restrictive solution, but imagine what good it already could
achieve! And since it is not meant to replace anything, but enrich our
current projects... well, read for yourself.

Cheers,
Denny


Wikipedia provides knowledge in more than 200 languages. Whereas a small
number of languages are fortunate enough to have a large Wikipedia, many of
the language editions are far away from providing a comprehensive
encyclopedia by any measure. There are several approaches towards closing
this gap, mostly focusing on increasing the number of contributors to the
small language editions or to improve the provision of automatic or
semi-automatic translations of articles. Both are viable. In the following
we present a proposal for a different approach, which is based on the idea
of multilingual Wikipedia.

Imagine a small extension to the template system, where a template call
like *{{F12}}* would not be expanded by a call to the template
Template:F12, but rather to Template:F12/en, i.e. the template name with
the selected language code of the reader of the page. A template call such
as *{{F12:Q64|Q5519|Q183}}* can be expanded by Template:F12/en into *“Berlin
is the capital of Germany.”* and by Template:F12/de into *“Berlin ist die
Hauptstadt Deutschlands.”* (in the example, the template parameters Q5119,
Q64 and Q183 refer to the Wikidata items for capital, Berlin and Germany
respectively, which the templates query for the label in the respective
language). Sentence by sentence could be created in order to provide for a
simple article.

That wiki would consist of *content*, i.e. the article pages, possibly just
a simple series of template calls, and *frames*, i.e. the templates that
lexicalize the parameters of a given template call into a sentence (Note
that “sentence” here should not be considered literally. It could be a
table, an image, anything). The implementation of the frames can be done in
normal wiki template syntax, in Lua, in a novel mechanism, or a mix of
these. This would be up to the communities creating them.

Read the rest here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia

-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.
___
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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Rui,

if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real
encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I
would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to the
diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note, the
original Encyclopédie had an even worse bias towards aristocratic, male
French than Wikipedias does, as surprising as it sounds). So, which
Encyclopedia do you consider a real encyclopedia at all?

Also, never mind the fact that we already sport such a diversity -- we are
actively aiming and striving for even more diversity, and we are not
comparing us to the usually abysmal record of other encyclopedias, but
merely to our own high, maybe even unreachable ideals.

So, whereas I fully agree that there is a lot about Wikipedia that can be
improved, I am not sure that a mail that starts with the statement Why the
Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia deserves even the
consideration that I offered you here, and is to be considered anything
beyond trolling.

All the best,
Denny



2013/8/1 Rui Correia correia@gmail.com

 Dear Colleagues at the Foundation

 I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European ancestry.
 What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other white people
 if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
 definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already says
 on the talk page that Arabs don't count.


 When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white
 people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we
 can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say - somewhere -
 that just because  And those just because rules are all over the
 place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another similar
 case because someone is bound to throw a just because rule at you. But
 the just because ... rule applies only when it is convenient - the
 corollary of the just because .. is I know more rules and tricks than
 you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I
 have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along.

 So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in
 Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of
 Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen descent
 livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital
 divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do.
 That is not an encyclopaedia.

 Why don't we have a page on Black Americans of African ancestry?
 Or Black Europeans of African ancestry? Strangely enough, type Black
 African and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect actually
 takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
 does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil 

 Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article
 about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
 people, ...

 The same goes for the so-called Biographies of Living People. I had my
 first clash on WP on the issue of the dual nationality of Nelly Furtado.
 Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 - editors
 disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can
 be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging'
 editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
 evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is PORTUGESE
 was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
 source!!! We have become a joke!

 How about being constructive?

 If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
 nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would appear
 on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is protected -
 ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is cotroversial
 for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls
 under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct link
 ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ present
 nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three
 editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually do
 something constructive for a change.

 In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know
 (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of them
 (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us])
 would object to being featured in such a racist article.

 I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid source
 about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not count.
 Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Rui,

as others are trying to tell you in this thread, I do not consider the
manner you are raising this topic to be helpful or constructive, and I
don't think that your continued defense of your approach will help or get
us anywhere.

Whereas anecdotal war stories as the one you describe can be either
interesting or boring, it does not provide sufficient evidence to act. On
the other hand, there is a growing body of research work that is trying to
understand the topic of diversity and POV in Wikipedia. Telling me that I
am refusing to see that elephant in the room is kind of amusing,
considering that I have co-written the proposal for and have been working
on the EU-funded research project Render - Reflecting Knowledge Diversity
[1], where Wikimedia is a project partner. And there are many, many others
doing research on the topic as well. All of the things you describe --
analysis of revert-patterns, approaches towards measuring POV, etc. are
being done. Maybe you want to read the papers about this and look through
the findings.

Also, diversity is a major topic at the work at the German Wikimedia
chapter, where I am employed, and it has been a major driver in the
creation of the data model underlying Wikidata, where we are working hard
on creating a truly diversity-enabling knowledge base -- something, that is
rather unique in its scope and ambition.

So, yes, I am shooting down your message. I find it as useful as telling a
smoker to quit smoking because fire is bad, as evidenced in London 1666.
There is no need to be sensationalist and counter-factual in order to get
your point across. So, why not restart the whole thread with an Email where
you make suggestions on how to improve the situation, or provide new
evidence and data that can inform the conversation further, or where you
ask for existing research on the topic to inform yourself, or ask for
initiatives where you can help in order to increase Wikipedia's diversity,
and join us in doing something constructive?

Regards,
Denny


[1] http://www.render-project.eu





2013/8/1 Rui Correia correia@gmail.com

 Denny

 If you going to shoot me down as a troll, then I can say only that you are
 one of those that refuse to see the elephant in the room. I am a journalist
 (and a journalism trainer), I know that if I want others to read what I
 have to say I need to come up a headline that will attract attention, while
 at the same time abiding by age-old ethic standards - and I have done so.

 Who controls what is said has become a big problem on the English and to a
 degree the Portuguese WPs. Be fair to yourself, step back and just look at
 some articles to see how many times a day they get reverted. The rot has
 become endemic - there are so many people who do nothing but revert the
 whole day without EVER contributing anything. Yes, I know that a lot of the
 reverting is to undo the work of vandals with nothing better to do, but
 most of it is done to preserve the view thae a specific article has
 'acquired' through time.

 Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are
 'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely right,
 but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come
 across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just as
 it is?

 Rui

 On 1 August 2013 22:40, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de
 wrote:

  Rui,
 
  if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real
  encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I
  would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to
 the
  diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note,
 the
  original Encyclopédie had an even worse bias towards aristocratic, male
  French than Wikipedias does, as surprising as it sounds). So, which
  Encyclopedia do you consider a real encyclopedia at all?
 
  Also, never mind the fact that we already sport such a diversity -- we
 are
  actively aiming and striving for even more diversity, and we are not
  comparing us to the usually abysmal record of other encyclopedias, but
  merely to our own high, maybe even unreachable ideals.
 
  So, whereas I fully agree that there is a lot about Wikipedia that can be
  improved, I am not sure that a mail that starts with the statement Why
 the
  Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia deserves even the
  consideration that I offered you here, and is to be considered anything
  beyond trolling.
 
