Good points. Are these maybe covered in a future stage of the project? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Samuel Klein Sent: 26 September 2020 19:26 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [feedback requested] Taxonomy of knowledge gaps Thank you Leila -- I appreciate the reflection and the update here. The paper is thorough and methodical in its approach, which makes it easier for me to see a problem (for my own ideas): I don't see a focus on the primary tremendous *gaps *-- which for content is depth + breadth + freshness, and for contributors is reach, and for readers is reach in much of the world. I do see an excellent discussion of systemic *bias*, but mostly treated as *static* bias of what is there, and less *dynamic* bias of what we exclude or disallow or discourage. I left detailed feedback on meta <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#Alternatives>. I would welcome any help in aligning the way I think about this w/ your work (if that's desired). Perhaps best to address there, since it is all about refactoring and may benefit from that. But I am posting the heart of it below for completeness: === Here are the first things I think of around coverage gaps. Only the 0th item seems to directly fit the current taxonomy... 0) exclusion via lack of awareness, interest, or expertise 1) exclusion via deletionism 2) exclusion via topic notability norms (including pop culture + current events) 3) exclusion via source notability + limiting source formats 4) exclusion via license pessimism 5) exclusion via file format (!) and codec pessimism 6) exclusion of dense specialist knowledge via review bottlenecks 7) exclusion via knowledge type [model, dataset, map layer] 8) exclusion / rejection via behavior on the projects 9) exclusion / rejection under 1-4 via differential application of policy Some of these, like file-format and review-bottleneck exclusion, are primarily technical restrictions. Some of these, like the first ~4 above, are social+regulatory+technical restrictions that could be alleviated with simple tools (including extensions, alternatives, and sandboxes) -- just as nupedia's social restrictions were alleviated w/ the technical solution of a wiki for the drafting stage. And the last two are purely social restrictions, projecting systemic bias in the community of practice onto who joins and what contributions are welcomed. I'd like to see that subset of gaps addressed directly, and not split up across other parts of a taxonomy. === Wiki♥, Sam. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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> -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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>
