Gnangarra, I was away when Andy was here, and am really regretting missing his presentation. Can you explain to me why the Wikidata people have to make a wikidata item of every source before they can cite it?
Anthony Cole On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, there's a typo in that last paragraph. It should read: > > The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others > that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata *statements*. > If that is so, you should fix that. > > Anthony Cole > > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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>
