[Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Peter Southwood
Does the technology exist? Is it available?
How does this splitting make maintenance easier?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jane Darnell
Sent: 30 December 2018 15:42
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Well it is not difficult to imagine when you consider for example line
items in the case of list articles. Many lists could be split into such
line items and kept in a static assembled form by some sort of "assembly
template". Many of these line items are either articles or parts of
articles. Such "line items" may or may not have Wikidata items, may or may
not be suitable for Wikidata items, and may or may not be able to be
structured in any way, shape or form than the one they currently have. I
would like to be able to address these "line items" as "findable editing
snippets" in the wikiverse, possibly curatable by voice activation,
reversing the way we can sometimes get them read to us by Siri/Lexa.

On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 1:48 PM Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Jane,
> I do not understand what parts you would split these things into, or how
> they would make Wikipedia easier to curate and edit. Could you link to an
> explanation or clarify the concept?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
>
_______________________________________________
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>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Anders Wennersten-2
The problem with using simple language in complex topics is that simple language almost always needs far more words to say the same thing. The simpler the language, the more words are needed, assuming that the original was not unnecessarily verbose. This is why specialist terms exist: they require previous knowledge, but can reduce the number of words needed to explain. The alternative is dumbing down, lies-to-children, Wittgenstein's ladder, and that sort of thing. Ideally all of these options would be available to the reader, who could choose the level which works best for themselves.

Editors who have invested a lot of effort to produce a technically correct and comprehensive explanation will nor look kindly at dumbing down the article, but may be entirely unconcerned about an alternative explanation provided in parallel with the more correct version. To a large extent, that is the intention of the lead specification, but one person's excessively complex is another's needless dumbing down. Procrustean methods will fail almost everyone. Alternative explanations can allow a "just right" version for more readers. This is obviously more work for editors, and just as obviously, the versions should be consistent with each other, so more work again. It is somewhat like translating, but in the same language.

Many editors would probably consider this a waste of time. They don’t have to do it, we are volunteers.  Others would consider it very important. Maybe they will do it. I think that linking articles with the same title between en: and simple: could be a relatively easy way of testing the utility of the concept. And I don’t mean the sidebar link that most readers do not know about (does it even exist on mobile?), I mean something obvious and self-explanatory in the title area.

Cheers,
Peter Southwood



-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Anders Wennersten
Sent: 30 December 2018 14:50
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Thats excellent. It is just then to live up to that guidline, and foster
people who can simplity the lead sections

For myself I remember how hard it was to get an educated physisct to
write of the Coriolis effect in the lead section to make it
understandable. He just squeemed that with simple language then it is no
correct. And in it there is animations but without proper text it is
impossible to understand

Anders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force is not easy to take in




Den 2018-12-30 kl. 13:23, skrev David Gerard:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section
> says pretty much the same:
>
>> The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences.
> that is, the intro section should be a short standalone article:
>
>> As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.
> For an extreme case, [[World War II]] gets *five* long paragraphs for
> its intro section.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 10:57, Anders Wennersten
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> In my little duckpond (svwp) we have guidleines for the introduction
>> part of the article.
>>
>> It should use (simple) language to enable 14-16 years old to understand
>> it (while the rest can use more complicated vocabulary)
>>
>> It should hopefully only be 1-3 sentences, and to state what is all
>> about and not a summary.
>>
>> We do not live up to this recommendation all the time, but I have
>> noticed that he introducion part on enwp generally are very long, in
>> comparison
>>
>> Anders
>>
>>
>>
>> Den 2018-12-30 kl. 11:39, skrev Zubin JAIN:
>>>> I am 51, and I do not know much about the 18- generation, but I know two
>>> important things about them. They have a very short attention span and
>>> difficulties to concentrate. And they get a graphical and visualized
>>> information much more easier than texts. For example, my son is capable of
>>> watching three or four movies per day, but he has difficulties to read 20
>>> pages from a book.
>>>
>>>> Well, the first question is whether an encyclopedia is an appropriate / the
>>> best format for them to get knowledge (as it is for us). I do not know the
>>> answer. What I write below assumes that the answer is positive, otherwise
>>> the rest of the text does not make sense.
>>>
>>>> The next question is what should be done. How Wikipedia should look like to
>>> be accessible to this generation? The answer seems to be obvious. Articles
>>> must be short and contain a lot of graphic information. May be they need to
>>> be videoclips. Short clips. Or, at lest, they must contain clips, with more
>>> voice and less letters. If one needs more detailed information or just
>>> further information - one hops to the next article or watches the next clip.
>>>
>>> These are gross generalizations and the ideas are similarly flawed.
>>> Anecdotes do not prove anything and while there is some evidence to suspect
>>> that attention span is reducing ( Though there has yet to be consensus and
>>> one should naturally be sceptical of any psychological finding given the
>>> fields replication crisis). Under 18 people such as myself probably use the
>>> site the most compared to any other demographic and most of us are capable
>>> of using it as well as anybody else.
>>>
>>> The idea that Wikipedia needs to be dumbed down has abousltley no basis on
>>> fact and data, is only supported by anecdotes and stereotypes. This is not
>>> to say that simplifying some Wikipedia articles and creating more video
>>> content is wrong, Wikipedia should be inclusive to all including those with
>>> disabilities or conditions that make the traditional encyclopedia
>>> unsuitable but making those changes out of ageist assumptions of
>>> generational decline is insulting.
>>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 17:21, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I still believe we need to "explode Wikipedia", by which I mean split
>>>> curation templates, categories, lists and all other articles into more
>>>> easily editable and curatable parts. This enables better linking to
>>>> discrete Wikidata items while reducing the tedious task of curation for
>>>> extremely long articles. Your comments, Peter, are still based on the
>>>> 18-year-old idea of "it's the info that matters". It's no longer just the
>>>> content that matters. Content curation, once advertised as being super
>>>> simple (and still in the byline as "everybody can edit"), has become a
>>>> tedious and complicated task, and efforts to make it easier have resulted
>>>> with the visual editor for mobile, which still doesn't work for uploading
>>>> to Commons. We need better upload interfaces for fixing spelling mistakes,
>>>> adding blue links, categories, media, and all other common tasks. We should
>>>> not let Google decide which sentences to index first, but we should be
>>>> enabling those decisions to be made by human editors. Findability should
>>>> reflect editability and it doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 9:18 AM Peter Southwood <
>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Yaroslav,
>>>>> Several recent developments relate to this situation which I think you
>>>>> have described reasonably well.
>>>>> Short descriptions help a bit. But they are too short to help much
>>>>> Simple Wikipedia tries to keep things simple and easily understood, but
>>>>> perhaps concentrates too much on a small vocabulary.
>>>>> I do see a real need and a use for a "Readers Digest" or "executive
>>>>> summary" version of long and complex articles for people who don’t have a
>>>>> need for the full story, but as a complementary version, possibly linked
>>>>> from the top of a desktop view, and possibly the primary target in
>>>> mobile.
>>>>> This would not be needed for all articles.
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Peter Southwood
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter
>>>>> Sent: 29 December 2018 23:34
>>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>>>>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have written a long text today (posted in my FB) which the readers of
>>>>> this mailing list might find interesting. I copy it below. I understand
>>>>> that it is very easy to critisize me for side issues, but if you want to
>>>>> comment/reply I would appreciate if you address the main issue. The
>>>> target
>>>>> audience I was thinking about was general (not necessarily
>>>>> Wikimedia-oriented), and for the readers from this mailing list the first
>>>>> several paragraphs can sound trivial (or even trivial and wrong). I
>>>>> apologize in advance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Yaroslav
>>>>> _________________
>>>>> I currently have a bit of time and can write on the future of Wikipedia.
>>>>> Similarly to much of what I write it is probably going to be useless, but
>>>>> someone may find it interesting. For simplicity, I will be explicitly
>>>>> talking about the English Wikipedia (referring to it as Wikipedia). I am
>>>>> active in other projects as well, and some of them have similar issues,
>>>> but
>>>>> there are typically many other things going on there which make the
>>>> picture
>>>>> more complicated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let us first look at the current situation. Wikipedia exists since 2001,
>>>>> and in a couple of weeks will turn 18. Currently, it has 5.77 million
>>>>> articles. I often hear an opinion that all important articles have
>>>> already
>>>>> been created. This is incorrect, and I am often the first person to point
>>>>> out that this is not correct. For example, today I created an article on
>>>> an
>>>>> urban locality in Russia with the population of 15 thousands. Many
>>>> articles
>>>>> are indeed too short, badly written, or suffer from other issues, and
>>>> they
>>>>> need to be improved. There are new topics which appear on a regular
>>>> basis:
>>>>> new music performers, new winners of sports competitions or prizes, and
>>>> so
>>>>> on. As any Web 2.0 project, Wikipedia requires a regular cleanup, since
>>>>> there are many people happy to vandalize the 5th website in the world in
>>>>> terms of the number of views. However, as a general guideline, it is not
>>>> so
>>>>> much incorrect to state that all important things in Wikipedia have been
>>>>> already written. Indeed, if someone looks for information in Wikipedia -
>>>>> or, more precisely, uses search engines and gets Wikipedia as the first
>>>> hit
>>>>> &#8212; they are likely to find what they need with more than 99% chance.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this sense, Wikipedia now is very different from Wikipedia in 2008 or
>>>>> Wikipedia in 2004. Ten and especially fifteen years ago, everybody could
>>>>> contribute something important. For example, the article on the 1951 film
>>>>> "A Streetcar Named Desire", which won four Academy Awards, was started in
>>>>> 2005, as well as an article on Cy Twombly, at the time probably the most
>>>>> famous living artist. This is not possible anymore. This is why the
>>>> number
>>>>> of active editors is currently dropping - to contribute to the content
>>>> in a
>>>>> meaningful way, one now has to be an advanced amateur - to master some
>>>>> field of knowledge much better than most others do. Or one can be a
>>>>> professional - but there are very few professionals contributing to
>>>>> Wikipedia in their fields, and there are very few articles written at a
>>>>> professional level. Attempts to attract professionals have been made for
>>>>> many years, and, despite certain local success, generally failed. They
>>>> have
>>>>> been going now for long enough to assume they will never succeed on a
>>>> large
>>>>> scale. Wikipedia is written by advance amateurs for amateurs. However,
>>>>> despite the decline in the number of editors, there are enough resources
>>>> to
>>>>> maintain and to expand the project. It does not mean there are no
>>>> problems
>>>>> - there are in fact many problems. One of the most commonly discussed one
>>>>> is systemic bias - there is way more information on Wikipedia on subjects
>>>>> pertaining to North America than to Africa, and if a topic is viewed on
>>>>> differently in different countries, one can be sure that the American
>>>> view
>>>>> dominates. But it is usually thought - and I agree with this - that these
>>>>> drawbacks are not crucial, and Wikipedia is atill a useful and
>>>> sustainable
>>>>> project. Wikipedia clearly has its ecosystem, there are no competitors to
>>>>> talk about, and all attempts to fork it were unsuccessful. There is a
>>>>> steady development, and everybody is happy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this mean that everything is fine and we do not need to worry?, just
>>>>> to wait until missing articles get written, or even to help this by
>>>> writing
>>>>> them ourselves?
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely not. To understand this, we can look again at the editor base.
>>>>> There are detailed studies, but, for a starter, it is a nightmare to edit
>>>>> Wikipedia from a cell phone. It is possible but not much easier to edit
>>>> it
>>>>> from a tablet. The mobile version is different from a desktop one, and it
>>>>> is not really optimized for editing. This is a known problem, but one
>>>>> aspect of it is clear. Most Wikipedia editors actually own a desktop and
>>>> a
>>>>> laptop. This brings them into 18+ category. There are of course
>>>> exceptions,
>>>>> but the fact is that the editor base gets older, and this is a problem.
>>>> The
>>>>> problem is not so much at this point that we all die and there will be
>>>>> nobody to edit Wikipedia. The problem is that the next generation (18-)
>>>> has
>>>>> very different ways of getting information. And I guess they are not
>>>>> interested in editing Wikipedia, and they will not get interested when
>>>> they
>>>>> grow up - possibly beyond introducing minor corrections, which can be
>>>> done
>>>>> from a phone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Traditionally, students were always among the core of the editors base.
>>>>> They already have some knowledge and they still have time to edit. When
>>>>> they graduate, find a job and start a family, they have way less time and
>>>>> typically stop editing. The next group are retirees. Between students and
>>>>> retirees, we have a tiny fraction of dedicated enthusiasts who are ready
>>>> to
>>>>> take time from work and family, but they are really not numerous. Well,
>>>> and
>>>>> very soon we are going to lose students as editors. And we should be
>>>> happy
>>>>> if we do not lose them as readers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am 51, and I do not know much about the 18- generation, but I know two
>>>>> important things about them. They have a very short attention span and
>>>>> difficulties to concentrate. And they get a graphical and visualized
>>>>> information much more easier than texts. For example, my son is capable
>>>> of
>>>>> watching three or four movies per day, but he has difficulties to read 20
>>>>> pages from a book.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, the first question is whether an encyclopedia is an appropriate /
>>>> the
>>>>> best format for them to get knowledge (as it is for us). I do not know
>>>> the
>>>>> answer. What I write below assumes that the answer is positive, otherwise
>>>>> the rest of the text does not make sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> The next question is what should be done. How Wikipedia should look like
>>>> to
>>>>> be accessible to this generation? The answer seems to be obvious.
>>>> Articles
>>>>> must be short and contain a lot of graphic information. May be they need
>>>> to
>>>>> be videoclips. Short clips. Or, at lest, they must contain clips, with
>>>> more
>>>>> voice and less letters. If one needs more detailed information or just
>>>>> further information - one hops to the next article or watches the next
>>>>> clip.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a paradigm shift. Currently, the editors generally consider that
>>>> it
>>>>> is good to have long Wikipedia articles - because long means more
>>>> complete.
>>>>> Sometimes there are even proposals (fortunately isolated and without
>>>>> followup) to delete all short articles even if they describe notable
>>>> topics
>>>>> and contain verified information. Clips are almost not in use.  Of course
>>>>> they still need to be made, but this is not such a big problem - there
>>>> are
>>>>> plenty of school students who have their own youtube channel, if they can
>>>>> make clips, everybody can.
>>>>>
>>>>> The most difficult question is how this can be realized. I believe it is
>>>>> not possible to just transform Wikipedia like this - make articles
>>>> shorter
>>>>> and simpler and spit them. First, this might be good for the young
>>>>> generation, but this is still not good for the 18+ generation. Second,
>>>> such
>>>>> reforms should be either be approved by Wikipedia community through
>>>>> consensus, or be imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation who owns the
>>>> project.
>>>>> The likelihood of either is zero. Just to give one argument, the
>>>> community
>>>>> is, well, the community of editors, of the same 18+ people with laptops
>>>> who
>>>>> have no difficulties reading long texts.
>>>>>
>>>>> I envision it differently. Ideally, we have the Wikipedia as it is now,
>>>> but
>>>>> on top of this, every article has a collection of shorter companion
>>>>> articles, simple and a paragraph or two long, so that each of them can be
>>>>> read in half a minute, They should not have excessive markup, references,
>>>>> categories or anything else which can be found in the main article if
>>>>> needed. References in Wikipedia are required not for the sake of having
>>>>> references, but as a means to ensure that the information is verifiable -
>>>>> and if the main article does it the companion articles do not need to.
>>>> Some
>>>>> of these companion articles can be in fact clips - there is a difficulty
>>>>> that clips can not be edited collaboratively, but I am sure this one can
>>>> be
>>>>> solved. If anybody wants to solve it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The status of what I have written above is science fiction. I am sure if
>>>> I
>>>>> come with this proposal to a village pump of Wikipedia, it will be dead
>>>>> within a day. In addition, it requires some modifications of MediaWiki
>>>>> which can only be done by the Foundation. And I am not really looking
>>>>> forward for the Foundation implementing this either. I have a lot of
>>>>> respect for some of the Foundation employees, but it has now grown up
>>>> into
>>>>> a big corporation now and behaves as a big corporation, where some people
>>>>> care less about the product and more about other things, and some look at
>>>>> Wikipedia editors, aka "unorganized volunteers", as some annoying
>>>>> phenomenon, which they can tolerate but are not willing to listen to. My
>>>>> forecast is pretty pessimistic. Unless a miracle happens (and I
>>>> currently,
>>>>> at least not from my perspective, do not see any reasons for a miracle to
>>>>> happen), soon or late will realize this, It might be a startup company,
>>>> or
>>>>> a non-commercial. And Wikipedia will stay as it is, and, after the
>>>>> standards change many times, it will not be readable / accessible to most
>>>>> of internet users, and will slowly die. And the results of what were were
>>>>> doing for 20 years will disappear. This is a usual development and
>>>> happens
>>>>> to almost every human activity. We know that only a few percents of
>>>> pieces
>>>>> of Ancient Greek and Roman literature survived until now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yaroslav Blanter, editor and administrator of the English Wikipedia, 125
>>>>> 000 edits.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>>>> https://www.avg.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Jane Darnell
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
1) Not that I know of, 2) not that I know of, 3) fewer items to watchlist
and maintain (if one creates them), easier to de-orphanize articles, and
easier to curate pieces of large wikipages where it's hard to check the
relevant used references.

