[Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
88 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Andreas Kolbe-2
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Eh, wrong link ...
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-20-error-rate.html
>
> On 25 January 2016 at 17:29, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I regularly blog. It was mentioned in one of my blogposts [1].. By the
> way
> > the obvious would be to do some research yourself. Paper tigers [2] are
> > those tigers that rely on what others have to say,
> > Thanks.,
> >       GerardM
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-recovery-and-mental-health.html
> > [2] http://www.letusdiy.org/uploads/userup/0911/3000041GC2.jpg
>


Gerard,

You say in your January 2016 blog post,

------------

The article on the Spearman Medal is a case in point. This medal is
conferred by the British Psychological Society to psychologists. There were
19 links and two were wrong. One link was to a soccer and one to a football
player. The award is conferred since 1965 so there ought to be quite a
number of red links

With two sportsmen attributed to winning the Spearman Medal there was an
error rate of 20%.

------------

Looking at the current version of the [[Spearman Medal]] article,[1] last
touched in August 2014 (i.e. well before your blog post), I find it
contains 20 (not 19) blue links in its List of medal winners (along with a
bunch of red links).

Looking at the blue links, I find only one soccer/football player (Richard
Crisp), not two. However, there is also a research climatologist
specialising in viticulture (Gregory V. Jones).

These two would seem quite obviously to be wrong, given that the Spearman
Medal is given to psychologists. So I agree with you that at least two blue
links lead to the wrong person.

I don't agree with your percentage calculation: if 2 out of 20 blue links
lead to the wrong person, that makes an error rate of 10% (not 20%).

I note that only two of the names in the list have references. That's just
as bad as Wikidata. :)

The saving grace is that at least the article cites a British Psychological
Society webpage in its lead where an official list of medal winners[2] is
linked. Frankly, I would consider that page a better reference than the
Wikipedia page. It's good to see that it outranks the Wikipedia page in
search engines.

Speaking more broadly, I don't think you'll find me disagreeing with you
that Wikipedia quality leaves much to be desired. I have written plenty
about Wikipedia's reliability problems.

However, I consider the requirement for reliable sources to be a key factor
in whatever quality improvement there has been in Wikipedia. Moreover, the
presence of sources very often gives readers access to more reliable
material than Wikipedia itself (as indeed is the case in the Spearman Medal
article). That is useful.

In my view, much of Wikipedia has been and continues to be substandard. But
without references, Wikidata's reliability problems are likely to be even
greater than those of Wikipedia.

Andreas

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spearman_Medal&oldid=620735680
[2]
http://www.bps.org.uk/what-we-do/bps/history-psychology-centre/history-society/society-award-winners/spearman-medal/spearman-medal
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
You want to compare it to the Reasonator item. It has all the right links
for 43 award winners. That is 100% I did not have problems telling
Wikipedians that there link was wrong. The information is there and there
are more 'blue' links than in Wikipedia.

The proof is in the pudding. For simple lists and links Wikidata is hands
down superior.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 26 January 2016 at 12:21, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Eh, wrong link ...
> > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-20-error-rate.html
> >
> > On 25 January 2016 at 17:29, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > I regularly blog. It was mentioned in one of my blogposts [1].. By the
> > way
> > > the obvious would be to do some research yourself. Paper tigers [2] are
> > > those tigers that rely on what others have to say,
> > > Thanks.,
> > >       GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-recovery-and-mental-health.html
> > > [2] http://www.letusdiy.org/uploads/userup/0911/3000041GC2.jpg
> >
>
>
> Gerard,
>
> You say in your January 2016 blog post,
>
> ------------
>
> The article on the Spearman Medal is a case in point. This medal is
> conferred by the British Psychological Society to psychologists. There were
> 19 links and two were wrong. One link was to a soccer and one to a football
> player. The award is conferred since 1965 so there ought to be quite a
> number of red links
>
> With two sportsmen attributed to winning the Spearman Medal there was an
> error rate of 20%.
>
> ------------
>
> Looking at the current version of the [[Spearman Medal]] article,[1] last
> touched in August 2014 (i.e. well before your blog post), I find it
> contains 20 (not 19) blue links in its List of medal winners (along with a
> bunch of red links).
>
> Looking at the blue links, I find only one soccer/football player (Richard
> Crisp), not two. However, there is also a research climatologist
> specialising in viticulture (Gregory V. Jones).
>
> These two would seem quite obviously to be wrong, given that the Spearman
> Medal is given to psychologists. So I agree with you that at least two blue
> links lead to the wrong person.
>
> I don't agree with your percentage calculation: if 2 out of 20 blue links
> lead to the wrong person, that makes an error rate of 10% (not 20%).
>
> I note that only two of the names in the list have references. That's just
> as bad as Wikidata. :)
>
> The saving grace is that at least the article cites a British Psychological
> Society webpage in its lead where an official list of medal winners[2] is
> linked. Frankly, I would consider that page a better reference than the
> Wikipedia page. It's good to see that it outranks the Wikipedia page in
> search engines.
>
> Speaking more broadly, I don't think you'll find me disagreeing with you
> that Wikipedia quality leaves much to be desired. I have written plenty
> about Wikipedia's reliability problems.
>
> However, I consider the requirement for reliable sources to be a key factor
> in whatever quality improvement there has been in Wikipedia. Moreover, the
> presence of sources very often gives readers access to more reliable
> material than Wikipedia itself (as indeed is the case in the Spearman Medal
> article). That is useful.
>
> In my view, much of Wikipedia has been and continues to be substandard. But
> without references, Wikidata's reliability problems are likely to be even
> greater than those of Wikipedia.
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spearman_Medal&oldid=620735680
> [2]
>
> http://www.bps.org.uk/what-we-do/bps/history-psychology-centre/history-society/society-award-winners/spearman-medal/spearman-medal
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Anthony Cole
Hoi,
Anthony, having sources is desired. The point is not that we do not want
them. We clearly do. My point is that it is not the only yardstick of
success and quality.

As I argued, Wikidata may be a tool to link links and red links properly.
It will improve quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata. It has nothing to
do with sources at the Wikipedia end because links are already based on
existing sources. It improves quality because it is assured that the link
go  where they are supposed to go given the source :) .

When we ensure quality for all our Wikipedias, the implicit quality rises
in Wikidata because we clearly want statements that describe the relation.
As relations are linked to Wikipedia, the source of that Wikipedia applies.
It does not mean that by other means the quality of the statements will not
be checked and improved.

