[WikiEN-l] Loomio: a consensus decision-making tool
Has anyone used Loomio? (loomio.org) It is a tool for consensus decision-making that currently focuses on making decisions about a single question at a time. It looks pretty similar in spirit to wiki-mediated consensus, but with automated visualization and layout. -- @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Mapping the SOPA-PIPA Debate: Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere
The Berkman Center just came out with a report on the public discussions surrounding the SOPA-PIPA actions; drawing on the Media Cloud work by Yochai Benkler and others. It provides context for the discussions on the English Wikipedia, and captures the differences between the grassroots and top-down decisions by different organizations and media channels who took part in the blackout. An interactive time-visual shows how the conversation was driven at different times by different communities: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/mediacloud/2013/mapping_sopa_pipa/# SJ -- Forwarded message -- Publication Release: July 25 Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere: Mapping the SOPA-PIPA Debate Dear Friends and Colleagues, The Berkman Center for Internet Society is pleased to announce the release of a new publication from the Media Cloud project, Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere: Mapping the SOPA-PIPA Debate, authored by Yochai Benkler, Hal Roberts, Rob Faris, Alicia Solow-Niederman, and Bruce Etling. Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere: Mapping the SOPA-PIPA Debate From the abstract: In this paper, we use a new set of online research tools to develop a detailed study of the public debate over proposed legislation in the United States that was designed to give prosecutors and copyright holders new tools to pursue suspected online copyright violations. Our study applies a mixed-methods approach by combining text and link analysis with human coding and informal interviews to map the evolution of the controversy over time and to analyze the mobilization, roles, and interactions of various actors. This novel, data-driven perspective on the dynamics of the networked public sphere supports an optimistic view of the potential for networked democratic participation, and offers a view of a vibrant, diverse, and decentralized networked public sphere that exhibited broad participation, leveraged topical expertise, and focused public sentiment to shape national public policy. We also offer an interactive visualization that maps the evolution of a public controversy by collecting time slices of thousands of sources, then using link analysis to assess the progress of the debate over time. We used the Media Cloud platform to depict media sources (“nodes”, which appear as circles on the map with different colors denoting different media types). This visualization tracks media sources and their linkages within discrete time slices and allows users to zoom into the controversy to see which entities are present in the debate during a given period as well as who is linking to whom at any point in time. The authors wish to thank the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Foundation for their generous support of this research and of the development of the Media Cloud platform. About Media Cloud Media Cloud, a joint project of the Berkman Center for Internet Society at Harvard University and the Center for Civic Media at MIT, is an open source, open data platform that allows researchers to answer complex quantitative and qualitative questions about the content of online media. Using Media Cloud, academic researchers, journalism critics, and interested citizens can examine what media sources cover which stories, what language different media outlets use in conjunction with different stories, and how stories spread from one media outlet to another. We encourage interested readers to explore Media Cloud. The Berkman Center for Internet Society at Harvard University was founded to explore cyberspace, share in its study, and help pioneer its development. For more information, visit http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] CC nears last call for comments on Creative Commons 4.0
FYI: Final comments requested on the CC 4.0 licenses. -- Forwarded message -- From: Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org Date: Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:19 PM Subject: [Wikimedia-l] CC nears last call for comments on Creative Commons 4.0 To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Hi, all- As mentioned in a variety of places (mostly, it looks like, on Commons Village Pump) Creative Commons is revising their licenses to produce a new 4.0 version. The changes include a variety of things relevant to Commons and other WM projects, most importantly attribution, but also improved translations, database rights, and general improvements in readability. CC is nearing their final version, and have asked me to ask our community for one last round of review and comment. Consider this that request! A few relevant links: * The best way to comment is through their mailing list: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses * The actual drafts, including side-by-side comparisons to 3.0: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Drafts#Licenses_.28all_six_are_presented_in_HTML.3B_BY-NC-SA_is_published_in_alternative_formats_as_well.29 * Their complete wiki: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 This is *not* a call for comments on the adoption of CC 4.0 by WM projects. That discussion, if it happens, would be after 4.0 has been finalized, so that we're not speculating about the final terms. FYI- Luis -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] bizarre: Women Novelists Wikipedia
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: On 26 April 2013 05:19, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: The thing is that if someone is in a subcategory they are then taken out of the category. So, if the subcategories are applied, nearly everyone should be removed from the higher category such as American novelist. Obviously this was not thought through well. If there is to be a female novelist category there must be a male novelist category. This will become more and more evident as time passes and situation equalizes. This is normally the case, but there's an explicit exemption for gender: at least in theory, single-gender categorisation (where we have just female without a corresponding male category) should not be exclusive, and people should be categorised in both. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Gender Removal from the main category should (again, an aspirational should) only occur when we are completely splitting it into gender subcategories. That makes sense. It's not how categories are always handled, however. And when there is only one gendered category, it is predominantly female. For instance, looking at the subset of these where the category name starts with male or female: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sj/Gendered_categories The rare exceptions are categories whose members are predominantly female. For instance, you can see the reverse gender bias with beauty pageants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_beauty_pageants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Beauty_pageants SJ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] deployment of the first phase of Wikidata on enwp
This is simply wonderful. Thank you, Lydia and WD team! Sam. On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de wrote: Heya :) Third time's a charm, right? We're live on the English Wikipedia with phase 1 now \o/ Details are in this blog post: http://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/02/13/wikidata-live-on-the-english-wikipedia An FAQ is being worked on at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/Deployment_Questions Thanks everyone who helped! I'm happy to answer questions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical). Please also let me know about any issues there. Cheers Lydia -- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Community Communications for Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Obentrautstr. 72 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: I posted this in the chat but wanted you to see it.
