[Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Vi to
I've never seen a self-citing encyclopedia.

Given its open editing structure it would be so easy to game the system by
creating a series of cross-references. In short forbidding citing Wikipedia
on Wikipedia avoids such short-circuits.

No text is 100% accurate, Wikipedia relies upon the bet that by widening
the editorial community accuracy will asymptotically converge. Traditional
textbooks, scholarly articles, any different knowledge aggregation system
is characterized by a different funding premise.

In my opinion the "no autocitation" principle is a direct consequence of
our fundamental principles, therefore a self-citing Wikipedia is possible,
but it wouldn't longer be Wikipedia.

Vito

Il giorno lun 17 giu 2019 alle ore 19:55 Mister Thrapostibongles <
[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> Dennis,
>
> I started this thread to discuss both conduct and content policies on
> Wikipedia, and indeed how the two interact.  Wikipedia is a project to
> build an encyclopaedia.  By its own criteria, encyclopaedias are reliable
> sources and Wikipedia is not a reliable source; hence by its own criteria,
> Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia.  That is, it is currently in a state of
> failure with respect to its own mission.
>
> One of the reasons for that state of failure is indeed the failure to
> provide a collegial working atmosphere.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:19 PM Dennis During <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > "One (and not the most important) pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being
> in
> > a failed state is precisely that
> > it does not, by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
> source
> > "
> >
> > You have made this argument more than once. That might be a piece of
> > evidence seems both wrong and not relevant to the sense in which people
> > here as saying WP has failed, which is as a welcoming, "safe" environment
> > for contributors and would-be contributors.
> >
> > It is good policy to make sure that contributors reach out to other
> > sources, even when one believes that Wikipedia is as reliable as the
> > average tertiary source we allow as a reference. It prevents us from
> > relying exclusively on what can easily turn out to be a very narrow set
> of
> > points of view.  Does/did the Encyclopedia Britanica cite other EB
> articles
> > as references rather than include them as "see alsos"?
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > This rather tends to support my point.  One (and not the most
> important)
> > > pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in a failed state is precisely
> > that
> > > it does not , by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
> > > source:whereas "Reputable tertiary sources
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TERTIARY>, such as
> > > introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias,
> may
> > > be cited".  So Wikipedia fails in its aim of being an encyclopaedia on
> > one
> > > of the most important tests one could imagine, namely reliability.
> And a
> > > reason for that is its lack of effective content management policies
> and
> > > mechanisms to put them into effect (in the old days we called that
> being
> > an
> > > editor, but that word on Wikipedia now is more or less a redundant
> > synonym
> > > for contributor).
> > >
> > > Now suppose that Wikipedia had effective editorial policies and
> processes
> > > that allowed it to assume the status of a reliable source, just like
> the
> > > encyclopaedia it aims to be.  You say that even in that situation, it
> > would
> > > be easy to manipulate.  On that assumption, how much easier it must be
> to
> > > "trick" it today when it has no such effective policies and processes
> in
> > > place!
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Dennis C. During
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Martijn Hoekstra
In reply to this post by Mister Thrapostibongles
No.

What I'm saying is this: setting meeting the reliable sources policy of
wikipedia as a condition for success, or not meeting that policy as
evidence of failure is ridiculous.

