Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I do not care for "policies" that are only there for some and not for
others. I do not care to be told that I am wrong because of the policy and
at the same time to notice that policies are arbitrarily enforced. This is
not one such situation. One person who has the power deleted many items and
might proves right.

This is NOT about wishing for policies. It is to indicate that as it is
policies are not for everyone. THAT is what is wrong because it removes the
legitimacy of any and all policies and it removes any reason to accept what
an administrator has to say. To make things worse arguments are not what
makes for this situation, the arguments have not been mine. It is what
other people had to say. My question I am left with is plain, why respect
administrators, why respect policies?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 11 August 2016 at 13:57, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

> > what is the function of all the policies when they so obviously are
> hardly worth the bits they consist of.
>
> Policies are not commands that have to be blindly obeyed. They are a
> general framework for the admins and users to approach the blurry or
> defined limits, but of course some autonomy is needed to decide in edge or
> uncertain cases. That means to take decisions that eventually will make
> some people (like you in this case) unhappy.
>
> I generally prefer to have admins with more autonomy than with less, more
> specifically because when there are less regulations the type of people
> involved tend to create in general a more amiable climate, and I think that
> has been the case so far for Wikidata. If you are complaining about the
> health of the community, then you should be careful with the things you
> seem to wish for (regulations, processes, etc), because it can backfire and
> have the opposite effect.
>
> OTOH, if Commons is going to have its own structured database and those
> items might qualify there with less opposition, why to make such a big deal
> about it?
>
>
> Regards,
> Micru
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> What is trivial. I find that the disappointment in what our policies
>> bring us amounts to a lot. Effectively it is only who you are that
>> determines what you get away with. The quality of arguments are easily
>> dismissed with "I have a different opinion" (that is NOT an argument.
>>
>> When you look at my credentials you will agree that I have been involved
>> heavily in our project and for all the wrong reasons I am disengaging. I
>> object to the way conflicts are handled. I object to the collective shrug
>> of not caring, not wanting to be involved of our admins. In the end it does
>> not matter.
>>
>> Wikidata is a very important project that is underserved in attention to
>> its community. It just sort of happens and the statistics are so good that
>> we do not even look at the relative health of Wikidata as a community.
>>
>> It is one thing for stewards to say what they say, it is one thing for
>> individual administrators to say what they say but when the situation goes
>> rogue, when arguments presented by others do not get the collective
>> attention of the administrative processes that are in place. When the
>> allegation that admins do as they please is just a determination it becomes
>> obvious to raise the question what is the function of all the policies when
>> they so obviously are hardly worth the bits they consist of.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On 1 August 2016 at 02:05, Vi to  wrote:
>>
>>> [Note: I'm using the last message for a cumulative reply]
>>>
>>> Wikidata has 16k active users, 66 admins, 3 'crats, with a pretty active
>>> community. This thread has turned into a weird mix of inclusionism vs.
>>> deletionism catfight + a request to undelete some contents in a specific
>>> project + a series of off-topics. The first part might fit the scope of
>>> this list (though is *so* boring), same for the third one. Instead, the
>>> second part must be discussed on Wikidata following local policies.
>>>
>>> Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out of
>>> our mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete ^^),
>>> same for the staffers. No chances to overrule a community for such trivial
>>> reasons.
>>>
>>> Vito
>>>
>>> 2016-08-01 0:36 GMT+02:00 Info WorldUniversity <
>>> i...@worlduniversityandschool.org>:
>>>
 If, as Jimbo Wales' wrote the purpose of Wikipedia involves imagining
 "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to
 the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.—Jimbo Wales
 [3]
 "
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose ...

 and the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation includes:

 "The mission of the Wikimedia 

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What is trivial. I find that the disappointment in what our policies bring
us amounts to a lot. Effectively it is only who you are that determines
what you get away with. The quality of arguments are easily dismissed with
"I have a different opinion" (that is NOT an argument.

When you look at my credentials you will agree that I have been involved
heavily in our project and for all the wrong reasons I am disengaging. I
object to the way conflicts are handled. I object to the collective shrug
of not caring, not wanting to be involved of our admins. In the end it does
not matter.

Wikidata is a very important project that is underserved in attention to
its community. It just sort of happens and the statistics are so good that
we do not even look at the relative health of Wikidata as a community.

It is one thing for stewards to say what they say, it is one thing for
individual administrators to say what they say but when the situation goes
rogue, when arguments presented by others do not get the collective
attention of the administrative processes that are in place. When the
allegation that admins do as they please is just a determination it becomes
obvious to raise the question what is the function of all the policies when
they so obviously are hardly worth the bits they consist of.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 1 August 2016 at 02:05, Vi to  wrote:

> [Note: I'm using the last message for a cumulative reply]
>
> Wikidata has 16k active users, 66 admins, 3 'crats, with a pretty active
> community. This thread has turned into a weird mix of inclusionism vs.
> deletionism catfight + a request to undelete some contents in a specific
> project + a series of off-topics. The first part might fit the scope of
> this list (though is *so* boring), same for the third one. Instead, the
> second part must be discussed on Wikidata following local policies.
>
> Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out of
> our mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete ^^),
> same for the staffers. No chances to overrule a community for such trivial
> reasons.
>
> Vito
>
> 2016-08-01 0:36 GMT+02:00 Info WorldUniversity  worlduniversityandschool.org>:
>
>> If, as Jimbo Wales' wrote the purpose of Wikipedia involves imagining "a
>> world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to
>> the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.—Jimbo Wales
>> [3]
>> "
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose ...
>>
>> and the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation includes:
>>
>> "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people
>> around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free
>> license  or in the public
>> domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
>>
>> In collaboration with a network of chapters
>> , the Foundation
>> provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for
>> the support and development of multilingual wiki projects
>>  and other endeavors
>> which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful
>> information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge
>> , in perpetuity."
>>
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement
>>
>> I'd vote as a Wikidata community member for aggregating conferences and
>> courses in all languages with machine and wiki (human) processes. Whether
>> this is best done in Wikidata/Wikibase, or another related platform or
>> elsewhere, may be worth exploring process-wise in a number of different
>> Wikidata forums and discussions. This also seems wise, and relatively easy
>> too I.T.-wise, given shared unfolding agreement among Wikidatans and
>> Wikipedians.
>>
>> Friendly regards, Scott
>>
>> CC https://twitter.com/WorldUnivAndSch
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2016 2:18 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> There were lists of Wikimania talks for the Wikimanias. So these items
>>> were not standing alone they were in context and THAT is what makes it
>>> attractive to have them. We do have Wikimanias as items and on there own
>>> they do not provide information. Looking at them from only WIkidata you do
>>> not get the picture. Thank  that Magnus has his fantastic
>>> tools that allow us to show the value of data.
>>> Thanks,
>>>   GerardM
>>>
>>> On 31 July 2016 at 22:47, Stas Malyshev  wrote:
>>>
 Hi!

 > Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What
 > was done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion.

 I wonder whether Wikidata is really the best 

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Adrian Raddatz]

Why were we even talking about stewards overruling local admins? I don't
see that suggested in any of the emails above, and obviously it would be
totally inappropriate.