A fun mashup of WP and SeeClickFix that I was pointed to today: Fixipedia https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fixipedia/dgnfllcgpnfbgmmpfblehlgbbcmnhaac via http://www.seeclickfix.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
I think you can share any or all of the following rules of thumb, in order: make proposed changes to talk pages. ask other editors to help you update an article. avoid editing articles about you/your organization directly, unless you are fixing vandalism or typos, updating stats, or adding sources. SJ On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, David Gerard wrote: If someone tells you to drive at 5 miles under the speed limit rather than to drive at the speed limit, he may be trying to keep you from getting too close to a line. If someone tells you *not to drive at all* rather than to drive at the speed limit, that no longer has anything to do with getting close to a line. He's just making up his own rules. Ken, what's your practical solution to the problems on each side, and how will it work out well? I don't know, but whatever it is, it should be consistent. Having the policy say one thing and Jimbo say something completely different is stupid as well as increasing Wikipedia's reputation for incomprehensible rules. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: If anything, it's worse for companies. Nobody tells BLP subjects that because they have a COI, they can't even remove incorrect statements about themselves. A fair point. I liked Andreas's way of putting this earlier: Positive bias and advertorials *can* be odious, but activist editing with a negative bent has traditionally been the greater problem in Wikipedia, in my view, and is the type of bias the Wikipedia system has traditionally favoured. Not doing harm is, in my view, more important than preventing the opposite. Sam. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] sad news
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:12 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: I realize in my first note that I forgot to link Ben's meta page... http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tlogmer a quick look at his contributions will remind some of us about the old fundcom, Wikimania 2006 designs, Associations of Wikipedians and the old store... Ben was one of the strongest advocates of producing good Wikimedia merchandise! And he was very good at it. I am glad to have known him, and will dearly miss his thoughtful views. Sam. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books
2010's 32-volume set will be its last. (Now I want to get one, to replace my old set!) Future versions will be digital only. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/?smid=tw-nytimesseid=auto http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/mar/13/encyclopedia-britannica-halts-print-publication Britannica president Jorge Cauz notes that their revenue from the online encyclopedia was already 15x that of the print version -- 15% of their total, compared to 1%. Most of their revenue for years has come from other targeted educational materials. As he says in the Guardian, Today our digital database is much larger than what we can fit in the print set. And it is up to date because we can revise it within minutes anytime we need to, and we do it many times each day. SJ. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] OH: Wikipedia: The Concert
Cute: http://toons.mit.edu/index.php?title=News -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Deployments today
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: We've been talking about a potential throttle to deal with overuse. These and other ideas are being collected here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WikiLove/Idea_Log straight out of a 2003-era april fools story about the future :) still loving the extension, sj ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Support needed for Wikipedia QnA website to open
Tom - Great idea. I believe what we want to end up with is OSQA, like what OSM has set up, not a (proprietary) StackOverflow site. OSQA is a great tool for collaborative knowledge-sharing. http://meta.osqa.net/questions/127/osqa-vs-stackoverflow-performance-and-features SJ On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Tom Jenkins tomjenkin...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Steve, You could help by logging into Area51 and pressing Follow. Thanks, Tom On 26-Jan-11 7:45 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Tom Jenkinstomjenkin...@gmail.com wrote: StackExchangehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StackExchange, a free Question and Answer network of websites would start a website dedicated to Wikipedia and Wiki questions if the community only supports the project by voting for it. This website would have a very unique set of IMHO this is a pretty good idea. OpenStreetMap did the same thing, and it's worked out pretty well: http://help.openstreetmap.org/ It's not the ideal forum for everyone (mailing lists are better for in-depth discussions and explorations of ideas) but it serves a purpose. Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:16 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:47 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: On 12/23/10 1:31 PM, George Herbert wrote: The social stuff which is complex is something which is a barrier, but one that all western society members who are modern communications literate are fundamentally equipped to handle. Some will fail at it This seems to beg the question: How do you define modern communications literate? Facebook, Gmail, Twitter, smartphone user. Those are a 95%+ solution for kids and young adults, if not 99%, and are easy enough for older adults (my parents, etc) to the point that they're arguably better than an 80% solution for the US population. Those examples are also widely used all over the world, including in regions where the Internet is still new. Most highly popular services start by letting each participant define themselves, and the default contribution that people are encouraged to make is usually permament and not subject to removal by others. One of the unkind and awkward aspects of the Wikipedia experience is, that the default requested contribution is an edit, new page, or upload, all of which may be reverted or followed by warnings and challenges, by people who expect you to RTFM to learn how to behave. Some possible improvements: - add new things that all users are encouraged to contribute (first-class citizens of the list 'ways to further the project'), which are entirely within the user's control: information about themselves and their environment, joining wikiprojects and work groups, taking part in polls and usability studies, answering questions from other users and readers - make a user's contributions permanently visible to them, if not to others (modulo vandalism), taking advantage of permalinks and file histories, even when those contribs have for now been removed from the default public view(s) of an article, or when they have been quarantined from view by other users for concerns about copyright status. this improves on the crude tool of deletion and keeps contributors from feeling that their hard work has been destroyed or disrespected, often due only to it being incomplete or not-yet-proven-notable. - develop better sandboxing policies, tools, and effective sandbox environments, so that new users can truly experiment and get used to editing before they are challenged, reverted, deleted, and blocked. Sam. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia
Forwarding from foundation-l. David - thanks for the heads-up; this essay is brilliant, and not just about biology. Here's a shorter link: http://j.mp/ten-wiki-rules Magnus - I see your hand in this :-) I'd love to see the edit history... Have you or your co-authors also published this on one of the major wikis? SJ -- Forwarded message -- From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com Date: Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org On 28 September 2010 12:38, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Why are there any experts on Wikipedia? I predict Wikipedia's biology articles will far outshine its philosophy articles for the simple fact that the biologists bother: http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000941 (That article is great, by the way. It gives strong reasons for experts to put in the effort to bother.) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: modern foundations of scientific consensus
Some motivation for a proper WikiCite project. --sj === Begin forwarded message == How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul20_3/b2680 Abstract: Objective -To understand belief in a specific scientific claim by studying the pattern of citations among papers stating it. Design - A complete citation network was constructed from all PubMed indexed English literature papers addressing the belief that \u03b2 amyloid, a protein accumulated in the brain in Alzheimer\u2019s disease, is produced by and injures skeletal muscle of patients with inclusion body myositis. Social network theory and graph theory were used to analyse this network. Main outcome measures - Citation bias, amplification, and invention, and their effects on determining authority. Results: The network contained 242 papers and 675 citations addressing the belief, with 220 553 citation paths supporting it. Unfounded authority was established by citation bias against papers that refuted or weakened the belief; amplification, the marked expansion of the belief system by papers presenting no data addressing it; and forms of invention such as the conversion of hypothesis into fact through citation alone. Extension of this network into text within grants funded by the National Institutes of Health and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act showed the same phenomena present and sometimes used to justify requests for funding. Conclusion: Citation is both an impartial scholarly method and a powerful form of social communication. Through distortions in its social use that include bias, amplification, and invention, citation can be used to generate information cascades resulting in unfounded authority of claims. Construction and analysis of a claim specific citation network may clarify the nature of a published belief system and expose distorted methods of social citation. -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More Murdochry
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/07/james-murdoch-british-library James Murdoch criticises the British Library's plans to digitise old newspapers. And I quote: public sector interest is to distribute content for near zero cost – harming the market in so doing ... I think the WMF should be getting a hearing in this debate. Every page of free content we post does clearly remove someone else's chance to profit from selling that content. It's not all that clear that it removes anyone's chance to profit. Most of these long-tail 'markets' are rate limited by how hard it is to find the material in question, or to identify subsets of it that are popular. Having a digital PD copy that's easy for fans to find, categorize, remix, and collate into other works can make publishing easier. I want to hear the argument that the Murdoch line is nothing better than an attempt to justify enclosing the commons simply because someone can then profit. You have to look at whose land it was in the first place, not whether the result can be monetised. Hear, hear. SJ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Open Wikimedia meeting on IRC: Wednesday, 1900 UTC in #wikimedia
-- Forwarded message -- From: Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com Date: Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:32 PM Subject: Open Wikimedia meeting on IRC: Wednesday, 1900 UTC in #wikimedia To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Commons common...@wikimedia.org Hello, I think it would be good to have an open meeting (or a few) to discuss the wider Wikimedia community, project governance, and recent issues on Commons and Meta. Przykuta suggested an IRC meeting soon. For those who are available, please join us in #wikimedia on Wednesday, at 1900 UTC. (for those who dislike IRC, there's a link For everyone, please add topics for discussion, and link to discussions taking place elsewhere on the projects. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_meetings#May_12.2C_2010 SJ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] PR consultants: perhaps Wikipedia is not the ideal promotional medium
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 12:40 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: A PR agent should be able to learn how to write a neutral article, if they see one aspect of their role as to provide information about their client, not necessarily to directly promote them. Yes. Treated properly, this energy could be put to good use producing free knowledge. I look forward to a world in which librarians, museum curators, secretaries, agents, superintendnts and publishers all see creating or updating free content about their work as part of their normal duties. And if we had a systematic campaign to provide basic information about all companies that meet our notabiliity requirements, the way we do for populated places, it would greatly diminish the tendency for people to think they needed to write their own article. Very true. Crisp definitions of notability that allow for a constructive list of all notable instances of the topic, and systematic campaigns (with bot support for seeding and review) make a tremendous difference in the stable growth of articles on that topic. Rather than waiting for someone to both care about a group and understand where to find notability guidelines, we should have lists of notable groups without articles compiled by people who know those guidelines and how to mine public databases. Then the people who know about the topic (but not WP policy quirks) can get to work writing the article, people who cry NN on deletion discussions can be pointed to the list of notable foo without articles, and the aforementioned writers can simply worry about citations, verifiability, and decent prose. People sometimes to say that 'all the easy articles have been written', but I regularly run across topic areas which are interesting, notable, but overlooked with tens of thousands of subjects missing. Geographic places in internet-free zones; monuments and buildings in Asia and Africa; notable professors and politicians outside of modern North America and Europe; businesses that were notable in their day but have since merged or shut down; notable published works that are out of print; even, as DGG says, modern notable businesses, or