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 14:29 Mister Thrapostibongles <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Martin, Dennis
>
> The tenor of your arguments appears to be that Wikipedia is in fact
> reliable, because it uses reliable sources, but that it pretends not to be
> because it's too hard to prevent people writing article based on other
> articles.  This is not in accord with the facts.  As I pointed out, and as
> Foundation research has shown, millions -- literally millions, and when I
> say "literally" I literally mean "literally" -- of articles, about one in
> five, are not founded on reliable sources, and some thousands of those,
> being biographies of living people, should have been instantly deleted.  So
> we cannot rely on any of those millions of articles, by your own
> reasoning.  The reason why Wikipedia deems itself unreliable is that it is
> an open wiki, and all such sources are forbidden, because anyone can write
> anything on them: "Content from websites whose content is largely
> user-generated
> is also generally unacceptable."  Wikipedia is cited in the policy as
> merely another example of such unreliable sources.
>
> The way forward, however unpalatable this may be to people who would like
> to believe that this is somehow silly or sophistry, is to look the facts in
> the face and accept that some form of editorial policy, content workflow
> management and supervision of the volunteer effort is necessary to make
> Wikipedia what aspires to be, but is not currently, namely an
> encyclopaedia.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:06 PM Martijn Hoekstra <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Wikipedia itself can never be more reliable than the sources it cites. If
> > it's allowed to cite itself, then there is no "bottom" to lean on, and
> its
> > quality would quickly drop.
> >
> > That you conclude from that that wikipedia is unreliable and therefore
> > failed is IMO such a silly proposition, that I dont know whether you
> > seriously think this, in which case we should probably take this off
> list,
> > or that you're engaging in sophistry and using arguments you don't think
> > are reasonable in the first place.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 19:56 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Dennis,
> > >
> > > I started this thread to discuss both conduct and content policies on
> > > Wikipedia, and indeed how the two interact.  Wikipedia is a project to
> > > build an encyclopaedia.  By its own criteria, encyclopaedias are
> reliable
> > > sources and Wikipedia is not a reliable source; hence by its own
> > criteria,
> > > Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia.  That is, it is currently in a state
> > of
> > > failure with respect to its own mission.
> > >
> > > One of the reasons for that state of failure is indeed the failure to
> > > provide a collegial working atmosphere.
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:19 PM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "One (and not the most important) pieces of evidence for Wikipedia
> > being
> > > in
> > > > a failed state is precisely that
> > > > it does not, by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
> > > source
> > > > "
> > > >
> > > > You have made this argument more than once. That might be a piece of
> > > > evidence seems both wrong and not relevant to the sense in which
> people
> > > > here as saying WP has failed, which is as a welcoming, "safe"
> > environment
> > > > for contributors and would-be contributors.
> > > >
> > > > It is good policy to make sure that contributors reach out to other
> > > > sources, even when one believes that Wikipedia is as reliable as the
> > > > average tertiary source we allow as a reference. It prevents us from
> > > > relying exclusively on what can easily turn out to be a very narrow
> set
> > > of
> > > > points of view.  Does/did the Encyclopedia Britanica cite other EB
> > > articles
> > > > as references rather than include them as "see alsos"?
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Vito
> > > > >
> > > > > This rather tends to support my point.  One (and not the most
> > > important)
> > > > > pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in a failed state is
> precisely
> > > > that
> > > > > it does not , by the community's own admission, constitute a
> reliable
> > > > > source:whereas "Reputable tertiary sources
> > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TERTIARY>, such as
> > > > > introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and
> encyclopedias,
> > > may
> > > > > be cited".  So Wikipedia fails in its aim of being an encyclopaedia
> > on
> > > > one
> > > > > of the most important tests one could imagine, namely reliability.
> > > And a
> > > > > reason for that is its lack of effective content management
> policies
> > > and
> > > > > mechanisms to put them into effect (in the old days we called that
> > > being
> > > > an
> > > > > editor, but that word on Wikipedia now is more or less a redundant
> > > > synonym
> > > > > for contributor).
> > > > >
> > > > > Now suppose that Wikipedia had effective editorial policies and
> > > processes
> > > > > that allowed it to assume the status of a reliable source, just
> like
> > > the
> > > > > encyclopaedia it aims to be.  You say that even in that situation,
> it
> > > > would
> > > > > be easy to manipulate.  On that assumption, how much easier it must
> > be
> > > to
> > > > > "trick" it today when it has no such effective policies and
> processes
> > > in
> > > > > place!
> > > > >
> > > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dennis C. During
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Mister Thrapostibongles
Martin

You really think that it is ridiculous that encyclopaedias in general and
Wikipedia in particular should be judged, among other criteria, on their
reliability?  If so, I disagree.

