Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a similar
composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include
some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee
could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
I personal
I wondered if anyone from FDC is going to respond to this?
On 26 Nov 2015 17:04, "Nicola Zeuner" wrote:
> Thanks everyone - WMDE welcomes and follows with interest community
> discussions about our proposal, the relevance of Wikidata and the use of
> community funds. That's the beauty of a commun
On 27 November 2015 at 06:04, MZMcBride wrote:
> I realize that the Funds Dissemination Committee is advisory, but I
> thought it had been set up by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> as "all large affiliate requests, including us," not "all large affiliate
> requests, except us." It se
Gerard,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> To start of, results from the past are no indications of results in the
> future. It is the disclaimer insurance companies have to state in all their
> adverts in the Netherlands. When you continue and make it a "theologica
On 27 November 2015 at 12:08, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> The Wikimedia movement has always had an important principle: that all
> content should be traceable to a "reliable source". Throughout the first
> decade of this movement and beyond, Wikimedia content has never been
> considered a reliable sou
Hello,
It is only a few months until someone will need to organise the 2016
Affiliate Selected Board Seats process.
Thinking about the process last time I have set up a discussion here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliate-selected_Board_seats#Request_for_Comments_regarding_2016_process
Disclaimer first - I'm not exactly conversant in the intricacies of
WikiData, if I was to take the information on 14th Dalai Lama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama
it links to Wikidata at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17293
the en article has 2 references that list his date of birt
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W wrote:
> Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a similar
> composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include
> some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee
> could do FDC-like revi
Yes I agree. I think most of the discussion here has to do with people
conflating the concept of text as in Wikipedia sentences and the concept of
data as in Wikidata statements. When a user adds an image from Commons on
Wikipedia, the source of the image is generally not added to Wikipedia, and
I
Liam,
I am interested in anything demonstrating that the things I am concerned
about are not a problem.
Further Comments interspersed below.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> On 27 November 2015 at 12:08, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > The Wikimedia movement has always had an
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Gnangarra wrote:
> Disclaimer first - I'm not exactly conversant in the intricacies of
> WikiData, if I was to take the information on 14th Dalai Lama
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama
>
> it links to Wikidata at
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q
Hoi,
When a benefit is "Wikimedia specific" and thereby dismissed, you miss much
of what is going on. Exactly because of this link most items are well
defined as to what they are about. It is not perfect but it is good.
Consequently Wikidata is able to link Wikipedia in any language to sources
exte
On 27 November 2015 at 15:16, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>
> How does the presence of that information in Wikidata help if the Google
> user just gets the info in the Knowledge Graph without any indication that
> it comes from Wikidata? Because CC0 specifically waives the right to
> attribution that
Hoi Gerard,
What I hear in email from Andreas and Liam is not as much the propagation
of the error (which I am sure happens with some % of the cases), but the
fact that the original source is obscured and therefore it is hard to
identify and correct errors, biases, etc. Because if the source of er
On 27 November 2015 at 15:27, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Gnangarra wrote:
>
>
> Would it not make more sense to import (and verify!) the reliable source
> cited in the relevant Wikipedia version, along with the statement?
>
>
You hit issues with non machine readable
One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party
review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature of
Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an
organization that has a similar scale.
Lila
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Dariusz
Based on what I heard from Anasuya and members of the FDC over the years, I
feel that asking the FDC to take on the WMF budget is too much of a scope
expansion, unless a third round of reviews is added each year and is
dedicated to the WMF budget. The only realistic alternative that I can see
is a
On 26 November 2015 at 19:23, Jens Best wrote:
> Well, then this is a cheap success for the propaganda for a project started
> by the Foundation which has nothing to do with the community which is
> creating and editing the Wikipedia.
>
> - WP0 is a clear violation of net neutrality and therefore
Hoi,
I happen to work on Dukes of Friuli. Compare the data from Wikidata and the
information by Reasonator based on the same item for one of them.
https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=2471519
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2471519
Wikidata is not informative, you have to work hard to get the
Hoi,
Sources are important. When we do not have data at Wikidata and we add it
from anywhere, we have the basis to do some good. At this time we do not
really add source information. It is too cumbersome and as long as the
"primary sources tool", an "official" tool does not do it, why bother?
My
Personally - I favor third party and community review to a committee of the
board - unless the entire board is on that committee along with some skilled
community members.
IMHO, all of the tasks Pine mentioned the board members on the committee should
do are things I would hope all the board me
The public discussion on the 14-15 Annual Plan was quite limited and the
Board didn't publish their deliberations, so I don't believe that the
Board's current arrangement is sufficiently transparent, and without that
transparency it's impossible to know how detailed their review was. In any
case, t
I keep saying 14-15. The current and problematic plan is 15-16. Sorry about
that.
Pine
On Nov 27, 2015 12:02 PM, "Pine W" wrote:
>
> The public discussion on the 14-15 Annual Plan was quite limited and the
Board didn't publish their deliberations, so I don't believe that the
Board's current arra
yes, and I agree that this is a very good idea to ponder. It addresses a
couple of problems at once (including a major one, of FDC ability and
capacity to tackle WMF as well).
dj
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Lila Tretikov wrote:
> One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was
I meant User:Varnent. :)
I blame the turkey chemicals. :p
-greg (User:Varnent)
> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Gregory Varnum wrote:
>
> Personally - I favor third party and community review to a committee of the
> board - unless the entire board is on that committee along with some skilled
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Lila Tretikov wrote:
> What I hear in email from Andreas and Liam is not as much the propagation
> of the error (which I am sure happens with some % of the cases), but the
> fact that the original source is obscured and therefore it is hard to
> identify and corr
I think the 3rd party review might work, although it might be costly in
terms of consulting fees.
As a part of the 3rd party review, I hope that there would be an analysis
of the costs and benefits of moving WMF to a more economical location than
San Francisco.
Pine
__
Gergo, do you mind if people continue discussing this? I'm finding it
very interesting and fruitful. I hadn't thought through these issues
before, and there are likely to be others on this list who haven't
either.
Best!
,Wil
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Gergo Tisza wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2
Hoi,
There is no problem considering these points. You go in a direction that
has little to do with what we are and where we stand. Wikidata is a wiki.
That implies that it does not have to be perfect. It implies that
approaches are taken that arguably wacky and we will see in time how it
pans out.
29 matches
Mail list logo