Which William Anthony?
There is an article on Wikipedia about one of them.
P

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Tuesday, 19 January 2016 10:39 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to disseminate free knowledge? Was: Profile of 
Magnus Manske

Hoi,
You do not offend but worse you do not convince because your arguments fail. 
What we have always done is "share in the sum of all knowledge" and to you that 
is wrong. You use gobbledygook like "techbubble" and your vision is one of 
community. Fine. You do not define community in any other way and leave me with 
a sense of "so?".

Wikipedia is our flagship. But Wikimedia is a fleet. With only a flagship we 
are a one-trick-pony and we are about more than encyclopaedic trivia about 
whatever there is to know about Elvis Presley. To me it is telling that there 
is no article about William Anthony. You will find him now in Wikidata and if 
you care to know why Mr Anthony is notable you may google him.

Our fleet consists of types of vessels that each have their own purpose in our 
plight to bring the sum of all knowledge to the world. When Wikipedia is all we 
do, we do a miserable job. A miserable job because we do not even share in the 
sum of knowledge available to us.

If reach is what our concern is, we should consider how to increase our reach 
and place the ships in the most advantageous position in order to provide more 
information so that people can gain the knowledge by integrating what they know 
with what we offer.

So far we do a piss poor job at marketing our knowledge and it is because we 
are not concerned with sharing in the sum of all knowledge, most of us are only 
concerned with Wikipedia and that is a castle and the trade routes are moving 
elsewhere.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 18 January 2016 at 22:37, Jens Best <best.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Magnus,
>
> thanks for bringing yourself into the discussion.
>
> I agree on several aspects you point out in the first half of your 
> mail about improvements, expectations and "prominent subgroups".
>
> When it comes to re-emphasize this "castle"-narrative, I had the 
> feeling you wanna connect reasonable ideas of other ways into the 
> future with all the nay-sayers you described so detailed before. Same 
> goes for the "Wikidata is killing Wikipedia"-statement. Nobody in this 
> mailinglist-thread used this word "killing" or similiarly hard analogies.
>
>
> So, what's again is the mission? You say: Dissemination of free knowledge.
> Well, who would disagree on that. Nobody. But wait, isn't the whole 
> strategic debate about *HOW *to disseminate free knowledge? And 
> assuming that a simple "the more third parties use the Wikiprojects 
> knowledge the more we fulfill our mission"-answer is…wrong.
>
> Even if 400 million of the 500 million (or so) readers would visit the 
> Wikipedia just to look up the birthday of Elvis Presley, it is *the 
> *characteristic feature of an encylopedia in general and Wikipedia in 
> special that you can discover more knowledge about Elvis even without 
> asking or even knowing that you wanna know more about Elvis.
>
> Knowledge unequals information. Knowledge is information plus culture, 
> plus personal interests, plus serendipity. That's why the same article 
> has different arrangements in different languages. That's why it is 
> not only about the facts, but also about the overview of the possible 
> classifications around the facts a good article is presenting.
>
> Knowledge is about discovering and not about checking some facts with 
> a Q&A-mobile app. So the question is surely not about should we 
> disseminate free knowledge, but how can this be done with a spirit 
> that comes from the idea of an encyclopedia. Information is in the 
> machine. Knowledge is in the people. Without the (editing, 
> programming, linking) people as an integral part of the "dissemination 
> procedure" the mission isn't the mission of Wikipedia.
>
> This idea might be not that fashionably going together with the recent 
> trends in web tech business developments, but it is surely not 
> "conservative" or castle-wall-building as some people try to frame it.
> It is also not easy. It is even more complicate than good writing good 
> code, because it is about involving more people in this not so trendy, 
> not so quick'n'dirty, not so infotainmental, mobile app-stylish way of 
> "knowledge dissemination".
>
> So the debate is not about castle-building, but about how we together 
> re-shaping the ship called Wiki(pedia) to sail a daily demanding 
> longterm mission and not following every techbubble-trends just 
> because "more is better".
>
> I hope that the upcoming strategic debate is as open as it needs to 
> be. A strategic debate which framework is already decided upon would 
> only increase the distance created also by recent events.
>
> I hope this clarifies my POV, and doesn't offend too many people ;-)
>
> Best regards,
> Jens Best
>
>
>
> 2016-01-18 21:33 GMT+01:00 Magnus Manske <magnusman...@googlemail.com>:
>
> > 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 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, 
> > projects like the Visual Editor can make work easier for many 
> > people, but few of them will realize what a daunting undertaking 
> > such a project is. The