In this way everybody wins. It is about our quality, it is measurable, it
is achievable, it is SMART. Requiring statements for every Wikidata
statement at this time of its life cycle is not.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 26 January 2016 at 11:58, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Most editions of most books published in the last 40 years (certainly books
> from reliable publishers) have an ISBN that identifies one edition. Most
> reliable journal articles these days have a doi. For simple citing of web
> pages, you could automatically convert bare urls to archived versions of
> the cited web page.
>
> There is a difference between unreliable assertions and knowledge.
> Wikimedia should be distributing knowledge. That's what the mission
> statement says. Wikidata could take citation a bit more seriously.
> On 26 Jan 2016 5:59 pm, "Jane Darnell" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > That is so true! Making book items is hard and then using them in
> > reference statements is harder
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "Andrea Zanni" <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: ‎26-‎1-‎2016 09:20
> > To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >    - It is really laborious to add references. Many references are a
> > book a
> > >    publication and I give you one example of a book [1]. It takes MUCH
> > more
> > >    time to add a source than it is to add a statement. The book, the
> > > authors
> > >    they need sources in their own right..
> > >
> >
> >
> > Also, Wikidata has not found a way yet to work with books.
> > Yes, it's relatively easy to create an item for a recent book and
> populate
> > it with a few statements relatively to the main metadata (author, year of
> > publishing, publisher).
> >
> > What we don't have is a way to *consistently* work with books (which have
> > often many translations and editions). We cannot import (yet) library
> > catalogs in wikidata[1]. We don't even have a consistent way to link
> > Wikidata to Wikisource (index pages, ns0 pages).
> >
> > I think this is quite relevant for the reference issue.
> >
> > Aubrey
> >
> >
> > [1] there is an ongoing project with the National Library of Florence, in
> > Italy. We now have a script to import records in WIkibase, and will do
> on a
> > local one. Then we will approach Wikidata.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> > 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
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Andrea Zanni-2
In reply to this post by Anthony Cole
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Most editions of most books published in the last 40 years (certainly books
> from reliable publishers) have an ISBN that identifies one edition. Most
> reliable journal articles these days have a doi. For simple citing of web
> pages, you could automatically convert bare urls to archived versions of
> the cited web page.
>


I do agree with you.
But the problem emerges if you want to cite the reference (the book, the
article) as an item.
There you have to take into account a "book model" in Wikidata, and it's
easier said than done. (scientific articles are a bit easier, and Magnus is
working on them).
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Source_MetaData

Aubrey
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> Hoi,
> You want to compare it to the Reasonator item. It has all the right links
> for 43 award winners. That is 100% I did not have problems telling
> Wikipedians that there link was wrong. The information is there and there
> are more 'blue' links than in Wikipedia.
>


Well, not 100% either, because the 1982 winner, Andrew W. Ellis, is missing
in Reasonator.[1]



> The proof is in the pudding. For simple lists and links Wikidata is hands
> down superior.



That depends entirely on the volunteers involved, and the quality of their
work. I don't think Wikidata has a systemic advantage. At any rate, given
its lack of referencing standards, what's being added to Wikidata today is
less likely to be verifiable than what is being added to Wikipedia today.

Andreas

[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=15995494
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Anthony Cole
In reply to this post by Andrea Zanni-2
Yes, Aubrey.  It would be way too onerous to expect us to make each
citation a Wikidata item.

On Tuesday, 26 January 2016, Andrea Zanni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > Most editions of most books published in the last 40 years (certainly
> books
> > from reliable publishers) have an ISBN that identifies one edition. Most
> > reliable journal articles these days have a doi. For simple citing of web
> > pages, you could automatically convert bare urls to archived versions of
> > the cited web page.
> >
>
>
> I do agree with you.
> But the problem emerges if you want to cite the reference (the book, the
> article) as an item.
> There you have to take into account a "book model" in Wikidata, and it's
> easier said than done. (scientific articles are a bit easier, and Magnus is
> working on them).
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Source_MetaData
>
> Aubrey
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Anthony Cole
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske-2
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Be careful with that "obvious" word...
>
> http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378



Hi Magnus,

Things have been busy of late, and I never had time to properly respond to
this blog post of yours. (For anyone else who has forgotten, this was the
discussion about vast swathes of Wikidata lacking reliable references, as
discussed in [1].)

You say, "the impression I get from Andreas’ text is that, while Wikipedia
has some issues, references are basically OK, whereas they are essentially
non-existent in Wikidata." In your piece, you then go on to compare the
referencing density of Wikidata content to that of Wikipedia content,
finding that Wikidata, even now, doesn't do at all badly compared to
Wikipedia.

You present it as a sort of sibling rivalry: if Wikipedia doesn't do any
better herself, why does she complain about her sister Wikidata? I recall
Denny and Gerard making similar arguments.

In doing so, you miss the core point of the criticism. My point is that
Wikipedia's *referencing standards are okay*, and that *those* are what
Wikidata should be assessed against.

Wikidata and Wikipedia have very different purposes: Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia to be read; Wikidata is a database. No one reads a database.
The whole purpose of a database is to have its content multiplied and
surfaced elsewhere. Therefore it is even more essential that its content
stand on solid ground.

If you want to measure Wikidata against something else, you should measure
it against the sources that open knowledge currently relies on, i.e. the
quality standards underlying WP:V, WP:RS and so on, especially if Wikidata
will also be used as a source in Wikipedias.

My argument has never been that Wikipedia content is good, and Wikidata
content is rubbish. The quality of Wikipedia's content is extremely
variable. Sometimes it's alarmingly unstable, and you see Wikipedia "truth"
shifting from one extreme to the other (example: [2]). Sometimes it's
manipulated (example: [3]). Wikipedia contains *a lot* of rubbish,
alongside some undeniably good content.

It's for that reason that I view it with dismay when Wikidata makes
wholesale imports "from Wikipedia", without so much as traceability to a
specific article and article revision, and a check whether the information
taken from Wikipedia was accurately sourced there.

At the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group, we recently discussed the use of
Wikipedia as a source for legal decisions.[4] On a human level, it's
perfectly normal and understandable for Wikimedians to feel validated, to
feel pride whenever a court makes such use of Wikipedia. But in my view,
one of the core tasks of the Wikimedia community should be to *discourage*
such use, and teach the legal profession Wikipedia literacy. This includes
at its most basic level not putting any faith into any statement in
Wikipedia *per se*, but instead checking and assessing its sourcing on each
and every occasion, and referencing the source instead. We all know that
complete nonsense can survive for a long time in Wikipedia, even in highly
trafficked articles.

Andreas

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Klee-Irwin.gif
[3]
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/manipulating-wikipedia-promote-bogus-business-school-316133.html
[4]
https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/969531789761319/


> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:56 PM Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <
> > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the respective
> > > Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or anecdotes
> > don't
> > > count)
> >
> >
> >
> > Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to fulfil
> > one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally
> > published source.
> >
> > Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious that
> > Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a
> "reliable
> > source", isn't it?[2]
> >
> > [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
> > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
It is becoming boring. Andreas, quality is not in sources. They are often
horrible. Your notion that only sources are good is off.

It has been argued too often that quality is in much more than only
sources. The argument that Wikidata is immature has been made all
frequently and the point is very much that we need to concentrate our
effort on where effort has the biggest impact.

To improve quality in a meaningful way, sources will not make much of a
difference when adding them is not targeted. The most impact is achieved
when differences between sources are identified and when they are curated.

