Hoi, http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikidata-william-anthony-phd.html Thanks, GerardM
On 19 January 2016 at 10:35, Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