  All the best,
  Denny
 
 
 
  2013/8/1 Rui Correia correia@gmail.com
 
   Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
  
   I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European
  ancestry.
   What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other white
  people
   if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
   definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already
  says
   on the talk page that Arabs don't

Re: [Wikimedia-l] article bytes more meaningful than users or revisions (was Re: Updates on VE data analysis)

2013-07-27 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Thank you for the observation.

Is the graph http://i.imgur.com/TfaD99V.png based on actual data? Because
it looks just tad bit too linear to me. (I do not disagree with the
finding, just wondering about the graph itself).

I still would worry, though: our content is increasing linearly, as you
say, but the number of active contributors is not. If we take for granted
that active contributors are the ones who provide quality control for the
articles, this means that since 2006 or so the ratio of content per
contributor is linearly declining, which would mean that our quality would
suffer.

I see two effects to counter that:

1) as you already mentioned, contributors are getting increasingly more
experienced and more effective in fulfilling their tasks.

2) we continue to have a strong increase in readers and even stronger in
pageviews (i.e. more and more people consult Wikipedia more and more). They
probably also provide a layer of quality assurance, even though they might
not qualify to be counted as active contributors.

I have the gut feeling that 1) cannot be sufficient, and I would be curious
in the effects of 2) - especially considering that much of the Foundation
development work can be considered in improving 2 further (visual editor,
article rating, mobile editing, etc.)





2013/7/27 James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com

 MZMcBride wrote:
 ... the number of non-deleted revisions per day for the
  English Wikipedia. The results are here:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/565971356

 So, that looks terrible: http://i.imgur.com/Z9lYCWj.png

 It looks terrible in the same way that every other graph of active
 users and several other related measures look like.

 But it isn't. It doesn't account for the power law of practice which
 causes everyone who has ever edited Wikipedia to get better at it with
 time. And since so many IP editors are obviously returning, that means
 a lot more than under the false but very common assumption that every
 IP editor is new.

 Here's what really matters, articlespace size:
 http://i.imgur.com/TfaD99V.png

 The size of the article text in bytes has been marching on linearly
 since the beginning of Wikipedia, with extremely low variation, just
 like the short popular vital articles and every other measure of
 quality content.

 There is no legitimate basis to worry about anything until the linear
 trend of the total article bytes breaks out of its 12 year linear
 trend.

 (If you multiply columns 'E' and 'I' from
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm the database size
 shows a cusp at around 2006, corresponding to the growth modes, but
 two separate linear trends fit both modes far better than any growth
 model fits the entire curve.)

 ___
 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




-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.
___
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] What community initiatives have made an impact on editor engagement?

2013-07-05 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Wait - removing the captchas lead to a decrease of reverted edits in terms
of absolute numbers? Woot? Anyone has an explanation for that?




2013/7/5 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com

 The recent community initiative with the highest impact I can think of is
 surely what Platonides and other members of the global (technical)
 community did on pt.wiki. Platonides noticed a configuration error on
 pt.wiki: CAPTCHA was required for all edits since 2008. The error was fixed
 in April. 
 https://bugzilla.wikimedia.**org/41745https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/41745
 

 Fresh stats produced by the WMF show that in May and June this produced a
 decrease of overall vandalism (or rather, of reverted edits) with a
 shocking +58 % increase of productive edits by IPs and +23 % for registered
 users. It seems pt.wiki may see the end of the decline after many years. :)
 https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/**index.php?title=Usu%C3%A1rio(**
 a):HAndrade_(WMF)/Pesquisa_**Vandalismo/Segunda_Faseoldid=**36301585https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usu%C3%A1rio(a):HAndrade_(WMF)/Pesquisa_Vandalismo/Segunda_Faseoldid=36301585
 

 Discussion is ongoing on how pt.wiki will address this growth. Part of the
 community may think that nao estamos preparados para crescer.
 https://pt.wikipedia.org/**wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Projetos/**
 Wikip%C3%A9dia/Reuni%C3%B5es/**Reuni%C3%A3o_IRC_21-06-2013https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Projetos/Wikip%C3%A9dia/Reuni%C3%B5es/Reuni%C3%A3o_IRC_21-06-2013
 

 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




-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.
___
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] Wikivoyage logo

2013-06-02 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Peter, we stand up to big bullies. As big as they get. But in this case, I
cannot see the WTO bullying us. Their terms are very reasonable in my
opinion, and I am grateful to the legal team for handling this situation
this well.

But in this case, we are talking about either changing a non-established
logo - something that has been discussed anyway before in the community, as
SJ pointed out - or risking to spend donation money on a very expensive
legal battle that, frankly, does not look very promising. And if the court
decides against us, which simply looks probable, we would need to change it
anyway.

Or, to put it differently, Peter: what other programs paid by our budget
would you curtail in order to try defending the Wikivoyage logo? Should we
cut down on development? On supporting chapters? Look at FDC and IEG, and
simply weight the projects enabled by that money against keeping the
Wikivoyage logo? Is the logo really worth that much?

Our movement fights against big bullies. Be it in the legislative branch,
where we use protest and lobbying, be it in the judicial branch, where we
defend volunteers in court, be it in the executive branch, where our
methods are cooperation and mutual support.

But I fail to see what the benefit of this particular fight would be in
reaching our mission. The costs, on the other hand, can be drastic.





2013/6/2 Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net

 So we stand up to small bullies, by not to big ones.
 Nice to know where the line is drawn when it comes to principles.
 Cheers,
 Peter

 - Original Message - From: Craig Franklin 
 cfrank...@halonetwork.net
 To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
 wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**orgwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 
 Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 5:00 PM

 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikivoyage logo


  On 2 June 2013 00:22, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

  Craig Franklin wrote:
 I'm sure that the legal team has done their homework on this and would
 not
 have made this recommendation unless they felt that the WTO had a
 credible
 argument.  Asking the Foundation to play chicken with the lawyers of a
 major international organisation over a trademark claim on a relatively
 new and easily replaced logo of ours does not offer a very good
 risk/reward ratio in my view.

 You mean has done their homework on this this time, right? The General
 Counsel position is one of the oldest in the Wikimedia Foundation and the
 Legal and Community Advocacy team certainly existed before the previous
 Wikivoyage logo contest. If this were an issue, you'd think someone
 would've said something six months ago. And, of course, there's no
 shortage of trademark, patent, or copyright trolls in the world. I've
 seen
 both logos and while they're obviously similar, I'm sure there are a
 great
 number of lawyers who could make a number of arguments as to why there's
 no real issue here. Anyone can send a cease and desist letter, right?


 The WMF Legal team are good, but they're not *that* good.  I'm sure if
 Geoff and the gang were capable of foretelling the future to see if they'd
 get issued with a cease-and-desist, they'd be spending their lottery
 winnings in the Caribbean rather than dealing with trademark issues.

