This paper (first reference) is the result of a class project I was part of
almost two years ago for CSCI 5417 Information Retrieval Systems. It builds
on a class project I did in CSCI 5832 Natural Language Processing and which
I presented at Wikimania '07. The project was very late as we didn't send
the final paper in until the day before new years. This technical report was
never really announced that I recall so I thought it would be interesting to
look briefly at the results. The goal of this paper was to break articles
down into surface features and latent features and then use those to study
the rating system being used, predict article quality and rank results in a
search engine. We used the [[random forests]] classifier which allowed us to
analyze the contribution of each feature to performance by looking directly
at the weights that were assigned. While the surface analysis was performed
on the whole english wikipedia, the latent analysis was performed on the
simple english wikipedia (it is more expensive to compute). = Surface
features = * Readability measures are the single best predictor of quality
that I have found, as defined by the Wikipedia Editorial Team (WET). The
[[Automated Readability Index]], [[Gunning Fog Index]] and [[Flesch-Kincaid
Grade Level]] were the strongest predictors, followed by length of article
html, number of paragraphs, [[Flesh Reading Ease]], [[Smog Grading]], number
of internal links, [[Laesbarhedsindex Readability Formula]], number of words
and number of references. Weakly predictive were number of to be's, number
of sentences, [[Coleman-Liau Index]], number of templates, PageRank, number
of external links, number of relative links. Not predictive (overall - see
the end of section 2 for the per-rating score breakdown): Number of h2 or
h3's, number of conjunctions, number of images*, average word length, number
of h4's, number of prepositions, number of pronouns, number of interlanguage
links, average syllables per word, number of nominalizations, article age
(based on page id), proportion of questions, average sentence length. :*
Number of images was actually by far the single strongest predictor of any
class, but only for Featured articles. Because it was so good at picking out
featured articles and somewhat good at picking out A and G articles the
classifier was confused in so many cases that the overall contribution of
this feature to classification performance is zero. :* Number of external
links is strongly predictive of Featured articles. :* The B class is highly
distinctive. It has a strong "signature," with high predictive value
assigned to many features. The Featured class is also very distinctive. F, B
and S (Stop/Stub) contain the most information.
:* A is the least distinct class, not being very different from F or G. =
Latent features = The algorithm used for latent analysis, which is an
analysis of the occurence of words in every document with respect to the
link structure of the encyclopedia ("concepts"), is [[Latent Dirichlet
Allocation]]. This part of the analysis was done by CS PhD student Praful
Mangalath. An example of what can be done with the result of this analysis
is that you provide a word (a search query) such as "hippie". You can then
look at the weight of every article for the word hippie. You can pick the
article with the largest weight, and then look at its link network. You can
pick out the articles that this article links to and/or which link to this
article that are also weighted strongly for the word hippie, while also
contributing maximally to this articles "hippieness". We tried this query in
our system (LDA), Google (site:en.wikipedia.org hippie), and the Simple
English Wikipedia's Lucene search engine. The breakdown of articles occuring
in the top ten search results for this word for those engines is: * LDA
only: [[Acid rock]], [[Aldeburgh Festival]], [[Anne Murray]], [[Carl
Radle]], [[Harry Nilsson]], [[Jack Kerouac]], [[Phil Spector]], [[Plastic
Ono Band]], [[Rock and Roll]], [[Salvador Allende]], [[Smothers brothers]],
[[Stanley Kubrick]]. * Google only: [[Glam Rock]], [[South Park]]. * Simple
only: [[African Americans]], [[Charles Manson]], [[Counterculture]], [[Drug
use]], [[Flower Power]], [[Nuclear weapons]], [[Phish]], [[Sexual
liberation]], [[Summer of Love]] * LDA & Google & Simple: [[Hippie]],
[[Human Be-in]], [[Students for a democratic society]], [[Woodstock
festival]] * LDA & Google: [[Psychedelic Pop]] * Google & Simple: [[Lysergic
acid diethylamide]], [[Summer of Love]] ( See the paper for the articles
produced for the keywords philosophy and economics ) = Discussion /
Conclusion = * The results of the latent analysis are totally up to your
perception. But what is interesting is that the LDA features predict the WET
ratings of quality just as well as the surface level features. Both feature
sets (surface and latent) both pull out all almost of the information that
the rating system bears. * The rating system devised by the WET is not
distinctive. You can best tell the difference between, grouped together,
Featured, A and Good articles vs B articles. Featured, A and Good articles
are also quite distinctive (Figure 1). Note that in this study we didn't
look at Start's and Stubs, but in earlier paper we did. :* This is
interesting when compared to this recent entry on the YouTube blog. "Five
Stars Dominate Ratings"
http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/09/five-stars-dominate-ratings.html…
I think a sane, well researched (with actual subjects) rating system
is
well within the purview of the Usability Initiative. Helping people find and
create good content is what Wikipedia is all about. Having a solid rating
system allows you to reorganized the user interface, the Wikipedia
namespace, and the main namespace around good content and bad content as
needed. If you don't have a solid, information bearing rating system you
don't know what good content really is (really bad content is easy to spot).
