Deployment highlights - week of April 8th

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
44 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Deployment highlights - week of April 8th

Greg Grossmeier-2
Hello and welcome to your weekly deployment highlights email.

Here are some interesting and/or important deployments scheduled for
next week:

== Wikidata ==
* Wikidata to English Wikipedia on Monday
* Pending all OK on ENWP, Wikidata on all Wikipedias on Wednesday

== i10n ==
* Updates to the Translate Solr schema on Tuesday (at 08:00 UTC)

== Lightning Deploys! ==
* M-Th at 23:00 UTC (4pm Pacific) for 30 minutes
** Let me know if you plan on using one!
** And please do record what you did on the Deployments wiki, eg
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deployments&diff=65268&oldid=65257
(thanks Brad!)
** https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lightning_deployments#Process


As always, the full calendar can be found here:
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deployments


If you have any other expected deployments that are noteworthy, please
reply here.

Greg

--
| Greg Grossmeier            GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
| identi.ca: @greg                A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deployment highlights - week of April 8th

MZMcBride-2
Greg Grossmeier wrote:
>Here are some interesting and/or important deployments scheduled for
>next week:
>
>== Wikidata ==
>* Wikidata to English Wikipedia on Monday
>* Pending all OK on ENWP, Wikidata on all Wikipedias on Wednesday

Sorry, I don't know what this means. I thought Wikidata was already
deployed to the English Wikipedia (and possibly other projects as well).

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deployment highlights - week of April 8th

Greg Grossmeier-2
<quote name="MZMcBride" date="2013-04-05" time="19:00:06 -0400">

> Greg Grossmeier wrote:
> >Here are some interesting and/or important deployments scheduled for
> >next week:
> >
> >== Wikidata ==
> >* Wikidata to English Wikipedia on Monday
> >* Pending all OK on ENWP, Wikidata on all Wikipedias on Wednesday
>
> Sorry, I don't know what this means. I thought Wikidata was already
> deployed to the English Wikipedia (and possibly other projects as well).

Sorry, yes, this is supposed to read "Phase 2 of Wikidata".

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikidata :)


Greg

--
| Greg Grossmeier            GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
| identi.ca: @greg                A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deployment highlights - week of April 8th

Lydia Pintscher
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:00 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Sorry, I don't know what this means. I thought Wikidata was already
> deployed to the English Wikipedia (and possibly other projects as well).

I've posted an announcement with more details on the technical village
pump at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Wikidata_phase_2_is_coming_soon
Let me know if anything is still unclear so I can clarify.


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.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deployment highlights - week of April 8th

Risker
On 5 April 2013 19:07, Lydia Pintscher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:00 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Sorry, I don't know what this means. I thought Wikidata was already
> > deployed to the English Wikipedia (and possibly other projects as well).
>
> I've posted an announcement with more details on the technical village
> pump at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Wikidata_phase_2_is_coming_soon
> Let me know if anything is still unclear so I can clarify.
>
>
> Cheers
> Lydia
>
>

Lydia, could you please point me to the discussion on *English Wikipedia*
where the community indicated an interest in deploying this software?
Infoboxes and sourcing to another website completely outside the control of
English Wikipedia is a rather big issue, and I would expect to see a
Request for Comment with at least 200-300 participants.

Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deployment highlights - week of April 8th

phoebe ayers-3
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 5 April 2013 19:07, Lydia Pintscher <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:00 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Sorry, I don't know what this means. I thought Wikidata was already
> > > deployed to the English Wikipedia (and possibly other projects as
> well).
> >
> > I've posted an announcement with more details on the technical village
> > pump at
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Wikidata_phase_2_is_coming_soon
> > Let me know if anything is still unclear so I can clarify.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> > Lydia
> >
> >
>
> Lydia, could you please point me to the discussion on *English Wikipedia*
> where the community indicated an interest in deploying this software?
> Infoboxes and sourcing to another website completely outside the control of
> English Wikipedia is a rather big issue, and I would expect to see a
> Request for Comment with at least 200-300 participants.
>
> Risker/Anne
>

In my opinion, as a casual Wikidata editor and not-so-casual Wikipedia
editor, I think the Commons analogy continues to hold up pretty well.
Commons exists. We can use it, as a project. We don't *have* to (and indeed
don't always, on en:wp, where fair use images are accepted). As I
understand it, the same is true with Wikidata -- it will be around, if and
when it seems appropriate to use. Of course Commons and Wikidata will both
be more useful and more awesome the more projects do use them. But my very
non-technical understanding of this deployment is that basically we made
the projects able to see that Wikidata exists (correct me if I'm wrong!)