However, if you really believe that an encyclopadia does not ned to be
reliable, then it seems that on this specific point we may need to agree to
disagree.  How about the other points I adduce, such as the millions of
unreferenced or inadeqautely referenced articles discovered at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/03/can-machine-learning-uncover-wikipedias-missing-citation-needed-tags/
--
is that evidence of success?  The thousands of articles in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unreferenced_BLPs -- is that
evidence of success?

Thrapostibongles

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 1:44 PM Martijn Hoekstra <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> No.
>
> What I'm saying is this: setting meeting the reliable sources policy of
> wikipedia as a condition for success, or not meeting that policy as
> evidence of failure is ridiculous.
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 14:29 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Martin, Dennis
> >
> > The tenor of your arguments appears to be that Wikipedia is in fact
> > reliable, because it uses reliable sources, but that it pretends not to
> be
> > because it's too hard to prevent people writing article based on other
> > articles.  This is not in accord with the facts.  As I pointed out, and
> as
> > Foundation research has shown, millions -- literally millions, and when I
> > say "literally" I literally mean "literally" -- of articles, about one in
> > five, are not founded on reliable sources, and some thousands of those,
> > being biographies of living people, should have been instantly deleted.
> So
> > we cannot rely on any of those millions of articles, by your own
> > reasoning.  The reason why Wikipedia deems itself unreliable is that it
> is
> > an open wiki, and all such sources are forbidden, because anyone can
> write
> > anything on them: "Content from websites whose content is largely
> > user-generated
> > is also generally unacceptable."  Wikipedia is cited in the policy as
> > merely another example of such unreliable sources.
> >
> > The way forward, however unpalatable this may be to people who would like
> > to believe that this is somehow silly or sophistry, is to look the facts
> in
> > the face and accept that some form of editorial policy, content workflow
> > management and supervision of the volunteer effort is necessary to make
> > Wikipedia what aspires to be, but is not currently, namely an
> > encyclopaedia.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:06 PM Martijn Hoekstra <
> > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Wikipedia itself can never be more reliable than the sources it cites.
> If
> > > it's allowed to cite itself, then there is no "bottom" to lean on, and
> > its
> > > quality would quickly drop.
> > >
> > > That you conclude from that that wikipedia is unreliable and therefore
> > > failed is IMO such a silly proposition, that I dont know whether you
> > > seriously think this, in which case we should probably take this off
> > list,
> > > or that you're engaging in sophistry and using arguments you don't
> think
> > > are reasonable in the first place.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 19:56 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dennis,
> > > >
> > > > I started this thread to discuss both conduct and content policies on
> > > > Wikipedia, and indeed how the two interact.  Wikipedia is a project
> to
> > > > build an encyclopaedia.  By its own criteria, encyclopaedias are
> > reliable
> > > > sources and Wikipedia is not a reliable source; hence by its own
> > > criteria,
> > > > Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia.  That is, it is currently in a
> state
> > > of
> > > > failure with respect to its own mission.
> > > >
> > > > One of the reasons for that state of failure is indeed the failure to
> > > > provide a collegial working atmosphere.
> > > >
> > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:19 PM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "One (and not the most important) pieces of evidence for Wikipedia
> > > being
> > > > in
> > > > > a failed state is precisely that
> > > > > it does not, by the community's own admission, constitute a
> reliable
> > > > source
> > > > > "
> > > > >
> > > > > You have made this argument more than once. That might be a piece
> of
> > > > > evidence seems both wrong and not relevant to the sense in which
> > people
> > > > > here as saying WP has failed, which is as a welcoming, "safe"
> > > environment
> > > > > for contributors and would-be contributors.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is good policy to make sure that contributors reach out to other
> > > > > sources, even when one believes that Wikipedia is as reliable as
> the
> > > > > average tertiary source we allow as a reference. It prevents us
> from
> > > > > relying exclusively on what can easily turn out to be a very narrow
> > set
> > > > of
> > > > > points of view.  Does/did the Encyclopedia Britanica cite other EB
> > > > articles
> > > > > as references rather than include them as "see alsos"?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Vito
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This rather tends to support my point.  One (and not the most
> > > > important)
> > > > > > pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in a failed state is
> > precisely
> > > > > that
> > > > > > it does not , by the community's own admission, constitute a
> > reliable
> > > > > > source:whereas "Reputable tertiary sources
> > > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TERTIARY>, such as
> > > > > > introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and
> > encyclopedias,
> > > > may
> > > > > > be cited".  So Wikipedia fails in its aim of being an
> encyclopaedia
> > > on
> > > > > one
> > > > > > of the most important tests one could imagine, namely
> reliability.
> > > > And a
> > > > > > reason for that is its lack of effective content management
> > policies
> > > > and
> > > > > > mechanisms to put them into effect (in the old days we called
> that
> > > > being
> > > > > an
> > > > > > editor, but that word on Wikipedia now is more or less a
> redundant
> > > > > synonym
> > > > > > for contributor).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now suppose that Wikipedia had effective editorial policies and
> > > > processes
> > > > > > that allowed it to assume the status of a reliable source, just
> > like
> > > > the
> > > > > > encyclopaedia it aims to be.  You say that even in that
> situation,
> > it
> > > > > would
> > > > > > be easy to manipulate.  On that assumption, how much easier it
> must
> > > be
> > > > to
> > > > > > "trick" it today when it has no such effective policies and
> > processes
> > > > in
> > > > > > place!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Dennis C. During
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright workflows - research (Was: Re: Foundation management of volunteers)