Andreas, it is irrelevant what others say, I do not care at all. I care
however very much about quality, I blog frequently about it and I am happy
that my understanding evolves. I sincerely hope that you take the time to
consider what is important; dogma or making a qualitative difference in our
projects.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 11 March 2016 at 12:41, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Magnus Manske <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Be careful with that "obvious" word...
> >
> > http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378
>
>
>
> Hi Magnus,
>
> Things have been busy of late, and I never had time to properly respond to
> this blog post of yours. (For anyone else who has forgotten, this was the
> discussion about vast swathes of Wikidata lacking reliable references, as
> discussed in [1].)
>
> You say, "the impression I get from Andreas’ text is that, while Wikipedia
> has some issues, references are basically OK, whereas they are essentially
> non-existent in Wikidata." In your piece, you then go on to compare the
> referencing density of Wikidata content to that of Wikipedia content,
> finding that Wikidata, even now, doesn't do at all badly compared to
> Wikipedia.
>
> You present it as a sort of sibling rivalry: if Wikipedia doesn't do any
> better herself, why does she complain about her sister Wikidata? I recall
> Denny and Gerard making similar arguments.
>
> In doing so, you miss the core point of the criticism. My point is that
> Wikipedia's *referencing standards are okay*, and that *those* are what
> Wikidata should be assessed against.
>
> Wikidata and Wikipedia have very different purposes: Wikipedia is an
> encyclopedia to be read; Wikidata is a database. No one reads a database.
> The whole purpose of a database is to have its content multiplied and
> surfaced elsewhere. Therefore it is even more essential that its content
> stand on solid ground.
>
> If you want to measure Wikidata against something else, you should measure
> it against the sources that open knowledge currently relies on, i.e. the
> quality standards underlying WP:V, WP:RS and so on, especially if Wikidata
> will also be used as a source in Wikipedias.
>
> My argument has never been that Wikipedia content is good, and Wikidata
> content is rubbish. The quality of Wikipedia's content is extremely
> variable. Sometimes it's alarmingly unstable, and you see Wikipedia "truth"
> shifting from one extreme to the other (example: [2]). Sometimes it's
> manipulated (example: [3]). Wikipedia contains *a lot* of rubbish,
> alongside some undeniably good content.
>
> It's for that reason that I view it with dismay when Wikidata makes
> wholesale imports "from Wikipedia", without so much as traceability to a
> specific article and article revision, and a check whether the information
> taken from Wikipedia was accurately sourced there.
>
> At the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group, we recently discussed the use of
> Wikipedia as a source for legal decisions.[4] On a human level, it's
> perfectly normal and understandable for Wikimedians to feel validated, to
> feel pride whenever a court makes such use of Wikipedia. But in my view,
> one of the core tasks of the Wikimedia community should be to *discourage*
> such use, and teach the legal profession Wikipedia literacy. This includes
> at its most basic level not putting any faith into any statement in
> Wikipedia *per se*, but instead checking and assessing its sourcing on each
> and every occasion, and referencing the source instead. We all know that
> complete nonsense can survive for a long time in Wikipedia, even in highly
> trafficked articles.
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed
> [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Klee-Irwin.gif
> [3]
>
> http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/manipulating-wikipedia-promote-bogus-business-school-316133.html
> [4]
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/969531789761319/
>
>
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:56 PM Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the respective
> > > > Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or anecdotes
> > > don't
> > > > count)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to
> fulfil
> > > one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally
> > > published source.
> > >
> > > Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious
> that
> > > Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a
> > "reliable
> > > source", isn't it?[2]
> > >
> > > [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
> > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > 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
> > 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
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Gnangarra
In reply to this post by Anthony Cole
Why Anthony
On 26 January 2016 at 20:46, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes, Aubrey.  It would be way too onerous to expect us to make each
> citation a Wikidata item.


If you use the currently available templates to format your citation then
its possible to extract this information with a bot, the next step is how
to use that to create a wikidata item... nothing onerous in using citation
templates on WP.

as for book older books dont have ISBNs, and some books are individually
notable yet assuming they have an ISBN they share that with the 1,000's of
of identical books that arent notable.

So many of my concerns and issues over WikiData were cleared up by Andy
Mabbett when he toured Australia last month, maybe WikiData/WMF could get
Andy on the road and talking to more communities it'd resolved many of the
underlying issues that are clogging up the system through misunderstanding
or false expectations




On 26 January 2016 at 20:46, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes, Aubrey.  It would be way too onerous to expect us to make each
> citation a Wikidata item.
>
> On Tuesday, 26 January 2016, Andrea Zanni <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > Most editions of most books published in the last 40 years (certainly
> > books
> > > from reliable publishers) have an ISBN that identifies one edition.
> Most
> > > reliable journal articles these days have a doi. For simple citing of
> web
> > > pages, you could automatically convert bare urls to archived versions
> of
> > > the cited web page.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I do agree with you.
> > But the problem emerges if you want to cite the reference (the book, the
> > article) as an item.
> > There you have to take into account a "book model" in Wikidata, and it's
> > easier said than done. (scientific articles are a bit easier, and Magnus
> is
> > working on them).
> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Source_MetaData
> >
> > Aubrey
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Anthony Cole
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

David Cuenca Tudela
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Wikidata and Wikipedia have very different purposes: Wikipedia is an
> encyclopedia to be read; Wikidata is a database. No one reads a database.
> The whole purpose of a database is to have its content multiplied and
> surfaced elsewhere. Therefore it is even more essential that its content
> stand on solid ground.
>

I disagree with that. In my opinion Wikipedia and Wikidata do not have
different purposes, they complement each other.
In an ideal world all the data present in Wikidata should surface in
Wikipedia, and be referenced from there.
However it is expected that the data comes already referenced at
*statement* level from Wikidata, when Wikipedia doesn't comply with those
standards either. This assumes that the Wikidata community is a generator
of perfectly referenced facts and that the Wikipedia communities are mere
consumers of data. This is a toxic view because it goes against the core
principle of wikis as a tool for taking ownership of the means of knowledge
aggregation and distribution.

It has to be noted too, that in Wikidata many items have external
identifiers, references, and sources, and they apply to the whole
information contained, not just one single statement, that is something
that should be taken into account when speaking about reliability.

Besides this discussion is trite. Quality comes from use, research and
oversight, and without tools for working with wikidata from wikipedia, like
connected infoboxes, there is no point in discussing about data quality,
because as you said "no one reads a database"... except for a few people
like me I guess :)

Cheers,
Micru
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Andreas Kolbe-2
Micru,

That seems a very Wikipedia-centric analysis, as though Wikidata were only
there to feed Wikipedia. I think most re-users of Wikidata will be
elsewhere, and indeed be passive consumers and commercial rebranders whose
audience is unlikely to feed back into Wikidata.

The following article in The Register, which resulted from a conversation
with Andy Mabbett, explains this quite well:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/25/wikidata_turns_the_world_into_a_database/


There was also another media story last week, about a project by Dutch firm
Lab1100 (complete with some sceptical comments about data quality). It's a
Wikidata-based map of historical military battles fought across the world:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/12180516/Geography-of-violence-Map-records-every-battle-ever-fought.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35685889

So the commercial potential is huge.

I'm not blind to the argument that use will lead to correction, but it has
to be balanced against the risks of "garbage in, garbage out", given the
huge amount of data that will eventually accumulate and need to be curated
by volunteers, and bearing in mind that the CC-0 licence has the potential
of obscuring the origin of the data, cutting the very feedback loop your
argument relies on for a substantial subset of end users.

Andreas

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:57 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Wikidata and Wikipedia have very different purposes: Wikipedia is an
> > encyclopedia to be read; Wikidata is a database. No one reads a database.
> > The whole purpose of a database is to have its content multiplied and
> > surfaced elsewhere. Therefore it is even more essential that its content
> > stand on solid ground.
> >
>
> I disagree with that. In my opinion Wikipedia and Wikidata do not have
> different purposes, they complement each other.
> In an ideal world all the data present in Wikidata should surface in
> Wikipedia, and be referenced from there.
> However it is expected that the data comes already referenced at
> *statement* level from Wikidata, when Wikipedia doesn't comply with those
> standards either. This assumes that the Wikidata community is a generator
> of perfectly referenced facts and that the Wikipedia communities are mere
> consumers of data. This is a toxic view because it goes against the core
> principle of wikis as a tool for taking ownership of the means of knowledge
> aggregation and distribution.
>
> It has to be noted too, that in Wikidata many items have external
> identifiers, references, and sources, and they apply to the whole
> information contained, not just one single statement, that is something
> that should be taken into account when speaking about reliability.
>
> Besides this discussion is trite. Quality comes from use, research and
> oversight, and without tools for working with wikidata from wikipedia, like
> connected infoboxes, there is no point in discussing about data quality,
> because as you said "no one reads a database"... except for a few people
> like me I guess :)
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

David Cuenca Tudela
Andreas,

Of course it is a Wikipedia-centric analysis, because citing the article
you provide (bold in the original):
*Wikidata presents Wikipedia as structured data*
Wikidata does not exist in isolation. In symbiosis with existing projects
it acts as a catalyst, or at least that is one of the goals.