Now as far as I can tell there's a whole lot of work yet to do in order to
figure out how exactly one might link to data or produce an infobox and
what that might look like -- deployment does not seem to mean ready for
prime-time, yet -- and of course the data-building itself is just barely
getting started. Best practices for infoboxes does seem like a project-wide
RFC to me. But hopefully, when we get to that point, wikidata will be a
useful option.

-- phoebe

* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at>
gmail.com *
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deployment highlights - week of April 8th

Steven Walling
On Friday, April 5, 2013, phoebe ayers wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Risker <[hidden email] <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > On 5 April 2013 19:07, Lydia Pintscher <[hidden email]<javascript:;>
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:00 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > > > Sorry, I don't know what this means. I thought Wikidata was already
> > > > deployed to the English Wikipedia (and possibly other projects as
> > well).
> > >
> > > I've posted an announcement with more details on the technical village
> > > pump at
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Wikidata_phase_2_is_coming_soon
> > > Let me know if anything is still unclear so I can clarify.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Lydia
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Lydia, could you please point me to the discussion on *English Wikipedia*
> > where the community indicated an interest in deploying this software?
> > Infoboxes and sourcing to another website completely outside the control
> of
> > English Wikipedia is a rather big issue, and I would expect to see a
> > Request for Comment with at least 200-300 participants.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
>
> In my opinion, as a casual Wikidata editor and not-so-casual Wikipedia
> editor, I think the Commons analogy continues to hold up pretty well.
> Commons exists. We can use it, as a project. We don't *have* to (and indeed
> don't always, on en:wp, where fair use images are accepted). As I
> understand it, the same is true with Wikidata -- it will be around, if and
> when it seems appropriate to use.


Yes, it works exactly the same. The deployment means that a wiki has the
option to use Wikidata. Not that it has to. The RFC, if any, should be
about a policy on how to use Wikidata features provided by this deployment.
Do we want to mass transition info boxes? Trial on a certain number? Should
we disallow use of properties outside templates?



> Of course Commons and Wikidata will both
> be more useful and more awesome the more projects do use them. But my very
> non-technical understanding of this deployment is that basically we made
> the projects able to see that Wikidata exists (correct me if I'm wrong!)
>
> Now as far as I can tell there's a whole lot of work yet to do in order to
> figure out how exactly one might link to data or produce an infobox and
> what that might look like -- deployment does not seem to mean ready for
> prime-time, yet -- and of course the data-building itself is just barely
> getting started. Best practices for infoboxes does seem like a project-wide
> RFC to me. But hopefully, when we get to that point, wikidata will be a
> useful option.
>
> -- phoebe
>
> * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at>
> gmail.com *
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deployment highlights - week of April 8th

Risker
In reply to this post by phoebe ayers-3
On 5 April 2013 22:24, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 5 April 2013 19:07, Lydia Pintscher <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:00 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > Sorry, I don't know what this means. I thought Wikidata was already
> > > > deployed to the English Wikipedia (and possibly other projects as
> > well).
> > >
> > > I've posted an announcement with more details on the technical village
> > > pump at
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Wikidata_phase_2_is_coming_soon
> > > Let me know if anything is still unclear so I can clarify.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Lydia
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Lydia, could you please point me to the discussion on *English Wikipedia*
> > where the community indicated an interest in deploying this software?
> > Infoboxes and sourcing to another website completely outside the control
> of
> > English Wikipedia is a rather big issue, and I would expect to see a
> > Request for Comment with at least 200-300 participants.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
>
> In my opinion, as a casual Wikidata editor and not-so-casual Wikipedia
> editor, I think the Commons analogy continues to hold up pretty well.
> Commons exists. We can use it, as a project. We don't *have* to (and indeed
> don't always, on en:wp, where fair use images are accepted). As I
> understand it, the same is true with Wikidata -- it will be around, if and
> when it seems appropriate to use. Of course Commons and Wikidata will both
> be more useful and more awesome the more projects do use them. But my very
> non-technical understanding of this deployment is that basically we made
> the projects able to see that Wikidata exists (correct me if I'm wrong!)
>
> Now as far as I can tell there's a whole lot of work yet to do in order to
> figure out how exactly one might link to data or produce an infobox and
> what that might look like -- deployment does not seem to mean ready for
> prime-time, yet -- and of course the data-building itself is just barely
> getting started. Best practices for infoboxes does seem like a project-wide
> RFC to me. But hopefully, when we get to that point, wikidata will be a
> useful option.
>
>
Well, the problem is that we *are* at that point now.  Wikidata II *is*
intended to be used in infoboxes. We already have edit skirmishes happening
all over the project with people adding infoboxes where they aren't wanted,
explicitly to take advantage of wikidata, and using wikidata as their
excuse to bring it in.  Load it up, okay. But don't turn it on until the
community discusses whether or not it wants it turned on. It's simply
contemptuous of the community to do that.  You know as well as I do that as
soon as a feature is available, it's used by some people who will fight to
the death to keep using it, whether or not it is what the community wants.
(See revision deletion which, as soon as it was turned on for
administrators on English Wikipedia before the process had been worked out,
immediately resulted in tens of thousands of inappropriate revision
deletions in its first week.  Even now, at least 30% of revision deletions
are inappropriate.)  You want to keep editors, you need to actually make
sure that the changes you are adding are what they want, not what they'll
leave over.

