All: Thanks to those of you who have provided your feedback. This is your last friendly reminder. If you'd like to share your thoughts and feedback with us about the taxonomy of knowledge gap work, the official deadline for it is 2020-09-30 (Anytime on Earth;). Our team is going to be heads down working on a couple of other projects in the week of October 5. This means, if you wanted to provide feedback to us and you didn't get a chance, you're more than welcome to do so on or before October 11. We're collecting your feedback at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#Feedback_collection_September_2020 .
Sam, Thanks for sharing your feedback here and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#General_feedback . Someone from our team or I will write to you more on the meta page. Peter, I hope you don't mind if we continue the conversation with Sam on the meta page now that the content is in both places. I see you've started asking questions from SJ there. Thanks all! Leila Leila Zia Head of Research Wikimedia Foundation On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 11:18 AM Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