:* My Wikimania talk was all about gathering data from people about articles
and using that to train machines to automatically pick out good content. You
ask people questions along dimensions that make sense to people, and give
the machine access to other surface features (such as a statistical measure
of readability, or length) and latent features (such as can be derived from
document word occurence and encyclopedia link structure). I referenced page
262 of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance to give an example of the
kind of qualitative features I would ask people. It really depends on what
features end up bearing information, to be tested in "the lab". Each word is
an example dimension of quality: We have "*unity, vividness, authority,
economy, sensitivity, clarity, emphasis, flow, suspense, brilliance,
precision, proportion, depth and so on.*" You then use surface and latent
features to predict these values for all articles. You can also say, when a
person rates this article as high on the x scale, they also mean that it has
has this much of these surface and these latent features.
= References =
- DeHoust, C., Mangalath, P., Mingus., B. (2008). *Improving search in
Wikipedia through quality and concept discovery*. Technical Report.
PDF<http://grey.colorado.edu/mediawiki/sites/mingus/images/6/68/DeHoustMangalat…>
- Rassbach, L., Mingus., B, Blackford, T. (2007). *Exploring the
feasibility of automatically rating online article quality*. Technical
Report. PDF<http://grey.colorado.edu/mediawiki/sites/mingus/images/d/d3/RassbachPincock…>
Hoi,
I have asked and received permission to forward to you all this most
excellent bit of news.
The linguist list, is a most excellent resource for people interested in the
field of linguistics. As I mentioned some time ago they have had a funding
drive and in that funding drive they asked for a certain amount of money in
a given amount of days and they would then have a project on Wikipedia to
learn what needs doing to get better coverage for the field of linguistics.
What you will read in this mail that the total community of linguists are
asked to cooperate. I am really thrilled as it will also get us more
linguists interested in what we do. My hope is that a fraction will be
interested in the languages that they care for and help it become more
relevant. As a member of the "language prevention committee", I love to get
more knowledgeable people involved in our smaller projects. If it means that
we get more requests for more projects we will really feel embarrassed with
all the new projects we will have to approve because of the quality of the
Incubator content and the quality of the linguistic arguments why we should
approve yet another language :)
NB Is this not a really clever way of raising money; give us this much in
this time frame and we will then do this as a bonus...
Thanks,
GerardM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: LINGUIST Network <linguist(a)linguistlist.org>
Date: Jun 18, 2007 6:53 PM
Subject: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers
To: LINGUIST(a)listserv.linguistlist.org
LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1831. Mon Jun 18 2007. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.
Subject: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers
Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar(a)linguistlist.org>
Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry(a)linguistlist.org>
Reviews: Laura Welcher, Rosetta Project
<reviews(a)linguistlist.org>
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/
The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University,
and donations from subscribers and publishers.
Editor for this issue: Ann Sawyer <sawyer(a)linguistlist.org>
================================================================
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html
===========================Directory==============================
1)
Date: 18-Jun-2007
From: Hannah Morales < hannah(a)linguistlist.org >
Subject: Wikipedia Volunteers
-------------------------Message 1 ----------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:49:35
From: Hannah Morales < hannah(a)linguistlist.org >
Subject: Wikipedia Volunteers
Dear subscribers,
As you may recall, one of our Fund Drive 2007 campaigns was called the
"Wikipedia Update Vote." We asked our viewers to consider earmarking their
donations to organize an update project on linguistics entries in the
English-language Wikipedia. You can find more background information on this
at:
http://linguistlist.org/donation/fund-drive2007/wikipedia/index.cfm.
