Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Thanks Peter. It's not my work, I put it out to tender at Village Pump (technical) and User:Makyen took it and did it. (It doesn't seem to be working now, though.) I'm pretty confident it's technically possible to make it accessible (readable by JAWS [1]) now. What's missing is the WMF's decision

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

I like this for the interface, and as you said for the screen reading function. I hear WMF is working on some TTS thing now? Not sure it would significantly alter my ratios at the moment, especially given its rather low takeup (i presume). In your example, it would actually make the ratio worse

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske I'd use it for most of my citations if it also worked for users of screen readers. But I can't bring myself to add a feature to an article that isn't accessible by the sight impaired. Anthony Cole On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Peter

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

wrote: > That would be a useful feature in the long term > Cheers, > Peter > > -Original Message- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Anthony Cole > Sent: Saturday, 12 March 2016 8:42 PM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

That would be a useful feature in the long term Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Cole Sent: Saturday, 12 March 2016 8:42 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Ugh. This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2#Example Anthony Cole On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > Ugh.I just edited the page and now it's not working. Try this: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2/Example > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Ugh.I just edited the page and now it's not working. Try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2/Example Anthony Cole On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically > discern

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern what a refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph." Check out the first paragraph and its references here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral. Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole wrote: > Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those at the > end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of references at > the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my point.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those at the end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of references at the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my point. Many editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a paragraph.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of you only counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of paragraphs. And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a paragraph if, as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole wrote: > Hi Magnus. > > I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1] > earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing > me. > > Comments have closed there, so I'll post my

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Gnangarra, I was away when Andy was here, and am really regretting missing his presentation. Can you explain to me why the Wikidata people have to make a wikidata item of every source before they can cite it? Anthony Cole On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Anthony Cole

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Sorry, there's a typo in that last paragraph. It should read: The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata *statements*. If that is so, you should fix that. Anthony Cole On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:27 PM,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Hi Magnus. I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1] earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing me. Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe a formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it, as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who had a negative opinion

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Andreas, Of course it is a Wikipedia-centric analysis, because citing the article you provide (bold in the original): *Wikidata presents Wikipedia as structured data* Wikidata does not exist in isolation. In symbiosis with existing projects it acts as a catalyst, or at least that is one of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Micru, That seems a very Wikipedia-centric analysis, as though Wikidata were only there to feed Wikipedia. I think most re-users of Wikidata will be elsewhere, and indeed be passive consumers and commercial rebranders whose audience is unlikely to feed back into Wikidata. The following article

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Wikidata and Wikipedia have very different purposes: Wikipedia is an > encyclopedia to be read; Wikidata is a database. No one reads a database. > The whole purpose of a database is to have its content multiplied and >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Why Anthony On 26 January 2016 at 20:46, Anthony Cole wrote: > Yes, Aubrey. It would be way too onerous to expect us to make each > citation a Wikidata item. If you use the currently available templates to format your citation then its possible to extract this information

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Hoi, It is becoming boring. Andreas, quality is not in sources. They are often horrible. Your notion that only sources are good is off. It has been argued too often that quality is in much more than only sources. The argument that Wikidata is immature has been made all frequently and the point is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Magnus Manske wrote: > Be careful with that "obvious" word... > > http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378 Hi Magnus, Things have been busy of late, and I never had time to properly respond to this blog post of yours. (For anyone

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > To cite a book just add the ISBN and page number. Leave it at that; or > perhaps you could devise a bot that follows up, converting ISBN + page > number into a full-blown reference. > Most of the time, I think your

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Be careful with that "obvious" word... http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378 On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:56 PM Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske < > magnusman...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

To cite a book just add the ISBN and page number. Leave it at that; or perhaps you could devise a bot that follows up, converting ISBN + page number into a full-blown reference. On 26 Jan 2016 4:20 pm, "Andrea Zanni" wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Gerard

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

e: > That is so true! Making book items is hard and then using them in > reference statements is harder > > -Original Message- > From: "Andrea Zanni" <zanni.andre...@gmail.com> > Sent: ‎26-‎1-‎2016 09:20 > To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wik

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Hoi, You want to compare it to the Reasonator item. It has all the right links for 43 award winners. That is 100% I did not have problems telling Wikipedians that there link was wrong. The information is there and there are more 'blue' links than in Wikipedia. The proof is in the pudding. For

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

te: > > > That is so true! Making book items is hard and then using them in > > reference statements is harder > > > > -Original Message- > > From: "Andrea Zanni" <zanni.andre...@gmail.com> > > Sent: ‎26-‎1-‎2016 09:20 > > To: "Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > Most editions of most books published in the last 40 years (certainly books > from reliable publishers) have an ISBN that identifies one edition. Most > reliable journal articles these days have a doi. For simple citing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