jmh649
In reply to this post by Yann Forget-3
So Yann should we as a community just build something as a proof of
concept? If we are talking less than 250 USD per month, I am sure we can
scrounge up the money for a trial 6 month trial.

James

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 2:59 AM Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Yes, James' pricing doesn't match the actual cost.
> We do not need to check all images uploaded to Commons, only the suspicious
> ones (small images without EXIF data).
> If we check 2,000 images a day (more than enough IMO), that would cost $7 a
> day, so $210 a month.
>
> Regards,
> Yann
>
>
> Le mar. 18 juin 2019 à 01:11, James Salsman <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> > Google has been offering reverse image search as part of their vision
> API:
> >
> > https://cloud.google.com/vision/docs/internet-detection
> >
> > The pricing is $3.50 per 1,000 queries for up to 5,000,000 queries per
> > month:
> >
> > https://cloud.google.com/vision/pricing
> >
> > Above that quantity "Contact Google for more information":
> >
> > https://cloud.google.com/contact/
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:23 AM James Forrester
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 06:28, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It has been suggested many times to ask Google for an access to their
> > API
> > > > for searching images,
> > > > so that we could have a bot tagging copyright violations (no free
> > access
> > > > for automated search).
> > > > That would the single best improvement in Wikimedia Commons workflow
> > for
> > > > years.
> > > > And it would benefit all Wikipedia projects, big or small.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yann,
> > >
> > > As you should remember, we asked Google for API access to their reverse
> > > image search system, years ago (maybe 2013?). They said that there
> isn't
> > > such an API any more (they killed it off in ~2012, I think), and that
> > they
> > > wouldn't make a custom one for us. The only commercial alternative we
> > found
> > > at the time would have cost us approximately US$3m a month at upload
> > > frequency for Commons then, and when contacted said they wouldn't do
> any
> > > discounts for Wikimedia. Obviously, this is far too much for the
> > > Foundation's budget (it would be even more now), and an inappropriate
> way
> > > to spend donor funds. Providing the service in-house would involve
> > building
> > > a search index of the entire Internet's (generally non-free) images and
> > > media, which would cost a fortune and is totally incompatible with the
> > > mission of the movement. This was relayed out to Commons volunteers at
> > the
> > > time, I'm pretty sure.
> > >
> > > Obviously Google might have changed their mind, though it seems
> > unlikely. I
> > > imagine that Google engineers and product owners don't follow this
> list,
> > so
> > > it's unlikely that they will re-create the API without being asked
> > directly.
> > >
> > > J.
> > > --
> > > *James D. Forrester* (he/him <http://pronoun.is/he> or they/themself
> > > <http://pronoun.is/they/.../themself>)
> > > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordination Team
> https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright workflows - research (Was: Re: Foundation management of volunteers)