The speed with which we met our goal, thanks to the interest and generosity
of
our readers, was a sure sign that the linguistics community was enthusiastic
about the idea. Now that summer is upon us, and some of you may have a bit
more
leisure time, we are hoping that you will be able to help us get started on
the
Wikipedia project. The LINGUIST List's role in this project is a purely
organizational one. We will:
*Help, with your input, to identify major gaps in the Wikipedia materials or
pages that need improvement;
*Compile a list of linguistics pages that Wikipedia editors have identified
as
"in need of attention from an expert on the subject" or " does not cite any
references or sources," etc;
*Send out periodical calls for volunteer contributors on specific topics or
articles;
*Provide simple instructions on how to upload your entries into Wikipedia;
*Keep track of our project Wikipedians;
*Keep track of revisions and new entries;
*Work with Wikimedia Foundation to publicize the linguistics community's
efforts.
We hope you are as enthusiastic about this effort as we are. Just to help us
all
get started looking at Wikipedia more critically, and to easily identify an
area
needing improvement, we suggest that you take a look at the List of
Linguists
page at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguists. M
Many people are not listed there; others need to have more facts and
information
added. If you would like to participate in this exciting update effort,
please
respond by sending an email to LINGUIST Editor Hannah Morales at
hannah(a)linguistlist.org, suggesting what your role might be or which
linguistics
entries you feel should be updated or added. Some linguists who saw our
campaign
on the Internet have already written us with specific suggestions, which we
will
share with you soon.
This update project will take major time and effort on all our parts. The
end
result will be a much richer internet resource of information on the breadth
and
depth of the field of linguistics. Our efforts should also stimulate
prospective
students to consider studying linguistics and to educate a wider public on
what
we do. Please consider participating.
Sincerely,
Hannah Morales
Editor, Wikipedia Update Project
Linguistic Field(s): Not Applicable
-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1831
Being put together by Eliezer Yudkowsky of LessWrong. Content is
cc-by-sa 3.0, don't know about the software.
https://arbital.com/p/arbital_ambitions/
Rather than the "encyclopedia" approach, it tries to be more
pedagogical, teaching the reader at their level.
Analysis from a sometime Yudkowsky critic on Tumblr:
http://nostalgebraist.tumblr.com/post/140995096534/a-year-ago-i-remember-be…
(there's a pile more comments linked from the notes on that post,
mostly from quasi-fans; I have an acerbic comment in there, but you
should look at the site yourself first.)
No idea if this will go anywhere, but might be of interest; new
approaches generally are. They started in December, first publicised
it a week ago and have been scaling up. First day it collapsed due to
load from a Facebook post announcement ... so maybe hold off before
announcing it everywhere :-)
- d.
Hello, everyone.
(this is an announcement in my capacity as a volunteer.)
Inspired by a lightning talk at the recent CEE Meeting[1] by our colleague
Lars Aronsson, I made a little command-line tool to automate batch
recording of pronunciations of words by native speakers, for uploading to
Commons and integration into Wiktionary etc. It is called *pronuncify*, is
written in Ruby and uses the sox(1) tool, and should work on any modern
Linux (and possibly OS X) machine. It is available here[2], with
instructions.
I was then asked about a Windows version, and agreed to attempt one. This
version is called *pronuncify.net <http://pronuncify.net>*, and is a .NET
gooey GUI version of the same tool, with slightly different functions. It
is available here[3], with instructions.
Both tools require word-list files in plaintext, with one word (or phrase)
per line. Both tools name the files according to the standard established
in [[commons:Category:Pronunciation]], and convert them to Ogg Vorbis for
you, so they are ready to upload.
In the future, I may add OAuth-based direct uploading to Commons. If you
run into difficulties, please file issues on GitHub, for the appropriate
tool. Feedback is welcome.
A.
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_2015/Programme/Lightn…
[2] https://github.com/abartov/pronuncify
[3] https://github.com/abartov/Pronuncify.net
--
Asaf Bartov
I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to act
extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being able
to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would align
very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many
constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my considerations
openly, since they might easily be perceived as expressions of interests -
regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current
employment.
This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to deal
with the situation of people deliberating a proposal written by my Best
Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous
decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case, and
refrained from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC.
This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a
potential conflict of interest between Wikimedia and my employer, and even
though I might have been in a unique position to provide insight, I had to
refrain from doing so in order not to exert influence.
There were constant and continuous attacks against me, as being merely
Google’s mole on the Board, even of the election being bought by Google. I
would not have minded these attacks so much - if I would have had the
feeling that my input to the Board, based on my skills and experiences,
would have been particularly valuable, or if I would have had the feeling
of getting anything done while being on the Board. As it is, neither was
the case.