That is so true! Making book items is hard and then using them in reference statements is harder -Original Message- From: "Andrea Zanni" <zanni.andre...@gmail.com> Sent: ‎26-‎1-‎2016 09:20 To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Su

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Eh, wrong link ... > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-20-error-rate.html > > On 25 January 2016 at 17:29, Gerard Meijssen > wrote: > > > Hoi, > > I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > You want to compare it to the Reasonator item. It has all the right links > for 43 award winners. That is 100% I did not have problems telling > Wikipedians that there link was wrong. The information is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Then you are willing to concede that we don't need references on disambiguation pages? What about categories? What about templates? Those all have items in Wikidata as well. On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > I understand there are some data (say, the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Hoi, The question why add sources to every statement has nothing to do with Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is mentioned, it is because Wikipedians say that Wikidata is inferior "because we have sources". When the question is to be asked seriously, the answer becomes quite different. - It is really

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

I understand there are some data (say, the sky is blue) that are so obvious and well-known that no one would expect a source to be provided. I'm referring to data that everyone on earth doesn't know the answer to, like dry air contains 78.09*% *nitrogen. Anthony Cole On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

The answer is quite simple and is exactly the same as it is for Wikipedia: it's a wiki, and not everyone who contributes knows how to add references. On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:39 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > Why not insist that every piece of data added to wikidata is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Why not insist that every piece of data added to wikidata is supported by a reliable source? That's a genuine question. I don't know the answer. Saying, "Well, Wikipedia is unreliable, too" doesn't answer the question. You're all bright people, and I assume there is a good reason not to insist

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Hoi, Maybe.. but not all Wikipedias are the same. It is verifiable that Wikipedia would easily benefit from Wikidata from Wikidata by replacing the existing links and red links with functionality that uses Wikidata. It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error rate of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske wrote: > What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the respective > Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or anecdotes don't > count) Any non-trivial content you want to add to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error rate > of 20%. Could you give some specific examples of such cases, with links to the relevant article versions? Andreas

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Hoi, Eh, wrong link ... http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-20-error-rate.html On 25 January 2016 at 17:29, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > I regularly blog. It was mentioned in one of my blogposts [1].. By the way > the obvious would be to do some

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Actually I think Wikidata is sourced more thoroughly than any single Wikipedia. Looking at the last chart in those stats, less than 10% of all items have zero sitelinks, and we can't see in the stats whether 100% of those have zero referenced statements, but I would assume that is not the case,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Hoi, I regularly blog. It was mentioned in one of my blogposts [1].. By the way the obvious would be to do some research yourself. Paper tigers [2] are those tigers that rely on what others have to say, Thanks., GerardM [1]

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Ah, I see. I am the problem. Glad we cleared that up. On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:56 AM Isarra Yos wrote: > You just don't get it, do you? Even from the start this was all about > social issues with rollouts, and still you are contributing to the very > same social problems

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Jens Best wrote: > I'm not sure where you get your impressions, Magnus. But when I discuss > ideas for a better implementation of Wikidata into Wikipedia to improve > automatisation of repetitive editing procedures, including the >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On 2016-01-19 16:58, Jens Best wrote: I like the idea of Wikidata. I like the idea of combining Encylopedia with structured data to enable understanding and easy re-use at the reader-side of Wikiprojects. So many things are imaginable there when the culture of conveying the needed individual

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

You just don't get it, do you? Even from the start this was all about social issues with rollouts, and still you are contributing to the very same social problems you so blindly condemned. -I On 20/01/16 14:16, Magnus Manske wrote: On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:58 AM Todd Allen

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On 2016-01-19 12:53 PM, Pine W wrote: > >> The constitutional crisis that WMF created by using Superprotect to force >> Image VIewer on the communities [...] >> > > ... except that this is not what happened. While

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On 2016-01-19 12:53 PM, Pine W wrote: >> >> The constitutional crisis that WMF created by using Superprotect to force >> Image VIewer on the communities [...] > > > ... except that this is not what happened. While

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On 2016-01-20 10:09 PM, Risker wrote: Marc is not a member of the WMF staff. [anymore]. But yeah, that was my personal opinion only and not any sort of staff-like thing - I was never involved in superprotect or its deployment. I was hacking happily at Wikimania in London when I saw (a)

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On 20 January 2016 at 22:08, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Marc A. Pelletier > wrote: > > On 2016-01-19 12:53 PM, Pine W wrote: > >> > >> The constitutional crisis that WMF created by using Superprotect to > force > >> Image

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:58 AM Todd Allen wrote: > Once the VisualEditor was fit for purpose and a good deployment strategy > had been developed, the English Wikipedia community overwhelmingly > supported rolling it out. ( > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Informative discussion. Thank you all. I knew the history here, but seeing it come alive from these various perspectives further clarified that history for me. Thank you. /a On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > Magnus, regarding, "...at some point, you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