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 9:14 AM Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Does the technology exist? Is it available?
> How does this splitting make maintenance easier?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Jane Darnell
> Sent: 30 December 2018 15:42
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?
>
> Well it is not difficult to imagine when you consider for example line
> items in the case of list articles. Many lists could be split into such
> line items and kept in a static assembled form by some sort of "assembly
> template". Many of these line items are either articles or parts of
> articles. Such "line items" may or may not have Wikidata items, may or may
> not be suitable for Wikidata items, and may or may not be able to be
> structured in any way, shape or form than the one they currently have. I
> would like to be able to address these "line items" as "findable editing
> snippets" in the wikiverse, possibly curatable by voice activation,
> reversing the way we can sometimes get them read to us by Siri/Lexa.
>
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 1:48 PM Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Jane,
> > I do not understand what parts you would split these things into, or how
> > they would make Wikipedia easier to curate and edit. Could you link to an
> > explanation or clarify the concept?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Peter Southwood
I would see more items to watchlist, as in place of one large item you would have all the components to worry about.
I don't follow the easier to de-orphanise aspect.
Also don’t see how having to have the reference section on half a dozen sub-articles is simpler than having the whole list on one. In the extreme case where no reference is used in multiple sections, it would be roughly the same, where a reference is used across several sections, which is common, it looks like more work: from a little more, to a lot more.
Unless I misunderstand your meaning...
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jane Darnell
Sent: 31 December 2018 10:41
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

1) Not that I know of, 2) not that I know of, 3) fewer items to watchlist
and maintain (if one creates them), easier to de-orphanize articles, and
easier to curate pieces of large wikipages where it's hard to check the
relevant used references.

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 9:14 AM Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Does the technology exist? Is it available?
> How does this splitting make maintenance easier?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Jane Darnell
> Sent: 30 December 2018 15:42
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?
>
> Well it is not difficult to imagine when you consider for example line
> items in the case of list articles. Many lists could be split into such
> line items and kept in a static assembled form by some sort of "assembly
> template". Many of these line items are either articles or parts of
> articles. Such "line items" may or may not have Wikidata items, may or may
> not be suitable for Wikidata items, and may or may not be able to be
> structured in any way, shape or form than the one they currently have. I
> would like to be able to address these "line items" as "findable editing
> snippets" in the wikiverse, possibly curatable by voice activation,
> reversing the way we can sometimes get them read to us by Siri/Lexa.
>
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 1:48 PM Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Jane,
> > I do not understand what parts you would split these things into, or how
> > they would make Wikipedia easier to curate and edit. Could you link to an
> > explanation or clarify the concept?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Yethrosh
In reply to this post by David Cuenca Tudela
I believe much depends on Wikipedia Mobile app. Users are mostly on mobile
now and they feel it natural to do any thing from mobile. If only, creating
articles and adding citations could be done easily through mobile app, can
make a big difference.