I disagree that the Commons analogy holds up.  Commons is very active, and
easily accessible, and it's pretty obvious how to remove unwanted
images/media.  It is *not* obvious how to remove wikidata, and it is a site
that is extremely not user friendly (I've checked, and even got someone to
give me a tour, and it makes wikitext look simple).

There is a rather big difference between images to articles, which aren't
essential but are very complementary, and the information contained in an
article. We know for a fact that there are many different versions of even
supposedly factual data (dates of birth for well-known people, names of
battles, Gdansk/Danzig, etc).  In many cases, there has been a careful and
sometimes very delicate consensus reached by local editors to address these
variations.  Now we will have infoboxes with one version and the actual
article saying something else - and the information in the infobox will be
outside of the control of the editors of the article absent going to
another site.  So now those wars about content will have to go to two sites
at once, one of which will be international. So that means users who have
never logged into Wikipedia will have the ability to control the content of
the project.

Let's not put this in place until the community decides whether or not it
wants it.

Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deployment highlights - week of April 8th

Legoktm
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 5 April 2013 22:24, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 5 April 2013 19:07, Lydia Pintscher <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:00 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > Sorry, I don't know what this means. I thought Wikidata was already
> > > > > deployed to the English Wikipedia (and possibly other projects as
> > > well).
> > > >
> > > > I've posted an announcement with more details on the technical
> village
> > > > pump at
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Wikidata_phase_2_is_coming_soon
> > > > Let me know if anything is still unclear so I can clarify.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Lydia
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Lydia, could you please point me to the discussion on *English
> Wikipedia*
> > > where the community indicated an interest in deploying this software?
> > > Infoboxes and sourcing to another website completely outside the
> control
> > of
> > > English Wikipedia is a rather big issue, and I would expect to see a
> > > Request for Comment with at least 200-300 participants.
> > >
> > > Risker/Anne
> > >
> >
> > In my opinion, as a casual Wikidata editor and not-so-casual Wikipedia
> > editor, I think the Commons analogy continues to hold up pretty well.
> > Commons exists. We can use it, as a project. We don't *have* to (and
> indeed
> > don't always, on en:wp, where fair use images are accepted). As I
> > understand it, the same is true with Wikidata -- it will be around, if
> and
> > when it seems appropriate to use. Of course Commons and Wikidata will
> both
> > be more useful and more awesome the more projects do use them. But my
> very
> > non-technical understanding of this deployment is that basically we made
> > the projects able to see that Wikidata exists (correct me if I'm wrong!)
> >
> > Now as far as I can tell there's a whole lot of work yet to do in order
> to
> > figure out how exactly one might link to data or produce an infobox and
> > what that might look like -- deployment does not seem to mean ready for
> > prime-time, yet -- and of course the data-building itself is just barely
> > getting started. Best practices for infoboxes does seem like a
> project-wide
> > RFC to me. But hopefully, when we get to that point, wikidata will be a
> > useful option.
> >
> >
> Well, the problem is that we *are* at that point now.  Wikidata II *is*
> intended to be used in infoboxes. We already have edit skirmishes happening
> all over the project with people adding infoboxes where they aren't wanted,
> explicitly to take advantage of wikidata, and using wikidata as their
> excuse to bring it in.


I fail to see how that's a Wikidata issue. It seems more like a conduct or
disagreement between editors.

Load it up, okay. But don't turn it on until the
> community discusses whether or not it wants it turned on. It's simply
> contemptuous of the community to do that.  You know as well as I do that as
> soon as a feature is available, it's used by some people who will fight to
> the death to keep using it, whether or not it is what the community wants.
>

The community doesn't vote for every single feature turned on on English
Wikipedia. Was their a vote for Scribunto? VisualEditor? PostEdit?
Nope. They just got turned on and people lived with it.


> (See revision deletion which, as soon as it was turned on for
> administrators on English Wikipedia before the process had been worked out,
> immediately resulted in tens of thousands of inappropriate revision
> deletions in its first week.  Even now, at least 30% of revision deletions
> are inappropriate.)  You want to keep editors, you need to actually make
> sure that the changes you are adding are what they want, not what they'll
> leave over.
>

Wikidata is a knowledge base. It's up to individual projects/editors on how
to use it. We can try and help, but if people use it incorrectly, there's
only so much we (Wikidatians) can do.