But on the whole I agree, Vito. There are more productive ways of dealing
with this.

Adrian Raddatz

On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On 6 August 2016 at 07:42, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:
>
> > Andy Mabbett писал 2016-08-04 22:45:
> >>
> >> On 1 August 2016 at 01:05, Vi to  wrote:
>
> >> There is no community action to overrule. The deletion was done by
> >> single, involved admin, with no discussion, and without any backing in
> >> policy.
> >
> >
> > Really?
>
> Really, You're welcome to provide evidence to the contrary (note:
> that's "evidence", not "assertion".)
>
> > And we, the admin cabal, just massively disregard policies?
>
> Who said anything about a cabal?
>
> > May be you should learn to listen at some point. You have been provided
> with
> > all necessary explanations, multiple times.
>
> Poppycock.
>
> > You may agree or disagree, but
> > repeatedly stating there were no explanations is IDONOTHEARIT.
>
> Where have I stated that there were "no explanations"? Sadly, the very
> few that have been offered have been easily refuted, both here and on
> Wikidata's admin noticeboard, as they include logical fallacies, make
> claims made with no evidence, do not address the concerns raised and
> are not based in any policy.
>
> > Stop it.
>
> On the basis of your authority?
>
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Andy Mabbett]

On 6 August 2016 at 07:42, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:

> Andy Mabbett писал 2016-08-04 22:45:
>>
>> On 1 August 2016 at 01:05, Vi to  wrote:

>> There is no community action to overrule. The deletion was done by
>> single, involved admin, with no discussion, and without any backing in
>> policy.
>
>
> Really?

Really, You're welcome to provide evidence to the contrary (note:
that's "evidence", not "assertion".)

> And we, the admin cabal, just massively disregard policies?

Who said anything about a cabal?

> May be you should learn to listen at some point. You have been provided with
> all necessary explanations, multiple times.

Poppycock.

> You may agree or disagree, but
> repeatedly stating there were no explanations is IDONOTHEARIT.

Where have I stated that there were "no explanations"? Sadly, the very
few that have been offered have been easily refuted, both here and on
Wikidata's admin noticeboard, as they include logical fallacies, make
claims made with no evidence, do not address the concerns raised and
are not based in any policy.

> Stop it.

On the basis of your authority?


-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Vi to]

I never loved authority principle, nor I do in this context.

I didn't reply because I find this thread has turned into rant too many
emails ago, while this list cannot produce consensus for any project.

But well, here's my reply: Wikidata has an active community, which has a
series of means to rollback sysops' actions. If no one has yet rolled those
deletions back we, stewards, won't *overrule the community*. Sorry for
going against *one of the most influential wikimedians' *writ, but a series
of mildly controversial deletions -the controversy wouldn't be "mild" if it
would bring to a wheel-war- is so so far from the magnitude of trouble
causing us to intervene.

Vito

2016-08-06 9:29 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen :

> Hoi,
> You make a mistake. You are talking to one of the most influential
> Wikimedians. Andy is professional in the width and the breath and quality
> of what he does as a Wikimedian. He is quite capable of understanding
> policy and he is quite capable of expressing his well founded opinion. The
> controversy comes to light and does not go away because it is between an
> important admin who I highly regard for the work that he does and myself.It
> does not stop because the arguments are clear and obvious and contrary to
> what you indicate no arguments are given by any of the other admins except
> for "I do not have to do this". The point with arguments is you cannot deny
> them but you can ignore them or refute them. Only the ignore bit is present.
>
> As to disregarding policy, let us just look at property 500 and see it for
> the example it is. Admins on Wikidata are not as relevant on Wikidata as
> they are on Wikipedia that is easily explained. As a group they do
> whatever, I have little interaction with them I do what I do and with over
> two million edits with many many manual edits in there I can safely say
> that I prefer it that way and, I know my Wikidata quite well.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 6 August 2016 at 08:42, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:
>
>> Andy Mabbett писал 2016-08-04 22:45:
>>
>>> On 1 August 2016 at 01:05, Vi to  wrote:
>>>
>>> Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out of
 our
 mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete ^^),
 same
 for the staffers. No chances to overrule a community for such trivial
 reasons.

>>>
>>> There is no community action to overrule. The deletion was done by
>>> single, involved admin, with no discussion, and without any backing in
>>> policy.
>>>
>>
>> Really? And we, the admin cabal, just massively disregard policies?
>>
>> May be you should learn to listen at some point. You have been provided
>> with all necessary explanations, multiple times. You may agree or disagree,
>> but repeatedly stating there were no explanations is IDONOTHEARIT.
>>
>> Stop it.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You make a mistake. You are talking to one of the most influential
Wikimedians. Andy is professional in the width and the breath and quality
of what he does as a Wikimedian. He is quite capable of understanding
policy and he is quite capable of expressing his well founded opinion. The
controversy comes to light and does not go away because it is between an
important admin who I highly regard for the work that he does and myself.It
does not stop because the arguments are clear and obvious and contrary to
what you indicate no arguments are given by any of the other admins except
for "I do not have to do this". The point with arguments is you cannot deny
them but you can ignore them or refute them. Only the ignore bit is present.

As to disregarding policy, let us just look at property 500 and see it for
the example it is. Admins on Wikidata are not as relevant on Wikidata as
they are on Wikipedia that is easily explained. As a group they do
whatever, I have little interaction with them I do what I do and with over
two million edits with many many manual edits in there I can safely say
that I prefer it that way and, I know my Wikidata quite well.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 6 August 2016 at 08:42, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:

> Andy Mabbett писал 2016-08-04 22:45:
>
>> On 1 August 2016 at 01:05, Vi to  wrote:
>>
>> Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out of
>>> our
>>> mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete ^^),
>>> same
>>> for the staffers. No chances to overrule a community for such trivial
>>> reasons.
>>>
>>
>> There is no community action to overrule. The deletion was done by
>> single, involved admin, with no discussion, and without any backing in
>> policy.
>>
>
> Really? And we, the admin cabal, just massively disregard policies?
>
> May be you should learn to listen at some point. You have been provided
> with all necessary explanations, multiple times. You may agree or disagree,
> but repeatedly stating there were no explanations is IDONOTHEARIT.
>
> Stop it.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

Andy Mabbett писал 2016-08-04 22:45:

On 1 August 2016 at 01:05, Vi to  wrote:

Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out 
of our
mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete 
^^), same

for the staffers. No chances to overrule a community for such trivial
reasons.


There is no community action to overrule. The deletion was done by
single, involved admin, with no discussion, and without any backing in
policy.


Really? And we, the admin cabal, just massively disregard policies?

May be you should learn to listen at some point. You have been provided 
with all necessary explanations, multiple times. You may agree or 
disagree, but repeatedly stating there were no explanations is 
IDONOTHEARIT.


Stop it.

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Andy Mabbett]

On 1 August 2016 at 01:05, Vi to  wrote:

> Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out of our
> mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete ^^), same
> for the staffers. No chances to overrule a community for such trivial
> reasons.