I am aware of the risks of the CC0 license reuse, and of the possible
"garbage dump" effect, but so far the process of data import/correlation
has been highly human supervised, with initiatives like the Wikidata game:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/#
or Mix'n'match: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mix'n'match
There is also a process for approving data imports, it is not such a wild
place...

So far it is unclear how the relationship with external consumers will
evolve, maybe it is a new opportunity for them to participate in the data
curation process, either directly or through entirely new feedback loops
that are not possible in the traditional Wikipedia setting. For instance:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase_Quality_Extensions

All in all, I find very positive that you bring this issues into public
awareness, it gives a broader perspective of the limits of the platform,
both technical and social. I think there is still a lot to discuss about
it, and it is good to have the conversation rolling.

Cheers,
Micru

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Micru,
>
> That seems a very Wikipedia-centric analysis, as though Wikidata were only
> there to feed Wikipedia. I think most re-users of Wikidata will be
> elsewhere, and indeed be passive consumers and commercial rebranders whose
> audience is unlikely to feed back into Wikidata.
>
> The following article in The Register, which resulted from a conversation
> with Andy Mabbett, explains this quite well:
>
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/25/wikidata_turns_the_world_into_a_database/
>
>
> There was also another media story last week, about a project by Dutch firm
> Lab1100 (complete with some sceptical comments about data quality). It's a
> Wikidata-based map of historical military battles fought across the world:
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/12180516/Geography-of-violence-Map-records-every-battle-ever-fought.html
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35685889
>
> So the commercial potential is huge.
>
> I'm not blind to the argument that use will lead to correction, but it has
> to be balanced against the risks of "garbage in, garbage out", given the
> huge amount of data that will eventually accumulate and need to be curated
> by volunteers, and bearing in mind that the CC-0 licence has the potential
> of obscuring the origin of the data, cutting the very feedback loop your
> argument relies on for a substantial subset of end users.
>
> Andreas
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:57 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Wikidata and Wikipedia have very different purposes: Wikipedia is an
> > > encyclopedia to be read; Wikidata is a database. No one reads a
> database.
> > > The whole purpose of a database is to have its content multiplied and
> > > surfaced elsewhere. Therefore it is even more essential that its
> content
> > > stand on solid ground.
> > >
> >
> > I disagree with that. In my opinion Wikipedia and Wikidata do not have
> > different purposes, they complement each other.
> > In an ideal world all the data present in Wikidata should surface in
> > Wikipedia, and be referenced from there.
> > However it is expected that the data comes already referenced at
> > *statement* level from Wikidata, when Wikipedia doesn't comply with those
> > standards either. This assumes that the Wikidata community is a generator
> > of perfectly referenced facts and that the Wikipedia communities are mere
> > consumers of data. This is a toxic view because it goes against the core
> > principle of wikis as a tool for taking ownership of the means of
> knowledge
> > aggregation and distribution.
> >
> > It has to be noted too, that in Wikidata many items have external
> > identifiers, references, and sources, and they apply to the whole
> > information contained, not just one single statement, that is something
> > that should be taken into account when speaking about reliability.
> >
> > Besides this discussion is trite. Quality comes from use, research and
> > oversight, and without tools for working with wikidata from wikipedia,
> like
> > connected infoboxes, there is no point in discussing about data quality,
> > because as you said "no one reads a database"... except for a few people
> > like me I guess :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske-2
The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to
be, because I know you have done many good things.

And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering
skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did,
they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.

I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the
issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is
instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
resistance against the product as a whole.


On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this thread. I
> have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I do well
> remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not quite up
> to the job.
>
> What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical or
> early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even
> dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have seen time
> and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
>
> It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
>
> It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not Made
> Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple of
>> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
>> persisting with your idée fixe.
>>
>> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The
>> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not newbies.
>> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an edit. It
>> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
>>
>> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors were
>> unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then most of
>> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community arrogantly
>> characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an ignorant,
>> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation now.
>>
>> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have
>> fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and the
>> community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have.
>>
>> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the concurrent
>> thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny in
>> earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems to me there is
>> still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at least over
>> at WikiData.
>>
>> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly, about an
>> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down to them or
>> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't distinguish
>> them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and well-founded
>> criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your technical solutions
>> are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than those WMF staffers
>> who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career move.
>>
>> Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his project, and your
>> contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early visual editor
>> and its launch are both very disappointing.
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske <
>> [hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do the basic
>> > functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at the same time. We
>> do
>> > not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our product. If we
>> can
>> > present the product in such a way that more people use it, it is a
>> success
>> > for us.
>> >
>> > I do stand by my example :-)
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael Peel <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > As one can be overly conservative, one can also be overly
>> > enthusiastic. I
>> > > > would hope the Foundation by now understands better how to handle new
>> > > > software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic functionality, but
>> > > > working smoothly first.
>> > >
>> > > But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's a good example to make
>> > > here. :-/
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Mike
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > > 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
>> > 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
>> 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
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
André Engels, [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Anthony Cole
Hi Magnus.

I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1]
earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing
me.

Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe a
formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable sources.
Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with the
number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references per
statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS
ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.

Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because whole
paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears
only once at the end of the paragraph.

But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it should
be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
arguments.

The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If
that is so, you should fix that.



1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
> new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
> exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
> as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
> had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
> editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to
> be, because I know you have done many good things.
>
> And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
> Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering
> skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did,
> they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
> term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
> it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
> disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
> etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.
>
> I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
> in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
> see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
> large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
> resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
> forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the
> issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is
> instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
> resistance against the product as a whole.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this
> thread. I
> > have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I do
> well
> > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not quite
> up
> > to the job.
> >
> > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical or
> > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even
> > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have seen
> time
> > and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
> >
> > It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
> >
> > It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not Made
> > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple of
> >> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
> >> persisting with your idée fixe.
> >>
> >> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The
> >> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not
> newbies.
> >> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an edit.
> It
> >> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
> >>
> >> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors were
> >> unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then most
> of
> >> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community arrogantly
> >> characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an ignorant,
> >> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation now.
> >>
> >> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have
> >> fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and the
> >> community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have.
> >>
> >> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the
> concurrent
> >> thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny in
> >> earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems to me there
> is
> >> still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at least
> over
> >> at WikiData.
> >>
> >> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly, about
> an
> >> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down to
> them or
> >> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't
> distinguish
> >> them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and well-founded
> >> criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your technical solutions
> >> are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than those WMF
> staffers
> >> who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career move.
> >>
> >> Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his project, and
> your
> >> contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early visual
> editor
> >> and its launch are both very disappointing.
> >>
> >> Anthony Cole
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do the basic
> >> > functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at the same time.
> We
> >> do
> >> > not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our product. If we
> >> can
> >> > present the product in such a way that more people use it, it is a
> >> success
> >> > for us.
> >> >
> >> > I do stand by my example :-)
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael Peel <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske <
> [hidden email]
> >> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > As one can be overly conservative, one can also be overly
> >> > enthusiastic. I
> >> > > > would hope the Foundation by now understands better how to handle
> new
> >> > > > software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic functionality,
> but
> >> > > > working smoothly first.
> >> > >
> >> > > But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's a good example to
> make
> >> > > here. :-/
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Mike
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> > > 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
> >> > 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
> >> 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
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> André Engels, [hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Anthony Cole
Sorry, there's a typo in that last paragraph. It should read:

