Distinguish Wikipedians,
I earlier thought I'm probably the only Wikipedian who edit and create articles
with smartphone until I saw User:Cullen328's essay on "Smartphone editing"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cullen328/Smartphone_editing). Although, I
have a personal computer but there are millions of people out there who do not
have their own personal computer. we do not all live in suburbia with unlimited
access to computers. I can say that almost everyone have access to smartphones
(Android, Blackberry etc). I created over 500 articles with smartphone, 9 of
the articles featured on DYK and I promoted one of the articles to GA status.
I hope that this will help motivate public intellectuals, Wikimedia outreach
coordinators, Wikipedia education managers and opinion leaders who explain
Wikipedia editing to the general public to acknowledge that editing by
smartphone is practical for those who are interested, even if it is not every
editor's cup of tea and outreach to new editors should include positive
information about smartphone editing per user:Cullen328's essay.
Warm regards,
Olatunde Isaac.
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
-----Original Message-----
From: wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Mon, 25
Jan 2016 17:28:43
To: <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 142, Issue 142
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Happy Magnus Manske Day! (Steinsplitter Wiki)
2. Re: Profile of Magnus Manske (Andreas Kolbe)
3. Re: Profile of Magnus Manske (Gerard Meijssen)
4. Re: Profile of Magnus Manske (Andreas Kolbe)
5. Re: Profile of Magnus Manske (Gerard Meijssen)
6. Re: Profile of Magnus Manske (Gerard Meijssen)
7. Re: Profile of Magnus Manske (Jane Darnell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:33:54 +0100
From: Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
To: "wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org"
<wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Happy Magnus Manske Day!
Message-ID: <dub124-w2b29fbde6e8fd515eb9f6e6...@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Magnus moved Wikipedia forward by coding mediawiki.
And he is still creating useful tools. Thanks Magnus for your hard work!
We can be proud to have Magnus in the Wikimedia movement.
--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Magnus_Manske_Day --
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:55:53 +0000
From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
Message-ID:
<CAHRTtW_5fQMfevRyf4Ve78=8dqh0hb03p+dogtdsuhj+dwo...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <magnusman...@googlemail.com>
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 Wikipedia today has to fulfil
one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally
published source.
Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious that
Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable
source", isn't it?[2]
[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:32:14 +0100
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
Message-ID:
<CAO53wxXzKo6_ZP-5Yty-F4rhD=iPOa6u+ttCZsV=2ufixvr...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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 20%. When you check Wikidata for its quality I expect it to be much
better than 90%.
It is blooming obvious that Wikipedians only see fault elsewhere and are
forgiving for the error in their own way.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 25 January 2016 at 14:55, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <
> magnusman...@googlemail.com>
> 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 Wikipedia today has to fulfil
> one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally
> published source.
>
> Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious that
> Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable
> source", isn't it?[2]
>
> [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:11:26 +0000
From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
Message-ID:
<CAHRTtW-_-3Tf7ED=0ziplticqmkrzivscvj2ggoqykfrrzc...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
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
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 17:29:49 +0100
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
Message-ID:
<CAO53wxX7zu=sQ61ToNML=L-90HPJH=j6zf-3oz9hdyobemv...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-recovery-and-mental-health.html
[2] http://www.letusdiy.org/uploads/userup/0911/3000041GC2.jpg
On 25 January 2016 at 16:11, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 17:32:00 +0100
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
Message-ID:
<cao53wxurgr1dougea3xx+dw0x9m3sbxx9mzvee38tm8_nds...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hoi,
Eh, wrong link ...
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-20-error-rate.html
On 25 January 2016 at 17:29, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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]
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-recovery-and-mental-health.html
> [2] http://www.letusdiy.org/uploads/userup/0911/3000041GC2.jpg
>
> On 25 January 2016 at 16:11, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:28:40 +0100
From: Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
Message-ID:
<CAFVcA-E0HwX+9e4nG3hgjk7ewSxgoQW-Xo=jyvz7ry95cyz...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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, especially since items with zero sitelinks and zero internal Wikidata
links tend to be "cleaned up and deleted". At least one sitelink means the
item is coming from a Wikipedia, and therefore the Wikipedia article will
have references that could be used in the Wikidata item and just haven't
been added yet. Of all the items with zero or just one statement, I expect
a great deal of these to be linked to categories, disambiguation pages, or
lists, as these types of items generally only contain one statement.
Also, we currently have no way to count unreferenced statements in
Wikipedia articles, but there are very few Wikipedia articles that have at
least one reference per sentence. So concluding that any single
unreferenced statement no matter how many other referenced statements there
are in the item brings an entire Wikidata item into the "untrustworthy
zone" is just silly.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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 20%. When you check Wikidata for its quality I expect it to be much
> better than 90%.
>
> It is blooming obvious that Wikipedians only see fault elsewhere and are
> forgiving for the error in their own way.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 25 January 2016 at 14:55, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <
> > magnusman...@googlemail.com>
> > 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 Wikipedia today has to fulfil
> > one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally
> > published source.
> >
> > Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious that
> > Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a
> "reliable
> > source", isn't it?[2]
> >
> > [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
> > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
------------------------------
End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 142, Issue 142
*********************************************
_______________________________________________
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>