I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not appropriate
to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
As some of you might know, Wikidata was for me just one step towards my
actual goal, a fully multilingual Wikipedia. I hoped that as a Trustee I
could pursue that goal, but when even writing a comment on a bug in
Phabricator has to be considered under the aspect that it will be read as
"it is a Board-member writing that comment" and/or “It’s a Googler writing
that comment”, I don’t see how I could effectively pursue such a goal.
It was at Wikimania 2006 in Boston, when Markus Krötzsch and I had lunch
with Dan Connolly, a co-editor of the early HTML specs. Dan gave me an
advise that still rings with me - to do the things worth doing that only
you can do. This set me, back then, on a path that eventually lead to the
creation of Wikidata - which, before then, wasn't something I wanted to do
myself. I used to think that merely suggesting it would be enough - someone
will eventually do it, I don’t have to. There’s plenty of committed and
smart people at the Foundation, they’ll make it happen. Heck, Erik was back
then a supporter of the plan (he was the one to secure the domain
wikidata.org), and he was deputy director. Things were bound to happen
anyway. But that is not what happened. I eventually, half a decade later,
realized that if I do not do it, it simply won't happen, at least not in a
reasonable timeframe.
And as said, Wikidata was just one step on the way. But right now I cannot
take the next steps. Anything that I would do or propose or suggest will be
regarded through the lense of my current positions. To be fair, I do see
that I should not be both the one suggesting changes, and the one deciding
on them. I understand now that I could not have suggested Wikidata as a
member of the Board. It takes an independent Board to evaluate such
proposal and its virtues and decide on them.
I want to send a few thank yous, in particular to the teams at the
Wikimedia Foundation and at Google who helped me steer clear of actual
conflicts of interests. They were wonderful, and extremely helpful. It
bears a certain irony that both organizations had strong measures against
exactly the kind of things that I have been regularly accused of.
I only see three ways to stay clear from a perceived or potential Conflict
of Interest: to lay still and do nothing, to remove the source of the
Conflict, or to step away from the position of power. Since the first
option is unsatisfying, the second option unavailable, only the third
option remains.
So I have decided to resign from the Board of Trustees.
It was not an easy decision, and certainly not a step made any easier by
the events in the last few months. I understand that I will disappoint many
of the people who voted for me, and I want to apologize: I am sorry,
honestly sorry, but I don’t see that it is me the Board needs now, or that
the movement needs me in that position. What I learned is that the profile
that allows someone to win an election is not the profile that makes an
effective Trustee.
But be warned that you will continue to hear from me, after a wikibreak.
Expect crazy ideas, project proposals, and requests to fund and implement
them. I will return to a more active role within the movement. I will be,
again, free to work on things that are worth doing and that only I can do.
I think that in that role I can be more effective and more valuable to the
movement, the Foundation, and for our mission.
Be bold,
Denny
Hello all, I am forwarding an email from Siska Doviana of Wikimedia
Indonesia:
Hello Wikimedia Chapters,
Cc WMID mailing list
This is my last email to you (to this list), as I am no longer serving
Wikimedia Indonesia's board and currently being denied access because
of ASBS. In a separate email you will also find Wikimedia Indonesia's
annual report for 2015.
You will receive this email from Isabella, as a request to extend my
email to the chapter's list. So many things has happened between 2010
and 2016 (I begin enroll to this list in 2008, out, and in again, now
out again), and I am proud to see where Wikimedia Indonesia - the
state that I left it in. Hard work pay off y'all!
I am happy to announce Wikimedia Indonesia new Board of Executive and
new Board of Trustees based on our VIII general meeting of member
taking place on March 19, 2016 [1] - followed by Head of Board
Executive decision on March 28, 2016 regarding Board of Executive's
position [2].
Wikimedia Indonesia Board of Executive 2016-2019
1. Biyanto Rebin - Chair Board of Executive (elect)
2. Vacant - Deputy Chair Board of Executive (appointed)
3. Isabella Apriyana - Secretary General Board of Executive (appointed)
4. Farras Daryoctara - Deputy Secretary General Board of Executive
(appointed)
5. Djohan Satria- Treasurer Board of Executive (appointed)
6. Rachmat Wahidi - Deputy Treasurer Board of Executive (appointed)
Wikimedia Indonesia Board of Trustees 2016-2019
1. Rinto Jiang - (Chair) Board of Trustees (elect)
2. Kartika Sari Henry - Member of Board of Trustees (elect)
3. Ricky Setiawan - Member of Board of Trustees (elect)
Thank you for all the time invested in the organization, when I reached
out for help, volunteer work, expert advice, council - and showed me
what leadership is by making a bold example by doing.