The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata *statements*.
If that is so, you should fix that.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Magnus.
>
> I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1]
> earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing
> me.
>
> Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe a
> formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable sources.
> Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
> contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with the
> number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references per
> statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS
> ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
> en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
> Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
>
> Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because whole
> paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears
> only once at the end of the paragraph.
>
> But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it should
> be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
> arguments.
>
> The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
> that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If
> that is so, you should fix that.
>
>
>
> 1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
>> new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
>> exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
>> as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
>> had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
>> editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to
>> be, because I know you have done many good things.
>>
>> And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
>> Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering
>> skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did,
>> they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
>> term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
>> it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
>> disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
>> etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.
>>
>> I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
>> in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
>> see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
>> large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
>> resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
>> forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the
>> issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is
>> instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
>> resistance against the product as a whole.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this
>> thread. I
>> > have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I do
>> well
>> > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not
>> quite up
>> > to the job.
>> >
>> > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical or
>> > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even
>> > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have seen
>> time
>> > and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
>> >
>> > It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
>> >
>> > It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not Made
>> > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple
>> of
>> >> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
>> >> persisting with your idée fixe.
>> >>
>> >> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The
>> >> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not
>> newbies.
>> >> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an edit.
>> It
>> >> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
>> >>
>> >> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors were
>> >> unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then most
>> of
>> >> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community arrogantly
>> >> characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an ignorant,
>> >> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation now.
>> >>
>> >> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have
>> >> fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and the
>> >> community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have.
>> >>
>> >> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the
>> concurrent
>> >> thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny in
>> >> earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems to me there
>> is
>> >> still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at least
>> over
>> >> at WikiData.
>> >>
>> >> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly, about
>> an
>> >> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down to
>> them or
>> >> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't
>> distinguish
>> >> them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and well-founded
>> >> criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your technical
>> solutions
>> >> are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than those WMF
>> staffers
>> >> who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career move.
>> >>
>> >> Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his project, and
>> your
>> >> contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early visual
>> editor
>> >> and its launch are both very disappointing.
>> >>
>> >> Anthony Cole
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske <
>> >> [hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do the basic
>> >> > functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at the same time.
>> We
>> >> do
>> >> > not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our product. If
>> we
>> >> can
>> >> > present the product in such a way that more people use it, it is a
>> >> success
>> >> > for us.
>> >> >
>> >> > I do stand by my example :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael Peel <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske <
>> [hidden email]
>> >> >
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > As one can be overly conservative, one can also be overly
>> >> > enthusiastic. I
>> >> > > > would hope the Foundation by now understands better how to
>> handle new
>> >> > > > software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic
>> functionality, but
>> >> > > > working smoothly first.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's a good example to
>> make
>> >> > > here. :-/
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks,
>> >> > > Mike
>> >> > > _______________________________________________
>> >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> >> > > 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
>> >> > 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
>> >> 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
>> > New messages to: [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> André Engels, [hidden email]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Anthony Cole
Gnangarra,

I was away when Andy was here, and am really regretting missing his
presentation. Can you explain to me why the Wikidata people have to make a
wikidata item of every source before they can cite it?

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sorry, there's a typo in that last paragraph. It should read:
>
> The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
> that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata *statements*.
> If that is so, you should fix that.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Magnus.
>>
>> I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1]
>> earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing
>> me.
>>
>> Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe a
>> formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable sources.
>> Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
>> contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with the
>> number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references per
>> statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS
>> ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
>> en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
>> Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
>>
>> Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because whole
>> paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears
>> only once at the end of the paragraph.
>>
>> But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it should
>> be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
>> arguments.
>>
>> The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
>> that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If
>> that is so, you should fix that.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
>>> new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
>>> exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
>>> as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
>>> had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
>>> editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to
>>> be, because I know you have done many good things.
>>>
>>> And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
>>> Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering
>>> skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did,
>>> they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
>>> term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
>>> it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
>>> disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
>>> etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.
>>>
>>> I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
>>> in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
>>> see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
>>> large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
>>> resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
>>> forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the
>>> issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is
>>> instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
>>> resistance against the product as a whole.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this
>>> thread. I
>>> > have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I do
>>> well
>>> > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not
>>> quite up
>>> > to the job.
>>> >
>>> > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical or
>>> > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even
>>> > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have seen
>>> time
>>> > and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
>>> >
>>> > It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
>>> >
>>> > It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not
>>> Made
>>> > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple
>>> of
>>> >> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
>>> >> persisting with your idée fixe.
>>> >>
>>> >> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The
>>> >> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not
>>> newbies.
>>> >> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an
>>> edit. It
>>> >> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
>>> >>
>>> >> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors were
>>> >> unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then
>>> most of
>>> >> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community arrogantly
>>> >> characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an
>>> ignorant,
>>> >> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation now.
>>> >>
>>> >> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have
>>> >> fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and the
>>> >> community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have.
>>> >>
>>> >> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the
>>> concurrent
>>> >> thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny in
>>> >> earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems to me
>>> there is
>>> >> still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at least
>>> over
>>> >> at WikiData.
>>> >>
>>> >> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly,
>>> about an
>>> >> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down to
>>> them or
>>> >> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't
>>> distinguish
>>> >> them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and
>>> well-founded
>>> >> criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your technical
>>> solutions
>>> >> are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than those WMF
>>> staffers
>>> >> who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career move.
>>> >>
>>> >> Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his project,
>>> and your
>>> >> contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early visual
>>> editor
>>> >> and its launch are both very disappointing.
>>> >>
>>> >> Anthony Cole
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske <
>>> >> [hidden email]>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do the basic
>>> >> > functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at the same
>>> time. We
>>> >> do
>>> >> > not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our product. If
>>> we
>>> >> can
>>> >> > present the product in such a way that more people use it, it is a
>>> >> success
>>> >> > for us.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I do stand by my example :-)
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael Peel <[hidden email]>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske <
>>> [hidden email]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > As one can be overly conservative, one can also be overly
>>> >> > enthusiastic. I
>>> >> > > > would hope the Foundation by now understands better how to
>>> handle new
>>> >> > > > software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic
>>> functionality, but
>>> >> > > > working smoothly first.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's a good example to
>>> make
>>> >> > > here. :-/
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Thanks,
>>> >> > > Mike
>>> >> > > _______________________________________________
>>> >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> >> > > 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
>>> >> > 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
>>> >> 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
>>> > New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> André Engels, [hidden email]
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Magnus Manske-2
In reply to this post by Anthony Cole
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Magnus.
>
> I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1]
> earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing
> me.
>
> Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe a
> formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable sources.
> Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
> contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with the
> number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references per
> statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS
> ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
> en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
> Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
>

Correct.