Yann Forget-3
Yes, that would be very welcome by all contributors reviewing images.

Regards,
Yann

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019, 22:29 James Heilman, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So Yann should we as a community just build something as a proof of
> concept? If we are talking less than 250 USD per month, I am sure we can
> scrounge up the money for a trial 6 month trial.
>
> James
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 2:59 AM Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Yes, James' pricing doesn't match the actual cost.
> > We do not need to check all images uploaded to Commons, only the
> suspicious
> > ones (small images without EXIF data).
> > If we check 2,000 images a day (more than enough IMO), that would cost
> $7 a
> > day, so $210 a month.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yann
> >
> >
> > Le mar. 18 juin 2019 à 01:11, James Salsman <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
> >
> > > Google has been offering reverse image search as part of their vision
> > API:
> > >
> > > https://cloud.google.com/vision/docs/internet-detection
> > >
> > > The pricing is $3.50 per 1,000 queries for up to 5,000,000 queries per
> > > month:
> > >
> > > https://cloud.google.com/vision/pricing
> > >
> > > Above that quantity "Contact Google for more information":
> > >
> > > https://cloud.google.com/contact/
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:23 AM James Forrester
> > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 06:28, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It has been suggested many times to ask Google for an access to
> their
> > > API
> > > > > for searching images,
> > > > > so that we could have a bot tagging copyright violations (no free
> > > access
> > > > > for automated search).
> > > > > That would the single best improvement in Wikimedia Commons
> workflow
> > > for
> > > > > years.
> > > > > And it would benefit all Wikipedia projects, big or small.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yann,
> > > >
> > > > As you should remember, we asked Google for API access to their
> reverse
> > > > image search system, years ago (maybe 2013?). They said that there
> > isn't
> > > > such an API any more (they killed it off in ~2012, I think), and that
> > > they
> > > > wouldn't make a custom one for us. The only commercial alternative we
> > > found
> > > > at the time would have cost us approximately US$3m a month at upload
> > > > frequency for Commons then, and when contacted said they wouldn't do
> > any
> > > > discounts for Wikimedia. Obviously, this is far too much for the
> > > > Foundation's budget (it would be even more now), and an inappropriate
> > way
> > > > to spend donor funds. Providing the service in-house would involve
> > > building
> > > > a search index of the entire Internet's (generally non-free) images
> and
> > > > media, which would cost a fortune and is totally incompatible with
> the
> > > > mission of the movement. This was relayed out to Commons volunteers
> at
> > > the
> > > > time, I'm pretty sure.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously Google might have changed their mind, though it seems
> > > unlikely. I
> > > > imagine that Google engineers and product owners don't follow this
> > list,
> > > so
> > > > it's unlikely that they will re-create the API without being asked
> > > directly.
> > > >
> > > > J.
> > > > --
> > > > *James D. Forrester* (he/him <http://pronoun.is/he> or they/themself
> > > > <http://pronoun.is/they/.../themself>)
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordination Team
> > https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> > +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Martijn Hoekstra
In reply to this post by Mister Thrapostibongles
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 13:16 Mister Thrapostibongles <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Martin
>
> You really think that it is ridiculous that encyclopaedias in general and
> Wikipedia in particular should be judged, among other criteria, on their
> reliability?  If so, I disagree.
>


No, I'm saying that it's ridiculous to judge wikipedia on its policy that
citing itself is disallowed.