There is no community action to overrule. The deletion was done by
single, involved admin, with no discussion, and without any backing in
policy.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Info WorldUniversity]

Thanks, Vito & All!

Scott

On Jul 31, 2016 5:05 PM, "Vi to"  wrote:

> [Note: I'm using the last message for a cumulative reply]
>
> Wikidata has 16k active users, 66 admins, 3 'crats, with a pretty active
> community. This thread has turned into a weird mix of inclusionism vs.
> deletionism catfight + a request to undelete some contents in a specific
> project + a series of off-topics. The first part might fit the scope of
> this list (though is *so* boring), same for the third one. Instead, the
> second part must be discussed on Wikidata following local policies.
>
> Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out of
> our mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete ^^),
> same for the staffers. No chances to overrule a community for such trivial
> reasons.
>
> Vito
>
> 2016-08-01 0:36 GMT+02:00 Info WorldUniversity <
> i...@worlduniversityandschool.org>:
>
>> If, as Jimbo Wales' wrote the purpose of Wikipedia involves imagining "a
>> world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to
>> the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.—Jimbo Wales
>> [3]
>> "
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose ...
>>
>> and the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation includes:
>>
>> "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people
>> around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free
>> license  or in the public
>> domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
>>
>> In collaboration with a network of chapters
>> , the Foundation
>> provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for
>> the support and development of multilingual wiki projects
>>  and other endeavors
>> which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful
>> information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge
>> , in perpetuity."
>>
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement
>>
>> I'd vote as a Wikidata community member for aggregating conferences and
>> courses in all languages with machine and wiki (human) processes. Whether
>> this is best done in Wikidata/Wikibase, or another related platform or
>> elsewhere, may be worth exploring process-wise in a number of different
>> Wikidata forums and discussions. This also seems wise, and relatively easy
>> too I.T.-wise, given shared unfolding agreement among Wikidatans and
>> Wikipedians.
>>
>> Friendly regards, Scott
>>
>> CC https://twitter.com/WorldUnivAndSch
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2016 2:18 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> There were lists of Wikimania talks for the Wikimanias. So these items
>>> were not standing alone they were in context and THAT is what makes it
>>> attractive to have them. We do have Wikimanias as items and on there own
>>> they do not provide information. Looking at them from only WIkidata you do
>>> not get the picture. Thank  that Magnus has his fantastic
>>> tools that allow us to show the value of data.
>>> Thanks,
>>>   GerardM
>>>
>>> On 31 July 2016 at 22:47, Stas Malyshev  wrote:
>>>
 Hi!

 > Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What
 > was done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion.

 I wonder whether Wikidata is really the best platform to host Wikimania
 talks and information about it. While I have no doubt these are
 excellent talks of great interest to Wiki community, their notability in
 the larger world is a more difficult question. Specifically, would we
 create an item for every talk even for a major conference (not
 considering copyright etc. questions now)? We have a lot of conferences
 with much wider attendance than Wikimania happening each year.

 Now, Wikimania is of course special - for Wiki movement. And having
 *some* repository for this content and knowledge would be completely
 appropriate. However, is that repository Wikidata - as purported to be
 repository of knowledge of general public interest? I am much less sure
 of it. Unless we take the wider mission of accepting data about talks on
 any conference of note - which may be possible, but I'm not sure whether
 it should be done... If yes, then of course clear policy statement to
 that effect may be helpful - so people who are not sure about it like me
 would know what the community consensus has arrived to.
 --
 Stas Malyshev
 smalys...@wikimedia.org

 ___
 Wikidata mailing list
 

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Info WorldUniversity]

If, as Jimbo Wales' wrote the purpose of Wikipedia involves imagining "a
world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to
the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.—Jimbo Wales
[3]
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose ...

and the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation includes:

"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people
around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free
license  or in the public
domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

In collaboration with a network of chapters
, the Foundation
provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for
the support and development of multilingual wiki projects
 and other endeavors
which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful
information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge
, in perpetuity."

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement

I'd vote as a Wikidata community member for aggregating conferences and
courses in all languages with machine and wiki (human) processes. Whether
this is best done in Wikidata/Wikibase, or another related platform or
elsewhere, may be worth exploring process-wise in a number of different
Wikidata forums and discussions. This also seems wise, and relatively easy
too I.T.-wise, given shared unfolding agreement among Wikidatans and
Wikipedians.

Friendly regards, Scott

CC https://twitter.com/WorldUnivAndSch

On Jul 31, 2016 2:18 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> There were lists of Wikimania talks for the Wikimanias. So these items
> were not standing alone they were in context and THAT is what makes it
> attractive to have them. We do have Wikimanias as items and on there own
> they do not provide information. Looking at them from only WIkidata you do
> not get the picture. Thank  that Magnus has his fantastic
> tools that allow us to show the value of data.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 31 July 2016 at 22:47, Stas Malyshev  wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> > Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What
>> > was done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion.
>>
>> I wonder whether Wikidata is really the best platform to host Wikimania
>> talks and information about it. While I have no doubt these are
>> excellent talks of great interest to Wiki community, their notability in
>> the larger world is a more difficult question. Specifically, would we
>> create an item for every talk even for a major conference (not
>> considering copyright etc. questions now)? We have a lot of conferences
>> with much wider attendance than Wikimania happening each year.
>>
>> Now, Wikimania is of course special - for Wiki movement. And having
>> *some* repository for this content and knowledge would be completely
>> appropriate. However, is that repository Wikidata - as purported to be
>> repository of knowledge of general public interest? I am much less sure
>> of it. Unless we take the wider mission of accepting data about talks on
>> any conference of note - which may be possible, but I'm not sure whether
>> it should be done... If yes, then of course clear policy statement to
>> that effect may be helpful - so people who are not sure about it like me
>> would know what the community consensus has arrived to.
>> --
>> Stas Malyshev
>> smalys...@wikimedia.org
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There were lists of Wikimania talks for the Wikimanias. So these items were
not standing alone they were in context and THAT is what makes it
attractive to have them. We do have Wikimanias as items and on there own
they do not provide information. Looking at them from only WIkidata you do
not get the picture. Thank  that Magnus has his fantastic
tools that allow us to show the value of data.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 31 July 2016 at 22:47, Stas Malyshev  wrote:

> Hi!
>
> > Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What
> > was done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion.
>
> I wonder whether Wikidata is really the best platform to host Wikimania
> talks and information about it. While I have no doubt these are
> excellent talks of great interest to Wiki community, their notability in
> the larger world is a more difficult question. Specifically, would we
> create an item for every talk even for a major conference (not
> considering copyright etc. questions now)? We have a lot of conferences
> with much wider attendance than Wikimania happening each year.
>
> Now, Wikimania is of course special - for Wiki movement. And having
> *some* repository for this content and knowledge would be completely
> appropriate. However, is that repository Wikidata - as purported to be
> repository of knowledge of general public interest? I am much less sure
> of it. Unless we take the wider mission of accepting data about talks on
> any conference of note - which may be possible, but I'm not sure whether
> it should be done... If yes, then of course clear policy statement to
> that effect may be helpful - so people who are not sure about it like me
> would know what the community consensus has arrived to.
> --
> Stas Malyshev
> smalys...@wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Stas Malyshev]

Hi!

> Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What
> was done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion.

I wonder whether Wikidata is really the best platform to host Wikimania
talks and information about it. While I have no doubt these are
excellent talks of great interest to Wiki community, their notability in
the larger world is a more difficult question. Specifically, would we
create an item for every talk even for a major conference (not
considering copyright etc. questions now)? We have a lot of conferences
with much wider attendance than Wikimania happening each year.

Now, Wikimania is of course special - for Wiki movement. And having
*some* repository for this content and knowledge would be completely
appropriate. However, is that repository Wikidata - as purported to be
repository of knowledge of general public interest? I am much less sure
of it. Unless we take the wider mission of accepting data about talks on
any conference of note - which may be possible, but I'm not sure whether
it should be done... If yes, then of course clear policy statement to
that effect may be helpful - so people who are not sure about it like me
would know what the community consensus has arrived to.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@wikimedia.org

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Adrian Raddatz]

That's a fair assessment of the situation. I can understand the other side
of the conversation as well; it is somewhat debatable whether or not the
items actually fill a structural need for the conference page, though I
would suggest that any data that can be included on an item presents a need
to be kept.

But as I said above, if people want to really move forward with this, a
general discussion on the project chat is probably the best way to go. I'd
be glad to organise it! Something that asks about whether items for
presentations and presenters at notable conferences in general satisfy the
notability policy by being identifiable entities and filling a structural
need. I think it fits under both myself.

Adrian Raddatz

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Brill Lyle  wrote:

> Isn't Wikimania a public conference that includes much live streaming? If
> an editor wishes to be anonymous and not filmed or photographed the event
> organizers can provide red dots etc. and their presentation and appearance
> can be adjusted accordingly.
>
> But this is a public event with a mission of outreach and connectivity,
> unless I misunderstand completely.
>
> BLP is a problem everywhere not just on Wiki projects.
>
> If the owner of the data objects that's one thing. But I think to delete
> all content for the conference is overzealous and works against the idea of
> encyclopedic and semantic information.
>
> Erika
>
> On Jul 31, 2016, at 2:15 PM, jay...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Wikimedia Commons will have its own structured data repository soon, and
> it will need to tackle this BLP problem also.
> Wikidata really needs a BLP policy; then it is easier to trust Wikidata
> with the grey area.
> Wikimedians will be worried that while Gerard's intention is noble, when
> they have an item about them there is nothing to someone with less noble
> intentions from adding more intrusive information to the item.
> The result will be less people willing to speak at Wikimania.
>
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 01:07 Brill Lyle,  wrote:
>
>> Gerard's point that the items are typically found in Wikimedia Commons I
>> think is key. If the item is part of a sister project to Wikidata then it
>> has a corresponding place on Wikidata. Unless I misunderstand the
>> interoperability and mission of Wikidata.
>>
>> Also: I am not a fan of deleting content -- especially content that is
>> curated, focused, captures a time and place, incorporates hard work on
>> projects especially as it relates to a Wikimedia project. To me this is not
>> defensible. So deleting entries seems similar to my experience with
>> Wikipedia editors hostile to added content focused on deletionism -- of
>> course to a notable women's page where I as an editor am trying to
>> establish said notability -- who characterize the information as yes, "too
>> encyclopedic." #Ridiculous I wish this wasn't true.
>>
>> So I agree with Gerard and others here.
>>
>> - Erika
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hoi,
>> There are several things at play. First, Wikimania and its talks will
>> find its place in Wikidata because typically much of the papers,
>> presentations and registrations will be found in Commons. So they will be
>> registered anyway. Second, this thread is also about the way our policies
>> are maintained. This is done in an arbitrary way and consequently much of
>> the arguments based on policies have lost much of their validity. Third,
>> the number of items involved is so low that it not even registers. When
>> other conferences like TED find their way, it is not a problem so why
>> should granularity be a problem now?
>>
>> When people want to know about how we think about what we do, the
>> Wikimania talks is a prime resource. Papers are published about what we do.
>> We could easily refer people to Wikimania and other talks. We could and
>> should because it makes sense to do so. In the end it is our history.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On 31 July 2016 at 17:25, Daniel Kinzler 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 31.07.2016 um 17:04 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
>>> > Hoi,
>>> > I am not to judge what conferences will be deemed relevant for an item
>>> in
>>> > Wikidata. When a conference is relevant, it is the talks and
>>> particularly the
>>> > registrations of the talks, the papers and the presentations that make
>>> the
>>> > conference relevant after the fact.
>>>
>>> So you think that for every relevant conference, all talks and speakers
>>> should
>>> automatically be considered relevant? Does the same aregument apply to
>>> all
>>> courses and theachers at all relevant universities and schools?
>>>
>>> I'm trying to understand your point. To me it's a question of
>>> granularity. We
>>> can't manage arbitrarily fine grained information, so we have to stop at
>>> some
>>> point. What do you think, where should that point be for Wikimania, for
>>> 

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[jayvdb]

Wikimedia Commons will have its own structured data repository soon, and it
will need to tackle this BLP problem also.
Wikidata really needs a BLP policy; then it is easier to trust Wikidata
with the grey area.
Wikimedians will be worried that while Gerard's intention is noble, when
they have an item about them there is nothing to someone with less noble
intentions from adding more intrusive information to the item.
The result will be less people willing to speak at Wikimania.

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 01:07 Brill Lyle,  wrote:

> Gerard's point that the items are typically found in Wikimedia Commons I
> think is key. If the item is part of a sister project to Wikidata then it
> has a corresponding place on Wikidata. Unless I misunderstand the
> interoperability and mission of Wikidata.
>
> Also: I am not a fan of deleting content -- especially content that is
> curated, focused, captures a time and place, incorporates hard work on
> projects especially as it relates to a Wikimedia project. To me this is not
> defensible. So deleting entries seems similar to my experience with
> Wikipedia editors hostile to added content focused on deletionism -- of
> course to a notable women's page where I as an editor am trying to
> establish said notability -- who characterize the information as yes, "too
> encyclopedic." #Ridiculous I wish this wasn't true.
>
> So I agree with Gerard and others here.
>
> - Erika
>
> On Jul 31, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> There are several things at play. First, Wikimania and its talks will find
> its place in Wikidata because typically much of the papers, presentations
> and registrations will be found in Commons. So they will be registered
> anyway. Second, this thread is also about the way our policies are
> maintained. This is done in an arbitrary way and consequently much of the
> arguments based on policies have lost much of their validity. Third, the
> number of items involved is so low that it not even registers. When other
> conferences like TED find their way, it is not a problem so why should
> granularity be a problem now?
>
> When people want to know about how we think about what we do, the
> Wikimania talks is a prime resource. Papers are published about what we do.
> We could easily refer people to Wikimania and other talks. We could and
> should because it makes sense to do so. In the end it is our history.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 31 July 2016 at 17:25, Daniel Kinzler 
> wrote:
>
>> Am 31.07.2016 um 17:04 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
>> > Hoi,
>> > I am not to judge what conferences will be deemed relevant for an item
>> in
>> > Wikidata. When a conference is relevant, it is the talks and
>> particularly the
>> > registrations of the talks, the papers and the presentations that make
>> the
>> > conference relevant after the fact.
>>
>> So you think that for every relevant conference, all talks and speakers
>> should
>> automatically be considered relevant? Does the same aregument apply to all
>> courses and theachers at all relevant universities and schools?
>>
>> I'm trying to understand your point. To me it's a question of
>> granularity. We
>> can't manage arbitrarily fine grained information, so we have to stop at
>> some
>> point. What do you think, where should that point be for Wikimania, for
>> other
>> (relevant) conferences, for universities, for schools?
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kinzler
>> Senior Software Developer
>>
>> Wikimedia Deutschland
>> Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Brill Lyle]

Gerard's point that the items are typically found in Wikimedia Commons I think 
is key. If the item is part of a sister project to Wikidata then it has a 
corresponding place on Wikidata. Unless I misunderstand the interoperability 
and mission of Wikidata.