>
> Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because whole
> paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears
> only once at the end of the paragraph.
>

Which is why I am counting reference markers within the paragraphs, not
references at the end. Every <ref> is sacred ;-)

Actually, I think my statement count for entire Wikipedia articles is low
(and thus, favourable to Wikipedia). Take jsut the first sentence at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams
This sentence alone contains nine statements (first names, last name, birth
date, death date, nationality, the fact he's human, and three occupations).
But I would only count that as one statement, as it is one sentence. This
reduces the number of statements I count in the article, but the number of
references (btw, only one in the entire lead section) remains constant,
thus pushing the RPS ratio in favour of Wikipedia.

>
> But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it should
> be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
> arguments.
>

I agree. Which is why I never made such arguments. Please don't put them in
my mouth; I don't know you well enough for that.


>
> The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
> that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If
> that is so, you should fix that.
>

Actually, it is easy to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more
difficult than adding them to Wikipedia. I have written bots and
drag'n'drop scripts to make it even easier. It is a little fiiddly to add
book references, but still reasoably possible.
What /is/ difficult is to do this automatically, by bot. But pick a random
Wikidata entry, and with a little googling, many statements can be
referenced to URLs. But this takes time.
Which brings me back to my blog post: Even after ~3 years, Wikidata is
referenced not too badly, compared to Wikipedia. And if we have learned one
thing from Wikipedia, it is that the state in general, and references in
particular, will improve over time.
So to everyone who disses Wikidata because of "missing references", I say:
1. You're wrong (it's already OK)
2. Patience (it will get even better)

Cheers,
Magnus


>
>
>
> 1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
> > new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
> > exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
> > as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
> > had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
> > editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to
> > be, because I know you have done many good things.
> >
> > And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
> > Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering
> > skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did,
> > they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
> > term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
> > it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
> > disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
> > etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.
> >
> > I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
> > in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
> > see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
> > large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
> > resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
> > forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the
> > issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is
> > instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
> > resistance against the product as a whole.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this
> > thread. I
> > > have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I do
> > well
> > > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not
> quite
> > up
> > > to the job.
> > >
> > > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical or
> > > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even
> > > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have seen
> > time
> > > and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
> > >
> > > It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
> > >
> > > It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not
> Made
> > > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple
> of
> > >> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
> > >> persisting with your idée fixe.
> > >>
> > >> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The
> > >> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not
> > newbies.
> > >> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an edit.
> > It
> > >> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
> > >>
> > >> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors were
> > >> unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then most
> > of
> > >> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community arrogantly
> > >> characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an
> ignorant,
> > >> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation now.
> > >>
> > >> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have
> > >> fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and the
> > >> community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have.
> > >>
> > >> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the
> > concurrent
> > >> thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny in
> > >> earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems to me there
> > is
> > >> still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at least
> > over
> > >> at WikiData.
> > >>
> > >> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly, about
> > an
> > >> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down to
> > them or
> > >> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't
> > distinguish
> > >> them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and
> well-founded
> > >> criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your technical
> solutions
> > >> are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than those WMF
> > staffers
> > >> who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career move.
> > >>
> > >> Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his project, and
> > your
> > >> contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early visual
> > editor
> > >> and its launch are both very disappointing.
> > >>
> > >> Anthony Cole
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske <
> > >> [hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do the basic
> > >> > functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at the same time.
> > We
> > >> do
> > >> > not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our product. If
> we
> > >> can
> > >> > present the product in such a way that more people use it, it is a
> > >> success
> > >> > for us.
> > >> >
> > >> > I do stand by my example :-)
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael Peel <[hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske <
> > [hidden email]
> > >> >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > As one can be overly conservative, one can also be overly
> > >> > enthusiastic. I
> > >> > > > would hope the Foundation by now understands better how to
> handle
> > new
> > >> > > > software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic
> functionality,
> > but
> > >> > > > working smoothly first.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's a good example to
> > make
> > >> > > here. :-/
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > > Mike
> > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> > > 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
> > >> > 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
> > >> 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
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > André Engels, [hidden email]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Anthony Cole
Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of you only
counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of
paragraphs.

And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a paragraph if,
as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph often
supports all statements in the paragraph?

Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?

Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in his
response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because,
provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source in the
body of an article, citations are not expected or required in en.Wikipedia
article leads.

Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating Wikipedia's
lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is
appalling.

Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is worse".
You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's true but
still an invalid argument.

It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument.

Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding references is
difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it is easy to
add references to Wikidata, certainly not more difficult than adding them
to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will you?

You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the media viewer
and visual editor was the stoopid power users.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Magnus.
> >
> > I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1]
> > earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing
> > me.
> >
> > Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe a
> > formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable
> sources.
> > Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
> > contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with
> the
> > number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references
> per
> > statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS
> > ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
> > en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
> > Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
> >
>
> Correct.
>
> >
> > Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because whole
> > paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears
> > only once at the end of the paragraph.
> >
>
> Which is why I am counting reference markers within the paragraphs, not
> references at the end. Every <ref> is sacred ;-)
>
> Actually, I think my statement count for entire Wikipedia articles is low
> (and thus, favourable to Wikipedia). Take jsut the first sentence at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams
> This sentence alone contains nine statements (first names, last name, birth
> date, death date, nationality, the fact he's human, and three occupations).
> But I would only count that as one statement, as it is one sentence. This
> reduces the number of statements I count in the article, but the number of
> references (btw, only one in the entire lead section) remains constant,
> thus pushing the RPS ratio in favour of Wikipedia.
>
> >
> > But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it should
> > be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
> > arguments.
> >
>
> I agree. Which is why I never made such arguments. Please don't put them in
> my mouth; I don't know you well enough for that.
>
>
> >
> > The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
> > that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If
> > that is so, you should fix that.
> >
>
> Actually, it is easy to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more
> difficult than adding them to Wikipedia. I have written bots and
> drag'n'drop scripts to make it even easier. It is a little fiiddly to add
> book references, but still reasoably possible.
> What /is/ difficult is to do this automatically, by bot. But pick a random
> Wikidata entry, and with a little googling, many statements can be
> referenced to URLs. But this takes time.
> Which brings me back to my blog post: Even after ~3 years, Wikidata is
> referenced not too badly, compared to Wikipedia. And if we have learned one
> thing from Wikipedia, it is that the state in general, and references in
> particular, will improve over time.
> So to everyone who disses Wikidata because of "missing references", I say:
> 1. You're wrong (it's already OK)
> 2. Patience (it will get even better)
>
> Cheers,
> Magnus
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
> > > new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
> > > exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
> > > as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
> > > had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
> > > editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to
> > > be, because I know you have done many good things.
> > >
> > > And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
> > > Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering
> > > skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did,
> > > they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
> > > term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
> > > it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
> > > disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
> > > etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.
> > >
> > > I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
> > > in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
> > > see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
> > > large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
> > > resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
> > > forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the
> > > issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is
> > > instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
> > > resistance against the product as a whole.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
> > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this
> > > thread. I
> > > > have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I
> do
> > > well
> > > > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not
> > quite
> > > up
> > > > to the job.
> > > >
> > > > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical or
> > > > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even
> > > > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have
> seen
> > > time
> > > > and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
> > > >
> > > > It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
> > > >
> > > > It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not
> > Made
> > > > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A
> couple
> > of
> > > >> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
> > > >> persisting with your idée fixe.
> > > >>
> > > >> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The
> > > >> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not
> > > newbies.
> > > >> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an
> edit.
> > > It
> > > >> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
> > > >>
> > > >> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors
> were
> > > >> unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then
> most
> > > of
> > > >> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community
> arrogantly
> > > >> characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an
> > ignorant,
> > > >> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation
> now.
> > > >>
> > > >> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have
> > > >> fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and
> the
> > > >> community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have.
> > > >>
> > > >> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the
> > > concurrent
> > > >> thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny in
> > > >> earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems to me
> there
> > > is
> > > >> still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at
> least
> > > over
> > > >> at WikiData.
> > > >>
> > > >> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly,
> about
> > > an
> > > >> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down to
> > > them or
> > > >> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't
> > > distinguish
> > > >> them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and
> > well-founded
> > > >> criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your technical
> > solutions
> > > >> are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than those WMF
> > > staffers
> > > >> who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career move.
> > > >>
> > > >> Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his project,
> and
> > > your
> > > >> contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early visual
> > > editor
> > > >> and its launch are both very disappointing.
> > > >>
> > > >> Anthony Cole
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske <
> > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do the
> basic
> > > >> > functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at the same
> time.
> > > We
> > > >> do
> > > >> > not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our product.
> If
> > we
> > > >> can
> > > >> > present the product in such a way that more people use it, it is a
> > > >> success
> > > >> > for us.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I do stand by my example :-)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael Peel <[hidden email]
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > As one can be overly conservative, one can also be overly
> > > >> > enthusiastic. I
> > > >> > > > would hope the Foundation by now understands better how to
> > handle
> > > new
> > > >> > > > software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic
> > functionality,
> > > but
> > > >> > > > working smoothly first.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's a good example
> to
> > > make
> > > >> > > here. :-/
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > Mike
> > > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > >> > > 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
> > > >> > 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
> > > >> 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
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > André Engels, [hidden email]
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > 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
> > 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
> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Anthony Cole
Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those at the
end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of references at
the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my point. Many
editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences after the
last footnote marker.