On Mon, 31 Dec 2018, 2:22 a.m. David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email] wrote:

> Answering the initial question: It depends on how you understand "death".
> Wikipedia is the manifestation of a collection of algorithms running in the
> minds of thousands of people. With time it could become less popular to run
> that algorithm in your life, or you would like to try a different one. With
> less people then the Wikipedias would be different as they are today. More
> out-of-date information, less capacity to oversee the project, stagnation,
> and perhaps eventually irrelevance. Myspace, digg, and winamp are still
> alive, however people prefer other options these days.
>
> I think it is important to move with the flow, and open new opportunities
> for collaboration as the technology and our contributor base are ready for
> them. Wikidata started 6 years ago, Structured Commons is in the making,
> and who knows what could come next.
>
> In the age of review manipulation and mistrust, I see opportunities in
> identifying thought leaders, and building a balanced critique on a subject
> based on multiple sources. Wikipedia does this partially, but it is not its
> main aim. Assigning trust to people or organizations is something that the
> community does quite well, so it could be applied to other contexts.
>
> A snippet-pedia also sounds useful, specially if a topic could be explained
> with different levels of complexity. Layman's explanations are really
> useful and there are communities built around them (for instance ELI5 with
> 16 million subscribers), however their explanations are neither
> collaborative nor structured, so it is quite difficult to improve them or
> navigate them.
>
> It doesn't matter so much that Wikipedia "dies", what matters is that the
> Wikimedia community adapts with new projects that keep the spirit of
> gathering, organizing, and sharing knowledge alive. Perhaps we could also
> consider other approaches that could be executed in real life. With diverse
> approaches, there would be different kind of contributors, aka more
> diversity. I would definitely welcome projects that would attract 90% of
> female contributors, even if they are radically different and they are not
> a wiki. In the end our mission is to enable everyone to share knowledge,
> not necessarily encyclopedic, and not necessarily using current technology.
> Just because we have a hammer doesn't mean that all problems can be solved
> with it.
>
> Regards,
> Micru
>
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 10:35 PM Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I have written a long text today (posted in my FB) which the readers of
> > this mailing list might find interesting. I copy it below. I understand
> > that it is very easy to critisize me for side issues, but if you want to
> > comment/reply I would appreciate if you address the main issue. The
> target
> > audience I was thinking about was general (not necessarily
> > Wikimedia-oriented), and for the readers from this mailing list the first
> > several paragraphs can sound trivial (or even trivial and wrong). I
> > apologize in advance.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> > _________________
> > I currently have a bit of time and can write on the future of Wikipedia.
> > Similarly to much of what I write it is probably going to be useless, but
> > someone may find it interesting. For simplicity, I will be explicitly
> > talking about the English Wikipedia (referring to it as Wikipedia). I am
> > active in other projects as well, and some of them have similar issues,
> but
> > there are typically many other things going on there which make the
> picture
> > more complicated.
> >
> > Let us first look at the current situation. Wikipedia exists since 2001,
> > and in a couple of weeks will turn 18. Currently, it has 5.77 million
> > articles. I often hear an opinion that all important articles have
> already
> > been created. This is incorrect, and I am often the first person to point
> > out that this is not correct. For example, today I created an article on
> an
> > urban locality in Russia with the population of 15 thousands. Many
> articles
> > are indeed too short, badly written, or suffer from other issues, and
> they
> > need to be improved. There are new topics which appear on a regular
> basis:
> > new music performers, new winners of sports competitions or prizes, and
> so
> > on. As any Web 2.0 project, Wikipedia requires a regular cleanup, since
> > there are many people happy to vandalize the 5th website in the world in
> > terms of the number of views. However, as a general guideline, it is not
> so
> > much incorrect to state that all important things in Wikipedia have been
> > already written. Indeed, if someone looks for information in Wikipedia -
> > or, more precisely, uses search engines and gets Wikipedia as the first
> hit
> > &#8212; they are likely to find what they need with more than 99% chance.
> >
> > In this sense, Wikipedia now is very different from Wikipedia in 2008 or
> > Wikipedia in 2004. Ten and especially fifteen years ago, everybody could
> > contribute something important. For example, the article on the 1951 film
> > "A Streetcar Named Desire", which won four Academy Awards, was started in
> > 2005, as well as an article on Cy Twombly, at the time probably the most
> > famous living artist. This is not possible anymore. This is why the
> number
> > of active editors is currently dropping - to contribute to the content
> in a
> > meaningful way, one now has to be an advanced amateur - to master some
> > field of knowledge much better than most others do. Or one can be a
> > professional - but there are very few professionals contributing to
> > Wikipedia in their fields, and there are very few articles written at a
> > professional level. Attempts to attract professionals have been made for
> > many years, and, despite certain local success, generally failed. They
> have
> > been going now for long enough to assume they will never succeed on a
> large
> > scale. Wikipedia is written by advance amateurs for amateurs. However,
> > despite the decline in the number of editors, there are enough resources
> to
> > maintain and to expand the project. It does not mean there are no
> problems
> > - there are in fact many problems. One of the most commonly discussed one
> > is systemic bias - there is way more information on Wikipedia on subjects
> > pertaining to North America than to Africa, and if a topic is viewed on
> > differently in different countries, one can be sure that the American
> view
> > dominates. But it is usually thought - and I agree with this - that these
> > drawbacks are not crucial, and Wikipedia is atill a useful and
> sustainable
> > project. Wikipedia clearly has its ecosystem, there are no competitors to
> > talk about, and all attempts to fork it were unsuccessful. There is a
> > steady development, and everybody is happy.
> >
> > Does this mean that everything is fine and we do not need to worry?, just
> > to wait until missing articles get written, or even to help this by
> writing
> > them ourselves?
> >
> > Absolutely not. To understand this, we can look again at the editor base.
> > There are detailed studies, but, for a starter, it is a nightmare to edit
> > Wikipedia from a cell phone. It is possible but not much easier to edit
> it
> > from a tablet. The mobile version is different from a desktop one, and it
> > is not really optimized for editing. This is a known problem, but one
> > aspect of it is clear. Most Wikipedia editors actually own a desktop and
> a
> > laptop. This brings them into 18+ category. There are of course
> exceptions,
> > but the fact is that the editor base gets older, and this is a problem.
> The
> > problem is not so much at this point that we all die and there will be
> > nobody to edit Wikipedia. The problem is that the next generation (18-)
> has
> > very different ways of getting information. And I guess they are not
> > interested in editing Wikipedia, and they will not get interested when
> they
> > grow up - possibly beyond introducing minor corrections, which can be
> done
> > from a phone.
> >
> > Traditionally, students were always among the core of the editors base.
> > They already have some knowledge and they still have time to edit. When
> > they graduate, find a job and start a family, they have way less time and
> > typically stop editing. The next group are retirees. Between students and
> > retirees, we have a tiny fraction of dedicated enthusiasts who are ready
> to
> > take time from work and family, but they are really not numerous. Well,
> and
> > very soon we are going to lose students as editors. And we should be
> happy
> > if we do not lose them as readers.
> >
> > I am 51, and I do not know much about the 18- generation, but I know two
> > important things about them. They have a very short attention span and
> > difficulties to concentrate. And they get a graphical and visualized
> > information much more easier than texts. For example, my son is capable
> of
> > watching three or four movies per day, but he has difficulties to read 20
> > pages from a book.
> >
> > Well, the first question is whether an encyclopedia is an appropriate /
> the
> > best format for them to get knowledge (as it is for us). I do not know
> the
> > answer. What I write below assumes that the answer is positive, otherwise
> > the rest of the text does not make sense.
> >
> > The next question is what should be done. How Wikipedia should look like
> to
> > be accessible to this generation? The answer seems to be obvious.
> Articles
> > must be short and contain a lot of graphic information. May be they need
> to
> > be videoclips. Short clips. Or, at lest, they must contain clips, with
> more
> > voice and less letters. If one needs more detailed information or just
> > further information - one hops to the next article or watches the next
> > clip.
> >
> > This is a paradigm shift. Currently, the editors generally consider that
> it
> > is good to have long Wikipedia articles - because long means more
> complete.
> > Sometimes there are even proposals (fortunately isolated and without
> > followup) to delete all short articles even if they describe notable
> topics
> > and contain verified information. Clips are almost not in use.  Of course
> > they still need to be made, but this is not such a big problem - there
> are
> > plenty of school students who have their own youtube channel, if they can
> > make clips, everybody can.
> >
> > The most difficult question is how this can be realized. I believe it is
> > not possible to just transform Wikipedia like this - make articles
> shorter
> > and simpler and spit them. First, this might be good for the young
> > generation, but this is still not good for the 18+ generation. Second,
> such
> > reforms should be either be approved by Wikipedia community through
> > consensus, or be imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation who owns the
> project.
> > The likelihood of either is zero. Just to give one argument, the
> community
> > is, well, the community of editors, of the same 18+ people with laptops
> who
> > have no difficulties reading long texts.
> >
> > I envision it differently. Ideally, we have the Wikipedia as it is now,
> but
> > on top of this, every article has a collection of shorter companion
> > articles, simple and a paragraph or two long, so that each of them can be
> > read in half a minute, They should not have excessive markup, references,
> > categories or anything else which can be found in the main article if
> > needed. References in Wikipedia are required not for the sake of having
> > references, but as a means to ensure that the information is verifiable -
> > and if the main article does it the companion articles do not need to.
> Some
> > of these companion articles can be in fact clips - there is a difficulty
> > that clips can not be edited collaboratively, but I am sure this one can
> be
> > solved. If anybody wants to solve it.
> >
> > The status of what I have written above is science fiction. I am sure if
> I
> > come with this proposal to a village pump of Wikipedia, it will be dead
> > within a day. In addition, it requires some modifications of MediaWiki
> > which can only be done by the Foundation. And I am not really looking
> > forward for the Foundation implementing this either. I have a lot of
> > respect for some of the Foundation employees, but it has now grown up
> into
> > a big corporation now and behaves as a big corporation, where some people
> > care less about the product and more about other things, and some look at
> > Wikipedia editors, aka "unorganized volunteers", as some annoying
> > phenomenon, which they can tolerate but are not willing to listen to. My
> > forecast is pretty pessimistic. Unless a miracle happens (and I
> currently,
> > at least not from my perspective, do not see any reasons for a miracle to
> > happen), soon or late will realize this, It might be a startup company,
> or
> > a non-commercial. And Wikipedia will stay as it is, and, after the
> > standards change many times, it will not be readable / accessible to most
> > of internet users, and will slowly die. And the results of what were were
> > doing for 20 years will disappear. This is a usual development and
> happens
> > to almost every human activity. We know that only a few percents of
> pieces
> > of Ancient Greek and Roman literature survived until now.
> >
> > Yaroslav Blanter, editor and administrator of the English Wikipedia, 125
> > 000 edits.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
>
>
> --
> Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Kiril Simeonovski
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
Hi all,

Yaroslav has brought some very relevant points that unfortunately have not
been discussed in great detail in the past but my conclusions differ a bit
from those that he has drawn and the main source of the concerns he has
identified. My thoughts are summarised in turn.

Firstly, Wikipedia do not seem to be endangered by the dramatic decrease in
attention that people pay to written knowledge. Distribution of knowledge
through new channels that emerged as a result of the technological
evolution is becoming more popular but is simply insufficient for acquiring
knowledge and creating a base for further learning assuming that people go
beyond using it to check simple facts. For instance, nowadays you can take
an online course on edX or Coursera to get knowledge of any scientific
field but this is something that will never make you a good scientist; you
can also play online chess and watch online videos and commentaries but
this will not make you a strong chess player. Books (a form of written
knowledge) are simply a must for advanced learning and this is something
that is not going to easily change in near future, hence Wikipedia has its
strength in place as a medium for converting the written knowledge from the
books in a brief and more reader-friendly manner. My main concern, however,
is that some topics are not covered in a simple way and require far
advanced knowledge as a prerequisite for understanding (e.g. articles on
topics in mathematics) and are poorly linked to the other relevant
Wikimedia projects (e.g. Wikibooks) due to the lack of content. Simplifying
the way these topics are covered would be, of course, be beneficial for
many readers.