Also: I am not a fan of deleting content -- especially content that is curated, 
focused, captures a time and place, incorporates hard work on projects 
especially as it relates to a Wikimedia project. To me this is not defensible. 
So deleting entries seems similar to my experience with Wikipedia editors 
hostile to added content focused on deletionism -- of course to a notable 
women's page where I as an editor am trying to establish said notability -- who 
characterize the information as yes, "too encyclopedic." #Ridiculous I wish 
this wasn't true. 

So I agree with Gerard and others here. 

- Erika

> On Jul 31, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen  
> wrote:
> 
> Hoi,
> There are several things at play. First, Wikimania and its talks will find 
> its place in Wikidata because typically much of the papers, presentations and 
> registrations will be found in Commons. So they will be registered anyway. 
> Second, this thread is also about the way our policies are maintained. This 
> is done in an arbitrary way and consequently much of the arguments based on 
> policies have lost much of their validity. Third, the number of items 
> involved is so low that it not even registers. When other conferences like 
> TED find their way, it is not a problem so why should granularity be a 
> problem now?
> 
> When people want to know about how we think about what we do, the Wikimania 
> talks is a prime resource. Papers are published about what we do. We could 
> easily refer people to Wikimania and other talks. We could and should because 
> it makes sense to do so. In the end it is our history.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
> 
>> On 31 July 2016 at 17:25, Daniel Kinzler  wrote:
>> Am 31.07.2016 um 17:04 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
>> > Hoi,
>> > I am not to judge what conferences will be deemed relevant for an item in
>> > Wikidata. When a conference is relevant, it is the talks and particularly 
>> > the
>> > registrations of the talks, the papers and the presentations that make the
>> > conference relevant after the fact.
>> 
>> So you think that for every relevant conference, all talks and speakers 
>> should
>> automatically be considered relevant? Does the same aregument apply to all
>> courses and theachers at all relevant universities and schools?
>> 
>> I'm trying to understand your point. To me it's a question of granularity. We
>> can't manage arbitrarily fine grained information, so we have to stop at some
>> point. What do you think, where should that point be for Wikimania, for other
>> (relevant) conferences, for universities, for schools?
>> 
>> --
>> Daniel Kinzler
>> Senior Software Developer
>> 
>> Wikimedia Deutschland
>> Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
> 
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Adrian Raddatz]

The WMF does not engage in such matters, this is a community issue. And
given the unwillingness of admins to act in this case, I think a discussion
on the project chat on whether or not these items are notable makes a lot
more sense than continued discussion on the administrators' noticeboard (or
here). Admins have an easier time implementing consensus than making
decisions themselves, and if some don't want to undelete the items then it
would cause quite some conflict if others did.

Adrian Raddatz

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Info WorldUniversity <
i...@worlduniversityandschool.org> wrote:

> Hi Sjoerd,
>
> I'm just asking about unfolding Wikidata community process - and in
> relation too to WMF.
>
> Greetings,
> Scott
>
> On Jul 31, 2016 10:20 AM, "Sjoerd de Bruin"  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Sorry, but what has "the new head of the WMF" to do with the community
>> matters of Wikidata?
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Sjoerd de Bruin
>> sjoerddebr...@me.com
>>
>> Op 31 jul. 2016, om 19:18 heeft Info WorldUniversity <
>> i...@worlduniversityandschool.org> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> Thanks Andy for helping focus these developing process questions. What
>> role could the new head of the WMF play here in positive regards?
>>
>> Regards, Scott
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2016 10:09 AM, "Andy Mabbett" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 31 July 2016 at 16:43, Adrian Raddatz  wrote:
>>>
>>> > my personal opinion is that these items are
>>> > fine as well. But (and here's the important thing), it's not a big deal
>>> > either way. The site will continue, and this especially should not be
>>> a time
>>> > for trying to force an opinion one way or the other onto the
>>> community. :-)
>>>
>>> The big deal is about how we decide how Wikidata policies are applied
>>> - do we seek to obtain community consensus, or do we allow involved
>>> admins to decide by fait accompli?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andy Mabbett
>>> @pigsonthewing
>>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Sjoerd de Bruin]

Hello,

Sorry, but what has "the new head of the WMF" to do with the community matters 
of Wikidata?

Greetings,

Sjoerd de Bruin
sjoerddebr...@me.com

> Op 31 jul. 2016, om 19:18 heeft Info WorldUniversity 
>  het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Thanks Andy for helping focus these developing process questions. What role 
> could the new head of the WMF play here in positive regards?
> 
> Regards, Scott
> 
> 
> On Jul 31, 2016 10:09 AM, "Andy Mabbett"  > wrote:
> On 31 July 2016 at 16:43, Adrian Raddatz  > wrote:
> 
> > my personal opinion is that these items are
> > fine as well. But (and here's the important thing), it's not a big deal
> > either way. The site will continue, and this especially should not be a time
> > for trying to force an opinion one way or the other onto the community. :-)
> 
> The big deal is about how we decide how Wikidata policies are applied
> - do we seek to obtain community consensus, or do we allow involved
> admins to decide by fait accompli?
> 
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk 
> 
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata 
> 
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Info WorldUniversity]

Thanks Andy for helping focus these developing process questions. What role
could the new head of the WMF play here in positive regards?

Regards, Scott

On Jul 31, 2016 10:09 AM, "Andy Mabbett"  wrote:

> On 31 July 2016 at 16:43, Adrian Raddatz  wrote:
>
> > my personal opinion is that these items are
> > fine as well. But (and here's the important thing), it's not a big deal
> > either way. The site will continue, and this especially should not be a
> time
> > for trying to force an opinion one way or the other onto the community.
> :-)
>
> The big deal is about how we decide how Wikidata policies are applied
> - do we seek to obtain community consensus, or do we allow involved
> admins to decide by fait accompli?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Andy Mabbett]

On 31 July 2016 at 16:43, Adrian Raddatz  wrote:

> my personal opinion is that these items are
> fine as well. But (and here's the important thing), it's not a big deal
> either way. The site will continue, and this especially should not be a time
> for trying to force an opinion one way or the other onto the community. :-)

The big deal is about how we decide how Wikidata policies are applied
- do we seek to obtain community consensus, or do we allow involved
admins to decide by fait accompli?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Info WorldUniversity]

Daniel and All,

That would be wise of Wikipedia/WMF (and pretty easy for Wikidata too),
j'pense.

