Hoi,
I agree when it is the only thing I said.
Yes, I asked you personally and Toby ... and Erik (both of them and several
times) and I always hear "good idea, should be easy, we ill look into it
and we get back to you". But as I said, your reply is relevant when it is
the only thing I said and it is not.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 28 October 2014 13:43, Aaron Halfaker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Gerard. Did you file the feature request? If not, you are ranting at the
> wrong mailing list.
>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> Despair is a personal emotion. What makes you think that despair is an
>> attack on a person? It is not. Oliver, I despair about what the Research
>> list has become and, I will explain why.
>>
>> What I despair about is the overwhelming amount of Wikipedia related
>> noise. Noise because it feels to me like the same subjects are covered in
>> endless similar ways. I despair because when something new happens OUTSIDE
>> of this, the English Wikipedia it is completely ignored.
>>
>> Much of what I hear feels like noise because it lacks practical
>> relevance. Research, statistics could show "What are people looking for
>> most in Wikipedia but cannot find". We do not have that because of no
>> reason I can think of and, it has been promised often enough for years now.
>> The Swedish Wikipedia finds that their bot generated articles has
>> rejuvenated their Wikipedia but the research community is quiet about it..
>> Ignores it ? Wikidata has statistics [1] its data has a real meaning about
>> Wikipedia, about Wikidata and about the sum of all information AVAILABLE to
>> us.
>>
>> The consequence of all this self promotion is that there is no attention
>> for anything else.. Yes, we know there is a gender disparity but what about
>> people with a mental health problem.. We have way more people editing who
>> are "enriched" with a diagnosis than is average. What do our projects mean
>> for them, does it help them with their self awareness, does it help them
>> recover, is our community aware of it and how does it cope or fail to cope.
>> What practical steps can we take to make these valuable contributors more
>> secure, less anxious?
>>
>> Researching the same things over and over does not help us understand
>> WIkipedia, our "other projects", our communities. It does not help us
>> achieve our aim; it is "share in the sum of all knowledge", we do not even
>> share all the knowledge that is available to us. Why not? How can we do
>> this?
>>
>> Jane knows the tool that provides a selection of Wikipedias with search
>> results from Wikidata. It works, Ori looked at it from a performance point
>> of view. NOTHING NEEDS TO BE DONE TO IMPLEMENT IT. It does not happen. A
>> research question would be "Why".
>>
>> The statistics for Wikidata are not up to date because the dumps are
>> faulty. It is not clear, obvious that it is of real concern to the people
>> responisble. However this data IS used to run specific bots based on what
>> the numbers show. The numbers matter, the statistics matter they have a
>> real demonstrable impact.
>>
>> What I am looking for is relevance and I find only research for more fine
>> grained explanations not for solutions. It is why I despair, it is because
>> it feels so much like a colossal waste of time when you consider that
>> researching subjects with a different objective would help us forward so
>> much.
>>
>> Maybe my expectations are unrealistic and people doing research are just
>> another incrowd doing their own thing.
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php?reverse
>>
>> On 28 October 2014 00:15, Oliver Keyes <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> If it's that trivial to implement, implement it.
>>>
>>> That's a very compressed way of saying; I think it's fine for us to
>>> disagree on this list. But, really? Pine's email made you "despair"? It, by
>>> inference, made you conclude he doesn't accept new things? You find the
>>> absence of a feature actively irrational?
>>>
>>> It's okay for Pine's vision to be different from yours, or mine, or
>>> Aaron's, or anyone else's. Wikimedia's ethos is not built on any one
>>> person's vision: it is built on the sum of all of our hopes (in an ideal
>>> universe). It's not a one-in, one-out system where ideas must be harshly
>>> and actively countered so that yours can take primacy.
>>>
>>> So let's try and stay non-hyperbolic and civil on this list, please. As
>>> a heuristic; if even /you/ feel a need to write an apology for your email
>>> into an email, don't hit send.
>>>
>>> On 27 October 2014 17:14, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> I read your mail again. It makes me despair.
>>>>
>>>> Wikimedia research is NOT about Wikipedia, not exclusively. When I read
>>>> what is an inspiration to you I find all the reasons why Wikipedians do not
>>>> accept anything new. Why we still do not have a search that also returns
>>>> information on what is NOT in that particular Wikipedia. It is only one
>>>> example out of many. It is however so easy to implement, it defies logic
>>>> that it has not happened on all Wikipedias. It is just one example that
>>>> demonstrates that we do not even share the sum of all information that is
>>>> available to us.
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Sorry,
>>>> GerardM
>>>>
>>>> On 20 October 2014 08:23, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Both of the presentations at the October Wikimedia Research Showcase
>>>>> were fascinating and I encourage everyone to watch them [1]. I would like
>>>>> to continue to discuss the themes from the showcase about Wikipedia's
>>>>> adaptability, viability, and diversity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Aaron's discussion about Wikipedia's ongoing internal adaptations, and
>>>>> the slowing of those adaptations, reminded me of this statement from MIT
>>>>> Technology Review in 2013 (and I recommend reading the whole article [2]):
>>>>>
>>>>> "The main source of those problems (with Wikipedia) is not mysterious.
>>>>> The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent
>>>>> male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere
>>>>> that deters newcomers who might increase partipcipation in Wikipedia and
>>>>> broaden its coverage."
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to contrast that vision of Wikipedia with the vision
>>>>> presented by User:CatherineMunro (formatting tweaks by me), which I
>>>>> re-read
>>>>> when I need encouragement:
>>>>>
>>>>> "THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA
>>>>> One gateway
>>>>> to the wide garden of knowledge,
>>>>> where lies
>>>>> The deep rock of our past,
>>>>> in which we must delve
>>>>> The well of our future,
>>>>> The clear water
>>>>> we must leave untainted
>>>>> for those who come after us,
>>>>> The fertile earth,
>>>>> in which truth may grow
>>>>> in bright places,
>>>>> tended by many hands,
>>>>> And the broad fall of sunshine,
>>>>> warming our first steps
>>>>> toward knowing
>>>>> how much we do not know."
>>>>>
>>>>> How can we align ouselves less with the former vision and more with
>>>>> the latter? [3]
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that we can continue to discuss these themes on the Research
>>>>> mailing list. Please contribute your thoughts and questions there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Pine
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] youtube.com/watch?v=-We4GZbH3Iw
>>>>>
>>>>> [2]
>>>>> http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/
>>>>>
>>>>> [3] Lest this at first seem to be impossible, I will borrow and tweak
>>>>> a quote from from George Bernard Shaw and later used by John F. Kennedy:
>>>>> "Some people see things as they are and say, 'Why?' Let us dream things
>>>>> that never were and say, 'Why not?'"
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Oliver Keyes
>>> Research Analyst
>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