Secondly, a major source of concern is the evolution of the Wikimedia
Foundation from an NGO to a technology corporation that does not show any
signs of addressing issues like this and how people in the developed world
are being affected by it. I have full respect to some employees who have
excellent understanding about the movement and the major upcoming
challenges (mostly coming from the community) but there are simply too many
outsiders who does not even know the basics of the movement and do not care
at all to people in the movement who are not affiliated with them or are
not hangers-on to their agenda. The problem is becoming even more serious
with their strategic objective to focus on underrepresented communities
primarily from the Global South through collaboration with the largest
affiliates from the Global North and pretending that the unaffiliated
active contributors from the developed countries do not exist. This whole
thing has probably culminated with the Wikimedia 2030 strategy, where
no-one knows what its final outcome should look like, but much effort was
put to make a base on unreal assumptions and it will apparently get forced
through (fantasty world). My main concern is that they might even start to
force you away from the movement in the

Thirdly, the reason why our long-standing contributors from the Global
North make the unpopular decision to go away can be derived from my
previous point. These people have very good understanding of how the
movement was created, what the original purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation
was supposed to be and how the recent developments contradict it. Some of
them even go so far to say that they feel frustrated from the misuse of
their volunteer efforts to build the largest encyclopedia in the world and
now to see getting unheard, while some think that the Wikimedia Foundation
has made a paradigm shift in the motivation to edit from contributing to
the fastest-growing knowledge-based project in the late 2000s to getting
hired by the Wikimedia Foundation to earn above-average income in the late
2010s (conclusion drawn from direct communication with people).
Fortunately, this is still in a normal range but the unfavourable rate of
change gives me the intuition that it might turn into an overkill.

Lastly, the lack of focus on technology-related issues and the increasing
need to adapt to the environmental changes is becoming increasingly
difficult with no clear intent for major infrastructural shift. The
community-based rather than technology-based strategic orientation, allbeit
common sense, might become very costly if not properly ameliorated with
some innovations. The problem with expanding an unchanged and obsolete
infrastructure to underrepresented groups might result to no avail and
further incentivise a major shift, thus doubling the cost invested in
infrastructure. Definitely, it is an open topic to discuss whether outreach
to new communities should be done using the old methods or experimenting
with something new.

I am sorry for the extensive text but there are things that need to be
discussed.

Best,
Kiril

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 9:14 AM Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Does the technology exist? Is it available?
> How does this splitting make maintenance easier?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Jane Darnell
> Sent: 30 December 2018 15:42
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?
>
> Well it is not difficult to imagine when you consider for example line
> items in the case of list articles. Many lists could be split into such
> line items and kept in a static assembled form by some sort of "assembly
> template". Many of these line items are either articles or parts of
> articles. Such "line items" may or may not have Wikidata items, may or may
> not be suitable for Wikidata items, and may or may not be able to be
> structured in any way, shape or form than the one they currently have. I
> would like to be able to address these "line items" as "findable editing
> snippets" in the wikiverse, possibly curatable by voice activation,
> reversing the way we can sometimes get them read to us by Siri/Lexa.
>
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 1:48 PM Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Jane,
> > I do not understand what parts you would split these things into, or how
> > they would make Wikipedia easier to curate and edit. Could you link to an
> > explanation or clarify the concept?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Kiril Simeonovski
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
*(The message has been re-sent because of an unfinished part left in the
original one.)*

Hi all,

Yaroslav has brought some very relevant points that unfortunately have not
been discussed in great detail in the past but my conclusions differ a bit
from those that he has drawn and the main source of the concerns he has
identified. My thoughts are summarised in turn.

Firstly, Wikipedia does not seem to be endangered by the dramatic decrease
in attention that people pay to written knowledge. Distribution of
knowledge through new channels that emerged as a result of the
technological evolution is becoming more popular but is simply insufficient
for acquiring knowledge and creating a base for further learning assuming
that people go beyond using it to check simple facts. For instance,
nowadays you can take an online course on edX or Coursera to get knowledge
of any scientific field but this is something that will never make you a
good scientist; you can also play online chess and watch online videos and
commentaries but this will not make you a strong chess player. Books (a
form of written knowledge) are simply a must for advanced learning and this
is something that is not going to easily change in near future, hence
Wikipedia has its strength in place as a medium for converting the written
knowledge from the books in a brief and more reader-friendly manner. My
main concern, however, is that some topics are not covered in a simple way
and require far advanced knowledge as a prerequisite for understanding
(e.g. articles on topics in mathematics) and are poorly linked to the other
relevant Wikimedia projects (e.g. Wikibooks) due to the lack of content.
Simplifying the way these topics are covered would be, of course, be
beneficial for many readers.

Secondly, a major source of concern is the evolution of the Wikimedia
Foundation from an NGO to a technology corporation that does not show any
signs of addressing issues like this and how people in the developed world
are being affected by it. I have full respect to some employees who have
excellent understanding about the movement and the major upcoming
challenges (mostly coming from the community) but there are simply too many
outsiders who do not even know the basics of the movement and do not care
at all about people in the movement who are not affiliated with them or are
not hangers-on to their agenda. The problem is becoming even more serious
with their strategic objective to focus on underrepresented communities
primarily from the Global South through collaboration with the largest
affiliates from the Global North and pretending that the unaffiliated
active contributors from the developed countries do not exist. This whole
thing has probably culminated with the Wikimedia 2030 strategy, where
no-one knows what its final outcome should look like, but much effort was
put to make a base on unreal assumptions and it will apparently get forced
through (fantasty world). My main concern is that they might even start to
force you away from the movement in the event of not agreeing with what
would probably become an open window for the future of Wikipedia.

Thirdly, the reason why our long-standing contributors from the Global
North make the unpopular decision to go away can be derived from my
previous point. These people have very good understanding of how the
movement was created, what the original purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation
was supposed to be and how the recent developments contradict it. Some of
them even go so far to say that they feel frustrated from the misuse of
their volunteer efforts to build the largest encyclopedia in the world and
now to see getting unheard, while some think that the Wikimedia Foundation
has made a paradigm shift in the motivation to edit from contributing to
the fastest-growing knowledge-based project in the late 2000s to getting
hired by the Wikimedia Foundation to earn above-average income in the late
2010s (conclusion drawn from direct communication with people).
Fortunately, this is still in a normal range but the unfavourable rate of
change gives me the intuition that it might turn into an overkill.

Lastly, the lack of focus on technology-related issues and the increasing
need to adapt to the environmental changes is becoming increasingly
difficult with no clear intent for major infrastructural shift. The
community-based rather than technology-based strategic orientation, allbeit
common sense, might become very costly if not properly ameliorated with
some innovations. The problem with expanding an unchanged and obsolete
infrastructure to underrepresented groups might result to no avail and
further incentivise a major shift, thus doubling the cost invested in
infrastructure. Definitely, it is an open topic to discuss whether outreach
to new communities should be done using the old methods or experimenting
with something new.

I am sorry for the extensive text but there are things that need to be
discussed.