As it happens, I now like both VE and Image Viewer as optional features. I didn't appreciate how they were deployed. The constitutional crisis that WMF created by using Superprotect to force Image VIewer on the communities was arrogant, disproportionate, politically unwise, and wasteful. Although

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Once the VisualEditor was fit for purpose and a good deployment strategy had been developed, the English Wikipedia community overwhelmingly supported rolling it out. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_125#Gradually_enabling_VisualEditor_for_new_accounts )

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple of people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're persisting with your idée fixe. There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple of > people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're > persisting with your idée fixe. > To be fair, Magnus was addressing more

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this thread. I have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I do well remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not quite up to the job. What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Magnus, in the interview you said "From the Media Viewer, the Visual Editor, to Wikidata transclusion, all have been resisted by vocal groups of editors, not because they are a problem, but because they represent change. For these editors, the site has worked fine for years; why change anything?"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:40 PM Anthony Cole wrote: > Magnus, in the interview you said "From the Media Viewer, the Visual > Editor, to Wikidata transclusion, all have been resisted by vocal groups of > editors, not because they are a problem, but because they represent

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Magnus Manske wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:40 PM Anthony Cole wrote: > > > I notice VE isn't even an option when I log out and edit en.Wikipedia, > yet > > above others are saying it is much improved and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Excellent. Seems funny it's not the default for IPs. Anthony Cole On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Andrew Lih wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Magnus Manske < > magnusman...@googlemail.com > > wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:40 PM Anthony Cole

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Magnus, regarding, "...at some point, you have to leave the test environment, and test your product against reality." Of course. But VE was far, far too bad for real time when it was released. Really. It was driving newbies away. The sensible embracers-of-change threw it out, in the end. The

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Hoi, Magnus developed functionality to replace the "red links". Arguably replacing wikilinks with Wikidata in the background will improve Wikipedia (in any language) substantially. It is just not considered. Thanks, GerardM

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Hi, thanks Andrew for bringing Magnus' words into the mailinglist-discussion. I would like to balance the direct critic made by Magnus with an attempt to differentiate the matter at hand a bit. The obvious attempt to frame "the community" as conservative and not open to changes is a clever

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

I'm waiting for the day when Magnus will have a profile on the New Yorker, but this is nice, for the time being :-) Aubrey On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Andrew Lih wrote: > There’s an excellent profile of Magnus Manske in the Wikimedia blog today. > It’s hard to think

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

After the assertion "From the Media Viewer, the Visual Editor, to Wikidata transclusion, all have been resisted by vocal groups of editors, not because they are a problem, but because they represent change," I would suggest a very large "citation needed" tag. Pine

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Although "Tech innovations which try to replace quality human editing are not a good idea." Tech innovations which can adequately replace the need for quality human editing when that editing is not sufficiently available can be a very good idea, So can tech innovations which try can assist low

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On 18 January 2016 at 13:34, Andrew Lih wrote: > There’s an excellent profile of Magnus Manske in the Wikimedia blog today. > It’s hard to think of people more important to the movement than Magnus has > been since 2001. >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Hoi, You accuse Wikidata of something. That is ok. However, it helps when it is clear what problems you see. When Wikidata was introduced, it improved quality of interwiki links in a meaningful way. Most Wikipedians do not care about such links so it was an easy and obvious improvement. Similar

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Thank you for flagging this for us, Andrew. I have been unsuccessful in accessing this page and have been told by others who tried to do so that they were also getting various error messages. I will try again later using different technology - the problem may be that the blog doesn't come up

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

I cannot speak for Magnus, but there’s a distinction that needs to be made: Writing, “… all have been resisted by vocal groups of editors, not because they are a problem, but because they represent change” is not maligning all editors who complain. It simply says that those who resist innovation

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do the basic functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at the same time. We do not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our product. If we can present the product in such a way that more people use it, it is a success for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On 18 January 2016 at 20:33, Magnus Manske wrote: > * New things are not necessarily good just because they are new. What seems > to be an improvement, especially for a technical mind, can be a huge step > backwards for the "general population". On the other hand,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

> On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske wrote: > > As one can be overly conservative, one can also be overly enthusiastic. I > would hope the Foundation by now understands better how to handle new > software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic functionality,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

As one can be overly conservative, one can also be overly enthusiastic. I would hope the Foundation by now understands better how to handle new software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic functionality, but working smoothly first. That said, problems are to be expected, and a new Wikitext

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

OK, long thread, I'll try to answer in one here... * I've been writing code for over thirty years now, so I'm the first to say that technology in not "the" answer to social or structural issues. It can, however, mitigate some of those issues, or at least show new ways of dealing with them * New