Ugh.I just edited the page and now it's not working. Try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2/Example

Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically
> discern what a <ref> refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph." Check
> out the first paragraph and its references here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral.
>
> Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your
> MediaWiki preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what each
> reference is supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting the
> supported text on the page, rather than having it appear in a tool tip.
>
> I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that screen
> readers can read it.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske <
> magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those at
>> the
>> > end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of references at
>> > the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my point.
>> Many
>> > editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
>> > paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences after
>> the
>> > last footnote marker.
>> >
>> > There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote marker
>> > supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the sentences at the
>> > beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be counted as unsourced
>> > statements.
>> >
>>
>> Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern
>> what
>> a <ref> refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As described, my "one
>> sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound of statement numbers. So
>> is my <ref> count, then. I am certain you can find an article where my
>> statement-to-reference ratio is off against WIkipedia; but I believe I
>> could find more instances where it is in favour of Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just
>> doesn't
>> > matter which project is more poorly referenced.
>> >
>>
>> Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care :-)
>>
>> My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one can't
>> "sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor referencing.
>> Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things). That is
>> all.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Magnus
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Anthony Cole
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of you
>> only
>> > > counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of
>> > > paragraphs.
>> > >
>> > > And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a paragraph
>> > if,
>> > > as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph
>> often
>> > > supports all statements in the paragraph?
>> > >
>> > > Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
>> > >
>> > > Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in his
>> > > response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because,
>> > > provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source in
>> > the
>> > > body of an article, citations are not expected or required in
>> > en.Wikipedia
>> > > article leads.
>> > >
>> > > Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating
>> > Wikipedia's
>> > > lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
>> > > reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is
>> > > appalling.
>> > >
>> > > Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is
>> worse".
>> > > You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's true
>> but
>> > > still an invalid argument.
>> > >
>> > > It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument.
>> > >
>> > > Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding
>> references
>> > is
>> > > difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it is
>> easy
>> > > to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more difficult than
>> adding
>> > > them to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will you?
>> > >
>> > > You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the media
>> viewer
>> > > and visual editor was the stoopid power users.
>> > >
>> > > Anthony Cole
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Magnus Manske <
>> > > magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 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.
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >> Correct.
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 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.
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >> Which is why I am counting reference markers within the paragraphs,
>> not
>> > >> references at the end. Every <ref> is sacred ;-)
>> > >>
>> > >> Actually, I think my statement count for entire Wikipedia articles is
>> > low
>> > >> (and thus, favourable to Wikipedia). Take jsut the first sentence at
>> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams
>> > >> This sentence alone contains nine statements (first names, last name,
>> > >> birth
>> > >> date, death date, nationality, the fact he's human, and three
>> > >> occupations).
>> > >> But I would only count that as one statement, as it is one sentence.
>> > This
>> > >> reduces the number of statements I count in the article, but the
>> number
>> > of
>> > >> references (btw, only one in the entire lead section) remains
>> constant,
>> > >> thus pushing the RPS ratio in favour of Wikipedia.
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 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.
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >> I agree. Which is why I never made such arguments. Please don't put
>> them
>> > >> in
>> > >> my mouth; I don't know you well enough for that.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 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.
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >> Actually, it is easy to add references to Wikidata, certainly not
>> more
>> > >> difficult than adding them to Wikipedia. I have written bots and
>> > >> drag'n'drop scripts to make it even easier. It is a little fiiddly to
>> > add
>> > >> book references, but still reasoably possible.
>> > >> What /is/ difficult is to do this automatically, by bot. But pick a
>> > random
>> > >> Wikidata entry, and with a little googling, many statements can be
>> > >> referenced to URLs. But this takes time.
>> > >> Which brings me back to my blog post: Even after ~3 years, Wikidata
>> is
>> > >> referenced not too badly, compared to Wikipedia. And if we have
>> learned
>> > >> one
>> > >> thing from Wikipedia, it is that the state in general, and
>> references in
>> > >> particular, will improve over time.
>> > >> So to everyone who disses Wikidata because of "missing references", I
>> > say:
>> > >> 1. You're wrong (it's already OK)
>> > >> 2. Patience (it will get even better)
>> > >>
>> > >> Cheers,
>> > >> Magnus
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 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>
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> 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>

Reply via email to