bands and other artists who don't have a Wikipedia-savvy following. SJ David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: This article makes my week. I generally feel we should blank articles more and delete them less, but this is an area where the explicit rebuff of deletion has its advantages. SJ On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Excellent piece. Especially the close about how it's a difficult position for PR professionals to report to the client that the article was deleted. -Durova On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:35 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://rushprnews.com/2010/03/31/pr-consultants-should-think-twice-before-using-wikipedia-to-promote-clients PR consultants should think twice before using Wikipedia to promote clients March 31, 2010 Leicestershire, UK (RPRN) 03/31/10 — PR consultants are being advised to think twice before incorporating Wikipedia entries into campaign strategies after the site started cracking down on articles submitted by any public relations agency it considered to be using its resource to promote clients. (muwahaha. Spotted by Mathias Schindler. The article sets out en:wp's rationales and likely actions very well indeed.) - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Yes, that disposes of them. The point is to have external links and further reading available to users of the reference at the foot of the article. The consensus to routinely remove such material arose a few years ago and it diminishes the utility of Wikipedia as a reference work. Fred Bauder I don't think there's such a consensus, site wide. I have seen articles where someone OWNs it and there is a local consensus. Keep in mind that we risk ending up with our articles web link farms which is are not maintained in any consistent manner. I support good links, and add them. But there's a downside there too. -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com External links and further reading are content like any other content. They require maintenance and sound judgment. What I object to is the meataxe approach to editing with respect to external links and further reading as well as article content. We all understand the problem when it's done with article content. I agree that this is a similar problem. In theory, the 'external links' section of an article should grow and take shape in proportion to the article's size and maturity, not stay constant over time. We have been doing a good job of expanding footnote-style references and external links -- I spoke to a business school class yesterday where a student said isn't excellent citation one of Wikipedia's main attractions? -- but there is also value in links to general further reading. A feature to improve the curating and presentation of these links might be handy. We have a few places were having a set of links as a first class member of the wikiverse would be useful * external links or further reading * a list of images related to an article (which may not all fit neatly in the article) * interlanguage and interproject links to a set of articles about the same topic SJ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Administrator coup / mass deletions
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:45 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Running a mass deletion does have the unfortunate effect that there's no time for anyone to scramble for sources, which folks will do at least some of the time if given a chance. On the other hand, if *all* unsourced bios are deleted, at least no one can claim theirs was singled out for deletion! And hey, it gives a clean slate to start with (she says, somewhat tongue in cheek). You're right that these are all very bad problems. Pure Wiki Deletion would be an elegant solution to this, and many other similar snafus. You and Abd ul-Rahman are right about that. While PWD is simple and effective, its very lack of process means that it can be less satisfying for frustrated editors (an important engine behind passionate bulk actions). I wonder if there is some way to get the best of both hard and soft solutions. PWD also gets harder as speedy deletion criteria expand; now articles are sometimes speedied because they are blank. SJ. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] New way to discourage newcomers invented
Wikipedia has no management style because there are no managers. We should not be a bureaucracy in any sense of the word. Right. That is the point of WP:BURO. It's not that We are a bureaucracy, but if you cut some corners we'll look the other way. That's not what it says at all. It says We are NOT a bureaucracy and so Knowing where to go should be much, MUCH less than half the battle of contributing to Wikipedia. Absolutely. And for 90% of contributors, that is happily the case. However, on the fringes; somewhat active pages, pages with at least one editor conflict, new pages, anon and newbie contributions, policy pages, pages somehow turned up for deletion : lots of different policies, aggregated over many years, come into play. face every now and again. The way we operate is a hybrid of pure wiki editing with other stuff. Yes. And being in denial about the scale issue seems head-in-the-sand to me. A wiki with 10,000 pages is a big wiki. And we have 1000 times that, one way and another. This argument isn't so simple. 90% of editors of our 10 million pages manage with fully distributed groups of 1-2 editors, wikiprojects of a dozen people, and a hundred automated bots and scripts. They dont need to know more than a couple of policies and guidelines, and can basically just look at a similar page elsewhere to figure out how to contribute. 10% of a project this size is still a lot, and that produces all of the light and noise. but it's not 'in denial' to say that our core policies of not being bureaucratic, ignoring rules where necessary, and being rightfully indignant when it seems bureaucracy rules the day in some corner of the project*, are what should guide 90% if not 100% of work on the Projects. SJ * even to the point of getting together and fixing that as an acknowledged problem :) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] deletionism in popular culture
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 11:46 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: I do not consider that trivial. The deletion of improvable articles because the small number of participants at AfD who are interested and willing to rescue them is one of the reasons for people losing the interest in Wikipedia. Who after all actually wants to come to articles for deletion, but those who want to delete articles. Good point. I've often thought something like 'jury duty' for newcomers, after your first few weeks editing but before you stop being flagged as a 'newb' by the site software, might involve a few days of sharing your common sense at AfD. Though I still like the idea of changing the name to Articles for Review, encouraging eveyryone who likes cleanup to hang out there, and turning AfD into the much faster-process group that figures out /how/ to properly delete articles that have no other option. [so anyone could close an AfR discussion, but only people with delete rights could close AfD; they'd have to know how to decide whether or not to delete talk pages, c c. ] Ryan Delaney opines: I agree. Pure Wiki Deletion is the only permanent solution. Now that's a lovely perennial idea. There's no point in hard deleting any article save to protect private information in the history. You can pure wiki delete; or even pure wiki delete and protect the blank page; but removing the work done from view of interested passers-by is wholly unnecessary. SJ David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, here's a hypothetical. Let's say out of any twenty given AfD's that close as delete, it turns out we get one wrong. Is that acceptable? Deletion is hardly the end of the world in itself... Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Sue Gardner nominated for HuffPost media game-changer of the year