 There are also at least a few Wikivoyagers who are concerned that the

 active participants of Wikivoyage weren't properly enfranchised during
 the
 last logo contest. That is, there's a concern that the people most
 involved with Wikivoyage will get drowned out by the much larger
 Wikimedia
 community in any contest of this nature.



 Obviously this is a valid concern, but that's best dealt with by making
 sure that the best process is in place for the logo competition, not by
 complaining about something that, lets face it, is not going to change.
 Obviously, for those that were unhappy with the last logo process, this is
 an opportunity to have an improved contest this time around.



 I would think some of these issues would be of concern to you. This isn't
 about asking anyone to play chicken. It's about ensuring that communities
 are free to choose their own identity.


 Well, obviously I'd be happy for them to pick whatever identity, so long
 as
 it's not infringing on a trademark.  In other words, they can't have the
 Golden Arches or Mickey Mouse ears! :-).

 More seriously though, while I suppose the WMF might conceivably be
 eventually victorious in court on this sort of issue, the expense would be
 enormous and the legal team's time is much better spent on things other
 than fighting battles over non-core principles with international
 organisations.  I also suspect that the WTO has a fair bit more cash to
 splash around on fancy lawyers to fight this than we do.  It's not a nice
 situation to be in obviously, but it's better than the Foundation having
 to
 waste its money fighting this in court.

 Cheers,
 Craig
 __**_
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The case for supporting open source machine translation

2013-04-25 Thread Denny Vrandečić
2013/4/25 Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org

 You are blowing my mind, dude. :)


Glad to do hear :)


I suspect this approach won't serve for everything, but it sounds
 *awesome*. If we can tie natural-language statements directly to data nodes
 (rather than merely annotating vague references like we do today), then
 we'd be much better able to keep language versions in sync. How to make
 them sane to edit... sounds harder. :)


Absolutely correct, it would not serve for everything. And it doesn't have
to. For an encyclopedia we should be able to get a useful amount of
frames in a decent timeframe. For song lyrics, it might take a bit longer.

It would and should start with a restricted set of possible frames, but the
trick would be to make the user extensible. Because that is where we are
good at -- users who fill and extend the frameworks we provide. I don't
know of much work where the frames and rules themselves are user editable
and extensible, but heck, they people said we are crazy when we made the
properties user editable and extensible in Semantic MediaWiki and later
Wikidata, and it seems to be working out.

A sane editing interface - both for the rules and the content, and their
interaction - would be something that would need to be explored first, just
to check whether this is indeed possible or just wishful thinking. Starting
without this kind of exploration beforehand would be a bit adventurous, or
optimistic.

Cheers,
Denny


-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] The case for supporting open source machine translation

2013-04-24 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Erik, all,

sorry for the long mail.

Incidentally, I have been thinking in this direction myself for a while,
and I have come to a number of conclusions:
1) the Wikimedia movement can not, in its current state, tackle the problem
of machine translation of arbitrary text from and to all of our supported
languages
2) the Wikimedia movement is probably the single most important source of
training data already. Research that I have done with colleagues based on
Wikimedia corpora as training data easily beat other corpora, and others
are using Wikimedia corpora routinely already. There is not much we can
improve here, actually
3) Wiktionary could be an even more amazing resource if we would finally
tackle the issue of structuring its content more appropriately. I think
Wikidata opened a few venues to structure planning in this direction and
provide some software, but this would have the potential to provide more
support for any external project than many other things we could tackle

Looking at the first statement, there are two ways we could constrain it to
make it possibly feasible:
a) constrain the number of supported languages. Whereas this would be
technically the simpler solution, I think there is agreement that this is
not in our interest at all
b) constrain the kind of input text we want to support

If we constrain b) a lot, we could just go and develop pages to display
for pages that do not exist yet based on Wikidata in the smaller
languages. That's a far cry from machine translating the articles, but it
would be a low hanging fruit. And it might help with a desire which is
evidently strongly expressed by the mass creation of articles through bots
in a growing number of languages. Even more constraints would still allow
us to use Wikidata items for tagging and structuring Commons in a
language-independent way (this was suggested by Erik earlier).

Current machine translation research aims at using massive machine learning
supported systems. They usually require big parallel corpora. We do not
have big parallel corpora (Wikipedia articles are not translations of each
other, in general), especially not for many languages, and there is no
reason to believe this is going to change. I would question if we want to
build an infrastructure for gathering those corpora from the Web
continuously. I do not think we can compete in this arena, or that is the
best use of our resources to support projects in this area. We should use
our unique features to our advantage.

How can we use the unique features of the Wikimedia movement to our
advantage? What are our unique features? Well, obviously, the awesome
community we are. Our technology, as amazing as it is, running our Websites
on the given budget, is nevertheless not what makes us what we are. Most
processes on the Wikimedia projects are developed in the community space,
and not implemented in bits. To summon Lessing, if code is law, Wikimedia
projects are really good in creating a space that allows for a community to
live in this space and have the freedom to create their own ecosystem.

One idea I have been mulling over for years is basically how can we use
this advantage for the task of creating content available in many
languages. Wikidata is an obvious attempt at that, but it really goes only
so far. The system I am really aiming at is a different one, and there has
been plenty of related work in this direction: imagine a wiki where you
enter or edit content, sentence by sentence, but the natural language
representation is just a surface syntax for an internal structure. Your
editing interface is a constrained, but natural language. Now, in order to
really make this fly, both the rules for the parsers (interpreting the
input) and the serializer (creating the output) would need to be editable
by the community - in addition to the content itself. There are a number of
major challenges involved, but I have by now a fair idea of how to tackle
most of them (and I don't have the time to detail them right now). Wikidata
had some design decision inside it that are already geared towards enabling
the solution for some of the problems for this kind of wiki. Whatever a
structured Wiktionary would look like, it should also be aligned with the
requirements of the project outlined here. Basically, we take constrain b,
but make it possible to push the constraint further and further through the
community - that's how we could scale on this task.

This would be far away from solving the problem of automatic translation of
text, and even further away from understanding text. But given where we are
and the resources we have available, I think it would be a more feasible
path towards achieving the mission of the Wikimedia movement than tackling
the problem of general machine learning.

In summary, I see four calls for action right now (and for all of them this
means to first actually think more and write down a project plan and gather
input on that), that could and should be 

[Wikimedia-l] Branding and visibility of sister projects Re: The case for supporting open source machine translation

2013-04-24 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Aubrey,

2013/4/24 Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com

 I feel that we could boost a lot the idea of a family of projects, of an
  integrated, global, comprehensive approach to knowledge.
 Right now, the fact is that Wikipedia both attracts and cannibalizes users
 to/from sister projects, which are kinda invisible if you don't know they
 exist.

 Could we promote better our sister projects, making them more visible?
 For this purpose, user Micru and me just created a RfC for interproject
 links

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Interproject_links_interface
 (I
 invite you all to propose other solutions), but
 the underlying question is if we, as the Wikimedia community, are aware of
 the theoretical shift this means.



The strongest promotion -- and actually your proposal goes into this
direction -- would be to rebrand the sister projects, and then integrate
them tighter. A first step, and a necessity before any further integration
could happen, would be to give up the many different brands the Wikimedia
movement has, and huddle together under one flag.

