Hi Magnus.

I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1]
earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing
me.

Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe a
formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable sources.
Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with the
number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references per
statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS
ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.

Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because whole
paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears
only once at the end of the paragraph.

But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it should
be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
arguments.

The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If
that is so, you should fix that.



1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels <andreeng...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
> new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
> exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
> as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
> had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
> editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to
> be, because I know you have done many good things.
>
> And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
> Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering
> skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did,
> they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
> term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
> it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
> disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
> etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.
>
> I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
> in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
> see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
> large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
> resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
> forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the
> issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is
> instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
> resistance against the product as a whole.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
> <magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > 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>
>
>
>
> --
> André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>

Reply via email to