Forwarding from foundation-l. This is lovely - bold of HuffPost to include Wikimedia in its wide-angle view of today's media, and appropriate considering the way WP helps make sense of the chaos of breaking news. I also love Tina Brown's quote - I used to be the impatient type. Now I'm the serene type. Because how can you be impatient when everything happens right now, instantly? - she sounds like a natural Wikipedian... SJ -- Forwarded message -- From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com Date: Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:15 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Sue Gardner nominated for HuffPost media game-changer of the year To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org Nominated for having successfully taken the organisation to the next level of professionalism and the influence that gives us. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/huffpost-game-changers-wh_n_337129.html?slidenumber=IYkFqRf71RU%3D#slide_image (Do of course click through the others.) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikipedia-l] Egregiously missing option in Upload dialog
Timwi - That is indeed pretty egregious. I use that dialog all the time, but usually upload my own images and so didn't really attend to whether the other options are complete. I agree that this should be fixed, and filed a bug: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20648 (I thought there would be one already but couldn't find it; please dup it if necessary) SJ On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Timwi ti...@gmx.net wrote: Hi. A friend of mine just tried to upload an image to Wikipedia which was given to him by another friend. Unfortunately the Upload page only provides the options: * made by someone else for use on Wikipedia only * made by someone else for non-commercial use only and both of these options lead to a speedy-deletion warning. The most OBVIOUS options are missing: * made by someone else and licenced as (whatever free/open licence) * made by someone else and placed in the public domain Because of this, he is forced to use a lower-quality image or no image at all (or to lie by claiming to be the author of the work). I think this should be fixed as soon as possible so that normal, reasonable people can upload normal, reasonable images. Very frustrated, Timwi ___ Wikipedia-l mailing list wikipedi...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: That's a very good idea. +1 The name strikes me as the biggest drawback of the current system. Carcharoth On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:36 AM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: I think there's a terminology issue. We cannot refer to this as a trust system, however Wikitrust brands it. We just can't. It misleads too many, and implies too much. Call it a text tracing system or a gadget to highlight text origins instead. It's a lot less glamorous, sounds alot less dramatic, doesn't get the dollars - but it's got zero capability of misleading. FT2 On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:37 PM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.comwrote: How would the blame maps work with people editing around vandalism? For example someone either blanks the page or does extensive vandalism to it (especially over the course of a couple days or a couple users). I would imagine it would be fairly easy if the bad contributions just got rolledback but would the old blamemaps still be reinstated if someone went in and manually copy/pasted the old version (or something very close) in or would the system count it as a new contribution? On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:12 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/31 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com: I am a little concerned that we are adopting a metric into our interface without adequate testing. It appears we're not and Wired completely jumped the gun. There is no timeframe for release of this thing even as an optional extra. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- James Alexander http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamesofur ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Googley comments
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:59 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/4 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com: What I would think more likely to succeed? A Help us improve tab, not a comment tab Specifically with a header and edit notice If you can see a way to improve this article, or better more up to date information, let us know! +1 Especially useful for non-logged-in users. I also might consider trialling a button that said If you notice an error, omission, outdated facts, or any other ways we can improve this article, '''[[TALK PAGE|click here]]''' and let us know! How about simply a cheerful feedback button? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/11 Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com: d. wrote: His approach was to recruit a pile of other XML experts, who he didn't necessarily agree with. Another important aspect of his approach was that he recognized (and even agreed with!) the concerns over someone like him doing any editing. Yep. He gets Wikipedia. As someone commented on his blog, one of the problems is that the experts in an area are likely to have been very heavily involved in it. Also biased by that involvement towards a particular mindset, especially when it comes to speculative or cutting edge or controversial work. Tim was invited to speak at one of the Wikimanias, but couldn't make it. Sj ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] The end of donations
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Jay Litwynbrewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote: stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote in message On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:14 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: It occurs to me that when people donate money to something, it is to some degree with an expectation that the recipient entity grows to eventually gain a certain kind of financial self-sufficiency. Is this not also the case with Wikimedia and many charitable donations to it? I normally expect this. Carcharoth answered that question in October or November: can't do it for reasons in 501(c) that give us tax advantages. For those tax advantages, we forfeit our ability to acquire self-sustaining amounts of investment wealth; This is untrue. You can qualify as a publicly supported charity as long as 10% of total support/revenue comes from government funds and from public donations. (If over a third comes from government and public contributions, you're golden; but if you are clearly a publicly supported entity such as a library or educational institution, organized to 'attract new [government and public] support' you can get by with just 10%) http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf (see p.29) We simply need to define a basic set of features and services that will be covered entirely by a self-sustaining foundation; and can raise further government and public funds to support new projects, RD, creative PR or outreach schemes, or a print Wikipedia 1.0 in 1,296 volumes... SJ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Report a Problem hack