>
> I disagree that the Commons analogy holds up.  Commons is very active, and
> easily accessible, and it's pretty obvious how to remove unwanted
> images/media.  It is *not* obvious how to remove wikidata, and it is a site
> that is extremely not user friendly (I've checked, and even got someone to
> give me a tour, and it makes wikitext look simple).
>

Wikidata is even more active than commons (https://wikipulse.herokuapp.com/)
but you're right, it might not be immediately obvious what to do.
Is Help:Editing (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Editing) not good
enough? Maybe we need a better tutorial?

>
> There is a rather big difference between images to articles, which aren't
> essential but are very complementary, and the information contained in an
> article. We know for a fact that there are many different versions of even
> supposedly factual data (dates of birth for well-known people, names of
> battles, Gdansk/Danzig, etc).  In many cases, there has been a careful and
> sometimes very delicate consensus reached by local editors to address these
> variations.  Now we will have infoboxes with one version and the actual
> article saying something else - and the information in the infobox will be
> outside of the control of the editors of the article absent going to
> another site.  So now those wars about content will have to go to two sites
> at once, one of which will be international. So that means users who have
> never logged into Wikipedia will have the ability to control the content of
> the project.
>

So? You just set up the infobox to have a local override if the field is
filled in. Using this data is *optional*. If you want it, use it! If not,
it's there if you ever change your mind.


>
> Let's not put this in place until the community decides whether or not it
> wants it.
>

Hasn't the community been asking for interwiki transclusion for a while
now? Personally I just see this as the first step to that.

>
> Risker/Anne
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


-- Legoktm
http://enwp.org/User:Legoktm
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deployment highlights - week of April 8th

Robert Rohde
In reply to this post by Risker
Risker,

You are right that it will undoubtedly get used as soon as it is available,
and it is unfortunate that it will presumably get deployed without any
agreement having been reached on wiki about how it should be used.

However, when it comes to an area like infoboxes, I think a lot of hardship
could be avoided if the community can ultimately come together and adopt a
sensible set of guidelines for how wikidata should be used.

For example, one of the reasons Commons is able to work reasonably well
within the global context is that every wiki ultimately has the option of
ignoring it and uploading locally preferred files instead.  I would argue
that the use of wikidata in infoboxes should follow much the same
principle.  Specifically, templates ought to be engineered such that values
are obtained from wikidata only when no corresponding value is present
locally.  So for example, one might have an infobox with a field for
birthplace.  If enwiki specifies birthplace = Athens, Georgia, then enwiki
will be guaranteed to display "Athens, Georgia".  And the template should
query wikidata only if the field is omitted.  So, if birthplace= is left
blank, then we might ask wikidata for the answer, and can use the value
recorded there, but only so long as no value was filled in locally.  That's
the kind of behavior that I think makes sense for infoboxes.  Decisions
about when to rely on local values and when to rely on wikidata are
obviously an issue were guidelines are needed.  For example, I'd argue that
wikidata should never be used to define elements that are likely to be
controversial or subject to dispute (e.g. Gdansk/Danzig).  It could be a
reasonable policy that controversial data values should always be retained
using strictly local input.  That would limit the potential for
controversies over wikidata values from spilling into Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, I suspect we are going to take a while finding our way when
it comes to wikidata interactions, though that doesn't necessarily mean we
won't ultimately have coherent policies on its use.  While obviously a bit
late in the game to be starting now, I think many people would welcome a
discussion on wiki of what best practices for the use of wikidata ought to
look like, and I'm sure your input could be valuable to that discussion.

-Robert Rohde
aka Dragons_flight
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Socializing changes

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by Risker
Risker wrote:
>Lydia, could you please point me to the discussion on *English Wikipedia*
>where the community indicated an interest in deploying this software?
>Infoboxes and sourcing to another website completely outside the control
>of English Wikipedia is a rather big issue, and I would expect to see a
>Request for Comment with at least 200-300 participants.

I think the issue we're seeing here is that changes, particularly large
changes, often aren't socialized well.

It probably doesn't help to target the English Wikipedia first, of course,
given that it's often annoyingly exceptional. Wikidata seems like a large
enough change that I agree that a bit more socialization might be nice.
There are over 700 wikis on which to possibly deploy Wikidata, in theory.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Socializing changes

Lydia Pintscher
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 5:28 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Risker wrote:
>>Lydia, could you please point me to the discussion on *English Wikipedia*
>>where the community indicated an interest in deploying this software?
>>Infoboxes and sourcing to another website completely outside the control
>>of English Wikipedia is a rather big issue, and I would expect to see a
>>Request for Comment with at least 200-300 participants.
>
> I think the issue we're seeing here is that changes, particularly large
> changes, often aren't socialized well.
>
> It probably doesn't help to target the English Wikipedia first, of course,
> given that it's often annoyingly exceptional. Wikidata seems like a large
> enough change that I agree that a bit more socialization might be nice.
> There are over 700 wikis on which to possibly deploy Wikidata, in theory.