You keep rephrasing what I say in order to disagree with something I dont
say. Stop doing that.




> However, if you really believe that an encyclopadia does not ned to be
> reliable, then it seems that on this specific point we may need to agree to
> disagree.  How about the other points I adduce, such as the millions of
> unreferenced or inadeqautely referenced articles discovered at
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/03/can-machine-learning-uncover-wikipedias-missing-citation-needed-tags/
> --
> is that evidence of success?  The thousands of articles in
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unreferenced_BLPs -- is that
> evidence of success?
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 1:44 PM Martijn Hoekstra <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > No.
> >
> > What I'm saying is this: setting meeting the reliable sources policy of
> > wikipedia as a condition for success, or not meeting that policy as
> > evidence of failure is ridiculous.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 14:29 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Martin, Dennis
> > >
> > > The tenor of your arguments appears to be that Wikipedia is in fact
> > > reliable, because it uses reliable sources, but that it pretends not to
> > be
> > > because it's too hard to prevent people writing article based on other
> > > articles.  This is not in accord with the facts.  As I pointed out, and
> > as
> > > Foundation research has shown, millions -- literally millions, and
> when I
> > > say "literally" I literally mean "literally" -- of articles, about one
> in
> > > five, are not founded on reliable sources, and some thousands of those,
> > > being biographies of living people, should have been instantly deleted.
> > So
> > > we cannot rely on any of those millions of articles, by your own
> > > reasoning.  The reason why Wikipedia deems itself unreliable is that it
> > is
> > > an open wiki, and all such sources are forbidden, because anyone can
> > write
> > > anything on them: "Content from websites whose content is largely
> > > user-generated
> > > is also generally unacceptable."  Wikipedia is cited in the policy as
> > > merely another example of such unreliable sources.
> > >
> > > The way forward, however unpalatable this may be to people who would
> like
> > > to believe that this is somehow silly or sophistry, is to look the
> facts
> > in
> > > the face and accept that some form of editorial policy, content
> workflow
> > > management and supervision of the volunteer effort is necessary to make
> > > Wikipedia what aspires to be, but is not currently, namely an
> > > encyclopaedia.
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:06 PM Martijn Hoekstra <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wikipedia itself can never be more reliable than the sources it
> cites.
> > If
> > > > it's allowed to cite itself, then there is no "bottom" to lean on,
> and
> > > its
> > > > quality would quickly drop.
> > > >
> > > > That you conclude from that that wikipedia is unreliable and
> therefore
> > > > failed is IMO such a silly proposition, that I dont know whether you
> > > > seriously think this, in which case we should probably take this off
> > > list,
> > > > or that you're engaging in sophistry and using arguments you don't
> > think
> > > > are reasonable in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 19:56 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dennis,
> > > > >
> > > > > I started this thread to discuss both conduct and content policies
> on
> > > > > Wikipedia, and indeed how the two interact.  Wikipedia is a project
> > to
> > > > > build an encyclopaedia.  By its own criteria, encyclopaedias are
> > > reliable
> > > > > sources and Wikipedia is not a reliable source; hence by its own
> > > > criteria,
> > > > > Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia.  That is, it is currently in a
> > state
> > > > of
> > > > > failure with respect to its own mission.
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the reasons for that state of failure is indeed the failure
> to
> > > > > provide a collegial working atmosphere.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:19 PM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "One (and not the most important) pieces of evidence for
> Wikipedia
> > > > being
> > > > > in
> > > > > > a failed state is precisely that
> > > > > > it does not, by the community's own admission, constitute a
> > reliable
> > > > > source
> > > > > > "
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have made this argument more than once. That might be a piece
> > of
> > > > > > evidence seems both wrong and not relevant to the sense in which
> > > people
> > > > > > here as saying WP has failed, which is as a welcoming, "safe"
> > > > environment
> > > > > > for contributors and would-be contributors.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is good policy to make sure that contributors reach out to
> other
> > > > > > sources, even when one believes that Wikipedia is as reliable as
> > the
> > > > > > average tertiary source we allow as a reference. It prevents us
> > from
> > > > > > relying exclusively on what can easily turn out to be a very
> narrow
> > > set
> > > > > of
> > > > > > points of view.  Does/did the Encyclopedia Britanica cite other
> EB
> > > > > articles
> > > > > > as references rather than include them as "see alsos"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vito
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This rather tends to support my point.  One (and not the most
> > > > > important)
> > > > > > > pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in a failed state is
> > > precisely
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > it does not , by the community's own admission, constitute a
> > > reliable
> > > > > > > source:whereas "Reputable tertiary sources
> > > > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TERTIARY>, such as
> > > > > > > introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and
> > > encyclopedias,
> > > > > may
> > > > > > > be cited".  So Wikipedia fails in its aim of being an
> > encyclopaedia
> > > > on
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > of the most important tests one could imagine, namely
> > reliability.
> > > > > And a
> > > > > > > reason for that is its lack of effective content management
> > > policies
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > mechanisms to put them into effect (in the old days we called
> > that
> > > > > being
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > editor, but that word on Wikipedia now is more or less a
> > redundant
> > > > > > synonym
> > > > > > > for contributor).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now suppose that Wikipedia had effective editorial policies and
> > > > > processes
> > > > > > > that allowed it to assume the status of a reliable source, just
> > > like
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > encyclopaedia it aims to be.  You say that even in that
> > situation,
> > > it
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > be easy to manipulate.  On that assumption, how much easier it
> > must
> > > > be
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > "trick" it today when it has no such effective policies and
> > > processes
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > place!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Dennis C. During
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?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: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Mister Thrapostibongles
Martin


