Hoi,
Anna I have one question for you. You say that "you would not frame the
challenge as I do". How would you characterise the inherent diversity issue
of the WMF that is centred around how it spends its money and where its
attention goes?
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 June 2017 at 01:57, Anna Stillwell <astillw...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Gerard,
>
> In line.
>
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I have some notions about language and if anything there are some things
> > that we can do technically but with over 280 languages technique will not
> > serve us well. At best it will be a partial solution.
>
>
> Everything is a partial solution. The complete picture emerges as we
> explore the problem.
>
>
> > When you look at the
> > team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest
> > effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its
> support
> > in standards.
> >
>
> I agree. I think their work is splendid too. I’m glad to hear you share
> that view.
>
>
> > The problem with Wikipedia is that when we want to grow content in a
> small
> > language, we have to forget much of what English Wikipedia is, what the
> > bigger Wikipedias are and certainly not get stuck in academia.
>
>
> You’re saying that one size does not fit all. Not by a long shot. If that
> is what you’re saying, I agree.
>
>
> > When we do
> > not have articles for their cities, important people when we largely do
> not
> > even know them in Wikidata, the first thing is for them to be bold and
> > write stubs, stubs that are connected. Stubs for their current affairs
> as I
> > described in my blog for lessons around newspapers and Wikipedia [1].
> >
>
> Ok. So we don’t have important knowledge about people and places in other
> languages. Agreed. We have far less of that. I think we should have far
> more. If that’s not what you are saying, please correct me.
>
> But then I don’t yet understand what you are saying about stubs. Are you
> saying “they" should make those stubs? Who are the people that should make
> the stubs and who are you addressing this comment to? I’m just wondering
> whether it is something that I can even address or whether your insight is
> best addressed by other movement players.
>
>
> > The point is that it is not about knowledge delivery. We do not have the
> > pertinent knowledge; it is first about knowledge acquisition. Sources may
> > be required for English Wikipedia but when you want to nurture a project
> in
> > its infancy, we do not need the overhead. It is detrimental to primary
> > requirements. Primacy is to be given to content in the first place,
> > interlinked content.
> >
>
> Ok. We don’t have the knowledge yet. We need to get it. I agree. Then there
> is an issue with sources. I don’t know the exact issue that you are
> pointing to with sources, but I agree that the first barrier is sources. I
> also think a lot of people throughout the movement conversation would
> agree, as I’ve heard them talking about it non-stop. People don’t know how
> to solve that problem yet, but there seems to be growing consensus that
> this is a problem we should collectively attempt to solve.
>
> I can’t be sure that I understood the rest of your point. I fear that it
> was lost in translation and I apologize in advance that my Dutch is
> non-existent.
>
>
> >
> > We have to appreciate what it is what we can achieve. For instance, the
> > Bangla Wikipedia has been the biggest resource in modern Bangla for a
> > number of years now. Bangla is spoken by a few hundred million people.
> > This can be achieved for many languages and we have to consider the state
> > of a language on the Internet and nurture the necessary effort.
> >
>
> I find nothing objectionable in this statement. I also agree that we have
> to appreciate what we can achieve. Sometimes I fear that across the
> movement half of us think about as long as an annual plan, the other half
> like to dream in the far out. There is a lot of mid-range planning in
> between that keeps me up at night.
>
> Thanks for helping us all understand more about the Bangla community. I
> agree that serving a language community of a few hundred million people
> well is important. Bengla has over 250M speakers and is the seventh most
> spoken language in the world [citation needed].
>
> >
> > We can leverage Wikidata for wiki links, red links and even black links.
> > This is the lowest hanging fruit for making Wikidata more relevant. I
> have
> > written about it before [2]. Including Wikidata in search results will
> make
> > search more robust [3]. Once we start making this connection between
> links
> > and Wikidata, it becomes easier to assess one aspect of quality because
> > articles on the same subject share similar links.
> >
> > Anna, my point is that so far English Wikipedia has been given
> preferential
> > treatment and all the other projects have suffered as a consequence.
> >
>
> I hear that you care about other projects as much as you do English
> Wikipedia. That is clear. I wouldn’t frame the challenge the way you do,
> but that does not preclude me from listening to your view.