Best,
Kiril

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 11:03 AM Kiril Simeonovski <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Yaroslav has brought some very relevant points that unfortunately have not
> been discussed in great detail in the past but my conclusions differ a bit
> from those that he has drawn and the main source of the concerns he has
> identified. My thoughts are summarised in turn.
>
> Firstly, Wikipedia do not seem to be endangered by the dramatic decrease
> in attention that people pay to written knowledge. Distribution of
> knowledge through new channels that emerged as a result of the
> technological evolution is becoming more popular but is simply insufficient
> for acquiring knowledge and creating a base for further learning assuming
> that people go beyond using it to check simple facts. For instance,
> nowadays you can take an online course on edX or Coursera to get knowledge
> of any scientific field but this is something that will never make you a
> good scientist; you can also play online chess and watch online videos and
> commentaries but this will not make you a strong chess player. Books (a
> form of written knowledge) are simply a must for advanced learning and this
> is something that is not going to easily change in near future, hence
> Wikipedia has its strength in place as a medium for converting the written
> knowledge from the books in a brief and more reader-friendly manner. My
> main concern, however, is that some topics are not covered in a simple way
> and require far advanced knowledge as a prerequisite for understanding
> (e.g. articles on topics in mathematics) and are poorly linked to the other
> relevant Wikimedia projects (e.g. Wikibooks) due to the lack of content.
> Simplifying the way these topics are covered would be, of course, be
> beneficial for many readers.
>
> Secondly, a major source of concern is the evolution of the Wikimedia
> Foundation from an NGO to a technology corporation that does not show any
> signs of addressing issues like this and how people in the developed world
> are being affected by it. I have full respect to some employees who have
> excellent understanding about the movement and the major upcoming
> challenges (mostly coming from the community) but there are simply too many
> outsiders who does not even know the basics of the movement and do not care
> at all to people in the movement who are not affiliated with them or are
> not hangers-on to their agenda. The problem is becoming even more serious
> with their strategic objective to focus on underrepresented communities
> primarily from the Global South through collaboration with the largest
> affiliates from the Global North and pretending that the unaffiliated
> active contributors from the developed countries do not exist. This whole
> thing has probably culminated with the Wikimedia 2030 strategy, where
> no-one knows what its final outcome should look like, but much effort was
> put to make a base on unreal assumptions and it will apparently get forced
> through (fantasty world). My main concern is that they might even start to
> force you away from the movement in the
>
> Thirdly, the reason why our long-standing contributors from the Global
> North make the unpopular decision to go away can be derived from my
> previous point. These people have very good understanding of how the
> movement was created, what the original purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation
> was supposed to be and how the recent developments contradict it. Some of
> them even go so far to say that they feel frustrated from the misuse of
> their volunteer efforts to build the largest encyclopedia in the world and
> now to see getting unheard, while some think that the Wikimedia Foundation
> has made a paradigm shift in the motivation to edit from contributing to
> the fastest-growing knowledge-based project in the late 2000s to getting
> hired by the Wikimedia Foundation to earn above-average income in the late
> 2010s (conclusion drawn from direct communication with people).
> Fortunately, this is still in a normal range but the unfavourable rate of
> change gives me the intuition that it might turn into an overkill.
>
> Lastly, the lack of focus on technology-related issues and the increasing
> need to adapt to the environmental changes is becoming increasingly
> difficult with no clear intent for major infrastructural shift. The
> community-based rather than technology-based strategic orientation, allbeit
> common sense, might become very costly if not properly ameliorated with
> some innovations. The problem with expanding an unchanged and obsolete
> infrastructure to underrepresented groups might result to no avail and
> further incentivise a major shift, thus doubling the cost invested in
> infrastructure. Definitely, it is an open topic to discuss whether outreach
> to new communities should be done using the old methods or experimenting
> with something new.
>
> I am sorry for the extensive text but there are things that need to be
> discussed.
>
> Best,
> Kiril
>
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 9:14 AM Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Does the technology exist? Is it available?
>> How does this splitting make maintenance easier?
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
>> Behalf Of Jane Darnell
>> Sent: 30 December 2018 15:42
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?
>>
>> Well it is not difficult to imagine when you consider for example line
>> items in the case of list articles. Many lists could be split into such
>> line items and kept in a static assembled form by some sort of "assembly
>> template". Many of these line items are either articles or parts of
>> articles. Such "line items" may or may not have Wikidata items, may or may
>> not be suitable for Wikidata items, and may or may not be able to be
>> structured in any way, shape or form than the one they currently have. I
>> would like to be able to address these "line items" as "findable editing
>> snippets" in the wikiverse, possibly curatable by voice activation,
>> reversing the way we can sometimes get them read to us by Siri/Lexa.
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 1:48 PM Peter Southwood <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Jane,
>> > I do not understand what parts you would split these things into, or how
>> > they would make Wikipedia easier to curate and edit. Could you link to
>> an
>> > explanation or clarify the concept?
>> > Cheers,
>> > Peter
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> https://www.avg.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>
>
On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 9:57 AM Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would see more items to watchlist, as in place of one large item you
> would have all the components to worry about.
> I don't follow the easier to de-orphanise aspect.
> Also don’t see how having to have the reference section on half a dozen
> sub-articles is simpler than having the whole list on one. In the extreme
> case where no reference is used in multiple sections, it would be roughly
> the same, where a reference is used across several sections, which is
> common, it looks like more work: from a little more, to a lot more.
> Unless I misunderstand your meaning...
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Jane Darnell
> Sent: 31 December 2018 10:41
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?
>
> 1) Not that I know of, 2) not that I know of, 3) fewer items to watchlist
> and maintain (if one creates them), easier to de-orphanize articles, and
> easier to curate pieces of large wikipages where it's hard to check the
> relevant used references.
>
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 9:14 AM Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Does the technology exist? Is it available?
> > How does this splitting make maintenance easier?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Jane Darnell
> > Sent: 30 December 2018 15:42
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?
> >
> > Well it is not difficult to imagine when you consider for example line
> > items in the case of list articles. Many lists could be split into such
> > line items and kept in a static assembled form by some sort of "assembly
> > template". Many of these line items are either articles or parts of
> > articles. Such "line items" may or may not have Wikidata items, may or
> may
> > not be suitable for Wikidata items, and may or may not be able to be
> > structured in any way, shape or form than the one they currently have. I
> > would like to be able to address these "line items" as "findable editing
> > snippets" in the wikiverse, possibly curatable by voice activation,
> > reversing the way we can sometimes get them read to us by Siri/Lexa.
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 1:48 PM Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Jane,
> > > I do not understand what parts you would split these things into, or
> how
> > > they would make Wikipedia easier to curate and edit. Could you link to
> an
> > > explanation or clarify the concept?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > https://www.avg.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Jane Darnell
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
Well of course it is impossible for me to peek in the kitchens of all other
Wikipedia article creators, but speaking for myself, I don't blindly type
into a blank editing window but prepare the way forward by knitting a
sweater of edits, generally across various projects, including other
language Wikipedias. I of course use Google to do the heavy lifting, often
triggered by some annoying incorrect thing I heard from Siri/Alexa, but it
could also be something inspiring I got off social media that made me
curious. I rarely go from inspiration to page creation in one go, and the
whole process sometimes takes me years. In the course of my tenure as a
Wikipedia editor, I have built up quite a library of random articles,
though most of them are related in some way to Dutch 17th century art.
Since becoming active on Wikidata, I have also built quite a library of
listeria lists in my userspace and elsewhere to check related edits across
projects and these sort of drown out everything else in my watchlists
unless I select a specific namespace only. In general, an article in my
process moves from "quote in Wikitext somewhere" to "quote+cited source(s)
in Wikitext somewhere" to  "quote+cited source(s)+media file in Wikitext
somewhere",  to  "quote+cited source(s)+Commons category for media file(s)
in Wikitext somewhere" before it ever sees the light of day as a
stand-alone article. These "pipeline nuggets" are often also line items in
lists (thus my first explanation), but most of them are not. Once created,
my articles are not orphans, but have a select number of incoming links
that I also try to keep track of. Aside from my own personal "article
pipeline", I also spend time de-orphanizing and interlinking such nuggets
in existing articles and I would love to be able to watch them all in
two-way linked stereo, but that is impossible today.

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 9:57 AM Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would see more items to watchlist, as in place of one large item you
> would have all the components to worry about.
> I don't follow the easier to de-orphanise aspect.
> Also don’t see how having to have the reference section on half a dozen
> sub-articles is simpler than having the whole list on one. In the extreme
> case where no reference is used in multiple sections, it would be roughly
> the same, where a reference is used across several sections, which is
> common, it looks like more work: from a little more, to a lot more.
> Unless I misunderstand your meaning...
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Jane Darnell
> Sent: 31 December 2018 10:41
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?
>
> 1) Not that I know of, 2) not that I know of, 3) fewer items to watchlist
> and maintain (if one creates them), easier to de-orphanize articles, and
> easier to curate pieces of large wikipages where it's hard to check the
> relevant used references.
>
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 9:14 AM Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Does the technology exist? Is it available?
> > How does this splitting make maintenance easier?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Jane Darnell
> > Sent: 30 December 2018 15:42
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?
> >
> > Well it is not difficult to imagine when you consider for example line
> > items in the case of list articles. Many lists could be split into such
> > line items and kept in a static assembled form by some sort of "assembly
> > template". Many of these line items are either articles or parts of
> > articles. Such "line items" may or may not have Wikidata items, may or
> may
> > not be suitable for Wikidata items, and may or may not be able to be
> > structured in any way, shape or form than the one they currently have. I
> > would like to be able to address these "line items" as "findable editing
> > snippets" in the wikiverse, possibly curatable by voice activation,
> > reversing the way we can sometimes get them read to us by Siri/Lexa.
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 1:48 PM Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Jane,
> > > I do not understand what parts you would split these things into, or
> how
> > > they would make Wikipedia easier to curate and edit. Could you link to
> an
> > > explanation or clarify the concept?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > https://www.avg.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Peter Southwood
Sorry, you have lost me completely now, I cannot parse your idiom, or its relevance to the previous discussion, but it is not important enough to lose sleep over. Shall we just accept that we do things differently? Cheers, Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jane Darnell
Sent: 31 December 2018 13:09
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Well of course it is impossible for me to peek in the kitchens of all other
Wikipedia article creators, but speaking for myself, I don't blindly type
into a blank editing window but prepare the way forward by knitting a
sweater of edits, generally across various projects, including other
language Wikipedias. I of course use Google to do the heavy lifting, often
triggered by some annoying incorrect thing I heard from Siri/Alexa, but it
could also be something inspiring I got off social media that made me
curious. I rarely go from inspiration to page creation in one go, and the
whole process sometimes takes me years. In the course of my tenure as a
Wikipedia editor, I have built up quite a library of random articles,
though most of them are related in some way to Dutch 17th century art.
Since becoming active on Wikidata, I have also built quite a library of
listeria lists in my userspace and elsewhere to check related edits across
projects and these sort of drown out everything else in my watchlists
unless I select a specific namespace only. In general, an article in my
process moves from "quote in Wikitext somewhere" to "quote+cited source(s)
in Wikitext somewhere" to  "quote+cited source(s)+media file in Wikitext
somewhere",  to  "quote+cited source(s)+Commons category for media file(s)
in Wikitext somewhere" before it ever sees the light of day as a
stand-alone article. These "pipeline nuggets" are often also line items in
lists (thus my first explanation), but most of them are not. Once created,
my articles are not orphans, but have a select number of incoming links
that I also try to keep track of. Aside from my own personal "article
pipeline", I also spend time de-orphanizing and interlinking such nuggets
in existing articles and I would love to be able to watch them all in
two-way linked stereo, but that is impossible today.

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 9:57 AM Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would see more items to watchlist, as in place of one large item you
> would have all the components to worry about.
> I don't follow the easier to de-orphanise aspect.
> Also don’t see how having to have the reference section on half a dozen
> sub-articles is simpler than having the whole list on one. In the extreme
> case where no reference is used in multiple sections, it would be roughly
> the same, where a reference is used across several sections, which is
> common, it looks like more work: from a little more, to a lot more.
> Unless I misunderstand your meaning...
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Jane Darnell
> Sent: 31 December 2018 10:41
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?
>
> 1) Not that I know of, 2) not that I know of, 3) fewer items to watchlist
> and maintain (if one creates them), easier to de-orphanize articles, and
> easier to curate pieces of large wikipages where it's hard to check the
> relevant used references.
>
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 9:14 AM Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Does the technology exist? Is it available?
> > How does this splitting make maintenance easier?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Jane Darnell
> > Sent: 30 December 2018 15:42
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?
> >
> > Well it is not difficult to imagine when you consider for example line
> > items in the case of list articles. Many lists could be split into such
> > line items and kept in a static assembled form by some sort of "assembly
> > template". Many of these line items are either articles or parts of
> > articles. Such "line items" may or may not have Wikidata items, may or
> may
> > not be suitable for Wikidata items, and may or may not be able to be
> > structured in any way, shape or form than the one they currently have. I
> > would like to be able to address these "line items" as "findable editing
> > snippets" in the wikiverse, possibly curatable by voice activation,
> > reversing the way we can sometimes get them read to us by Siri/Lexa.
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 1:48 PM Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Jane,
> > > I do not understand what parts you would split these things into, or
> how
> > > they would make Wikipedia easier to curate and edit. Could you link to
> an
> > > explanation or clarify the concept?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > https://www.avg.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Yaroslav Blanter
Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia domingo, 30/12/2018
à(s) 13:55:


> Re milennials: this is clearly not a red herring. Just ask Facebook what
> their demographics is and why the 18- generation is not using it.
>

Stats show that Galinha Pintadinha was one of the most viewed articles in
2018 at the Portuguese Wikipedia:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=pt.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2017-12&end=2018-11&pages=Galinha_Pintadinha

I seem to recall it got the 3rd place, but was undoubtedly among the 10
first. Galinha Pintadinha is a very sucessful Brazilian project that
produces songs for children. Apparently those hits are being caused by
children looking for the songs, who click on the Wikipedia article because
it was among the first hits on Google (apparently it's not anymore, and the
hits went down dramatically, accordingly). What this tells is that
apparently an incredible number of very young children already have an easy
access to Wikipedia, and from direct experience at wiki.pt, many of them
stay there editing on the things they like, primarily animation series like
Naruto. We get a lot of new editors who have about 9-12 years old,
confirmed. While this brings a lot of new issues, because our old,
"plastered" Wikipedia project is not really prepared to deal with children
as editors, it's also very refreshing to observe that the community is
continuously renewing itself.