As said, your proposal suggests that - it doesn't say Wikiquote, it just
says Quotes, etc. This basically means that it is not Wikiquote anymore,
but Wikipedia Quotes.

Without that, I am afraid, such a strong integration between the projects
always remains fragile and touchy, because the projects - if they are not
mere supporting projects like Commons or Wikidata anyway - might feel
offended and debranded every time they are integrated in such a way.

Having said that, this thread is half hijacked by what are projects, how
important are they, what kind of support do they need instead of
discussint the original topic.

Cheers,
Denny


-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero wins!

2013-03-17 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Orkus was never took over by Google - it was created by Google in the
first place and always operated by them.




2013/3/17 Rand McRanderson therands...@gmail.com

 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




-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are there plans for interactions between wikidata and wiktionaries ?

2013-03-11 Thread Denny Vrandečić
There is currently a number of things going on re the future of Wiktionary.

There is, for example, the suggestion to adopt OmegaWiki, which could
potentially complicate a Wikibase-Solution in the future (but then again,
structured data is often rather easy to transform):
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki

There is this grant proposal for elaborating the future of Wiktionary,
which I consider a potentially smarter first step:


http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision


There's this discussion on Wikdiata itself:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary

And I know that Daniel K. is very interested in working into this direction.

Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following Wikipedia
and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or Wikisource
-- can be served with only small changes to Wikidata as it is, but both
Commons and Wiktionary would require a bit of thought (and here again,
Commons much less than Wiktionary). I would appreciate a discussion with
the Wiktionary-Communities, and also to make them more aware of the
OmegaWiki proposal, the potential of Wikidata for Wiktionary, etc. Just to
give a comparison: it took a few months to write the original Wikidata
proposal, and it was up for discussion for several months before it was
decided and acted upon. I would strongly advise to again choose slow and
careful planning over hastened decisions.

Cheers,
Denny






2013/3/9 Mathieu Stumpf psychosl...@culture-libre.org

 Hello,

 First, congratulation for all the already achieved great work on the
 wikidata project.

 Now I would be interested to know more about future development,
 especially on interactions with wiktionaries.

 I think wikidata could help to improve wiktionaries drastically, by
 unifying not only interlangs links, but also definitions and
 translations.

 More accurately what I mean is that currently you often have, attached
 to one wiki article you have usually several definitions for each
 language where the word is used. But often when I seek a non-french word
 in the french wiktionary, looking at the native wiktionary will bring
 more definition than what you can find on the french article.

 I saw that on the english wiktionary, the interface added a quick add
 feature, which ask user to fill translation for each meaning. That's
 great and I wish it would be added in all chapters. And I think that we
 could add even more hey, what about translating just this little thing
 feature across all dictionary by centralizing entries, so that each
 word is associated with one or several meaning by language. Then all
 meanings could be redistributed to all wiktionnaries, even when no
 translation is available for a given meaning in the local chapter. In
 this cas we could have an information box that would say this word have
 an other meaning which wasn't yet translated in ${local_language}, if
 you one of the language in which a translation is available, please help
 us to improve the wiktionary.

 What do think about such a project, could it work with wikidata?

 kind regards,
 mathieu

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are there plans for interactions between wikidata and wiktionaries ?

2013-03-11 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Sorry about the wrong link, I meant this IEG proposal:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wiktionary_-_the_way_it_should_be


but as far as I can tell, this one didn't make it into round 1 (pity,
something like that would have made sense, but I understand that the
proposal was obviously not detailed enough. Whatever.)

I fully agree with Andrea and Nemo that some use cases would be very easy
to implement, especially linking between the projects. Commons and
Wiktionary though are very different and require more thought:

Commons:
* easy goals: link to appropriate items for some of the pages in Commons,
use data from Wikidata in the creator namespace and similar
* more engaging: add metadata to the media files in Commons itself and link
them to each other and to Wikidata

Wiktionary:
* easy goals: none. The conceptualization of Wiktionary simply is not a
direct fit to the conceptualization in Wikipedia and Wikidata.
We need to figure out how they work together. Maybe this page is a good
start, and maybe we should collect the ideas there.

https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionaryhttps://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary


I mean, OmegaWiki has been around for a while, and they learned many,
extremely valuable lessons. A lot of work has went into it, and it would be
a shame not to build on its experiences and lessons. But I would like to
ask the question whether it is the right software or not, even though it is
a painful question. But please be reminded that I have spent many years in
the development of Semantic MediaWiki, with the one goal to have it
switched on the Wikipedias -- and then to come to the conclusion to *not*
use the software as is, and start from scratch.

We need a discussion on Wiktionary, and how it can evolve, and if it even
should. And I do not think that a cross-mailing list discussion like the
current one is the right place, and I do not even know where the right
place is.

So, first question: where should this discussion take place?

Cheers,
Denny





2013/3/11 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com

 Denny Vrandečić, 11/03/2013 14:52:

  There is currently a number of things going on re the future of
 Wiktionary.

 There is, for example, the suggestion to adopt OmegaWiki, which could
 potentially complicate a Wikibase-Solution in the future (but then again,
 structured data is often rather easy to transform):
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Requests_for_comment/**Adopt_OmegaWikihttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
 

 There is this grant proposal for elaborating the future of Wiktionary,
 which I consider a potentially smarter first step:

 
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_**
 Wikisource_strategic_visionhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision



 That's Wikisource. :)



 There's this discussion on Wikdiata itself:

 https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionaryhttps://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary
 

 And I know that Daniel K. is very interested in working into this
 direction.

 Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following Wikipedia
 and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or Wikisource
 -- can be served with only small changes to Wikidata as it is, but both
 Commons and Wiktionary would require a bit of thought (and here again,
 Commons much less than Wiktionary).


 Actually Wikiquote and Wikivoyage use interwikis exactly like Wikipedia;
 Commons in the same way except it's interproject; Wiktionary in the same
 way except it's case-sensitive and not about concepts (opr about a stricter
 definition of concept); Wikisource in a completely different way;
 Wikibooks, Wikinews and Wikiversity I'm not sure.
 As for phase II, it's another story. Wikisource and Commons would benefit
 a lot from it; for Wiktionary it could be a revolution; for Wikispecies
 idem but with less effort (?); Wikiquote would become


  I would appreciate a discussion with
 the Wiktionary-Communities, and also to make them more aware of the
 OmegaWiki proposal, the potential of Wikidata for Wiktionary, etc. Just to
 give a comparison: it took a few months to write the original Wikidata
 proposal, and it was up for discussion for several months before it was
 decided and acted upon. I would strongly advise to again choose slow and
 careful planning over hastened decisions.


 It's impossible to plan or discuss anything without knowing what matters.

 Nemo




-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are there plans for interactions between wikidata and wiktionaries ?

2013-03-11 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Thank you for the clarification, Gerard. I was indeed misunderstanding the
proposal.

We need to find a central place to discuss a proposal.