>
> In the analysis of all of the data at a very preliminary stage, it looks
> like the top themes that are emerging from the conversation are "global
> movement" and "healthy communities". That information is still not
> integrated with the information from New Voices and Experts, but those are
> the ideas that have emerged from our current communities. Given that
> emerging consensus, we may well be working toward more of what you care
> about.
>
>
> > Another point is that we should not impose on the other projects with an
> > English Wikipedia vision.
>
>
> No argument from me. I agree.
>
>
> > This is one aspect that is not acknowledged nor
> > understood by my peers as far as I am aware and, I know that my position
> > is not welcomed by most if at all.
> >
>
> I find this confusing to hear, Gerard. I hear this view a good deal and it
> appears to be an emerging consensus among our contributors and affiliates.
> I welcome your position.
>
>
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > [1]
> > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/05/teaching-
> > wikipedia-using-local-news.html
> > [2]
> > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-
> > lowest-hanging-fruit-from.html
> > [3]
> > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/06/wikipedia-
> > sister-projects-in-search.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 25 June 2017 at 22:33, Anna Stillwell <astillw...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Gerard,
> > >
> > > Happy Sunday to you. I hope you're well.
> > >
> > > I'm curious... have you heard one of the ideas emerging in discussions
> is
> > > "beyond the encyclopedia"... an idea that includes and goes beyond the
> > > encyclopedia? You'd likely resonate with the idea. It describes the
> > > multiplicity of what we already are and the desire to grow that.
> > >
> > > Additionally, we are hearing from "New Voices" that we can't expect to
> > > deliver knowledge the same way everywhere. Clearly, we are going to
> have
> > to
> > > mix it up. You might enjoy some of the insights coming out of New
> Voices.
> > > They are published on the meta page as soon as each event ends and as
> > > quickly as they can coherently write it up.
> > >
> > > There has also been a good deal of discussion around language (and the
> > > subsequent technical need to explore machine learning for predictive,
> > > contextual search and natural language processing to support better
> > > translation).
> > >
> > > Most of the ideas I've mentioned here are housed under "Truly global
> > > movement" | "Community health" | or "Augmented age". Augmented age is a
> > > technical vision which increasingly seems like the technical means to
> > > support some other end(s).
> > >
> > > You might be surprised where the discussions are going. It's built by
> > your
> > > peers. We offered the resources and structure and we realize that there
> > are
> > > constraints and biases that come with that. We've tried to account for
> > our
> > > biases (the foundation's and the movement's) with entire streams of
> work:
> > > New voices, for example. That was intentional in the design.
> > >
> > > I've responded here to let you know that you are not alone. Your peers
> > have
> > > voiced these issues and they are heavily influencing the discussion and
> > > everyone is listening.
> > >
> > > Warmly,
> > > /a
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English
> Wikipedia
> > > > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> > > bias
> > > > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> > > educational
> > > > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known,
> developed,
> > > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a
> > viable
> > > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > > > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> > > >
> > > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> > > projects
> > > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential
> > readers
> > > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these
> projects
> > > and
> > > > there is no research into its value.
> > > >
> > > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any
> > collaboration
> > > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that
> > habitually
> > > > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well
> > served
> > > > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data
> driven
> > > > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south
> > in
> > > > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the
> process
> > > so
> > > > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> > > message
> > > > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> > > >
> > > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > GerardM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > > > traffic.
> > > > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > > > Wikipedia..
> > > >
> > > > On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <strain...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change
> for
> > > > people
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > > are not involved with affiliates?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even
> > the
> > > > > > most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real
> life
> > > > > > commitments that do not allow them to follow this process
> > carefully,
> > > > > > it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > > > > > coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my
> particular
> > > > > > geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2
> > weeks
> > > > > > prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time
> to
> > > > > > read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > > > > > available in the strategy process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I
> > was
> > > > > pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite
> some
> > > > > feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially
> ignored.
> > > None
> > > > > of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of
> time.
> > > > Round
> > > > > 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened
> > i n
> > > > > different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> > > > > anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding
> pages
> > > on 3
> > > > > projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot),
> but
> > I
> > > > have
> > > > > not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round
> > 1.
> > > > May
> > > > > be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not
> really
> > > > > looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is
> completely
> > > > > failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> > > > > considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want
> to
> > > be
> > > > > heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the
> > next
> > > > > process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
> unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