At least in the Portuguese Wikipedia, a large, large fraction of our
readers are children and teens, and a large fraction of our editors are
teens - and this is not limited to Brazil, it's a phenomena I've been
observing at the Portuguese speaking African countries, where our editors
are in general very young, and even in Portugal. The only common trend here
with what is generally publicly stated about Wikipedia is that it's mostly
boys and young men, which should bring about some meditation about what
could be the true causes of the Wikipedia gender gap. Girls and young women
are indeed very rare as editors (though apparently they read and externally
use us a lot).

This is not inline with that idea that we are losing the young generations,
at least in the Portuguese speaking world. Surely they complain a lot about
the usability of the project, and the outdated looks of it (that kind of
1990s flashback), but that is a common complaint that seem to cross all
generations.

While we are at it, some anecdotic evidence of another curious phenomena
I've observed at a recent Wikidata workshop we've organized at our National
Library. We were expecting a participation mostly by young people, since it
was mostly technical stuff. Instead, most of the participants were
archivists and librarians with more than 40 years old, many above 50, 60,
and up. And it was a success, they appeared to be kind of native to
Wikidata, even if it was the first time they were touching it. A large
number of them were women, too, I seem to recall the majority. I've been
observing 10 years old featuring articles and getting to the rank of sysop
at Wiki.pt (nobody knew how old they were at the time :P ), and now I'm
seeing senior people at retirement age engaging with Wikidata - reality
often is very different from what we imagine a priori.

I believe the potential is all there, we just need to understand who our
targets are, and the proper way to get to them. And be creative on the ways
to approach, not getting stuck to the old edithatons (of which efficiency I
have many doubts, apart from some specific situations such as art+feminism
which are also about activism, and so have a potential to result).

Re main point: People, let us be serious. We missed mobile editing (well,
> at least this has been identified as a problem, and something is being done
> about it).


Mobile editing really is a problem. I've been trying for months to engage
new editors in Guinea-Bissau and Angola, and mobile editing really has
shown to be a very powerful barrier for the participation on those places
where everybody has a cell phone (sometimes even 3 of them, as I've been
told is the case in Guinea-Bissau), but desktop computers are extremely
rare.

We missed voice interfaces. We are now missing neural networks.
> We should have been discussing by now what neural networks are allowed to
> do in the projects and what they are not allowed to do. And instead we are
> discussing (and edit-warring) whether the Crimean bridge is the longest in
> Europe or not because different sources place the border between Europe and
> Asia differently, and, according to some sources, the bridge is not in
> Europe. Why do you think that if we keep missing all technological
> development relevant in the field we are still going to survive?


i don't believe it is correct to mix those things. The people that edit-war
about trifles are often not the same that can propose, discuss and develop
those higher scale improvements and evolutions; or at least they are in a
very different mindset when they are doing that. And that kind of "trifle
war" is useful, too, and sometimes lead to significative improvements in
the quality of the articles. It's not always a Byzantine thing. I recall a
conflict at wiki.pt between "Bombaim" and "Mumbai" as the proper name for
the Indian city, when it was officially changed, which led to significative
improvements on the etymology section, and the history of the region in the
article.

Cheers,

Paulo (DarwIn)
_______________________________________________
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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
I expect the degree of incidence of vandalism and its patterns would remain
the same in the brethren articles as in the parent one, so more items to
watchlist should not be a problem (it will be shown moreless the same times
as if it was in one piece, but showing the parts). It can also allow for
protections on those parts more prone to vandalism, leaving the main
article unprotected, which is a plus, and actually reduces the number of
things we have to watch for. Similarly, it can attract "specialized
watchers" which are only interested in the genealogy of Cristiano Ronaldo,
but don't care the least about his football skills (just an example), which
would otherwise never watch the whole thing, since almost all the regular
editions would be about football. Overally it seems a good idea to split,
and keep only the more generic stuff in the main thing, indeed.

Cheers,

Paulo

Peter Southwood <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia segunda,
31/12/2018 à(s) 08:57:

> I would see more items to watchlist, as in place of one large item you
> would have all the components to worry about.
> I don't follow the easier to de-orphanise aspect.
> Also don’t see how having to have the reference section on half a dozen
> sub-articles is simpler than having the whole list on one. In the extreme
> case where no reference is used in multiple sections, it would be roughly
> the same, where a reference is used across several sections, which is
> common, it looks like more work: from a little more, to a lot more.
> Unless I misunderstand your meaning...
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Jane Darnell
> Sent: 31 December 2018 10:41
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?
>
> 1) Not that I know of, 2) not that I know of, 3) fewer items to watchlist
> and maintain (if one creates them), easier to de-orphanize articles, and
> easier to curate pieces of large wikipages where it's hard to check the
> relevant used references.
>
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 9:14 AM Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Does the technology exist? Is it available?
> > How does this splitting make maintenance easier?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Jane Darnell
> > Sent: 30 December 2018 15:42
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?
> >
> > Well it is not difficult to imagine when you consider for example line
> > items in the case of list articles. Many lists could be split into such
> > line items and kept in a static assembled form by some sort of "assembly
> > template". Many of these line items are either articles or parts of
> > articles. Such "line items" may or may not have Wikidata items, may or
> may
> > not be suitable for Wikidata items, and may or may not be able to be
> > structured in any way, shape or form than the one they currently have. I
> > would like to be able to address these "line items" as "findable editing
> > snippets" in the wikiverse, possibly curatable by voice activation,
> > reversing the way we can sometimes get them read to us by Siri/Lexa.
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 1:48 PM Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Jane,
> > > I do not understand what parts you would split these things into, or
> how
> > > they would make Wikipedia easier to curate and edit. Could you link to
> an
> > > explanation or clarify the concept?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > https://www.avg.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Kiril Simeonovski
Kiril Simeonovski <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia segunda,
31/12/2018 à(s) 10:05:



> some innovations. The problem with expanding an unchanged and obsolete
> infrastructure to underrepresented groups might result to no avail and
> further incentivise a major shift, thus doubling the cost invested in
> infrastructure. Definitely, it is an open topic to discuss whether outreach
> to new communities should be done using the old methods or experimenting
> with something new.
>

I've been experimenting this personally for some time, firstly with the
Art+Feminism initiative, which past experience has shown to be highly
counterproductive if handled in a simple, amateurish way - events have been
organized here in Portugal without appropriate support, which resulted in
massive eliminations of the articles created, with a consequent
traumatizing experience for the people that took part in them, that never
again wanted to hear about Wikipedia. The 1lib1ref in its basic form also
do not seem to be ideal to catch the attention of librarians over here, but
alternative ways of organizing it seem to result. Edithatons in general
have shown to be a bad option for reaching to new editors, except in the
cases where we have some motivated work force already available (feminist
activists, students being evaluated, etc.). My personal experience is that
participating in edithatons "just because" is simply not fun nor
attractive, there must be something to gain from it (promoting a specific
cause, getting good grades, etc). We should indeed get innovative here, and
above all, share our experiences, so that we can build something on this
together.

Cheers,

Paulo
_______________________________________________
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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Kiril Simeonovski
Hi Paulo,

I agree that more or less we know what activities are intended for new and
what for experienced users. The challenging part is to make a sensible
decision on whether to reach out to new users using the visual editor and
the translation tool or to continue with the old-fashioned code editor.
There are multiple pros and cons of either decision but it is reasonable to
believe that these tools were developed for some specific purpose. This
will gain even more weight once the mobile editing gets improved.

Other examples soliciting important decisions are whether and how to allow
new users to use videos across articles or how to shape an article's
structure that differs from the standard one. In many cases, people that we
reach out to are smart in pinpointing Wikipedia's weaknesses and are eager
to propose innovative solutions that primarily aim at making the articles
reader-friendlier. The problem is that a general community consensus can
not be easily bypassed even when the novelty is an obvious improvement and
the changes usually get rejected as good-faith attempts.

Best,
Kiril

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 19:09 Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Kiril Simeonovski <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia segunda,
> 31/12/2018 à(s) 10:05:
>
>
>
> > some innovations. The problem with expanding an unchanged and obsolete
> > infrastructure to underrepresented groups might result to no avail and
> > further incentivise a major shift, thus doubling the cost invested in
> > infrastructure. Definitely, it is an open topic to discuss whether
> outreach
> > to new communities should be done using the old methods or experimenting
> > with something new.
> >
>
> I've been experimenting this personally for some time, firstly with the
> Art+Feminism initiative, which past experience has shown to be highly
> counterproductive if handled in a simple, amateurish way - events have been
> organized here in Portugal without appropriate support, which resulted in
> massive eliminations of the articles created, with a consequent
> traumatizing experience for the people that took part in them, that never
> again wanted to hear about Wikipedia. The 1lib1ref in its basic form also
> do not seem to be ideal to catch the attention of librarians over here, but
> alternative ways of organizing it seem to result. Edithatons in general
> have shown to be a bad option for reaching to new editors, except in the
> cases where we have some motivated work force already available (feminist
> activists, students being evaluated, etc.). My personal experience is that
> participating in edithatons "just because" is simply not fun nor
> attractive, there must be something to gain from it (promoting a specific
> cause, getting good grades, etc). We should indeed get innovative here, and
> above all, share our experiences, so that we can build something on this
> together.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paulo
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Kiril Simeonovski
P.S. I can give you a very nice example of this happening in practice from
my personal experience. Few years ago, we produced high-quality videos
documenting physics and chemistry experiments that had to be added to
related articles. The project was welcomed by some chapters, mostly
despised by the Wikimedia Foundation, while the communities appeared to be
not ready for the introduction of such videos with only some users on
Wikimedia Commons showing some interest and sharing their thoughts.

The main problem seems to be the lack of coordination between various
stakeholders inside the movement on technology-related questions that are
strategically important for the future of Wikipedia.