There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote marker
supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the sentences at the
beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be counted as unsourced
statements.

But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just doesn't
matter which project is more poorly referenced.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of you only
> counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of
> paragraphs.
>
> And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a paragraph if,
> as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph often
> supports all statements in the paragraph?
>
> Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
>
> Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in his
> response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because,
> provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source in the
> body of an article, citations are not expected or required in en.Wikipedia
> article leads.
>
> Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating Wikipedia's
> lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
> reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is
> appalling.
>
> Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is worse".
> You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's true but
> still an invalid argument.
>
> It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument.
>
> Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding references is
> difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it is easy
> to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more difficult than adding
> them to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will you?
>
> You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the media viewer
> and visual editor was the stoopid power users.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Magnus Manske <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Magnus.
>> >
>> > I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay
>> [1]
>> > earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were
>> addressing
>> > me.
>> >
>> > Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe
>> a
>> > formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable
>> sources.
>> > Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
>> > contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with
>> the
>> > number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references
>> per
>> > statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS
>> > ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
>> > en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
>> > Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
>> >
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> >
>> > Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because
>> whole
>> > paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears
>> > only once at the end of the paragraph.
>> >
>>
>> Which is why I am counting reference markers within the paragraphs, not
>> references at the end. Every <ref> is sacred ;-)
>>
>> Actually, I think my statement count for entire Wikipedia articles is low
>> (and thus, favourable to Wikipedia). Take jsut the first sentence at
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams
>> This sentence alone contains nine statements (first names, last name,
>> birth
>> date, death date, nationality, the fact he's human, and three
>> occupations).
>> But I would only count that as one statement, as it is one sentence. This
>> reduces the number of statements I count in the article, but the number of
>> references (btw, only one in the entire lead section) remains constant,
>> thus pushing the RPS ratio in favour of Wikipedia.
>>
>> >
>> > But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it
>> should
>> > be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
>> > arguments.
>> >
>>
>> I agree. Which is why I never made such arguments. Please don't put them
>> in
>> my mouth; I don't know you well enough for that.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
>> > that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If
>> > that is so, you should fix that.
>> >
>>
>> Actually, it is easy to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more
>> difficult than adding them to Wikipedia. I have written bots and
>> drag'n'drop scripts to make it even easier. It is a little fiiddly to add
>> book references, but still reasoably possible.
>> What /is/ difficult is to do this automatically, by bot. But pick a random
>> Wikidata entry, and with a little googling, many statements can be
>> referenced to URLs. But this takes time.
>> Which brings me back to my blog post: Even after ~3 years, Wikidata is
>> referenced not too badly, compared to Wikipedia. And if we have learned
>> one
>> thing from Wikipedia, it is that the state in general, and references in
>> particular, will improve over time.
>> So to everyone who disses Wikidata because of "missing references", I say:
>> 1. You're wrong (it's already OK)
>> 2. Patience (it will get even better)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Magnus
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378
>> >
>> > Anthony Cole
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
>> > > new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
>> > > exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
>> > > as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
>> > > had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
>> > > editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to
>> > > be, because I know you have done many good things.
>> > >
>> > > And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
>> > > Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering
>> > > skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did,
>> > > they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
>> > > term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
>> > > it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
>> > > disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
>> > > etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.
>> > >
>> > > I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
>> > > in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
>> > > see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
>> > > large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
>> > > resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
>> > > forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the
>> > > issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is
>> > > instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
>> > > resistance against the product as a whole.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
>> > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this
>> > > thread. I
>> > > > have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I
>> do
>> > > well
>> > > > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not
>> > quite
>> > > up
>> > > > to the job.
>> > > >
>> > > > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical
>> or
>> > > > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even
>> > > > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have
>> seen
>> > > time
>> > > > and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
>> > > >
>> > > > It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
>> > > >
>> > > > It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not
>> > Made
>> > > > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A
>> couple
>> > of
>> > > >> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
>> > > >> persisting with your idée fixe.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually.
>> The
>> > > >> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not
>> > > newbies.
>> > > >> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an
>> edit.
>> > > It
>> > > >> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors
>> were
>> > > >> unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then
>> most
>> > > of
>> > > >> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community
>> arrogantly
>> > > >> characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an
>> > ignorant,
>> > > >> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation
>> now.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have
>> > > >> fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and
>> the
>> > > >> community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the
>> > > concurrent
>> > > >> thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny
>> in
>> > > >> earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems to me
>> there
>> > > is
>> > > >> still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at
>> least
>> > > over
>> > > >> at WikiData.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly,
>> about
>> > > an
>> > > >> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down to
>> > > them or
>> > > >> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't
>> > > distinguish
>> > > >> them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and
>> > well-founded
>> > > >> criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your technical
>> > solutions
>> > > >> are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than those WMF
>> > > staffers
>> > > >> who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career move.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his project,
>> and
>> > > your
>> > > >> contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early visual
>> > > editor
>> > > >> and its launch are both very disappointing.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Anthony Cole
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske <
>> > > >> [hidden email]>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do the
>> basic
>> > > >> > functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at the same
>> time.
>> > > We
>> > > >> do
>> > > >> > not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our product.
>> If
>> > we
>> > > >> can
>> > > >> > present the product in such a way that more people use it, it is
>> a
>> > > >> success
>> > > >> > for us.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > I do stand by my example :-)
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael Peel <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske <
>> > > [hidden email]
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > > wrote:
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > As one can be overly conservative, one can also be overly
>> > > >> > enthusiastic. I
>> > > >> > > > would hope the Foundation by now understands better how to
>> > handle
>> > > new
>> > > >> > > > software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic
>> > functionality,
>> > > but
>> > > >> > > > working smoothly first.
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's a good example
>> to
>> > > make
>> > > >> > > here. :-/
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > Thanks,
>> > > >> > > Mike
>> > > >> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > > >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > > >> > > 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
>> > > >> > 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
>> > > >> 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
>> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
>> > > > Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > André Engels, [hidden email]
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > > 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
>> > 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
>> 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
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] Profile of Magnus Manske

Magnus Manske-2
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those at the
> end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of references at
> the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my point. Many
> editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
> paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences after the
> last footnote marker.
>
> There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote marker
> supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the sentences at the
> beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be counted as unsourced
> statements.
>

Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern what
a <ref> refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As described, my "one
sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound of statement numbers. So
is my <ref> count, then. I am certain you can find an article where my
statement-to-reference ratio is off against WIkipedia; but I believe I
could find more instances where it is in favour of Wikipedia.