Stepping down:
1. Ichsan Mochtar
2. Prasetyo
3. Panjisakti Basunanda
4. Indra Utama
5. Hendra Prasetiawan
Please remove the above access to this list and chapter's wiki, and of
course, myself.
6. Siska Doviana
Getting to know the new board:
Biyanto Rebin (email: biyanto.rebin(a)wikimedia.or.id) user: Beeyan
is a long time Wikipedian and joins Wikimedia Indonesia in 2013 as
committee for Free Your Knowledge Competition. Graduated from
University of Indonesia majoring Chinese, he received scholarship to
perfect his Italian language and studied in Italy for 3 months. He's a
polygloth, vegetarian, a gamelan player, and a very nice person
in general. Before joining Wikimedia Indonesia to work full time in
2014 for Cipta Media Cellular project, he held various position from
Human Resource in oil company, cellular company, translator, to
tutoring. Biyanto attended WMCON 2016 as one of WMID
delegates
Isabella Apriyana (email: isabella.apriyana(a)wikimedia.or.id) user:
26Isabella
Joined Wikimedia Indonesia as ex participant of Free Your Knowledge
wikipedia writing competition. Graduated from Atmajaya University
majoring in Biotechnology Isabella works for Eijkman Institute for
Molecular Biology. She attended WMCON 2016 as the other
WMID delegates.
Farras Dary Octora (email: farras.daryoctara(a)wikimedia.or.id), user:Farras
A dedicated Wikipedian since 2006 and now still studying international
relations in Airlangga University. He has been member of Wikimedia
Indonesia since 2014 and an administrator in Indonesian Wikipedia.
Djohan Satria (email:[email protected]), user: djohan
Graduate from STAN (Indonesian State College of Accountancy) Djohan
been helping Wikimedia Indonesia with accounting matters (and
nightmare) since 2013, help us move office three times! Everyone calls
him pop, and he is the one any of us go to if there's any serious
matter happening, business, pleasure, or psychological (ha!). He is a
certified auditor and like to smile a lot, since he is pretty scary if
he is in his auditing mood.
Rachmat Wahidi (email: rachmat.wahidi(a)wikimedia.or.id), user:Rachmat04
Rachmat Acehnese Wikipedian (sysop), Indonesian Wikipedian, winner of
WMID's wikisource challenge, and Indonesia's representative for
Wikisource International Conference in Vienna in 2015. He is the head
of WMID Digitalization project and overseeing eight other WMID
contractors. He graduated from English literature and all around pretty
shy.
Rinto Jiang (email: Rintojiang(a)gmail.com), user:rintojiang
Rinto is a long time Indonesian Wikipedian and one of Wikimedia
Indonesia founders. Currently he lives between Taiwan and Indonesia,
Rinto is a father, an executive manager and a marketing strategist.
Kartika Sari Henry (email:[email protected]),
user:22Kartika
Kartika is a prolific writer, winning the 2010 Free Your Knowledge
writing competition she has been writing her way out of a lot of
things. Currently studying her master in Royal Melbourne University
(RMIT) her interest is so vast - from philosophical to practical
things. I wouldn't even bother to write it here.
Ricky Setiawan (email:[email protected]) user:BlackKnight
Ricky is a long time wikipedian, graduated from management maajor from
University in Indonesia and he is now working as a marketing for OLO
Rattan.
Best regards,
Siska Doviana
--
*Isabella Apriyana*
*Sekretaris Jendral (Secretary General)*
*Wikimedia Indonesia*
Seluler +6281213700084
Surel isabella.apriyana(a)wikimedia.or.id
Dukung upaya kami membebaskan pengetahuan!
http://wikimedia.or.id/wiki/Wikimedia_Indonesia:Donasi
Support us to free the knowledge!
http://wikimedia.or.id/wiki/Wikimedia_Indonesia:Donasi
--
*Isabella Apriyana*
*Anggota (Member)*
*Wikimedia Indonesia*
Seluler +6281213700084
Surel isabella.apriyana(a)wikimedia.or.id
Dukung upaya kami membebaskan pengetahuan!
http://wikimedia.or.id/wiki/Wikimedia_Indonesia:Donasi
Support us to free the knowledge!
http://wikimedia.or.id/wiki/Wikimedia_Indonesia:Donasi
Circling back to a subject that I've mentioned before, I favor having
meetings of the WMF Board be open and recorded by default, with limited
exceptions for discussions of legally privileged information and other
subjects for which there is a strong reason that deliberations should
remain private. Note that "wiki-political sensitivity" is not one of those
reasons.