Best,
Kiril

On Mon 31. Dec 2018 at 19:59, Kiril Simeonovski <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Paulo,
>
> I agree that more or less we know what activities are intended for new and
> what for experienced users. The challenging part is to make a sensible
> decision on whether to reach out to new users using the visual editor and
> the translation tool or to continue with the old-fashioned code editor.
> There are multiple pros and cons of either decision but it is reasonable to
> believe that these tools were developed for some specific purpose. This
> will gain even more weight once the mobile editing gets improved.
>
> Other examples soliciting important decisions are whether and how to allow
> new users to use videos across articles or how to shape an article's
> structure that differs from the standard one. In many cases, people that we
> reach out to are smart in pinpointing Wikipedia's weaknesses and are eager
> to propose innovative solutions that primarily aim at making the articles
> reader-friendlier. The problem is that a general community consensus can
> not be easily bypassed even when the novelty is an obvious improvement and
> the changes usually get rejected as good-faith attempts.
>
> Best,
> Kiril
>
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 19:09 Paulo Santos Perneta <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Kiril Simeonovski <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia segunda,
>> 31/12/2018 à(s) 10:05:
>>
>>
>>
>> > some innovations. The problem with expanding an unchanged and obsolete
>> > infrastructure to underrepresented groups might result to no avail and
>> > further incentivise a major shift, thus doubling the cost invested in
>> > infrastructure. Definitely, it is an open topic to discuss whether
>> outreach
>> > to new communities should be done using the old methods or experimenting
>> > with something new.
>> >
>>
>> I've been experimenting this personally for some time, firstly with the
>> Art+Feminism initiative, which past experience has shown to be highly
>> counterproductive if handled in a simple, amateurish way - events have
>> been
>> organized here in Portugal without appropriate support, which resulted in
>> massive eliminations of the articles created, with a consequent
>> traumatizing experience for the people that took part in them, that never
>> again wanted to hear about Wikipedia. The 1lib1ref in its basic form also
>> do not seem to be ideal to catch the attention of librarians over here,
>> but
>> alternative ways of organizing it seem to result. Edithatons in general
>> have shown to be a bad option for reaching to new editors, except in the
>> cases where we have some motivated work force already available (feminist
>> activists, students being evaluated, etc.). My personal experience is that
>> participating in edithatons "just because" is simply not fun nor
>> attractive, there must be something to gain from it (promoting a specific
>> cause, getting good grades, etc). We should indeed get innovative here,
>> and
>> above all, share our experiences, so that we can build something on this
>> together.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Paulo
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Amir E. Aharoni
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
‫בתאריך יום ב׳, 31 בדצמ׳ 2018 ב-10:14 מאת ‪Peter Southwood‬‏ <‪
[hidden email]‬‏>:‬

Does the technology exist? Is it available?
How does this splitting make maintenance easier?
Cheers,
Peter


Not exactly, but it's doable and it's desirable.

There are two relatively recently developed components in MediaWiki that
are important for developers: Content Model and Multi-Content Revisions.
They are not discussed very much among the less technical editors because
they are pretty internal, and I'm really not an expert on what they do
myself, but as far as I understand them, they can serve as steps to
implementing Jane's suggestion.

This suggestion is not even very new. In a way, the extremely old bug
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T2167 , originally filed in 2004 (!)
suggests pretty much the same thing: separate interlanguage links and other
metadata from the page content. Interlanguage links were mostly separated
from pages thanks to Wikidata, but categories still aren't, and a lot of
other kinds of metadata appeared since then: DEFAULTSORT, newsectionlink,
notoc, and many others. Authority control, navbox, and infobox templates,
as well as links to disambiguation pages, can probably be converted to
separately-stored metadata as well.

Wikidata can probably play a major role in getting this done, but it's not
the only factor, and a lot of development is needed to better integrate
Wikidata with other projects.

But yes—I generally agree with Jane that better modularization of wiki
pages' content components can go a long to making them easier to edit,
easier to search, easier to query, etc. It's not the only major change that
our technical infrastructure needs, but it's among the more important ones.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬


>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Jane Darnell
> Sent: 30 December 2018 15:42
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?
>
> Well it is not difficult to imagine when you consider for example line
> items in the case of list articles. Many lists could be split into such
> line items and kept in a static assembled form by some sort of "assembly
> template". Many of these line items are either articles or parts of
> articles. Such "line items" may or may not have Wikidata items, may or may
> not be suitable for Wikidata items, and may or may not be able to be
> structured in any way, shape or form than the one they currently have. I
> would like to be able to address these "line items" as "findable editing
> snippets" in the wikiverse, possibly curatable by voice activation,
> reversing the way we can sometimes get them read to us by Siri/Lexa.
>
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 1:48 PM Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Jane,
> > I do not understand what parts you would split these things into, or how
> > they would make Wikipedia easier to curate and edit. Could you link to an
> > explanation or clarify the concept?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

metasj
In reply to this post by Kiril Simeonovski
Dear Kiril, I assume you mean these lovely experiments by Shared Knowledge:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_from_the_Republic_of_Macedonia

They are lovely, and look like they are now in use.  I like specific
examples like these; was there any description of the project afterwards
covering its welcome, the steps towards its inclusion, notes for future
research groups tackling similar projects in the future?

Kiril writes:
> The problem is that a general community consensus can not be easily
bypassed
> even when the novelty is an obvious improvement and the changes usually
get
> rejected as good-faith attempts.

A dedicated Draft-Wiki, like [test] but for text and media, with much
simpler standards for structure, sourcing, and metadata [perhaps combined
w/ incubator?]  would be a simple and welcome solution.  It would help not
only small media projects but also massive uploads from existing archives
and GLAMs take their first steps without overly complicating things.  I
think this is one of the most valuable simple additions we could make.

There is also a more general solution already available: to create a new
tool that participants in a new initiative use (which only later gets
integrated fully into the standard workflow on various projects).  But that
takes a bit of technical preparation each time.

Amir writes:
>   There are two relatively recently developed components in MediaWiki that
>   are important for developers: Content Model and Multi-Content Revisions.
>   They are not discussed very much among the less technical editors
because
>   they are pretty internal, and I'm really not an expert on what they do
>   myself, but as far as I understand them, they can serve as steps to
>   implementing Jane's suggestion.

Yes!  and thanks for bringing up T2167 -- that and adding a simple
mechanism for federating such data (so that every owner of a lowly
small-scale mediawiki instance can add to or revise metadata namespaces)
feel more like a basic expansion of wiki-nature --- with associated
expansion of the kinds and magnitude of knowledge included in our projects
-- than like just another set of features.

Warmly + medialogically, SJ

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 2:18 PM Kiril Simeonovski <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> P.S. I can give you a very nice example of this happening in practice from
> my personal experience. Few years ago, we produced high-quality videos
> documenting physics and chemistry experiments that had to be added to
> related articles. The project was welcomed by some chapters, mostly
> despised by the Wikimedia Foundation, while the communities appeared to be
> not ready for the introduction of such videos with only some users on
> Wikimedia Commons showing some interest and sharing their thoughts.
>
> The main problem seems to be the lack of coordination between various
> stakeholders inside the movement on technology-related questions that are
> strategically important for the future of Wikipedia.
>
> Best,
> Kiril
>
> On Mon 31. Dec 2018 at 19:59, Kiril Simeonovski <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Paulo,
> >
> > I agree that more or less we know what activities are intended for new
> and
> > what for experienced users. The challenging part is to make a sensible
> > decision on whether to reach out to new users using the visual editor and
> > the translation tool or to continue with the old-fashioned code editor.
> > There are multiple pros and cons of either decision but it is reasonable
> to
> > believe that these tools were developed for some specific purpose. This
> > will gain even more weight once the mobile editing gets improved.
> >
> > Other examples soliciting important decisions are whether and how to
> allow
> > new users to use videos across articles or how to shape an article's
> > structure that differs from the standard one. In many cases, people that
> we
> > reach out to are smart in pinpointing Wikipedia's weaknesses and are
> eager
> > to propose innovative solutions that primarily aim at making the articles
> > reader-friendlier. The problem is that a general community consensus can
> > not be easily bypassed even when the novelty is an obvious improvement
> and
> > the changes usually get rejected as good-faith attempts.
>
_______________________________________________
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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

jmh649
With respect to complexity of language, we have some data in publication,
looking at the the leads of English medical articles over time. Good news
is that they have improved over the last 10 years from a reading level of
close to "grade 16" to just under "grade 13". This has been a concerted
effort by a small group of us since 2014 and I believe has helped approach
our goal of writing for a general audience rather than a specialist one.

Happy holidays to those getting time off :-)
James

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 5:51 PM Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear Kiril, I assume you mean these lovely experiments by Shared Knowledge:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_from_the_Republic_of_Macedonia
>
> They are lovely, and look like they are now in use.  I like specific
> examples like these; was there any description of the project afterwards
> covering its welcome, the steps towards its inclusion, notes for future
> research groups tackling similar projects in the future?
>
> Kiril writes:
> > The problem is that a general community consensus can not be easily
> bypassed
> > even when the novelty is an obvious improvement and the changes usually
> get
> > rejected as good-faith attempts.
>
> A dedicated Draft-Wiki, like [test] but for text and media, with much
> simpler standards for structure, sourcing, and metadata [perhaps combined
> w/ incubator?]  would be a simple and welcome solution.  It would help not
> only small media projects but also massive uploads from existing archives
> and GLAMs take their first steps without overly complicating things.  I
> think this is one of the most valuable simple additions we could make.
>
> There is also a more general solution already available: to create a new
> tool that participants in a new initiative use (which only later gets
> integrated fully into the standard workflow on various projects).  But that
> takes a bit of technical preparation each time.
>
> Amir writes:
> >   There are two relatively recently developed components in MediaWiki
> that
> >   are important for developers: Content Model and Multi-Content
> Revisions.
> >   They are not discussed very much among the less technical editors
> because
> >   they are pretty internal, and I'm really not an expert on what they do
> >   myself, but as far as I understand them, they can serve as steps to
> >   implementing Jane's suggestion.
>
> Yes!  and thanks for bringing up T2167 -- that and adding a simple
> mechanism for federating such data (so that every owner of a lowly
> small-scale mediawiki instance can add to or revise metadata namespaces)
> feel more like a basic expansion of wiki-nature --- with associated
> expansion of the kinds and magnitude of knowledge included in our projects
> -- than like just another set of features.
>
> Warmly + medialogically, SJ
>
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 2:18 PM Kiril Simeonovski <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > P.S. I can give you a very nice example of this happening in practice
> from
> > my personal experience. Few years ago, we produced high-quality videos
> > documenting physics and chemistry experiments that had to be added to
> > related articles. The project was welcomed by some chapters, mostly
> > despised by the Wikimedia Foundation, while the communities appeared to
> be
> > not ready for the introduction of such videos with only some users on
> > Wikimedia Commons showing some interest and sharing their thoughts.
> >
> > The main problem seems to be the lack of coordination between various
> > stakeholders inside the movement on technology-related questions that are
> > strategically important for the future of Wikipedia.
> >
> > Best,
> > Kiril
> >
> > On Mon 31. Dec 2018 at 19:59, Kiril Simeonovski <
> > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Paulo,
> > >
> > > I agree that more or less we know what activities are intended for new
> > and
> > > what for experienced users. The challenging part is to make a sensible
> > > decision on whether to reach out to new users using the visual editor
> and
> > > the translation tool or to continue with the old-fashioned code editor.
> > > There are multiple pros and cons of either decision but it is
> reasonable
> > to
> > > believe that these tools were developed for some specific purpose. This
> > > will gain even more weight once the mobile editing gets improved.
> > >
> > > Other examples soliciting important decisions are whether and how to
> > allow
> > > new users to use videos across articles or how to shape an article's
> > > structure that differs from the standard one. In many cases, people
> that
> > we
> > > reach out to are smart in pinpointing Wikipedia's weaknesses and are
> > eager
> > > to propose innovative solutions that primarily aim at making the
> articles
> > > reader-friendlier. The problem is that a general community consensus
> can
> > > not be easily bypassed even when the novelty is an obvious improvement
> > and
> > > the changes usually get rejected as good-faith attempts.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Kiril Simeonovski
In reply to this post by metasj
Hi Sj,

The project documentation can be found on Meta and the story was also
featured in the GLAM newsletter twice.