English Wikipedia isn't first. Phase 2 has already been deployed on 11
other Wikipedias. It's also not like this is coming out of no-where
really ;-)


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.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Socializing changes

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
MZMcBride wrote:
>I think the issue we're seeing here is that changes, particularly large
>changes, often aren't socialized well.

I mention socialization of features as I'm not sure all of the context is
apparent here. There are brooding factions on the English Wikipedia over
infoboxes, apparently. I was reading about them yesterday. Risker, as a
member of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, will likely end up
being tasked with helping sort out this mess. Wikidata may be exacerbating
the general infobox issue, which is why socialization of a big new
software feature like this is so important.

On any wiki, we often want to avoid inorganic growth/evolution. New
features and developments are great, but over time. This is why most wiki
communities oppose, for example, bot-created short articles (stubs).

From reading the technical village pump and visiting Wikidata, I don't
think the workflows are clearly established yet. Certainly not to the
point that I'd want this in production on a huge wiki like the English
Wikipedia. My strong recommendation would be to give the smaller
Wikipedias some time to see how this works before going full-throttle.
Perhaps one of the Wikimedia Foundation site architects can weigh in here.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Socializing changes

Legoktm
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:28 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Risker wrote:
> >Lydia, could you please point me to the discussion on *English Wikipedia*
> >where the community indicated an interest in deploying this software?
> >Infoboxes and sourcing to another website completely outside the control
> >of English Wikipedia is a rather big issue, and I would expect to see a
> >Request for Comment with at least 200-300 participants.
>
> I think the issue we're seeing here is that changes, particularly large
> changes, often aren't socialized well.
>
> It probably doesn't help to target the English Wikipedia first, of course,
> given that it's often annoyingly exceptional. Wikidata seems like a large
> enough change that I agree that a bit more socialization might be nice.
> There are over 700 wikis on which to possibly deploy Wikidata, in theory.
>

Wikidata phase 2 is already live on 11 different wikis. (
http://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/03/27/you-can-have-all-the-data/)

>
> MZMcBride
>
>
> -- Legoktm
http://enwp.org/User:Legoktm


>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Socializing changes

Eran Rosenthal
In hewiki we had a discussion in village pump before phase II deployment
and there is a simple bureaucratic policy for converting templates to use
the new {{#property}} feature:
a discussion in "Wikipedia:Village pump/templates" for each template
conversion before actually adding {{#property}} for it.
(this "village pump for templates" was already exist to eliminate adding
unnecessary extra parameters that were added without discussion)
This way we can check that each conversion is both technically ok, use the
correct properties from wikidata, and doesn't add unnecessary parameters.

We don't use yet the new features - as in the real world cases it isn't
just {{#property}} and to enjoy the powerful features of wikidata we must
use WikibaseClient Lua api,
but we are in final phase of testing {{Taxobox}} (with no parameters at
all. really cool!)

I would like to thank to Lydia and wikidata team - you are doing a great
job.



On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:40 PM, legoktm <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:28 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Risker wrote:
> > >Lydia, could you please point me to the discussion on *English
> Wikipedia*
> > >where the community indicated an interest in deploying this software?
> > >Infoboxes and sourcing to another website completely outside the control
> > >of English Wikipedia is a rather big issue, and I would expect to see a
> > >Request for Comment with at least 200-300 participants.
> >
> > I think the issue we're seeing here is that changes, particularly large
> > changes, often aren't socialized well.
> >
> > It probably doesn't help to target the English Wikipedia first, of
> course,
> > given that it's often annoyingly exceptional. Wikidata seems like a large
> > enough change that I agree that a bit more socialization might be nice.
> > There are over 700 wikis on which to possibly deploy Wikidata, in theory.
> >
>
> Wikidata phase 2 is already live on 11 different wikis. (
> http://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/03/27/you-can-have-all-the-data/)
>
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> > -- Legoktm
> http://enwp.org/User:Legoktm
>
>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Socializing changes

Lydia Pintscher
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Eran Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In hewiki we had a discussion in village pump before phase II deployment
> and there is a simple bureaucratic policy for converting templates to use
> the new {{#property}} feature:
> a discussion in "Wikipedia:Village pump/templates" for each template
> conversion before actually adding {{#property}} for it.
> (this "village pump for templates" was already exist to eliminate adding
> unnecessary extra parameters that were added without discussion)
> This way we can check that each conversion is both technically ok, use the
> correct properties from wikidata, and doesn't add unnecessary parameters.
>
> We don't use yet the new features - as in the real world cases it isn't
> just {{#property}} and to enjoy the powerful features of wikidata we must
> use WikibaseClient Lua api,
> but we are in final phase of testing {{Taxobox}} (with no parameters at
> all. really cool!)