> complexity
> > of getting this right is staggering. Expectations of getting it all 
> > perfect, all feature-complete, on the initial release, are 
> > unrealistic to say the least. And many of the details can not be 
> > tested between a few developers; things need to be tested under 
> > real-world conditions, and testing means they can break. Feedback 
> > about problems with a software release are actually quite welcome, 
> > but condemning an entire product forever because the first version 
> > didn't do everything 100% right is just plain stupid. If Wikipedia 
> > had been judged by such standards in 2001,
> there
> > would be no Wikipedia today, period. Technology improves all the 
> > time, be it Visual Editor, Media Viewer, or Wikidata; but in the 
> > community, there
> is
> > a sense of "it was bad, it must be still bad", and I have a feeling 
> > that this is extended to new projects by default these days.
> >
> > * In summary, what I criticize is that few people ask "how can we 
> > make
> this
> > better"; all they ask is "how can we get rid of it". This attitude
> prevents
> > the development of just about any new approach. If the result of a 
> > long, thorough analysis is "it's bad, and it can't possibly be made 
> > better", /then/ is the time to scrap it, but no sooner.
> >
> > * Of course, "the community" is an ill-defined construct to begin with.
> > When I use that phrase above, I do mean a small but prominent 
> > subgroup in that demographic, mostly "old hands" of good editors, 
> > often with a "fan club" of people repeating the opinions of the 
> > former on talk pages,
> without
> > really investigating on their own. After all, they are good editors, 
> > so they must know what they are talking about, right?
> >
> > * As I tried to say in the interview, I do understand such a 
> > conservative approach all to well. We worked hard for Wikipedia to 
> > get where it is
> now,
> > and with trolls, on the left, vandals on the right, and half-done 
> > tech experiments in front, retreating into the safety of the castle 
> > seems
> like a
> > good choice. And sometimes it is. But while we can defend the castle 
> > comfortably for some years to come, we will never grow beyond its walls.
> I
> > think we are already seeing the first fallout from this stagnation, 
> > in terms of dropping page views (not to mention editors). If people 
> > stop coming to a Wikipedia with 5 million articles, 10 million 
> > articles would not make much difference by themselves; more content 
> > is good, but it will not turn this supertanker around on its own. We 
> > do have some time left to change things, without undue haste, but we won't 
> > have forever.
> >
> > * Just to make sure, I am NOT saying to throw away all the things 
> > that
> have
> > proven to work for us; I'm just saying we shouldn't restrict us to them.
> >
> > * As for this "Wikidata is killing Wikipedia" sentiment - bullshit. 
> > (I would like to be more eloquent here, but for once, this is the 
> > perfect
> > word.) Wikipedia and Wikidata are two very different beasts, though 
> > they
> do
> > have an overlap. And that overlap should be used on Wikipedia, where 
> > it
> can
> > help, even in the gigantic English Wikipedia, which covers but a 
> > third of Wikidata items. Transcluded data in infoboxes; 
> > automatically generated lists; a data source for timelines. Those 
> > are functions that will improve Wikipedia, and will help especially 
> > the hundreds of smaller language editions that are just getting 
> > towards critical mass. And there, automatically generated 
> > descriptions can help get to that mass, until someone writes an actual 
> > article in that language.
> >
> > * So Google is using Wikidata in their search results? Good! In case 
> > you have forgotten, our mission is not to have a nice article about 
> > your pet topic, or have humans write articles that are little better 
> > than bot-generated stubs, or have your name in ten thousand article 
> > histories; the mission is the dissemination of free knowledge. And 
> > the more third parties use the knowledge we assemble, even (or 
> > especially!) if it is
> that
> > other 800 pound gorilla on the web, the better we fulfil that mission.
> >
> > I hope this clarifies my POV, and doesn't offend too many people ;-)
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:10 PM Andrew Lih <andrew....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 because it is a 
> > > change
> > from
> > > the status quo, and without solid reasoning, should reconsider. 
> > > The detailed analysis of Jonathan Cardy and Risker criticizing 
> > > VE’s
> > suboptimal
> > > 2013 launch are well-informed and legit. But many, unfortunately, 
> > > don’t apply such high standards for analysis.
> > >
> > > -Andrew
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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=unsubscr
> > > > ibe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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=unsubscrib
> > > e>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
_______________________________________________
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>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11433 - Release Date: 01/19/16


_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to