The idea about dedicated environment either as a separate wiki or as part
of the incubator for testing novelties is sound, and it would be
interesting to see how that will work in support of their ultimate
implementation.

Best,
Kiril


On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 01:51 Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear Kiril, I assume you mean these lovely experiments by Shared Knowledge:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_from_the_Republic_of_Macedonia
>
> They are lovely, and look like they are now in use.  I like specific
> examples like these; was there any description of the project afterwards
> covering its welcome, the steps towards its inclusion, notes for future
> research groups tackling similar projects in the future?
>
> Kiril writes:
> > The problem is that a general community consensus can not be easily
> bypassed
> > even when the novelty is an obvious improvement and the changes usually
> get
> > rejected as good-faith attempts.
>
> A dedicated Draft-Wiki, like [test] but for text and media, with much
> simpler standards for structure, sourcing, and metadata [perhaps combined
> w/ incubator?]  would be a simple and welcome solution.  It would help not
> only small media projects but also massive uploads from existing archives
> and GLAMs take their first steps without overly complicating things.  I
> think this is one of the most valuable simple additions we could make.
>
> There is also a more general solution already available: to create a new
> tool that participants in a new initiative use (which only later gets
> integrated fully into the standard workflow on various projects).  But that
> takes a bit of technical preparation each time.
>
> Amir writes:
> >   There are two relatively recently developed components in MediaWiki
> that
> >   are important for developers: Content Model and Multi-Content
> Revisions.
> >   They are not discussed very much among the less technical editors
> because
> >   they are pretty internal, and I'm really not an expert on what they do
> >   myself, but as far as I understand them, they can serve as steps to
> >   implementing Jane's suggestion.
>
> Yes!  and thanks for bringing up T2167 -- that and adding a simple
> mechanism for federating such data (so that every owner of a lowly
> small-scale mediawiki instance can add to or revise metadata namespaces)
> feel more like a basic expansion of wiki-nature --- with associated
> expansion of the kinds and magnitude of knowledge included in our projects
> -- than like just another set of features.
>
> Warmly + medialogically, SJ
>
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 2:18 PM Kiril Simeonovski <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > P.S. I can give you a very nice example of this happening in practice
> from
> > my personal experience. Few years ago, we produced high-quality videos
> > documenting physics and chemistry experiments that had to be added to
> > related articles. The project was welcomed by some chapters, mostly
> > despised by the Wikimedia Foundation, while the communities appeared to
> be
> > not ready for the introduction of such videos with only some users on
> > Wikimedia Commons showing some interest and sharing their thoughts.
> >
> > The main problem seems to be the lack of coordination between various
> > stakeholders inside the movement on technology-related questions that are
> > strategically important for the future of Wikipedia.
> >
> > Best,
> > Kiril
> >
> > On Mon 31. Dec 2018 at 19:59, Kiril Simeonovski <
> > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Paulo,
> > >
> > > I agree that more or less we know what activities are intended for new
> > and
> > > what for experienced users. The challenging part is to make a sensible
> > > decision on whether to reach out to new users using the visual editor
> and
> > > the translation tool or to continue with the old-fashioned code editor.
> > > There are multiple pros and cons of either decision but it is
> reasonable
> > to
> > > believe that these tools were developed for some specific purpose. This
> > > will gain even more weight once the mobile editing gets improved.
> > >
> > > Other examples soliciting important decisions are whether and how to
> > allow
> > > new users to use videos across articles or how to shape an article's
> > > structure that differs from the standard one. In many cases, people
> that
> > we
> > > reach out to are smart in pinpointing Wikipedia's weaknesses and are
> > eager
> > > to propose innovative solutions that primarily aim at making the
> articles
> > > reader-friendlier. The problem is that a general community consensus
> can
> > > not be easily bypassed even when the novelty is an obvious improvement
> > and
> > > the changes usually get rejected as good-faith attempts.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Amir E. Aharoni
Ahh, it would really be a fantastic improvement if we could get rid of all
that template & category clutter from the articles.

Wikipedia categories are generally anathema to newbies, more like some
weird and absurd core they have to do in order to have their article
accepted. Even to me, who have been there for almost 10 years, Wikipedia
categories have little use (and I actually came to develop a crescent
hatred for them, due to the mess they have been causing in Wikidata, due to
the inappropriate linking to Commons categories). Let me tell a little
story: Some months ago I was in a workshop with a group of librarians, and
they were creating articles using VE. At some point all of them came under
a barrage of fire from resident wikipedians, bombing them with warnings
saying "you MUST add categories" and pointing them to the oldfashioned
instructions on how to add them on wikicode, totally useless for newbies
using VE. It was the first time I was using VE myself in a more intensive
way, and while all of we were hastily trying to find where the heck
categories were hidden in VE, the librarians kept asking, puzzled - what
are those categories that seem to be of such a crucial importance to
wikipedians? The sad fact is that 99% of those people that send those
useless warnings have not the least idea what categories are for, they
simply notice they are missing in a newly created article, and as they know
they are not supposed to be missing because they have been warned
themselves, they mimic the behavior perpetually, not even stopping to think
how useless and outdated they came to be, how hard it is for a newbie to
understand they exist at all, let alone what they are for, and that
throwing warnings designed in 2006 and never changed since then at newbies
is absolutely useless and only serves to confuse and annoy them, and make
them feel unwelcome in the project.

I really wish there was a better solution for what categories still do in
Wikipedia, so that they could be abolished for good. That would certainly
be an improvement in usability.

Paulo

Amir E. Aharoni <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia segunda,
31/12/2018 à(s) 19:56:

> ‫בתאריך יום ב׳, 31 בדצמ׳ 2018 ב-10:14 מאת ‪Peter Southwood‬‏ <‪
> [hidden email]‬‏>:‬
>
> Does the technology exist? Is it available?
> How does this splitting make maintenance easier?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
>
> Not exactly, but it's doable and it's desirable.
>
> There are two relatively recently developed components in MediaWiki that
> are important for developers: Content Model and Multi-Content Revisions.
> They are not discussed very much among the less technical editors because
> they are pretty internal, and I'm really not an expert on what they do
> myself, but as far as I understand them, they can serve as steps to
> implementing Jane's suggestion.
>
> This suggestion is not even very new. In a way, the extremely old bug
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T2167 , originally filed in 2004 (!)
> suggests pretty much the same thing: separate interlanguage links and other
> metadata from the page content. Interlanguage links were mostly separated
> from pages thanks to Wikidata, but categories still aren't, and a lot of
> other kinds of metadata appeared since then: DEFAULTSORT, newsectionlink,
> notoc, and many others. Authority control, navbox, and infobox templates,
> as well as links to disambiguation pages, can probably be converted to
> separately-stored metadata as well.
>
> Wikidata can probably play a major role in getting this done, but it's not
> the only factor, and a lot of development is needed to better integrate
> Wikidata with other projects.
>
> But yes—I generally agree with Jane that better modularization of wiki
> pages' content components can go a long to making them easier to edit,
> easier to search, easier to query, etc. It's not the only major change that
> our technical infrastructure needs, but it's among the more important ones.
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Jane Darnell
> > Sent: 30 December 2018 15:42
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?
> >
> > Well it is not difficult to imagine when you consider for example line
> > items in the case of list articles. Many lists could be split into such
> > line items and kept in a static assembled form by some sort of "assembly
> > template". Many of these line items are either articles or parts of
> > articles. Such "line items" may or may not have Wikidata items, may or
> may
> > not be suitable for Wikidata items, and may or may not be able to be
> > structured in any way, shape or form than the one they currently have. I
> > would like to be able to address these "line items" as "findable editing
> > snippets" in the wikiverse, possibly curatable by voice activation,
> > reversing the way we can sometimes get them read to us by Siri/Lexa.
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 1:48 PM Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Jane,
> > > I do not understand what parts you would split these things into, or
> how
> > > they would make Wikipedia easier to curate and edit. Could you link to
> an
> > > explanation or clarify the concept?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > https://www.avg.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

Amir E. Aharoni
In reply to this post by Yaroslav Blanter
בתאריך יום א׳, 30 בדצמ׳ 2018, 15:55, מאת Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]
>:

>
>
> Re main point: People, let us be serious. We missed mobile editing (well,
> at least this has been identified as a problem, and something is being done
> about it). We missed voice interfaces. We are now missing neural networks.
> We should have been discussing by now what neural networks are allowed to
> do in the projects and what they are not allowed to do. And instead we are
> discussing (and edit-warring) whether the Crimean bridge is the longest in
> Europe or not because different sources place the border between Europe and
> Asia differently, and, according to some sources, the bridge is not in
> Europe. Why do you think that if we keep missing all technological
> development relevant in the field we are still going to survive?
>

False dichotomy.

Wide participation in big strategic discussion is a Good Thing, but it
doesn't mean that it's the only thing all the Wikimedians should be talking
about. There are people who are less interested in strategic discussions
and more interested in on-wiki fact-checking. Wikipedia editors' obsession
for fact-checking is its strength—our strength. It's sometimes frustrating
because it can go into silly technicalities or political ax-grinding, but
for the most part it's the main thing that keeps Wikipedia relevant,
trustworthy, and popular.

How can these fact-checking practices be harmonized with current technology
and media culture is the right question to ask. If the people who often do
this can *also* occasionally participate in strategic development
discussions, there's a chance it will be answered. Invite them.

Happy public domain day and happy new year! :)
_______________________________________________
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>
123