2013/3/11 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com

 Hoi,
 There is no point at all in maintaining the software currently used by
 OmegaWiki. That would be foolish. Nobody who knows OmegaWiki will ask for
 that.

 What we are asking for is that we ensure that the structures that exist in
 OmegaWiki are replicated in Wikidata for reasons that are clear and
 obvious. Technically there are a few things that make sense to have..

 For instance.. In the Dutch language we have a noun, a verb an adjective
  we do not have a country in this class. A noun can be male, female or
 neutral  we do not have a stupid.  We have singular and plural and we
 do not have dual like in Arabic.

 When there is a concept, we have synonyms and translations that are used as
 such but do not cover the original concept well. We want to be able to
 indicate this.

 Really Denny, all we need is to keep the structure, the data. We do not
 even want to be dogmatic about this (too much). What we want are things
 that fulfil a need, that have a purpose.
 Thanks,
  GerardM


 On 11 March 2013 15:51, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de
 wrote:

  Sorry about the wrong link, I meant this IEG proposal:
 
  
 
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wiktionary_-_the_way_it_should_be
  
 
  but as far as I can tell, this one didn't make it into round 1 (pity,
  something like that would have made sense, but I understand that the
  proposal was obviously not detailed enough. Whatever.)
 
  I fully agree with Andrea and Nemo that some use cases would be very easy
  to implement, especially linking between the projects. Commons and
  Wiktionary though are very different and require more thought:
 
  Commons:
  * easy goals: link to appropriate items for some of the pages in Commons,
  use data from Wikidata in the creator namespace and similar
  * more engaging: add metadata to the media files in Commons itself and
 link
  them to each other and to Wikidata
 
  Wiktionary:
  * easy goals: none. The conceptualization of Wiktionary simply is not a
  direct fit to the conceptualization in Wikipedia and Wikidata.
  We need to figure out how they work together. Maybe this page is a good
  start, and maybe we should collect the ideas there.
 
  https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary
  https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary
  
 
  I mean, OmegaWiki has been around for a while, and they learned many,
  extremely valuable lessons. A lot of work has went into it, and it would
 be
  a shame not to build on its experiences and lessons. But I would like to
  ask the question whether it is the right software or not, even though it
 is
  a painful question. But please be reminded that I have spent many years
 in
  the development of Semantic MediaWiki, with the one goal to have it
  switched on the Wikipedias -- and then to come to the conclusion to *not*
  use the software as is, and start from scratch.
 
  We need a discussion on Wiktionary, and how it can evolve, and if it even
  should. And I do not think that a cross-mailing list discussion like the
  current one is the right place, and I do not even know where the right
  place is.
 
  So, first question: where should this discussion take place?
 
  Cheers,
  Denny
 
 
 
 
 
  2013/3/11 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
 
   Denny Vrandečić, 11/03/2013 14:52:
  
There is currently a number of things going on re the future of
   Wiktionary.
  
   There is, for example, the suggestion to adopt OmegaWiki, which could
   potentially complicate a Wikibase-Solution in the future (but then
  again,
   structured data is often rather easy to transform):
   
  http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Requests_for_comment/**Adopt_OmegaWiki
  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
   
  
   There is this grant proposal for elaborating the future of Wiktionary,
   which I consider a potentially smarter first step:
  
   
   http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_**
   Wikisource_strategic_vision
 
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision
  
  
  
  
   That's Wikisource. :)
  
  
  
   There's this discussion on Wikdiata itself:
  
   https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary
  https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary
   
  
   And I know that Daniel K. is very interested in working into this
   direction.
  
   Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following
  Wikipedia
   and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or
  Wikisource
   -- can be served with only small changes to Wikidata as it is, but
 both
   Commons and Wiktionary would require a bit of thought (and here again,
   Commons much less than Wiktionary).
  
  
   Actually Wikiquote and Wikivoyage use interwikis exactly like

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF narrowing focus (was Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 105, Issue 1)

2012-12-04 Thread Denny Vrandečić
As far as I understood the rationale for the narrowing, the idea is not to
safe money but to safe people. By focusing on what the Foundation's tasks
should be and by letting go of the others, you reduce stress on people as
you allow them to concentrate on a smaller set of tasks. Focus brings flow
brings happiness.

Another point that was explicitly mentioned was that the Fellowship program
can be performed by other movement bodies, as the WMF is explicitly
stepping away from it, freeing it up for others. There are some things that
only the WMF can do, and these are the things the WMF should focus on. This
is how I understood the proposal.



2012/12/3 ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com


 Thanks Sue.

 I am cautious when there are specific cuts such as Fellowships in exchange
 for indeterminate benefits. That makes a cost-benefit analysis difficult to
 do. Maybe this is a good tradeoff, but from the information that's publicly
 available, I'm still particularly concerned about the loss of the
 Fellowships. Could those be funded by increasing the amount of the
 fundraising goal?

 Some of the other possible tradeoffs and outsourcing do make sense to me.
 The loss of the fellowships is my main concern.

 Looking at the bright side, I would be very glad if one of the benefits
 from narrowing focus is that the progress of the Visual Editor is hastened.

 Thanks,

 Pine


 
  From: Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org
  To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 105, Issue 1
  Message-ID:
CAGZ0=LNMvd+mYRLyRxOVxcFMPcHhhD4iUaxodgFF6dw=
 mmd...@mail.gmail.com
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
 
  Hi Pine,
 
  We haven't articulated specific and measurable benefits: that's why you
  haven't gotten an answer to your question. That's because the Narrowing
  Focus exercise is not a one-off immediate-term event: it's a longer-term
  decision which will have multiple implications in this year and in future
  years.
 
  The Board approved the general principle: that narrowing focus would
  benefit the organization, which had been spread too thinly. But, the
  precise implications won't be known until the process begins to play out.
  For example, we've made a decision to outsource some of the WMF work
  associated with Wikimania, but until we define the terms of the
  outsourcing, we can't know what the exact implications will be. (Because
 we
  don't know what it will cost, or what work the contractor/consultant will
  be able to do. We *will* know those things in future, and I could make
  educated guesses about them now, but we can't know with certainty until
 we
  run an RFP process or similar.)
 
  Upshot: this is a long-term-focused decision, and it'll take a while for
  the implications to begin to play out. I've told the Board we shouldn't
  expect to see too much in the way of benefits in 2012-13 (the current
  fiscal year) because there will be work required to execute the various
  components of it, which will offset whatever gain we might otherwise have
  seen this year. We may see a little pay-off  this year, but mostly it
 will
  start to happen in 2023-14.
 
  Thanks,
  Sue
  On Dec 2, 2012 3:56 PM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
 
  
   Tilman,
  
   Thanks, I always like reading these reports.
  
   Again, I'd like to ask what specific and measurable benefits the
 changing
   focus changes will accomplish. I've been asking this for awhile.
  
   Thanks,
  
   Pine
  
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:55:37 -0800
From: Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org
To: wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation
  Report, October 2012
Message-ID:
  CAPDdKA5QRw_+kn=Pdb9Ryc9=
   vpoeztxxbgfz5kwncphee7m...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
   
Hi all,
   
please find below the WMF report for October 2012, in plain text.
   