Thanks for sharing, Eran!
Please do let me know when {{Taxobox}} is finished. I'd love to see it in use.

> I would like to thank to Lydia and wikidata team - you are doing a great
> job.

Aww thank you. We're trying :)


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.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deployment highlights - week of April 8th

Denny Vrandečić
In reply to this post by Robert Rohde
I fully agree with Robert and Phoebe in this matter. Wikidata is an option.
Requiring first to come up with rules on how to use Wikidata before it is
switched on simply won't work, because there is not sufficient interest and
experience for this discussion.

Or, put differently, the Wikidata proposal has been published nearly two
years ago. We have communicated on all channels for more than one year. I
can hardly think of any technical enhancement of Wikipedia - ever - which
was communicated as strongly beforehand as Wikidata. If, in that time, the
community has not managed to discuss the topic, it might be because such
changes only get discussed effectively after they occur.

I base this statement on having studied previous introductions of new
technical features to the Wikipedias (check for that my paper with Mathias
Schindler), like the category system or parserfunctions.

Since Wikidata phase 2 is actually a less intrusive change than phase 1,
and based on the effectiveness of the discussion about phase 2 on the
English Wikipedia so far, I think that a post-deployment discussion is the
right way to go.

Also, a very important consideration is raised by Phoebe: Wikidata is in
its current form still in its infancy, and for a well developed project
like the English Wikipedia this means that the actual usage (and effect) is
expected to be minimal in the current stage. The deployment of phase 2 this
week would merely be a start for an organic co-evolution of Wikidata and
the Wikipedias in the months and years to come.

But this can only happen 'in the wild', as a priori debates about the
possible usages of such features will remain not only too speculative, but
also highly undemocratic due to the minimal engagement of the community in
advance.

This email cannot resolve any worries surrounding the deployment of
Wikidata phase 2, but then again, no amount of discussion could. But I hope
it justifies the decision.

Cheers,
Denny,
who wrote this Email on his mobile phone because he didn't take his
computer to his vacations :-)
On Apr 6, 2013 10:40 AM, "Robert Rohde" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Risker,
>
> You are right that it will undoubtedly get used as soon as it is available,
> and it is unfortunate that it will presumably get deployed without any
> agreement having been reached on wiki about how it should be used.
>
> However, when it comes to an area like infoboxes, I think a lot of hardship
> could be avoided if the community can ultimately come together and adopt a
> sensible set of guidelines for how wikidata should be used.
>
> For example, one of the reasons Commons is able to work reasonably well
> within the global context is that every wiki ultimately has the option of
> ignoring it and uploading locally preferred files instead.  I would argue
> that the use of wikidata in infoboxes should follow much the same
> principle.  Specifically, templates ought to be engineered such that values
> are obtained from wikidata only when no corresponding value is present
> locally.  So for example, one might have an infobox with a field for
> birthplace.  If enwiki specifies birthplace = Athens, Georgia, then enwiki
> will be guaranteed to display "Athens, Georgia".  And the template should
> query wikidata only if the field is omitted.  So, if birthplace= is left
> blank, then we might ask wikidata for the answer, and can use the value
> recorded there, but only so long as no value was filled in locally.  That's
> the kind of behavior that I think makes sense for infoboxes.  Decisions
> about when to rely on local values and when to rely on wikidata are
> obviously an issue were guidelines are needed.  For example, I'd argue that
> wikidata should never be used to define elements that are likely to be
> controversial or subject to dispute (e.g. Gdansk/Danzig).  It could be a
> reasonable policy that controversial data values should always be retained
> using strictly local input.  That would limit the potential for
> controversies over wikidata values from spilling into Wikipedia.
>
> Unfortunately, I suspect we are going to take a while finding our way when
> it comes to wikidata interactions, though that doesn't necessarily mean we
> won't ultimately have coherent policies on its use.  While obviously a bit
> late in the game to be starting now, I think many people would welcome a
> discussion on wiki of what best practices for the use of wikidata ought to
> look like, and I'm sure your input could be valuable to that discussion.
>
> -Robert Rohde
> aka Dragons_flight
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Socializing changes

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by Lydia Pintscher
By the way, it would be lovely not to call communication like
nationalization... sometimes I see people coming to communities saying
they're socializing something and it feels weird. ;-) (Especially as
it's false good news.)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socialize
        (transitive) To take into collective or governmental ownership

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deployment highlights - week of April 8th

Risker
In reply to this post by Denny Vrandečić
On 6 April 2013 17:27, Denny Vrandečić <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I fully agree with Robert and Phoebe in this matter. Wikidata is an option.
> Requiring first to come up with rules on how to use Wikidata before it is
> switched on simply won't work, because there is not sufficient interest and
> experience for this discussion.
>

I'm very concerned that you would think that.  In the real world, where
attracting and retaining talented human beings is a key objective, testing
of not-yet-ready-for-prime-time software (which this clearly is) is carried
out in test environments and with teams who voluntarily agree to
participate.  The PDSA (plan-do-study-adjust) cycle is critically
important; major changes are tested on smaller groups and constantly
refined until they are ready to be applied effectively to the larger
population. You still have a long, long way to go before this is ready for
one of the biggest websites in the world.

