Gerard. Did you file the feature request? If not, you are ranting at the wrong mailing list.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hoi, > Despair is a personal emotion. What makes you think that despair is an > attack on a person? It is not. Oliver, I despair about what the Research > list has become and, I will explain why. > > What I despair about is the overwhelming amount of Wikipedia related > noise. Noise because it feels to me like the same subjects are covered in > endless similar ways. I despair because when something new happens OUTSIDE > of this, the English Wikipedia it is completely ignored. > > Much of what I hear feels like noise because it lacks practical relevance. > Research, statistics could show "What are people looking for most in > Wikipedia but cannot find". We do not have that because of no reason I can > think of and, it has been promised often enough for years now. The Swedish > Wikipedia finds that their bot generated articles has rejuvenated their > Wikipedia but the research community is quiet about it.. Ignores it ? > Wikidata has statistics [1] its data has a real meaning about Wikipedia, > about Wikidata and about the sum of all information AVAILABLE to us. > > The consequence of all this self promotion is that there is no attention > for anything else.. Yes, we know there is a gender disparity but what about > people with a mental health problem.. We have way more people editing who > are "enriched" with a diagnosis than is average. What do our projects mean > for them, does it help them with their self awareness, does it help them > recover, is our community aware of it and how does it cope or fail to cope. > What practical steps can we take to make these valuable contributors more > secure, less anxious? > > Researching the same things over and over does not help us understand > WIkipedia, our "other projects", our communities. It does not help us > achieve our aim; it is "share in the sum of all knowledge", we do not even > share all the knowledge that is available to us. Why not? How can we do > this? > > Jane knows the tool that provides a selection of Wikipedias with search > results from Wikidata. It works, Ori looked at it from a performance point > of view. NOTHING NEEDS TO BE DONE TO IMPLEMENT IT. It does not happen. A > research question would be "Why". > > The statistics for Wikidata are not up to date because the dumps are > faulty. It is not clear, obvious that it is of real concern to the people > responisble. However this data IS used to run specific bots based on what > the numbers show. The numbers matter, the statistics matter they have a > real demonstrable impact. > > What I am looking for is relevance and I find only research for more fine > grained explanations not for solutions. It is why I despair, it is because > it feels so much like a colossal waste of time when you consider that > researching subjects with a different objective would help us forward so > much. > > Maybe my expectations are unrealistic and people doing research are just > another incrowd doing their own thing. > Thanks, > GerardM > > > > [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php?reverse > > On 28 October 2014 00:15, Oliver Keyes <oke...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> If it's that trivial to implement, implement it. >> >> That's a very compressed way of saying; I think it's fine for us to >> disagree on this list. But, really? Pine's email made you "despair"? It, by >> inference, made you conclude he doesn't accept new things? You find the >> absence of a feature actively irrational? >> >> It's okay for Pine's vision to be different from yours, or mine, or >> Aaron's, or anyone else's. Wikimedia's ethos is not built on any one >> person's vision: it is built on the sum of all of our hopes (in an ideal >> universe). It's not a one-in, one-out system where ideas must be harshly >> and actively countered so that yours can take primacy. >> >> So let's try and stay non-hyperbolic and civil on this list, please. As a >> heuristic; if even /you/ feel a need to write an apology for your email >> into an email, don't hit send. >> >> On 27 October 2014 17:14, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hoi, >>> I read your mail again. It makes me despair. >>> >>> Wikimedia research is NOT about Wikipedia, not exclusively. When I read >>> what is an inspiration to you I find all the reasons why Wikipedians do not >>> accept anything new. Why we still do not have a search that also returns >>> information on what is NOT in that particular Wikipedia. It is only one >>> example out of many. It is however so easy to implement, it defies logic >>> that it has not happened on all Wikipedias. It is just one example that >>> demonstrates that we do not even share the sum of all information that is >>> available to us. >>> >>> ... >>> >>> Sorry, >>> GerardM >>> >>> On 20 October 2014 08:23, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Both of the presentations at the October Wikimedia Research Showcase >>>> were fascinating and I encourage everyone to watch them [1]. I would like >>>> to continue to discuss the themes from the showcase about Wikipedia's >>>> adaptability, viability, and diversity. >>>> >>>> Aaron's discussion about Wikipedia's ongoing internal adaptations, and >>>> the slowing of those adaptations, reminded me of this statement from MIT >>>> Technology Review in 2013 (and I recommend reading the whole article [2]): >>>> >>>> "The main source of those problems (with Wikipedia) is not mysterious. >>>> The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent >>>> male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere >>>> that deters newcomers who might increase partipcipation in Wikipedia and >>>> broaden its coverage." >>>> >>>> I would like to contrast that vision of Wikipedia with the vision >>>> presented by User:CatherineMunro (formatting tweaks by me), which I re-read >>>> when I need encouragement: >>>> >>>> "THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA >>>> One gateway >>>> to the wide garden of knowledge, >>>> where lies >>>> The deep rock of our past, >>>> in which we must delve >>>> The well of our future, >>>> The clear water >>>> we must leave untainted >>>> for those who come after us, >>>> The fertile earth, >>>> in which truth may grow >>>> in bright places, >>>> tended by many hands, >>>> And the broad fall of sunshine, >>>> warming our first steps >>>> toward knowing >>>> how much we do not know." >>>> >>>> How can we align ouselves less with the former vision and more with the >>>> latter? [3] >>>> >>>> I hope that we can continue to discuss these themes on the Research >>>> mailing list. Please contribute your thoughts and questions there. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Pine >>>> >>>> [1] youtube.com/watch?v=-We4GZbH3Iw >>>> >>>> [2] >>>> http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ >>>> >>>> [3] Lest this at first seem to be impossible, I will borrow and tweak a >>>> quote from from George Bernard Shaw and later used by John F. Kennedy: >>>> "Some people see things as they are and say, 'Why?' Let us dream things >>>> that never were and say, 'Why not?'" >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Oliver Keyes >> Research Analyst >> Wikimedia Foundation >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