Regards, Scott

On Jul 31, 2016 9:10 AM, "Andy Mabbett"  wrote:

> On 31 July 2016 at 16:25, Daniel Kinzler 
> wrote:
>
> > So you think that for every relevant conference, all talks and speakers
> should
> > automatically be considered relevant? Does the same aregument apply to
> all
> > courses and theachers at all relevant universities and schools?
>
> I'm pretty sure Gerard can express what he thinks without anyone
> having to scribe it for him.
>
> You will find the Wikidata notability policy at:
>
>https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability
>
> Should you wish to lobby for it to be revised, it has a talk page.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Andy Mabbett]

On 31 July 2016 at 16:25, Daniel Kinzler  wrote:

> So you think that for every relevant conference, all talks and speakers should
> automatically be considered relevant? Does the same aregument apply to all
> courses and theachers at all relevant universities and schools?

I'm pretty sure Gerard can express what he thinks without anyone
having to scribe it for him.

You will find the Wikidata notability policy at:

   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability

Should you wish to lobby for it to be revised, it has a talk page.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Andy Mabbett]

On 31 July 2016 at 15:11,   wrote:

> the wikimania site is not a reliable source reflecting on what happened. The
> published proceedings of Wikimania would be an RS.

The videos *are* the published proceedings of Wikimania.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Andy Mabbett]

On 31 July 2016 at 14:44,   wrote:

> I looked quickly at AN and it seems the issue is about creating items about
> Wikimedians who dont clearly meet the notability criteria.

No; the deleted items include:

* Items about talks given at Wikimania
* Items about the people who gave those talks, after agreeing that the
talks could be videoed and made available publicly; using only the
names or nicknames (usernames) by which they identified on the
publicly-viewable web pages about Wikimania

Note that some of the deleted items about talks were for talks given
by people about whom we had, and still have, Wikidata items.

> Recreating items about users after they haved objected, is dangerous ground 
> to be walking on

Poppycock. What if other people about whom we have items object? What
about people whom we have Wikipedia articles? Why should "users" be a
special category?

> Wikidata needs an accepted and enforced BLP.

Probably, What it does not need is /involved/ admins deleting items
when no policy allows them to do so, and then refusing to recreate
them so that a proper deletion discussion can take place, when their
deletion is challenged.

> I assume these items in question would fail the proposed BLP due to lack of
> reliable source, if it was anything like reliable sources is defined on
> Wikipedia.

It is Wikidata, not Wikipedia, notability policy  - and certainly not
an ill-conceived, draft Wikidata policy which has attracted little
support - which applies. The items in question (both those about
talks, and the speakers) satisfy that.

However, the inability of the Wikidata community at large to see and
discuss these deleted items prevents that community from coming to
consensus about that.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There are several things at play. First, Wikimania and its talks will find
its place in Wikidata because typically much of the papers, presentations
and registrations will be found in Commons. So they will be registered
anyway. Second, this thread is also about the way our policies are
maintained. This is done in an arbitrary way and consequently much of the
arguments based on policies have lost much of their validity. Third, the
number of items involved is so low that it not even registers. When other
conferences like TED find their way, it is not a problem so why should
granularity be a problem now?

When people want to know about how we think about what we do, the Wikimania
talks is a prime resource. Papers are published about what we do. We could
easily refer people to Wikimania and other talks. We could and should
because it makes sense to do so. In the end it is our history.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 31 July 2016 at 17:25, Daniel Kinzler 
wrote:

> Am 31.07.2016 um 17:04 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> > Hoi,
> > I am not to judge what conferences will be deemed relevant for an item in
> > Wikidata. When a conference is relevant, it is the talks and
> particularly the
> > registrations of the talks, the papers and the presentations that make
> the
> > conference relevant after the fact.
>
> So you think that for every relevant conference, all talks and speakers
> should
> automatically be considered relevant? Does the same aregument apply to all
> courses and theachers at all relevant universities and schools?
>
> I'm trying to understand your point. To me it's a question of granularity.
> We
> can't manage arbitrarily fine grained information, so we have to stop at
> some
> point. What do you think, where should that point be for Wikimania, for
> other
> (relevant) conferences, for universities, for schools?
>
> --
> Daniel Kinzler
> Senior Software Developer
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland
> Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Thad Guidry]

I normally don't (and probably should not) get into this little squabbles,
but I am getting a bit weary always reading through me... so let me see if
I can help bring this all together in the spirit of goodwill...

I think that instead of using the term 'relevant' that Wikidata should
instead begin to adopt a policy of 'useful'.  Just a slight tweak to its
policy with this one word change and it opens borders and collaboration and
less debates like in this thread.

My thoughts

Wikimania's site was useful to me.  Yes.
The information it has could be added or copied to Wikidata.  Yes.
Or the information could stay where it is... on Wikimania's site.  Yes or
No.

So the question for all to decide is one of...

"is it useful to copy some of Wikimania's information data into Wikidata"
"will doing so make the data more useful to everyone"

Questions like those should hold the highest court above all others, and I
think that is where Gerard is trying to help ask.

Thad
+ThadGuidry 
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Daniel Kinzler]

Am 31.07.2016 um 17:04 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> Hoi,
> I am not to judge what conferences will be deemed relevant for an item in
> Wikidata. When a conference is relevant, it is the talks and particularly the
> registrations of the talks, the papers and the presentations that make the
> conference relevant after the fact.

So you think that for every relevant conference, all talks and speakers should
automatically be considered relevant? Does the same aregument apply to all
courses and theachers at all relevant universities and schools?

I'm trying to understand your point. To me it's a question of granularity. We
can't manage arbitrarily fine grained information, so we have to stop at some
point. What do you think, where should that point be for Wikimania, for other
(relevant) conferences, for universities, for schools?

-- 
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer

Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I am not to judge what conferences will be deemed relevant for an item in
Wikidata. When a conference is relevant, it is the talks and particularly
the registrations of the talks, the papers and the presentations that make
the conference relevant after the fact.

Is Wikimania relevant? Absolutely. Do the Wikimanias have their own items;
they do and nothing changed there.Is it relevant because of it being a
Wikimedia "thing"?  That it is as well and as I have said on a different
mailing list as a community we are exceedingly bad in recognising what we
do and have done.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 31 July 2016 at 16:33, Daniel Kinzler 
wrote:

> Am 31.07.2016 um 16:28 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> > Hoi,
> > Really? It is a source for the talks that were given. It contains the
> papers
> > that were the basis for granting a spot on the program.
>
> To clarify - would the same apply for any talk at any conference? Or do you
> think Wikimania schould be especially relevant to Wikidata, because it's a
> Wikimedia thing?
>
> --
> Daniel Kinzler
> Senior Software Developer
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland
> Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Daniel Kinzler]

Am 31.07.2016 um 16:28 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> Hoi,
> Really? It is a source for the talks that were given. It contains the papers
> that were the basis for granting a spot on the program. 