And it is entirely normal that processes are developed in advance.  English
Wikipedia has done so for many other technical changes that have taken
place over time, including the addition of revision-deletion/suppression,
the introduction of the Vector skin, the enabling of pending changes.  In
fact, I would go so far as to say that technical changes that have any
significant effect on content or the manner in which members of the
community carry out their responsibilities are *normally* discussed and
planned for in advance.  This software represents not only a major change
in technology, but a major change in the philosophy of the project, and
that by itself requires some very significant discussion.

Please keep in mind that this is software that will affect every single
editor of the project, not just a few who specialise in particular small
niches.  Someone pointed out that there was no community consultation about
Scribunto/Lua, but that affects less than 1% of all active English
Wikipedians (those who write templates), and many of them were either
involved in the discussion or decided to stop working in the area.



>
> Or, put differently, the Wikidata proposal has been published nearly two
> years ago. We have communicated on all channels for more than one year. I
> can hardly think of any technical enhancement of Wikipedia - ever - which
> was communicated as strongly beforehand as Wikidata. If, in that time, the
> community has not managed to discuss the topic, it might be because such
> changes only get discussed effectively after they occur.
>

"All channels" isn't really correct, although I can respect how difficult
it is to try to find a way to communicate effectively with the English
Wikipedia community.  There is no centralized discussion point anywhere on
the project.  The technical village pump is almost completely populated by
editors who have a strong interest in the technical side of things; others
only drop in for a short period if they have a technical problem.
Administrator noticeboards are watched by a larger percentage of the
community, but discussions about changes like this would normally be moved
off before any useful comment would be made.

I do not recall ever reading about Wikidata on Wiki-en-L (the English
Wikipedia mailing list), and only rarely on Wikimedia-L (mainly to invite
people to meetings on IRC, but less than 5% of English Wikipedians use
IRC). Indeed, almost everything I know about Wikidata comes from this
mailing list (and much of what has been written is well beyond my
comprehension.  Nonetheless, I recognize that trying to find a way to
effectively communicate with the English Wikipedia community is a major
challenge even for those who are intimately familiar with the project, and
would be doubly so for those who are not regular participants.


>
> I base this statement on having studied previous introductions of new
> technical features to the Wikipedias (check for that my paper with Mathias
> Schindler), like the category system or parserfunctions.
>
> Since Wikidata phase 2 is actually a less intrusive change than phase 1,
> and based on the effectiveness of the discussion about phase 2 on the
> English Wikipedia so far, I think that a post-deployment discussion is the
> right way to go.
>


In what way is this less intrusive?  Phase 1 changed the links to other
projects beside articles, a task that was almost completely done by bots,
and did not in any way affect the ability to edit or to modify the content
of the articles. Phase 2 is intended to directly affect content and the
manner in which it is edited.

As well, phase 2 (dependent on implementation) requires that an editor go
to a different website to modify the information on an article. There is no
warning to the editor that they are leaving Wikipedia.  And with the
challenges that are about to happen with Firefox (the browser that is
possibly the most commonly used by Wikipedians), we know that SUL is
probably not going to work properly.  Editors thinking they are logged in
to English Wikipedia will find themselves on a strange site, not logged in,
with a completely foreign editing interface.  This is not the way to
attract new editors, nor is it the way to keep existing ones.



>
> Also, a very important consideration is raised by Phoebe: Wikidata is in
> its current form still in its infancy, and for a well developed project
> like the English Wikipedia this means that the actual usage (and effect) is
> expected to be minimal in the current stage. The deployment of phase 2 this
> week would merely be a start for an organic co-evolution of Wikidata and
> the Wikipedias in the months and years to come.
>

Yes, it's in its infancy. It needs to be put through its paces and problems
identified and resolved.  You already have a fairly significant number of
projects willing to do that.  Keep working with them. Why is there this
insistence on putting software that is not ready for use onto projects that
haven't indicated any interest in using immature software?


>
> But this can only happen 'in the wild', as a priori debates about the
> possible usages of such features will remain not only too speculative, but
> also highly undemocratic due to the minimal engagement of the community in
> advance.
>


This is possibly the most disturbing thing I have ever read on a Wikimedia
mailing list.  You want to put software onto the most developed project in
the entire Wikimedia community without any indication that the project is
supportive of what it is intended to do, knowing that it is not actually
ready for use at this point, knowing that its functions are directly in
conflict with one of the project's known priorities of attracting new
editors and retaining existing ones....and then you have the nerve to say
that discussing how to use it would be "undemocratic"? The minimal
engagement of the community in advance is the reason that deploying this
software now is undemocratic.