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote: I'd like it. Good for new page patrollers'. +1 for neat little pop-ups and easy error reporting. Can we also do something like this to report general interface and software bugs? SJ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: But still? A local library? I find it useful to look at things in context with other similar institutions. So, I try and think of famous libraries. The British Library, the Bodleian Library, the Library of Congress, and so on. And then I try and think where my local library fits in on that scale. And I conclude: no article. Well, WP isn't paper. If your world is your town, then the history of your local library - from how it raised the million dollars needed to break ground and build it to its design and placement in the town, to the special collections and the services it provides, are both useful to locals, educational to visitors, and free knowledge about an institution designed to last for centuries. A local library is certainly not must have or important. It's not really even contributes to depth of knowledge. Why would it not contribute to depth of knowledge? That seems like the definition of the phrase... just another layer of depth. I would dearly like to know the nuanced history of my city's landscaping, zoning principles, and architecture over the past 5 centuries -- and would be delighted if I could zoom into the specific details of any given building or greensway of significance. Would you prefer to spin off a separate project such as http://local-free-encyclopedia.org/en/cambridge; for this purpose? US. Now is your local library in the top 10,000,000 articles? Why should WP not have 30M topics instead of 3M? I wish that growth had not slowed; there is so much yet to be covered. It's useful to have a balance among articles, and not to have a million detailed articles on buildings and none on major cities in Africa, absolutely. But notability standards have been steadily shifting for years... SJ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Anthonywikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote: My own take on the deletionist/inclusionist divide (which, admittedly, has little if anything to do with Wikipedia's inclusion policies as currently prescribed) is to ask: would anyone, anywhere in the world (other than the author) ever be interested in reading an encyclopedic treatment of this topic? (And in the case of Bo the first dog, the answer is pretty clearly yes.) I recently checked Wikipedia for an article on my local library, and found that it was deleted. If Wikipedia isn't too deletionist, then it's improperly deletionist. C'mon, a library isn't notable? We'd be more effective if we had notability guidelines that explicitly supported expansion of notability to allow more and more granular articles over time. Any monument or building or park that people invested thousands of hours into, or that people from far away come to see, or that thousands of people use a year, is notable in its own right. Sometimes we address the issue of maintaining balance and quality as a perpetual fight over lines in the sand, when it's an important effort worth continual discussion and refinement. As the number of editors interested in a topic area grows -- something that happens as WP includes more and more locally-notable entries, for instance -- the capacity to maintain quality in that area grows as well. Sj ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
Do experts have an obligation? No. Educators and those whose goal is
to improve the world's knowledge, yes. And everyone has a motivation
to contribute driven by public interest, but not everyone recognizes
it.
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
How about the simpler comment that if you have expertise in an area of
public interest, you should consider writing something freely licensed
and putting it on the Web where someone can find it and help aggregate
I'd agree with this. Publishing a reliable source and making it widely
and freely accessible can be better that contributing to Wikipedia.
Especially if you are the sort of expert that doesn't have the time
and patience for Wikipedia. But equally we have an obligation to make
sure that the trolls and POV pushers don't mess things up or distort
Agreed. Publishing and promoting standards for how to 'announce'
anew publication to Wikipedians, without needing to learn how to edit
a talk page, would be a great start -- something like pingback for all
major mechanisms people use to publish their works online.
To the comment that Wikipedians adding {{cn}} everywhere annoys
experts : this is something we have an obligation to fix. The request
for a citation is a way of making offered expertise more valuable, not
a way of challenging people for thinking they know something useful to
others.We should make the process of getting cites friendly and
rewarding, not annoying and combative.
-Sj
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lists and redlinks and link maintenance
This is a nice writeup. It would make a good addition to the lists
discussion page you link.
An essay on this that ties into other ways to convert reliable
datasources into pages via a list-creation step (sometimes resulting
in a list, sometimes resulting in a topic outline, and sometimes
resulting in better encyclopedia articles), would also be useful.
--SJ
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I recently created three lists of winners of scientific awards, partly
because it needed doing, partly to see how good our coverage is now
(and how many articles remain to be written in such fields) and partly
to take a more systematic approach to checking links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_N._Potts_Medal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Medal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin_Medal_(Franklin_Institute)
The year ranges are: 1911-1991, 1915-1997, and 1998-2008 respectively.
The lists consist of scientists across a range of fields, with 99,
114, and 80 entries respectively. The number of redlinks vs blue links
(at the time of writing) are: 51 vs 48, 3 vs 111, and 18 vs 62,
respectively.
The relatively high numbers of redlinks for the Potts Medal is due to
it being a somewhat lesser medal than the other two (which are
essentially the same medal, but the latter one arising after a
reorganisation of the awards process of the Franklin Institute,
Pennsylvania, USA). It was very encouraging to see that there were
only 3 redlinks in the Franklin medal list, but given the calibre and
stature of some of the names there, that was to be expected. 18
redlinks (from 80) on the medal covering the last ten years is not too
bad when you consider that coverage of current scientists is not
always that good.