To clarify - would the same apply for any talk at any conference? Or do you
think Wikimania schould be especially relevant to Wikidata, because it's a
Wikimedia thing?

-- 
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer

Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Really? It is a source for the talks that were given. It contains the
papers that were the basis for granting a spot on the program.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 31 July 2016 at 16:11,  wrote:

> the wikimania site is not a reliable source reflecting on what happened.
> The published proceedings of Wikimania would be an RS.
>
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:00 Gerard Meijssen, 
> wrote:
>
>> Hoi
>> Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What was
>> done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion. There is a
>> policy about that and as a policy it failed miserably. The admins failed to
>> take the existing policy seriously and consequently the notions of
>> community are devalued. Why should this be any different for BLP and why
>> would we expect the arbitrary execution to be any different?
>>
>> When people are notable because of their relation to other items, we
>> create items for them. Why should we have an exception for this. What has
>> not happened is that people were "outed". When an author of a talk was only
>> know by a nick, it was the nick that was used. Meta is a source, the
>> Wikimania website is a source so yes, there are credible sources.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On 31 July 2016 at 15:44,  wrote:
>>
>>> I looked quickly at AN and it seems the issue is about creating items
>>> about Wikimedians who dont clearly meet the notability criteria.
>>> Recreating items about users after they haved objected, is dangerous ground
>>> to be walking on
>>>
>>> Wikidata needs an accepted and enforced BLP.
>>>
>>> I assume these items in question would fail the proposed BLP due to lack
>>> of reliable source, if it was anything like reliable sources is defined on
>>> Wikipedia.
>>>
>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Living_people
>>>
>>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:47 Gerard Meijssen, 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hoi,
 John it was documented on the Administrators noticeboard. The
 "discussion" ran for over two weeks. I feel no need to identify the admin,
 he is typically the kind of person I greatly admire. If anything I object
 to the way admins do not take responsibility for what happens. If anything
 the way this whole controversy transpired proves how little of a community
 we are.

 I have started and added a few items.
 Thanks,
   GerardM

 On 31 July 2016 at 14:28, John Mark Vandenberg 
 wrote:

> Which items, which admin, etc.
>
> A little context would help.
>
> If the items were appropriate, wait for the community to agree with
> you before recreating them.
>
> On 31 Jul 2016 17:50, "Gerard Meijssen" 
> wrote:
>
>> Hoi.
>> Many items were created for Wikimania talks. They were created
>> because Wikimania talks represent the best practices of the Wikimedia
>> projects. All these talks were selected in a process to bring out the 
>> best
>> our movement has to offer in the many years Wikimania was held. All the
>> persons who gave these presentation are known by either their nick or 
>> their
>> name as they themselves identified them at the time of offering the
>> presentation for consideration/
>>
>> For whatever reasons a Wikidata admin removed these items without any
>> discussion. In the discussion that followed other people presented the
>> arguments why there are no valid arguments for this deletion. A request 
>> was
>> made repeatedly to undelete the items involved.
>>
>> Given the current state of affair there is little option but to
>> recreate these items. It must be noted that the current situation is
>> problematic on many levels. Among them it became clear that admins do as
>> they wish and are not held accountable for their actions. The only thing
>> asked is for the undeletion of items and some sober thought on what may 
>> be
>> expected of a Wikidata admin.
>> Thanks,
>>GerardM
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
 ___
 Wikidata mailing list
 Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> 

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[jayvdb]

the wikimania site is not a reliable source reflecting on what happened.
The published proceedings of Wikimania would be an RS.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:00 Gerard Meijssen, 
wrote:

> Hoi
> Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What was
> done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion. There is a
> policy about that and as a policy it failed miserably. The admins failed to
> take the existing policy seriously and consequently the notions of
> community are devalued. Why should this be any different for BLP and why
> would we expect the arbitrary execution to be any different?
>
> When people are notable because of their relation to other items, we
> create items for them. Why should we have an exception for this. What has
> not happened is that people were "outed". When an author of a talk was only
> know by a nick, it was the nick that was used. Meta is a source, the
> Wikimania website is a source so yes, there are credible sources.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 31 July 2016 at 15:44,  wrote:
>
>> I looked quickly at AN and it seems the issue is about creating items
>> about Wikimedians who dont clearly meet the notability criteria.
>> Recreating items about users after they haved objected, is dangerous ground
>> to be walking on
>>
>> Wikidata needs an accepted and enforced BLP.
>>
>> I assume these items in question would fail the proposed BLP due to lack
>> of reliable source, if it was anything like reliable sources is defined on
>> Wikipedia.
>>
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Living_people
>>
>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:47 Gerard Meijssen, 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> John it was documented on the Administrators noticeboard. The
>>> "discussion" ran for over two weeks. I feel no need to identify the admin,
>>> he is typically the kind of person I greatly admire. If anything I object
>>> to the way admins do not take responsibility for what happens. If anything
>>> the way this whole controversy transpired proves how little of a community
>>> we are.
>>>
>>> I have started and added a few items.
>>> Thanks,
>>>   GerardM
>>>
>>> On 31 July 2016 at 14:28, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:
>>>
 Which items, which admin, etc.

 A little context would help.

 If the items were appropriate, wait for the community to agree with you
 before recreating them.

 On 31 Jul 2016 17:50, "Gerard Meijssen" 
 wrote:

> Hoi.
> Many items were created for Wikimania talks. They were created because
> Wikimania talks represent the best practices of the Wikimedia projects. 
> All
> these talks were selected in a process to bring out the best our movement
> has to offer in the many years Wikimania was held. All the persons who 
> gave
> these presentation are known by either their nick or their name as they
> themselves identified them at the time of offering the presentation for
> consideration/
>
> For whatever reasons a Wikidata admin removed these items without any
> discussion. In the discussion that followed other people presented the
> arguments why there are no valid arguments for this deletion. A request 
> was
> made repeatedly to undelete the items involved.
>
> Given the current state of affair there is little option but to
> recreate these items. It must be noted that the current situation is
> problematic on many levels. Among them it became clear that admins do as
> they wish and are not held accountable for their actions. The only thing
> asked is for the undeletion of items and some sober thought on what may be
> expected of a Wikidata admin.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
 ___
 Wikidata mailing list
 Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata


>>> ___
>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi
Ask yourself what it is about.. It is about the Wikimania talks. What was
done is removing all the Wikimania talks without any discussion. There is a
policy about that and as a policy it failed miserably. The admins failed to
take the existing policy seriously and consequently the notions of
community are devalued. Why should this be any different for BLP and why
would we expect the arbitrary execution to be any different?