The workflow is counterintutive, and all of the examples provided to date
have shown that this is not ready for release to an extremely large, highly
active project; in fact, I question why it is being deployed any further
right now to any projects outside of those that have clearly expressed an
interest. You are doing the right thing by continuing to work with projects
of various sizes that have voluntarily agreed to participate in the ongoing
development of Wikidata.  There are already several users from English
Wikipedia who are active on Wikidata. We can encourage more users to
participate there and on the test wikis where it is enabled, to actually
test it and provide the feedback that you need to keep improving the
product.

As I've indicated very early in this thread, Phase 2 affects an area of
English Wikipedia that is already under considerable dispute (i.e.,
infoboxes); requests for comment (RFCs) were already being drafted before
this deployment was being announced.  There is a pretty good chance that
issues related to infoboxes will wind up being brought before the
Arbitration Committee within the next few months.  English Wikipedia is not
the place to test this software now.  That's what test wikis are for, and
what voluntary project participation is for.

Best,

Risker
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Socializing changes

Risker
In reply to this post by Eran Rosenthal
Eran raises a key point.  On his project, there was a significant
discussion prior to the deployment. Hewiki has voluntarily, as a community,
decided to participate in the early development of a tool.  This is a very
good thing, and one that reflects well on the hewiki community.

This process tends to be much more complex on large projects where the
editorial base is highly diverse.  We know that the editorial base of most
of our non-English projects tends to be geographically centralized to one
or only a few countries (with the likely exception of Spanish projects),
and usually the majority of editors on these projects (e.g., French,
German, Italian projects) live in one country and share the same cultural
roots.  This shared experience increases the likelihood of obtaining
consensus.

English projects, particularly Wikipedia, do not have that same shared
cultural, geographic or historical cohesion; as the lingua franca of more
than a dozen countries, and the second language for thousands of other
editors, even localized variations in usage can be a stumbling block.  Add
into that the fact that English Wikipedia has such a large editing
community, and that there is no effective centralized communication
process, and the ability of the community to develop a consensus opinion on
any major topic is exponentially more difficult than on many other
projects.  Anyone who has spent much time on Meta knows how difficult it is
to come to a consensus there; Commons seems to have been more effective in
developing effective communication/discussion processes, although as I note
English seems to be the prevalent language there, it must be somewhat
intimidating for those who do do not include English as one of their
languages.

I confess that there are many days when I envy our more cohesive, less
diverse projects for their ability to come to well-discussed, well-reasoned
decisions in a timely way.  I think there are lessons out there for English
Wikipedia to learn.

Risker/Anne


On 6 April 2013 12:47, Eran Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In hewiki we had a discussion in village pump before phase II deployment
> and there is a simple bureaucratic policy for converting templates to use
> the new {{#property}} feature:
> a discussion in "Wikipedia:Village pump/templates" for each template
> conversion before actually adding {{#property}} for it.
> (this "village pump for templates" was already exist to eliminate adding
> unnecessary extra parameters that were added without discussion)
> This way we can check that each conversion is both technically ok, use the
> correct properties from wikidata, and doesn't add unnecessary parameters.
>
> We don't use yet the new features - as in the real world cases it isn't
> just {{#property}} and to enjoy the powerful features of wikidata we must
> use WikibaseClient Lua api,
> but we are in final phase of testing {{Taxobox}} (with no parameters at
> all. really cool!)
>
> I would like to thank to Lydia and wikidata team - you are doing a great
> job.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:40 PM, legoktm <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:28 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Risker wrote:
> > > >Lydia, could you please point me to the discussion on *English
> > Wikipedia*
> > > >where the community indicated an interest in deploying this software?
> > > >Infoboxes and sourcing to another website completely outside the
> control
> > > >of English Wikipedia is a rather big issue, and I would expect to see
> a
> > > >Request for Comment with at least 200-300 participants.
> > >
> > > I think the issue we're seeing here is that changes, particularly large
> > > changes, often aren't socialized well.
> > >
> > > It probably doesn't help to target the English Wikipedia first, of
> > course,
> > > given that it's often annoyingly exceptional. Wikidata seems like a
> large
> > > enough change that I agree that a bit more socialization might be nice.
> > > There are over 700 wikis on which to possibly deploy Wikidata, in
> theory.
> > >
> >
> > Wikidata phase 2 is already live on 11 different wikis. (
> > http://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/03/27/you-can-have-all-the-data/)
> >
> > >
> > > MZMcBride
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Legoktm
> > http://enwp.org/User:Legoktm
> >
> >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
123