I hope that recent events illustrate that it may be better to be
transparent from the beginning than try to suppress information that
eventually leaks out or emerges after a lengthy series of questions.
The WMF Board minutes tend to be brief, and the Board's deliberations are
rarely public. This is disappointing for an organization in the open source
movement. WMF should be an exemplar of transparent and open governance.
To illustrate the kind of detail that can be omitted from Board minutes and
the temptation to omit information for questionable reasons, I suggest this
clip from the British satire "Yes, Minister", in which two civil servants
discuss the Prime Minister's wish to suppress the publication of a chapter
of a book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNKjShmHw7s
I hope that, as the WMF Board moves forward, it transforms into a model of
transparency and openness; less "Yes, Minister" and paralysis and
resistance to the community, and more transparency and vigor in public
service. Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be
a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency.
Pine
Dear all,
voting for the affiliate-selected board seats is starting today, and
will end on May 8 (results will be announced shortly after that).
Ten people nominated - which is more than in any previous round - and
all nominations got an endorsement. Therefore, we have ten candidates
running:
* Christophe Henner (schiste)
* Jan Ainali (Ainali)
* Kunal Mehta (Legoktm)
* Leigh Thelmadatter (Thelmadatter)
* Lodewijk Gelauff (Effeietsanders)
* Maarten Deneckere (MADe)
* Nataliia Tymkiv (antanana)
* Osmar Valdebenito (B1mbo)
* Siska Doviana (Siska.Doviana)
* Susanna Mkrtchyan (SusikMkr)
For the nomination statements, see:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Nominat…
While only chapters and thematic organizations are eligible to vote,
anyone is encouraged to ask questions, either to all the candidates:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Questio…
or to specific candidates in the talk page of their nomination.
Chris Keating
Lorenzo Losa
Lane Rasberry
- election facilitators
hi jimmy,
i asked on the facebook group wikipeda weekly if joe/ed could publish
an upcoming blog post on wikinews. joe sutherland mentioned ".. I
simply cannot get my head around its attitude to news coverage". which
i find frightening. an editor for 10 years, tens of thousands
contributions, thousands of pages created, degree in journalism,
dissertation about news on wikipedia, administrator.[1]
jimmy, as wikinews refers an old mail of you from 2003 as the holy
grail of NPOV, could you please clarify once and for all that your
NPOV statemant you sent to wikien-l was valid for wikipedia. and not
for wikisource, wikiquote, wikinews. best on the wikinews talk page
concerning NPOV [2][4]. i understand of course that certain publishing
standards might apply - but NPOV, and "sourced" in the sense of
published somewhere else cannot be amongst them [3].
just as a note, i hate that the blog [5] opens 20 times slower than
wikinews on my mobile phone, that it is not in different languages,
that i do not have the "usual mediawiki features". i hate that
signpost [7] cannot be read on mobiles because of formatting. i hate
the glam newsletter [6] for the same reason, despite beeig again on a
different wiki, no "read in different languages". which is the main
reason i write this mail ... and asked joe why not using wikinews. and
i hate that wikinews does not use mediawiki features to properly
classify what quality an article has, e.g. "blog", "npov", etc.
[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Foxj&project=en.wikipedia.org
[2] https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#raphael_ho…
[3] https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Pillars_of_Wikinews_writing
[4] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008096.html
[5] blog: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/22/ted-wikimedia-collaboration/
[6] glam newletter: https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter
[7] signpost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost
best,
rupert
I just scanned an article: "Wikipedia is basically just another giant
bureaucracy",
http://www.sciencealert.com/wikipedia-is-basically-just-another-old-fashion…
and it is astonishing how bad it is.
I don't really quibble with the headline - it is a bureaucracy, but some of
the content of the article is head-scratching.
For example, how many editors do you know who have achieved the rank of
super-contributor?
Can one take an article seriously that blunders this badly?
Phil