As always, the editable and formatted version has been published on
 Meta:
   
  
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_October_2012
   
and the reports are being posted on the Wikimedia blog, too:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/c/corporate/wmf-monthly-reports/
   
As usual, we are also publishing a separate Highlights summary.
Please consider helping non-English-language communities to stay
updated, by providing a translation:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights,_October_2012
Many thanks those who have translated the September Highlights into
Arabic, Breton, Czech, German, Spanish, French, Piedmontese, Russian,
Ukrainian, Chinese and Telugu!
   
While still focussing on WMF activities, the Highlights include a
small selection of the most noteworthy events from the whole
 movement.
Suggestions for the soon to be published November issue are welcome
until Wednesday (December 5) at
   

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The new narrowed focus by WMF (cleaner version), apology

2012-10-26 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Just a comment on the discussion:

I would find it refreshing if people were not defending funds that
apply mostly to themselves. I saw, in discussions of the essay,
arguments by researchers saying that more money should go to
researchers, by fellows and want-to-be fellows that the fellowship
program should not be cut, by chapter associated that funding for
supporting the chapters should not be cut, and by people who have been
to Wikimania that the money for supporting Wikimania should not be
cut.

If we remove all arguments of I am an X, and money supporting X
should not be cut this discussion would become rather short as of
now.

One of my favorite 20th century philosophers, a specialist on justice
and fairness, has described an interesting concept, and I would very
strongly recommend to adopt it during policy and strategic discussions
like this:

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

Cheers,
Denny


2012/10/26 David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com:
 I owe a number of good people an apology. I have worked for several
 self-protecting bureaucracies myself, and it
 is possible, though not easy, , for individuals to do good work there.
  I never intended to imply that everyone there is incompetent, though
 it is certainly my opinion that some of the people assigned to some of
 the programs I have been involved in have been.  I admit that my anger
 is an inappropriate reflection of my frustration at my inability to
 work with those in one particular program.

 On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:54 PM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
 One obvious possibility for support is the chapters and the thematic
 organizations; even if the WMF continues these fellowships as it
 should, the other bodies in the movement should supplement them--it is
 good to have more than one source of funds and more than one body
 deciding on requests.  But whether their work can be actually
 implemented at those levels is another matter.

 The proposal at meta says the Wikimedia Foundation was never able to
 resource the fellowships to the point where they could achieve
 significant impact:  I don't think the resource at issue is primarily
 money, considering that in all recent years we have had not only
 surpluses, but greater than expected surpluses.  The resource which is
 lacking is sufficient qualified people at the Foundation to work with
 the fellows and help implement their projects. Rather than get such
 people--which admittedly would require a change in WMF culture--the
 WMF staff finds the easiest thing is to not even attempt to make the
 improvements; it is too troublesome to deal with the good ideas of the
 community, so the reaction is what one expects of self-protecting
 incompetent bureaucracies: diminish the flow of good ideas.



 On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Steven Zhang cro0...@gmail.com wrote:
 In my opinion, the value of fellowships in my opinion is huge, and I feel 
 that ceasing to support projects like the Teahouse would be a real shame. 
 That said, I do feel there are other ways that individual editors could get 
 the support they need to work on critical projects. As long as this remains 
 in some capacity, then I think that could work too.

 Regards,

 Steve Zhang

 Sent from my iPhone

 On 22/10/2012, at 10:25 AM, Jacob Orlowitz wikioca...@yahoo.com wrote:

 A letter in support of the Community Fellowship program from past,
 current, and prospective Fellows,

 The WMF has expanded profoundly over the past decade, and especially
 in the last few years.  Recently initiatives to streamline and focus
 the WMF have been undertaken; while these efforts are worthy in spirit
 and necessary at some level, one useful if not vital program has been
 caught in that process:  The Community Fellowship program.  We would
 like to express our strong support of this valuable and important
 program.

 The Fellowship program is first and foremost a community-based
 program.  It selects editors to work on projects -- those which are
 novel and have yet to be tried, those that have been tried but have
 not been rigorously developed or tested, and those otherwise that need
 financial, technical and institutional backing to succeed.  It
 represents a direct line of support from the WMF to
 community-organized, community-driven, and community-maintained
 projects.

 We strongly believe that the Fellowship program is a great way to jump
 start many projects cheaply, efficiently, and with low-risk.  Most
 importantly, because Fellowship projects are community-organized,
 there is high potential for their broad community support.

 We recognize that the Wikimedia Foundation’s allocation of funding
 must reflect the priorities of the Foundation’s annual and strategic
 plans, and we understand that the future of the Fellowship program is
 at risk under the justification that it does not fit within those
 plans.

 The Fellowship program of course has a cost, but it is one we believe
 is well justified by its impact.  The 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

2012-08-17 Thread Denny Vrandečić
rant

If WMF had a Steve Jobs on staff, everyone would hate him for making
decisions without properly consulting the community, for destroying
the community, for reinventing Wikimedia again, for making unpopular
decisions, for making decisions behind close doors, for being an
egomaniac, etc.

Heck, we cannot even get the branding right. We call our project
Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikinews... we have a
software called MediaWiki, and the whole movement is called the
Wikimedia Movement. No surprise people think Wikileaks is one of ours.
No surprise people cannot get these words right. There have been
several suggestions for improving the branding, but every time met
with strong resistance.

I think Athena is a much more though-out design step for Wikipedia,
and I am very much looking forward to it to happen. But as long as
there is considerable backlash for something like a move from Monobook
to Vector -- which, it seems, is not even regarded as a design update
by most critics here -- I am wary about the social costs involved in
such an update.

/rant

Yes, it would be nice if it was easier to change Wikipedia.

Cheers,
Denny


2012/8/17 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
 Never having been to design school like Amir, I can't comment on what grade
 it might get. But I do like it a lot; I think it's a serious improvement
 over what we use now, and incorporates design principles that we should
 adopt even if we don't take the design itself. The visual elements, the
 better branding and identification of sister projects, and the modern feel
 / look are all elements that can be adapted.

 I'd love to see more of these complete redesign proposals with a
 professional feel. The current 2012 main page redesign proposals are
 almost uniformly amateurish, and many make only the most minimal
 adjustments. More importantly, they are aimed only at the main page - what
 needs to be updated is really the entire thing. 10 years on and the editing
 interface is still shit, and the design is still aimed at satisfying lowest
 common denominator concerns. Time for a new approach, if only Wikimedia had
 a Steve Jobs on staff.
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] A task list for a beginning project

2012-07-31 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Wikidata will still help with the task at hand, but it should be formulated as:

- Translate certain templates, like city templates etc., to the target language
- Provide labels to relevant items on Wikidata in the target language

Simplified this means the template

  ''City''
  Country: {{#getfromwikidata:country}}

would need to be translated in the target wiki to

  Stadt
  Land: {{#getfromwikidata:land}}

and the actual country would need a label in the target language in
Wikidata (i.e. Österreich for the item on Austria, etc.) and the
city the template is used needs to be linked to the respective
Wikidata item. This will help with starting Wikipedias quite a bit,
but there is no magic involved.

Cheers,
Denny

2012/7/31 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com:
 Milos Rancic, 31/07/2012 12:53:

 On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
 amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:

 * Create useful templates, like {{welcome}, {{citation needed}},
 {{infobox}}, {{delete}} etc.


 Wikidata should fix the issue with templates. Thus, soon the manual
 should be fixed with translate templates 1, 2... N into your
 language at Wikidata.


 Really? Where is this discussed/specified in more detail?
 Cf.
 https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Thread:Support/A_step_forward_in_the_internationalization_of_very_common_templates.

 Nemo



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] A task list for a beginning project

2012-07-31 Thread Denny Vrandečić
2012/7/31 Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de:
   Country: {{#getfromwikidata:country}}

And this is just a place holder syntax for now.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] IRC office hours The future of e-mail usage in Wikimedia projects 2012-07-18 16:30 UTC

2012-06-26 Thread Denny Vrandečić
2012/6/26 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
 On 25 June 2012 13:56, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
  Excuse me. Just about a month ago, we had a discussion about spreading
 out
  the times during which office hours would be hosted. Instead of increased
  diversity in times, it seems ALL office hours are now being scheduled
  during a very narrow window of time from roughly 1530 UTC to 1800 UTC.

 Now, it's entirely possible that the WMF staff and those of other projects
 using the usual timeslot have decided that their target audience is the
 people who are available during that timeslot (I don't think Wikidata's
 ever had an office hours outside of the same slot, for example).  However,

Since we have been named explicitly: our three English office hours
have so far been at 16:30 UTC (twice) and 12:00 UTC (once), so one out
of three was outside that narrow band you mentioned.

I have to admit that the next one was again scheduled for 16:30 UTC,
but in order to respond to the critique we will move it to 22:00 UTC
(which is, by the way, midnight for us. I hope that someone
appreciates that effort).

We will try to keep that in mind for further scheduling and to make it
more diverse, and if we do not, anyone is free to remind us. We're not
perfect :)


Thanks for pointing it out,
Cheers,
Denny


-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Language links and double language links on the Wikipedias

2012-06-26 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Ziko,

it does not jeopardize the Wikidata goal -- the current language link
system won't be switched off, but can be further used. Everything that
is working currently will still be possible afterwards. Wikidata can
still be used to represent the 99.2% of language links that are simple
-- this would still be a huge improvement over the current state.

As soon as these are out of the way, we can think about if and how to
extend the system in order to deal with the rest.

Cheers,
Denny

2012/6/25 Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl:
 Hello,

 So may I guess that double links are usually the result of a
 Wikipedian who was not sure which language link to set, so in doubt,
 he simply put in the language links for two different articles?

 And in general, is it imagineable that different languages divide the
 knowledge in different ways, which could jeopardize the whole goal of
 Wikidata unifiying the language links?

 Kind regards
 Ziko


 2012/6/25 Delirium delir...@hackish.org:
 Thanks for this list. For the languages I know, I've started going through
 and fixing ones that are clearly wrong. If a number of people do that, that
 should improve the general quality/consistency of interwiki links. I second
 the other comment that it'd be nice if the parsing could be re-run to
 exclude commented-out links, but the list is still useful as is.

 There are some difficult cases, though, when languages make different
 choices on how to group subjects, so the articles aren't actually in 1-to-1
 correspondence. For example, the English article [[en: Móði and Magni]]
 unsurprisingly has two outgoing interwiki links, when linking to languages
 that split them, such as [[da:Magni]] and [[da:Modi]]. It's not clear what
 to do about these cases.

 Best,
 Mark


 On 6/25/12 12:29 PM, Denny Vrandečić wrote:

 Hi all,

 I ran some analysis last week, to get some numbers out of the
 Wikipedia language links. One type of reports that were generated was
 the list of all articles in the main namespaces of the Wikipedias that
 link to more than one article in another language edition of Wikipedia
 (so called double language links). There are not that many of them
 (about 19,000 in total), split by language, all available here:

 http://simia.net/languagelinks/

 Double language links are not errors per se, but they contain a few
 nuisances
 * they lead to two links in the language links list that just look the
 same (you have to hover over them to see that they link to different
 languages), which is not really optimal from the user experience side
 * they are not saved in the langlinks table and thus are ignored in
 certain reports and also in the respective export

 I am not sure how to reach out to the respective Wikipedia
 communities, or if I should at all. Should I post to their respective
 version of the village pump? Remembering from the time I was active on
 the Croatian Wikipedia, I would have appreciated that list to check
 the entries. I reckoned the wikipedia-l list would be the right place,
 but that list looks rather dead.

 Cheers,
 Denny



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



 --

 ---
 Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
 dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
 http://wmnederland.nl/

 Wikimedia Nederland
 Postbus 167
 3500 AD Utrecht
 ---

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Language links and double language links on the Wikipedias

2012-06-26 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Amir,

thank you for the thoughtful reply!

Indeed our current plan is a kind of a staged deployment in the sense
that we will not automatically transfer the links but let the editor
community do it. On our test systems we already see bots being tried
out and rewritten, so we expect that as soon as Wikidata starts, we
will see that transition happening.

But the current language link system will continue to work, so no
article or Wikipedia is forced to switch to the Wikidata system.
Complex language links configurations can still be handled manually --
and maybe even easier so, since conflicts between bots and human
editors should be less likely to happen.

I hope that this is the right path to profit :)

Cheers,
Denny


2012/6/25 Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il:
 Hi Denny,

 TL;DR: It's a very important question, but don't worry about it too
 much. Just do Wikidata well as it is currently planned.

 Now, the full reply.

 I wrote a bit of an essay about it in 2008:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tips_for_resolving_interwiki_conflicts

 I also started a page to coordinate the efforts to resolve such conflicts:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_synchronization

 It started out nicely, but didn't really scale, so I had no choice but
 to neglect it.

 There are two main reasons that it didn't scale:
 1. Fixing interlanguage links conflicts is an exhausting manual
 process. The Interlanguage extension or Wikidata are supposed to make
 it centralized and easier.

 2. Almost all Wikipedians are very, very reluctant about doing
 anything outside their home projects.

 So, Wikidata is supposed to resolve #1. Once it becomes active, #2
 will kick in again. At this stage, all I can say is our old motto: Be
 Bold. There's a rumor about me, which says that I know a lot of
 languages. I don't; I'm just bold about trying to edit Wikipedias in
 languages that I don't know. Everybody can do it. Most of the time it
 turns out to be correct and people don't complain. Trying to talk to
 people about this on village pumps and using global message delivery
 is not very efficient. In many languages, even in some major ones, the
 village pumps are not as active as in English, and even when they are,
 people very often ignore messages in English.

 Anyway, my proposal is this:
 * As discussed at bug 15607 [1], the best strategy for rolling out
 centralized language links is to enable them in articles without
 conflicts and to leave articles with conflicts without any change at
 first.
 * After initial roll-out, a list of conflicts for every project should
 be created. That is, there should be one list of articles with
 conflicts in the English Wikipedia, another list for the Hebrew
 Wikipedia, another one for Croatian, etc. This will make it relatively
 more accessible for people, because it will look like a problem in
 their project. Most people like solving local problems more than
 global problems.[2]
 * Profit.

 I believe that this crowdsourcing model may work. It won't be
 immediately perfect or very fast. It's just a sensible start.

 [1] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15607

 [2] A technical implementation comment about the list of pages with
 conflicts: it will be most efficient, if it will be implemented as a
 special page in each project. If updating it immediately is too
 burdensome in terms of performance, it can be updated in batches every
 week or so. The reason it should be a special page is that it will
 look like an integrated site feature and that it will be easy to
 localize its interface.

 2012/6/25 Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de:
 Hi all,

 I ran some analysis last week, to get some numbers out of the
 Wikipedia language links. One type of reports that were generated was
 the list of all articles in the main namespaces of the Wikipedias that
 link to more than one article in another language edition of Wikipedia
 (so called double language links). There are not that many of them
 (about 19,000 in total), split by language, all available here:

 http://simia.net/languagelinks/

 Double language links are not errors per se, but they contain a few nuisances
 * they lead to two links in the language links list that just look the
 same (you have to hover over them to see that they link to different
 languages), which is not really optimal from the user experience side
 * they are not saved in the langlinks table and thus are ignored in
 certain reports and also in the respective export

 I am not sure how to reach out to the respective Wikipedia
 communities, or if I should at all. Should I post to their respective
 version of the village pump? Remembering from the time I was active on
 the Croatian Wikipedia, I would have appreciated that list to check
 the entries. I reckoned the wikipedia-l list would be the right place,
 but that list looks rather dead.

 Cheers,
 Denny

 --
 Project director Wikidata
 Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Language links and double language links on the Wikipedias

2012-06-26 Thread Denny Vrandečić
I got the number from Brent Hecht, a researcher at Northwestern, who
has a number of great papers published on Wikipedia-related topics.

CC-ing him, so he knows I am blam.., er, referencing him :)

Cheers,
Denny



2012/6/26 Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com:
 This number, 99.2% was also mentioned on the Berlin Hackathon. It
 sounds much higher than what my (very scientifically relevant,
 obviously) gut feeling tells me. Could you indicate where this number
 is coming from?

 On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Denny Vrandečić
 denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de wrote:
 Ziko,

 it does not jeopardize the Wikidata goal -- the current language link
 system won't be switched off, but can be further used. Everything that
 is working currently will still be possible afterwards. Wikidata can
 still be used to represent the 99.2% of language links that are simple
 -- this would still be a huge improvement over the current state.

 As soon as these are out of the way, we can think about if and how to
 extend the system in order to deal with the rest.

 Cheers,
 Denny

 2012/6/25 Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl:
 Hello,

 So may I guess that double links are usually the result of a
 Wikipedian who was not sure which language link to set, so in doubt,
 he simply put in the language links for two different articles?

 And in general, is it imagineable that different languages divide the
 knowledge in different ways, which could jeopardize the whole goal of
 Wikidata unifiying the language links?

 Kind regards
 Ziko


 2012/6/25 Delirium delir...@hackish.org:
 Thanks for this list. For the languages I know, I've started going through
 and fixing ones that are clearly wrong. If a number of people do that, that
 should improve the general quality/consistency of interwiki links. I second
 the other comment that it'd be nice if the parsing could be re-run to
 exclude commented-out links, but the list is still useful as is.

 There are some difficult cases, though, when languages make different
 choices on how to group subjects, so the articles aren't actually in 1-to-1
 correspondence. For example, the English article [[en: Móði and Magni]]
 unsurprisingly has two outgoing interwiki links, when linking to languages
 that split them, such as [[da:Magni]] and [[da:Modi]]. It's not clear what
 to do about these cases.

 Best,
 Mark


 On 6/25/12 12:29 PM, Denny Vrandečić wrote:

 Hi all,

 I ran some analysis last week, to get some numbers out of the
 Wikipedia language links. One type of reports that were generated was
 the list of all articles in the main namespaces of the Wikipedias that
 link to more than one article in another language edition of Wikipedia
 (so called double language links). There are not that many of them
 (about 19,000 in total), split by language, all available here:

 http://simia.net/languagelinks/

 Double language links are not errors per se, but they contain a few
 nuisances
 * they lead to two links in the language links list that just look the
 same (you have to hover over them to see that they link to different
 languages), which is not really optimal from the user experience side
 * they are not saved in the langlinks table and thus are ignored in
 certain reports and also in the respective export

 I am not sure how to reach out to the respective Wikipedia
 communities, or if I should at all. Should I post to their respective
 version of the village pump? Remembering from the time I was active on
 the Croatian Wikipedia, I would have appreciated that list to check
 the entries. I reckoned the wikipedia-l list would be the right place,
 but that list looks rather dead.

 Cheers,
 Denny



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



 --

 ---
 Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
 dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
 http://wmnederland.nl/

 Wikimedia Nederland
 Postbus 167
 3500 AD Utrecht
 ---

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



 --
 Project director Wikidata
 Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
 Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Language links and double language links on the Wikipedias

2012-06-25 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Hi all,

I ran some analysis last week, to get some numbers out of the
Wikipedia language links. One type of reports that were generated was
the list of all articles in the main namespaces of the Wikipedias that
link to more than one article in another language edition of Wikipedia
(so called double language links). There are not that many of them
(about 19,000 in total), split by language, all available here:

http://simia.net/languagelinks/

Double language links are not errors per se, but they contain a few nuisances
* they lead to two links in the language links list that just look the
same (you have to hover over them to see that they link to different
languages), which is not really optimal from the user experience side
* they are not saved in the langlinks table and thus are ignored in
certain reports and also in the respective export

I am not sure how to reach out to the respective Wikipedia
communities, or if I should at all. Should I post to their respective
version of the village pump? Remembering from the time I was active on
the Croatian Wikipedia, I would have appreciated that list to check
the entries. I reckoned the wikipedia-l list would be the right place,
but that list looks rather dead.

Cheers,
Denny

-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Write about Wikipedia Zero!

2012-04-30 Thread Denny Vrandečić
I mentioned Wikipedia Zero in the last few talks that I gave about
Wikidata, and I always got great feedback on that part. I agree with SJ
that this is an amazing initiative that should be known better!

2012/4/29 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com

 Wikipedia Zero is starting to get more attention recently.  We could
 use set of funny / beautiful / amazing images of it in use, and a
 compelling overview page to send people to that mentions how to can
 spread the word / get their local distributors or politicians or
 schools on board.

 Then we should run a little viral publicity campaign.  It's really a
 very sexy project.  We could frame it as something universal: free
 access to Wikipedia on all mobile devices and networks.

 This seems to be the main project page for now, so I've been
 encouraging people to link to it in their posts.
 http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero

 SJ


 --
 Samuel Klein  identi.ca:sj   w:user:sj  +1 617
 529 4266

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 2 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://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 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l