I've summarised this on the talk pages, and also laid out there the
approach I took to checking the links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Howard_N._Potts_Medal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Franklin_Medal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Benjamin_Franklin_Medal_(Franklin_Institute)
The process is essentially this:
1) Create list from reliable source
2) Check for typos and other mistakes
3) Check all redlinks to see if a redirect can be created
4) Check all blue links for wrong links and disambiguation pages
5) Disambiguate where possible
6) Disambiguate incorrect blue links to red links where possible
7) Leave sources behind that were found while disambiguating to redlinks
8) List redlinks on talk page and check back periodically to see if
articles created
9) Create articles on the redlink list as alternative to waiting for
others to create
10) Periodically repeat search for redirects to create, and checking
that links are accurate
From experience, watching a redlink list like this fill in, or
checking a list of blue links remains accurate, the common and not so
common changes are:
A) A redlink turns blue, but the article is about someone else (turn
back into redlink by disambiguating)
B) A redlink turns blue, but it is a disambiguation page someone has
created (disambiguate if possible)
C) A blue link turns from an article into a disambiguation page (and
someone forgot to fix the incoming links)
Are there any other common situations where the status of a link changes?
One of the annoying things is that sometimes you can have a grouping
of possible titles and possble redirects (e.g. A. Other, Any Other, A.
M. Other, Any Middle Other, Any Other (disambiguator), and so on), and
sometimes redlinks for more than one possibility have been created,
but until the actual article has been created, it is not possible to
create the other redlinks as redirects because there are bots that
will delete these as broken redirects. I've never managed to figure
out a satisfactory solution to this.
Anyway, I did this list maintenance and tracking thing previously
for the Royal Medal article, which is now (thanks to another editor) a
featured list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Medal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Royal_Medal
You can see on the talk page the timings of when the redlinks turned
blue. It should be interesting to see how fast that happens for those
three lists I've set up above, for the lists I created recently.
Providing, of course, that I resist the temptation to create some of
those articles myself (I will, at some point), and that everyone on
this list doesn't rush off to create some of those articles... :-)
Anyway, what I wanted to know was whether there are places on
Wikipedia where such approaches to lists and checking links is
documented? I do remember something about various lists of entries
from places like the DNB.
Ah here we are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/DNB_lists_discussion
List maintenance, first pass. Add {{tick}}, {{dn}} and {{mnl}}
templates, respectively for correct
Re: [WikiEN-l] Rorschach wars continue
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: Steve Bennett wrote: So, can someone fill me in on why we're laughing at this? From the article: That seems like a pretty reasonable concern to me. To destroy the effectiveness of a test that has that kind of research background to it (tens of thousands of papers!!) doesn't seem like a laughing matter. Maybe it's unavoidable. Maybe it's collateral damage. But the concern that publishing it on Wikipedia is different from publishing it elsewhere on the web seems legitimate. It's good to know that the efforts of the jokesters seeking to remove this material was reported on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)'s National news program last night. I'm surprised by how popular the article still is. In some ways, our traffic is still light enough to be pushed around significantly by news. http://wikistics.falsikon.de/latest-daily/wikipedia/en/ SJ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l
Is there a suitable place on-wiki to put a summary of some of the points in this thread? Carcharoth If you don't mind the recursion, I've posted some of the discussion so far to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Issues/Long-term_discussions which is part of the still-conceptual Community Facilitation project [[WP:CF]]. If a few more people join in and help frame it and where it is going, perhaps it will take off. SJ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Gwern Branwengwe...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, the best way forward is probably to improve talk pages. They've already proven that they can go the distance; so 'all' that's needed Well, i think we still have a long way to go before we've successfully copied that oldest of wiki formats, the Talmud and its ilk -- and that works for more than talk pages! Web forums and Reddit pages are a good example of this: in theory they should work just as fine as talk pages, since they need not ever close, and forum threads can be 'stickied' to make them as permanently Have you tried Diigo? Any thoughts on that sort of interface? I'm actually not too enthused about Google Wave for this purpose. Watching the demo, the entire thing seems optimized for short waves with minimal nesting. The history scroll thing is no good for, say, Talk:Jesus, and the comment boxes are all very small and so discourage any in-depth discussion. But this may just be a question of implementing the right interface to a generic sort of tool. The spec doesn't say anythinga bout how to visualize history scrolling or comment boxes. S ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l
Well, there is something in the original proposal that makes sense to me -- devoting specific attention to long-term facilitation of discussion and resolution of difficult issues. There is something about wiki-time (to borrow a term) that discourages measured discussion over time - if you miss the flashpoint discussion that sets a precedent, people may have moved on and you'll have to restart the original interest again. I think the list-vs-wiki distinction is a red herring -- I'd like to see list-to-wiki synchronization so that we never have to have that discussion again -- so to keep things simple, let's imagine what this would look like on-wiki. Sam had a good idea in this direction : [[Wikipedia:Community Facilitation]] . It's about something more specific than dispute resolution in general, but may be a useful part of what you have in mind, steve. And the idea would be both to discuss [potentially long-term] facilitation, help people get better at it, and practice it in the context of specific issues. Sj On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:01 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: I'm proposing that we start a resolution-l mailing list. Yes, I know we talked about it a month ago, to the tune of about 100 posts, and it seemed that it wasn't going anywhere. But that was just appearances. The reality is that the support was substantial, the opposition was sub-articulate, and whatever substantive criticism there was was largely based in some assumed misconceptions about its scope (Thomas). The real truth is that we have been waiting for Cary to fulfill one of his many duties and create the list. That having failed, we have been waiting on Cary to tell us why he has not. That also having failed, we instead have just been waiting a month for Cary to say anything at all. And he recently did, though there was little substance in it, other than a threat to close the bug request. Which in fact, he just did close as