Hoi,
For your information, at Wikidata we have a large number of categories
where through query logic we know about articles that should include a
category. It is a tool that can be automated for many of them in two ways..
Harvesting Wikipedia for inclusion in Wikidata and also the reverse;
harvesting Wikidata for including a category in an article.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 at 16:26, WereSpielChequers <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I've long seen categorisation on wikipedia as a way to bring articles to
> the attention of those who follow certain categories. During the cleanup of
> unreferenced biographies a few year ago this was a useful adjunct, with
> several wikiprojects cleaning up all the articles legitimately categorised
> for them. Some of the other Wikiprojects did at least go through and prod
> or speedy the non-notables and hoaxes in their areas.
>
> I'm pretty sure it still operates that way, categorisation of an
> uncategorised article sometimes brings it to the attention of people who
> know the topic.
>
> And of course where the article doesn't contain the words in the category,
> categorisation then improves search.
>
> If like me you are a glass third full person categories make a useful
> contribution.
>
>
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 22:21, Kerry Raymond <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Pointy? I think you may misunderstand my use of the term “hostage”. I
> > don’t use it with the meaning of abducting people for ransom, but in the
> > sense of “subject to things beyond our control”.
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree entirely that Wikipedia should serve its readers and to that end
> > “To do” lists are compiled with the intention of giving adequate coverage
> > of topics perceived to be needed. Yet, many of those “To do” lists are
> full
> > of redlinks years later because we have volunteer contributors whose
> > interests / expertise may not align with the perceived needs. Whereas if
> > Wikipedia employed its writers, it could direct them to write articles
> > about required topics. It would be a wonderful thing if we could harness
> > the volunteer energy that goes into largely unproductive activities like
> > endless category reorganisation (given studies show readers rarely look
> > below the reference section and don’t see or use the categories) into
> > writing content that is actually needed. But alas it is not so.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kerry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Ziko van Dijk [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Sunday, 16 December 2018 3:32 AM
> > To: Kerry Raymond <[email protected]>; Research into Wikimedia
> > content and communities <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Readers of Wikipedia
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Thanks for the link and the comments, Leila!
> >
> >
> >
> > Am Fr., 14. Dez. 2018 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Kerry Raymond <
> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >:
> >
> > hostage to the interests of their contributors (unless they actively
> > remove the material). That is, you get the topics that the contributors
> are
> > willing and able to write, no matter what the intention might be.
> >
> >
> >
> > That's a very pointy expression: "Hostage to the interests of their
> > contributors"! In fact, WP should serve recipients, but the reality is
> > often different. We alreday saw that Article Feedback Tool as a means to
> > find out what recipients think. I would be happy with a new, less
> ambitious
> > approach, where we don't expect recipients to contribute to the
> improvement
> > of content but just want to know their opinion.
> >
> >
> >
> > By the way, the distincion of large and short articles I have found in
> > Collison's "Encyclopedias through the ages" (or similar) from 1966. It is
> > not very prominent in there, but I have elaborated on the idea in 2015,
> > with a distinction of definition articles, exposition articles, longer
> > articles and dissertations.
> >
> >
> >
> > An encyclopedia with "short" articles - or a meaningful combination of
> the
> > four types above - would fit well to the original concept of hypertext
> not
> > being an actual set of texts (or nodes), but being an individual's
> specific
> > learning strategy or reading path.
> >
> >
> >
> > Federico: remember, most of the oldest German texts (Old High German)
> deal
> > with Biblical topics... :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Ziko
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