>
> But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just doesn't
> matter which project is more poorly referenced.
>

Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care :-)

My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one can't
"sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor referencing.
Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things). That is
all.

Cheers,
Magnus


>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of you only
> > counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of
> > paragraphs.
> >
> > And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a paragraph
> if,
> > as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph often
> > supports all statements in the paragraph?
> >
> > Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
> >
> > Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in his
> > response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because,
> > provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source in
> the
> > body of an article, citations are not expected or required in
> en.Wikipedia
> > article leads.
> >
> > Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating
> Wikipedia's
> > lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
> > reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is
> > appalling.
> >
> > Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is worse".
> > You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's true but
> > still an invalid argument.
> >
> > It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument.
> >
> > Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding references
> is
> > difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it is easy
> > to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more difficult than adding
> > them to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will you?
> >
> > You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the media viewer
> > and visual editor was the stoopid power users.
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Magnus Manske <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Magnus.
> >> >
> >> > I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay
> >> [1]
> >> > earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were
> >> addressing
> >> > me.
> >> >
> >> > Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You
> describe
> >> a
> >> > formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable
> >> sources.
> >> > Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
> >> > contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences
> with
> >> the
> >> > number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references
> >> per
> >> > statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the
> RPS
> >> > ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
> >> > en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
> >> > Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Correct.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because
> >> whole
> >> > paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker
> appears
> >> > only once at the end of the paragraph.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Which is why I am counting reference markers within the paragraphs, not
> >> references at the end. Every <ref> is sacred ;-)
> >>
> >> Actually, I think my statement count for entire Wikipedia articles is
> low
> >> (and thus, favourable to Wikipedia). Take jsut the first sentence at
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams
> >> This sentence alone contains nine statements (first names, last name,
> >> birth
> >> date, death date, nationality, the fact he's human, and three
> >> occupations).
> >> But I would only count that as one statement, as it is one sentence.
> This
> >> reduces the number of statements I count in the article, but the number
> of
> >> references (btw, only one in the entire lead section) remains constant,
> >> thus pushing the RPS ratio in favour of Wikipedia.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it
> >> should
> >> > be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
> >> > arguments.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I agree. Which is why I never made such arguments. Please don't put them
> >> in
> >> my mouth; I don't know you well enough for that.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and
> others
> >> > that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources.
> If
> >> > that is so, you should fix that.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Actually, it is easy to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more
> >> difficult than adding them to Wikipedia. I have written bots and
> >> drag'n'drop scripts to make it even easier. It is a little fiiddly to
> add
> >> book references, but still reasoably possible.
> >> What /is/ difficult is to do this automatically, by bot. But pick a
> random
> >> Wikidata entry, and with a little googling, many statements can be
> >> referenced to URLs. But this takes time.
> >> Which brings me back to my blog post: Even after ~3 years, Wikidata is
> >> referenced not too badly, compared to Wikipedia. And if we have learned
> >> one
> >> thing from Wikipedia, it is that the state in general, and references in
> >> particular, will improve over time.
> >> So to everyone who disses Wikidata because of "missing references", I
> say:
> >> 1. You're wrong (it's already OK)
> >> 2. Patience (it will get even better)
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Magnus
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378
> >> >
> >> > Anthony Cole
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels <[hidden email]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
> >> > > new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
> >> > > exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind
> it,
> >> > > as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
> >> > > had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
> >> > > editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had
> to
> >> > > be, because I know you have done many good things.
> >> > >
> >> > > And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
> >> > > Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software
> engineering
> >> > > skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they
> did,
> >> > > they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
> >> > > term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
> >> > > it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
> >> > > disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
> >> > > etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.
> >> > >
> >> > > I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
> >> > > in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
> >> > > see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
> >> > > large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
> >> > > resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
> >> > > forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of
> the
> >> > > issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion
> is
> >> > > instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
> >> > > resistance against the product as a whole.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
> >> > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this
> >> > > thread. I
> >> > > > have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and
> I
> >> do
> >> > > well
> >> > > > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not
> >> > quite
> >> > > up
> >> > > > to the job.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical
> >> or
> >> > > > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even
> >> > > > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have
> >> seen
> >> > > time
> >> > > > and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And
> Not
> >> > Made
> >> > > > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole <[hidden email]
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A
> >> couple
> >> > of
> >> > > >> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And
> you're
> >> > > >> persisting with your idée fixe.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually.
> >> The
> >> > > >> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not
> >> > > newbies.
> >> > > >> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an
> >> edit.
> >> > > It
> >> > > >> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors
> >> were
> >> > > >> unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then
> >> most
> >> > > of
> >> > > >> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community
> >> arrogantly
> >> > > >> characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an
> >> > ignorant,
> >> > > >> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation
> >> now.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they
> have
> >> > > >> fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and
> >> the
> >> > > >> community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the
> >> > > concurrent
> >> > > >> thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny
> >> in
> >> > > >> earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems to me
> >> there
> >> > > is
> >> > > >> still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at
> >> least
> >> > > over
> >> > > >> at WikiData.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly,
> >> about
> >> > > an
> >> > > >> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down
> to
> >> > > them or
> >> > > >> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't
> >> > > distinguish
> >> > > >> them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and
> >> > well-founded
> >> > > >> criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your technical
> >> > solutions
> >> > > >> are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than those
> WMF
> >> > > staffers
> >> > > >> who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career
> move.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his
> project,
> >> and
> >> > > your
> >> > > >> contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early
> visual
> >> > > editor
> >> > > >> and its launch are both very disappointing.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Anthony Cole
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske <
> >> > > >> [hidden email]>
> >> > > >> wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do the
> >> basic
> >> > > >> > functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at the same
> >> time.
> >> > > We
> >> > > >> do
> >> > > >> > not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our
> product.
> >> If
> >> > we
> >> > > >> can
> >> > > >> > present the product in such a way that more people use it, it
> is
> >> a
> >> > > >> success
> >> > > >> > for us.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > I do stand by my example :-)
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael Peel <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> > > >> wrote:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske <
> >> > > [hidden email]
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > > As one can be overly conservative, one can also be overly
> >> > > >> > enthusiastic. I
> >> > > >> > > > would hope the Foundation by now understands better how to
> >> > handle
> >> > > new
> >> > > >> > > > software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic
> >> > functionality,
> >> > > but
> >> > > >> > > > working smoothly first.
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's a good
> example
> >> to
> >> > > make
> >> > > >> > > here. :-/
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > >> > > Mike
> >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> > > >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> > > >> > > 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
> >> > > >> > 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
> >> > > >> 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
> >> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> > > > Unsubscribe:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > André Engels, [hidden email]
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> > > 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
> >> > 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
> >> 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
> 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
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12345