When people are notable because of their relation to other items, we create
items for them. Why should we have an exception for this. What has not
happened is that people were "outed". When an author of a talk was only
know by a nick, it was the nick that was used. Meta is a source, the
Wikimania website is a source so yes, there are credible sources.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 31 July 2016 at 15:44,  wrote:

> I looked quickly at AN and it seems the issue is about creating items
> about Wikimedians who dont clearly meet the notability criteria.
> Recreating items about users after they haved objected, is dangerous ground
> to be walking on
>
> Wikidata needs an accepted and enforced BLP.
>
> I assume these items in question would fail the proposed BLP due to lack
> of reliable source, if it was anything like reliable sources is defined on
> Wikipedia.
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Living_people
>
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:47 Gerard Meijssen, 
> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> John it was documented on the Administrators noticeboard. The
>> "discussion" ran for over two weeks. I feel no need to identify the admin,
>> he is typically the kind of person I greatly admire. If anything I object
>> to the way admins do not take responsibility for what happens. If anything
>> the way this whole controversy transpired proves how little of a community
>> we are.
>>
>> I have started and added a few items.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On 31 July 2016 at 14:28, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:
>>
>>> Which items, which admin, etc.
>>>
>>> A little context would help.
>>>
>>> If the items were appropriate, wait for the community to agree with you
>>> before recreating them.
>>>
>>> On 31 Jul 2016 17:50, "Gerard Meijssen" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hoi.
 Many items were created for Wikimania talks. They were created because
 Wikimania talks represent the best practices of the Wikimedia projects. All
 these talks were selected in a process to bring out the best our movement
 has to offer in the many years Wikimania was held. All the persons who gave
 these presentation are known by either their nick or their name as they
 themselves identified them at the time of offering the presentation for
 consideration/

 For whatever reasons a Wikidata admin removed these items without any
 discussion. In the discussion that followed other people presented the
 arguments why there are no valid arguments for this deletion. A request was
 made repeatedly to undelete the items involved.

 Given the current state of affair there is little option but to
 recreate these items. It must be noted that the current situation is
 problematic on many levels. Among them it became clear that admins do as
 they wish and are not held accountable for their actions. The only thing
 asked is for the undeletion of items and some sober thought on what may be
 expected of a Wikidata admin.
 Thanks,
GerardM

 ___
 Wikidata mailing list
 Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata


>>> ___
>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[jayvdb]

I looked quickly at AN and it seems the issue is about creating items about
Wikimedians who dont clearly meet the notability criteria.  Recreating
items about users after they haved objected, is dangerous ground to be
walking on

Wikidata needs an accepted and enforced BLP.

I assume these items in question would fail the proposed BLP due to lack of
reliable source, if it was anything like reliable sources is defined on
Wikipedia.

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Living_people

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:47 Gerard Meijssen, 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> John it was documented on the Administrators noticeboard. The "discussion"
> ran for over two weeks. I feel no need to identify the admin, he is
> typically the kind of person I greatly admire. If anything I object to the
> way admins do not take responsibility for what happens. If anything the way
> this whole controversy transpired proves how little of a community we are.
>
> I have started and added a few items.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 31 July 2016 at 14:28, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:
>
>> Which items, which admin, etc.
>>
>> A little context would help.
>>
>> If the items were appropriate, wait for the community to agree with you
>> before recreating them.
>>
>> On 31 Jul 2016 17:50, "Gerard Meijssen" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi.
>>> Many items were created for Wikimania talks. They were created because
>>> Wikimania talks represent the best practices of the Wikimedia projects. All
>>> these talks were selected in a process to bring out the best our movement
>>> has to offer in the many years Wikimania was held. All the persons who gave
>>> these presentation are known by either their nick or their name as they
>>> themselves identified them at the time of offering the presentation for
>>> consideration/
>>>
>>> For whatever reasons a Wikidata admin removed these items without any
>>> discussion. In the discussion that followed other people presented the
>>> arguments why there are no valid arguments for this deletion. A request was
>>> made repeatedly to undelete the items involved.
>>>
>>> Given the current state of affair there is little option but to recreate
>>> these items. It must be noted that the current situation is problematic on
>>> many levels. Among them it became clear that admins do as they wish and are
>>> not held accountable for their actions. The only thing asked is for the
>>> undeletion of items and some sober thought on what may be expected of a
>>> Wikidata admin.
>>> Thanks,
>>>GerardM
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
John it was documented on the Administrators noticeboard. The "discussion"
ran for over two weeks. I feel no need to identify the admin, he is
typically the kind of person I greatly admire. If anything I object to the
way admins do not take responsibility for what happens. If anything the way
this whole controversy transpired proves how little of a community we are.

I have started and added a few items.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 31 July 2016 at 14:28, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:

> Which items, which admin, etc.
>
> A little context would help.
>
> If the items were appropriate, wait for the community to agree with you
> before recreating them.
>
> On 31 Jul 2016 17:50, "Gerard Meijssen"  wrote:
>
>> Hoi.
>> Many items were created for Wikimania talks. They were created because
>> Wikimania talks represent the best practices of the Wikimedia projects. All
>> these talks were selected in a process to bring out the best our movement
>> has to offer in the many years Wikimania was held. All the persons who gave
>> these presentation are known by either their nick or their name as they
>> themselves identified them at the time of offering the presentation for
>> consideration/
>>
>> For whatever reasons a Wikidata admin removed these items without any
>> discussion. In the discussion that followed other people presented the
>> arguments why there are no valid arguments for this deletion. A request was
>> made repeatedly to undelete the items involved.
>>
>> Given the current state of affair there is little option but to recreate
>> these items. It must be noted that the current situation is problematic on
>> many levels. Among them it became clear that admins do as they wish and are
>> not held accountable for their actions. The only thing asked is for the
>> undeletion of items and some sober thought on what may be expected of a
>> Wikidata admin.
>> Thanks,
>>GerardM
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[John Mark Vandenberg]

Which items, which admin, etc.

A little context would help.

If the items were appropriate, wait for the community to agree with you
before recreating them.

On 31 Jul 2016 17:50, "Gerard Meijssen"  wrote:

> Hoi.
> Many items were created for Wikimania talks. They were created because
> Wikimania talks represent the best practices of the Wikimedia projects. All
> these talks were selected in a process to bring out the best our movement
> has to offer in the many years Wikimania was held. All the persons who gave
> these presentation are known by either their nick or their name as they
> themselves identified them at the time of offering the presentation for
> consideration/
>
> For whatever reasons a Wikidata admin removed these items without any
> discussion. In the discussion that followed other people presented the
> arguments why there are no valid arguments for this deletion. A request was
> made repeatedly to undelete the items involved.
>
> Given the current state of affair there is little option but to recreate
> these items. It must be noted that the current situation is problematic on
> many levels. Among them it became clear that admins do as they wish and are
> not held accountable for their actions. The only thing asked is for the
> undeletion of items and some sober thought on what may be expected of a
> Wikidata admin.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Controversy around Wikimania talks

[erwin gucciano]

Konyol mu lah
Pada 31 Jul 2016 18.09, "Gerard Meijssen" 
menulis:

> Hoi,
> Never heard about a "deflag". What is it and what does it do?
>
> NB Wikidata is in many ways different from MediaWiki.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 31 July 2016 at 12:59, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:
>
>> Due to the way deletion works in MediaWiki, discussing undeletion is
>> rarely successful. Often it's easier and more effective to propose a deflag
>> (sigh).
>>
>> Nemo
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata