Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

2016-01-28 Thread Kurt Kulac


Am 28.01.2016 um 13:04 schrieb Josh Lim:

Thank you, Patricio, for the heads-up.  I’m sure that it must’ve been difficult 
for everyone, especially those on the Board.

It was very honorable of Arnnon to step down in deference to the community, and 
I hope that while we may be indignant at his past actions, we can continue to 
find places for people in our community who may show an interest in what we do 
but to who we don’t always see eye-to-eye on our values.  While I still think 
that this episode will generate a whole lot of lessons for us to learn from, I 
hope that Arnnon will continue to engage with the movement in a meaningful way 
even though he is no longer a part of the Board.  Thank you for taking heed of 
the community, and I hope that despite what may be a rude awakening, that you 
will find your place among us, somehow, somewhere in the movement.

Hopefully, now that this episode has come to a close, we can finally begin the 
process of healing and figuring out what went wrong.  There’s still a lot of 
things left unaccounted for, and I hope that after this, the Board will 
continue to build on that momentum by doing the right thing and helping the 
community understand what on Earth happened over the last few weeks so we can 
finally move forward.


Wiadomość napisana przez Patricio Lorente  w dniu 
28.01.2016, o godz. 04:52:

Dear All,

Throughout the discussion about the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri to the
Board of Trustees, the Board has carefully listened to you and discussed
internally. Earlier today, Arnnon decided to step down from the Board. To
paraphrase his words, he doesn't want to be a distraction for the important
discussions that the community and the Foundation need to face in the times
to come. We want to thank Arnnon for his ongoing commitment and for helping
us to move forward.

The Board Governance Committee is working to improve and update our
selection processes before we fill the vacancy left by Arnnon’s departure.
We are sorry for the distress and confusion this has caused to some in our
community, and also to Arnnon.

Patricio and Alice

Patricio Lorente
Chair, Board of Trustees

Alice Wiegand
Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines  | +63 (915) 321-7582
Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor 
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Fwd: Re: Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with supportof bots)

2013-06-17 Thread Kurt Kulac

Am 17.06.2013 16:01, schrieb Jan Ainali:

2013/6/17 Ilario Valdelli

One of the strategic goal of the plan of wikimedia movement is the quality.

That is true. However, the strategic plan does not go into detail on how to
measure it. Is it an article that only has claims backed by sources? If so,
the bot-generated articles are very high-quality. Is it a featured article?
Then I guess that reaching the goal of 25% will be pretty tough.

Actually, the most reasonable way to reach that goal, having 12,5 million
quality articles in two years, is to use some sort of automation.

/Jan Ainali

i don´t want to repeat all those arguments already quoted (lennard
already mentioned achim raschkas criticism, which i fully agree with),
since what happend, already happend, and will unstoppably happen in the
future.  but i would say first of all the strategic goal is not to
contribute hundreds of mistakes a day. just to take the 1 millionth
article Erysichton elaborata: after an advice on the talk page a HUMAN
added, that the species is probably synonymized with Erysichton palmyra.
so far, so good. but even this correction is not enough. in 2010 the
genus erysichton was redefined and a new genus, jameela was described.
both taxa now desrcibed as in sv.wikipedia are invalid.

so just concerning this tiny tiny group of articles, there is already a
bunch of mistakes, the bot copied out of outdated databases. wouldn´t be
a big deal, if somebody mentioned that the articles sticked to the old
view. but that´s something a bot can´t handle. so how reliable is the
rest of the articles?

a bot can be a convenient helper for authors, who know, how to handle
it, as it seems has happened with the creation of the articles about
swedish lakes (i´m no expert with that though). but it is a desastrous
tool for our whole movement, if you create hundreds of thousands (!)
articles, without the slightest idea, how to handle the contradictions,
that will appear doubtlessly?

it´s a sad thing, that you mention quality and this action in one

truly utterly disappointed encyclopedic greetings,

Mag. Kurt Kulac, Obmann
Wikimedia Österreich
Gesellschaft zur Förderung freien Wissens
Siebensterngasse 25/15, 1070 Wien
+43 664 4128615

Wikimedia-l mailing list