> No, I'm saying that it's ridiculous to judge wikipedia on its policy that
> citing itself is disallowed.
>

Perhaps, then, rather than telling us what it is that you don't agree with,
you would like to propound your own position, and in your own words.  Do
you believe that Wikipedia is a success?  That it merits the description
of "encyclopaedia"?  In particular that it is reliable?

Thrapostibongles
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Martijn Hoekstra
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 07:43 Mister Thrapostibongles <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Martin
>
>
> > No, I'm saying that it's ridiculous to judge wikipedia on its policy that
> > citing itself is disallowed.
> >
>
> Perhaps, then, rather than telling us what it is that you don't agree with,
> you would like to propound your own position, and in your own words.


I'm under no such obligation, and I'm not much inclined to argue with you
on the details - but I do want to call out when something so egregiously
off base is put forward as the assertion that wikipedia is unreliable
*because* it has a policy that prevents it from citing itself, while the
very opposite is true: that any source would completely destroy its
credibility if it would cite itself and claim that is a sign of reliability.

That's the topic at hand here. My views on the reliability on wikipedia are
off topic for that discussion. But I'll  humor you and answer it anyway.


Do
> you believe that Wikipedia is a success?


It accomplishes bringing true information to many people, which I'd a
succes. It very occasionally brings false information to people, which is a
problem.

Improvements to reach, localization, and reliably are all important.


That it merits the description
> of "encyclopaedia"?


Yes, that's a reasonable description  though it is broader in scope.


In particular that it is reliable?
>


Reliable is not a yes/no answer, but you can rely on wikipedia to be likely
correct, much like more traditional encyclopedias. In addition, you can
often rely on it to cite its sources, though not always, and arguably not
often enough. You cant trust its editorial board though, as it has none, in
stark contrast to traditional encyclopedias.