WONTFIX: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19414 . I'm sure he thinks he's doing the right thing. Still, despite our recent differences, we should welcome Cary's actual participation in our discussion. Thank you Cary, we understand that you were just too busy to give this proper consideration. Anyway, we were talking about an open list for discussing dispute resolution. Its scope will be broad, and its purpose will be to be helpful. It will discuss particular disputes in general, conceptual, and editorial terms, and facilitate immediate on-wiki dispute resolution processes. It will also discuss dispute resolution concepts in general, wherever that goes. -Stevertigo Architect of WP:CIVIL, creator of Arbcom, Inventor of those WP:Shortcuts ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Ironically, wikis are so far the online medium which have done best at long-term conversations: I routinely see talk page conversations where the gaps between one message and another may be a year or three. This is not something I've ever been able to say of email lists, IRC chat, IM, newsgroups, social sites, web aggregators, most every blog... Probably to do with the stable central point - the page being discussed. All the other mediums you mention are transient. New articles hardly anyone returns to. Here, the encyclopedia pages are (in theory) kept up-to-date. When there is a namespace set aside for central points, such as individual topics, wikis do this brilliantly. But many wiki processes simply archive without a central point (or have a week-long discussion which is then frozen, no more discussion to be had). One aspect of a community facilitation project would be to define a namespace for issues, which might be moved and renamed over time, but would not be 'closed' or 'archived' because someone though a particular proposed implementation was not a good idea. If someone thought it was an issue to consider, then it is a valid point in the namespace, and will always be so. Someone else might come up with a great resolution to that issue in the future; it might be effectively merged with other similar issues; it mght be better understood as a combination of two resolvable issues. Or it might just remain, with fluctuating priority, as something intractable yet important-to-someone. For instance, I was looking for the latest thoughts on the topic of 'How to create notability guidelines for a new category' (since [[Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines]] is pretty sparse) without success. And the a little while before that I wanted to see who else thought G8 shouldn't be used to speedy delete talk pages or subpages with valuable discussions. I had a specific example that would have contributed to the idea that talk pages should be preserved... but there was only a scattering of a dozen discussions across many different talkpage archives. A permanent page for each of these issues, perhaps with one or more self-selected facilitators willing to help incorporate new thoughts and more towards a long-term resolution, would be interesting. To start with, you could seed the issues namespace with the perennial proposals. [[WP:PEREN]] does not do these justice; and in short order a good facilitator could replace each of the Reason for previous rejection statements with a reworded but equally accurate Current compromise or resolution. SJ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Request for help: Strategic Planning
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Philippe Beaudettepbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: Please, take the time to join in this exciting process. The importance of your participation can not be overstated. This still makes it sound as though community participation is optional, and is input into some larger non-public process. How about this: Planning for the future is determined by your input. Come discuss future directions for the Projects, how the Foundation can facilitate the work of the Projects, and how we should allocate time and resources to best support our mission. SJ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1
Brad : the practical implications are that we will lose the ability to copy work from a set of familiar collaborative sites -- many of which chose their license specifically to facilitate long-term exchange with Wikipedia -- and they will slowly lose access to the latest WP updates over months or years. (we are also gaining direct access to new sites, but that happens regardless of how we approach this hurdle) Thomas Dalton writes: The only situation where there is going to be a problem is moving content from a wiki that doesn't convert to a Wikimedia wiki. Going the other way will be fine in most cases, most Wikimedia content will be dual licensed. Yes, wikipedia will continue to dual license for as long as this is possible. This will help GFDL-only projects dependent on Wikipedia benefit from future edits for as long as possible, but it will only last so long. Once CC-BY-SA content is merged into an article, future revisions of the article are BY-SA only. Within a couple of years, Wikipedia will be basically a BY-SA project (with a historical snapshot still available under GFDL). Third parties should not be fooled into thinking that this finesse is equivalent to being a dual-licensed project forever. If they don't switch now, they will not have the chance to do so in the future. geni writes: Not much. Not many active third party GFDL projects so it is unlikely that there will significant amounts of new GFDL content produced in future and most existing stuff of interest has long since been imported. A quick look at the recentchanges of the 18 large wikis listed on the outreach page will show you that it's not true that most existing stuff of relevance has long been imported -- these are active communities, each working in their own world; which sporadically draw from Wiki[p]edia and from which we slightly more sporadically draw in return. I am surprised you (of all people :) have such faith in the horde or importers. I was looking at the glorious media and high-res source text scans at wdl.org yesterday, and could not find a single piece of that public domain media that was already on Commons and used in the obvious Wikipedia article / on its own Wikisource page. Maybe I wasn't looking in the right place... but that's a month after a global publicity blitz. On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:16 AM, effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com wrote: as long as they convert /before/ the deadline... Exactly.And there are some energetic new projects such as Medpedia that are just getting off the ground, with enthusiastic new authors and a constellation of supporters... they'd probably love to convert, but need someone to explain this to them in time for them to work through their own red tape. SJ 2009/5/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 2009/5/27 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com: Thanks for circulating this. Not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy here, but I suspect that 90% or more of those affected by this issue will not care or will not understand the urgency, and they will not do anything, either on their own sites or on-wiki. What are the practical implications of this if nothing happens and little attention is paid by anyone? The only situation where there is going to be a problem is moving content from a wiki that doesn't convert to a Wikimedia wiki. Going the other way will be fine in most cases, most Wikimedia content will be dual licensed. If every Wikimedian that takes content off other wikis (how many of those are there?) goes to those wikis and recommends they convert, then we should be ok. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
