Hoi,
Jens, so you talk about improving Wikipedia. What I hear is basic
negativity. What is it in what you say that will actually make a positive
difference. Have you considered how Wikidata already made a big quality
improvement and do you agree that by taking the next step from interwiki
links and move to links and red links Wikidata would easily improve any
Wikipedia actually any Wikimedia project. It does not need sources, it does
not need anything but the realisation that it will remove a whole class of
errors that can be as much as 20% in some articles.
Really Jens, let us forget about adding stumbling blocks and focus on
quality. Improving quality in Wikipedia because we can.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 19 January 2016 at 16:58, Jens Best <best.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure where you get your impressions, Magnus. But when I discuss
> ideas for a better implementation of Wikidata into Wikipedia to improve
> automatisation of repetitive editing procedures, including the
> implementation of the possible use of structured data, I rarely hear "It Is
> Not Made Here" or "It's Bad Because Its New".
>
> When it comes to analyse the problems with Wikidata it isn't only about
> possible early-lifecycle issues(which can be fix), but about the blind spot
> when it comes to develope working social processes which keep everybody
> (especially the editors) in the picture.
>
> Community involvement (especially consultations) are often seem to be
> organized only out of necessity. They not in the middle of the
> decision-making process. Nobody said that doing things the way they are
> done in a crowdsourced, community-driven process are easy, but this is no
> excuse for any Foundation or other similiar entity to set up an
> intransparent, precendents creating process where community becomes
> accessories.
>
> The whole way the Knowledge Engine process was implemented, the whole still
> intransparent incident of kicking a highly valued community-selected person
> out of the WMF board are clear signals that some people already decided
> about the future of Wikimedia and now staging a folksy broad consultation
> circus to create the impression of transparent community involvement. -
> Deciding about the color of the car if you would instead prefer to talk
> about the vehicle is the illusion of community-based decisionmaking.
>
> We need a lot of change in the social procedures at the level of really
> needed ground work which is important for changing the Wikiprojects to make
> them work for the future. To reflect and to work on the development of
> these social procedures would be the most precious work to be done by the
> Foundation. Instead the Foundation dreams of techbubble-driven, humanless
> wonderland full of free floading informations which magically forms into
> knowledge when it somehow hits a human being.
>
> I like the idea of Wikidata.
> I like the idea of combining Encylopedia with structured data to enable
> understanding and easy re-use at the reader-side of Wikiprojects. So many
> things are imaginable there when the culture of conveying the needed
> individual and social skills are done well. Tech is only tool to these
> processes. Tools are important, but not the purpose when it comes to
> disseminate knowledge.
>
> regards,
> Jens
>
>
>
>
> 2016-01-19 15:56 GMT+01:00 Magnus Manske <magnusman...@googlemail.com>:
>
> > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this
> thread. I
> > have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I do
> well
> > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not quite
> up
> > to the job.
> >
> > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical or
> > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even
> > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have seen
> time
> > and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
> >
> > It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
> >
> > It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not Made
> > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple
> of
> > > people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
> > > persisting with your idée fixe.
> > >
> > > There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The
> > > product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not
> newbies.
> > > Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an edit.
> It
> > > was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
> > >
> > > The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors were
> > > unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then most
> of
> > > the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community arrogantly
> > > characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an ignorant,
> > > selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation now.
> > >
> > > The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have
> > > fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and the
> > > community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have.
> > >
> > > In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the
> > concurrent
> > > thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny in
> > > earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems to me there
> is
> > > still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at least
> > over
> > > at WikiData.
> > >
> > > Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly, about
> an
> > > innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down to
> them
> > or
> > > ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't
> > distinguish
> > > them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and well-founded
> > > criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your technical
> solutions
> > > are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than those WMF
> > staffers
> > > who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career move.
> > >
> > > Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his project, and
> > your
> > > contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early visual
> editor
> > > and its launch are both very disappointing.
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske <
> > > magnusman...@googlemail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do the basic
> > > > functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at the same time.
> We
> > > do
> > > > not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our product. If
> we
> > > can
> > > > present the product in such a way that more people use it, it is a
> > > success
> > > > for us.
> > > >
> > > > I do stand by my example :-)
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael Peel <em...@mikepeel.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske <
> > magnusman...@googlemail.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As one can be overly conservative, one can also be overly
> > > > enthusiastic. I
> > > > > > would hope the Foundation by now understands better how to handle
> > new
> > > > > > software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic functionality,
> > but
> > > > > > working smoothly first.
> > > > >
> > > > > But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's a good example to
> > make
> > > > > here. :-/
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Mike
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