> Thrapostibongles
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Mister Thrapostibongles
Martijn

>
> I'm under no such obligation,


Indeed, none of us is under any such obligation, which is why it is
somewhat pointless for one list member to issue orders to another, such as
"Don't do that."


> I do want to call out when something so egregiously
> off base is put forward as the assertion that wikipedia is unreliable
> *because* it has a policy that prevents it from citing itself,
>

And if anyone were to put forward that assertion, by all means call it
out.  You will have noticed, I'm sure that the initial post on this thread
asserted that Wikipedia has a policy that prevents it from citing itself
*because* it is unreliable.  Quite a different thing.

Thrapostibongles
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

metasj
In reply to this post by Martijn Hoekstra
An element of our community which gives me hope, is that we are ready to
earnestly engage with any input, even the tendentious.  This is getting a
bit repetitive, however, and as Martijn notes is not the best use of this
list.



On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 6:06 PM Martijn Hoekstra <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Wikipedia itself can never be more reliable than the sources it cites. If
> it's allowed to cite itself, then there is no "bottom" to lean on, and its
> quality would quickly drop.
>
> That you conclude from that that wikipedia is unreliable and therefore
> failed is IMO such a silly proposition, that I dont know whether you
> seriously think this, in which case we should probably take this off list,
> or that you're engaging in sophistry and using arguments you don't think
> are reasonable in the first place.
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 19:56 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Dennis,
> >
> > I started this thread to discuss both conduct and content policies on
> > Wikipedia, and indeed how the two interact.  Wikipedia is a project to
> > build an encyclopaedia.  By its own criteria, encyclopaedias are reliable
> > sources and Wikipedia is not a reliable source; hence by its own
> criteria,
> > Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia.  That is, it is currently in a state
> of
> > failure with respect to its own mission.
> >
> > One of the reasons for that state of failure is indeed the failure to
> > provide a collegial working atmosphere.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:19 PM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > "One (and not the most important) pieces of evidence for Wikipedia
> being
> > in
> > > a failed state is precisely that
> > > it does not, by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
> > source
> > > "
> > >
> > > You have made this argument more than once. That might be a piece of
> > > evidence seems both wrong and not relevant to the sense in which people
> > > here as saying WP has failed, which is as a welcoming, "safe"
> environment
> > > for contributors and would-be contributors.
> > >
> > > It is good policy to make sure that contributors reach out to other
> > > sources, even when one believes that Wikipedia is as reliable as the
> > > average tertiary source we allow as a reference. It prevents us from
> > > relying exclusively on what can easily turn out to be a very narrow set
> > of
> > > points of view.  Does/did the Encyclopedia Britanica cite other EB
> > articles
> > > as references rather than include them as "see alsos"?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Vito
> > > >
> > > > This rather tends to support my point.  One (and not the most
> > important)
> > > > pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in a failed state is precisely
> > > that
> > > > it does not , by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
> > > > source:whereas "Reputable tertiary sources
> > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TERTIARY>, such as
> > > > introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias,
> > may
> > > > be cited".  So Wikipedia fails in its aim of being an encyclopaedia
> on
> > > one
> > > > of the most important tests one could imagine, namely reliability.
> > And a
> > > > reason for that is its lack of effective content management policies
> > and
> > > > mechanisms to put them into effect (in the old days we called that
> > being
> > > an
> > > > editor, but that word on Wikipedia now is more or less a redundant
> > > synonym
> > > > for contributor).
> > > >
> > > > Now suppose that Wikipedia had effective editorial policies and
> > processes
> > > > that allowed it to assume the status of a reliable source, just like
> > the
> > > > encyclopaedia it aims to be.  You say that even in that situation, it
> > > would
> > > > be easy to manipulate.  On that assumption, how much easier it must
> be
> > to
> > > > "trick" it today when it has no such effective policies and processes
> > in
> > > > place!
> > > >
> > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dennis C. During
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12