Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

FYI, related this audio interview is up now: Wikipedia Weekly podcast interviews researchers Felipe Ortega and Ed Chi about recent WSJ article re: volunteer departures http://bit.ly/5aG6si -Andrew ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikim

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

What we really need are highly skilled encyclopedists doing their highly demanding work. >What we need is an Office of the Editor Advocate. Any arrested person has the >right to an attorney, provided free of charge by the state. That is what we >need. Advocate-attorneys who are on the side o

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

> On Nov 26, 2009 8:56 PM, wrote: >> Any arrested person has >> the right to an attorney, provided free of charge by the state. >> That is >> what we need. Advocate-attorneys who are on the side of the arrested >> editor. I'm totally okay with discussing this concept, but arguments like t

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

on 11/26/09 9:06 PM, Chad at innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: > We had that. They called themselves the "Association > of Member's Advocates." They were disbanded because > everyone saw them as a huge waste of time with 0 net > benefit. > Everyone? I'm not familiar with the one you mention, but, l

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates As for having some level of "who polices the policeman" at least on Wikipedia we already have bureaucrats, checkusers, admins, arbitrators, oversighters, stewards... So I'm pretty sure we've got the checks and balances

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

We had that. They called themselves the "Association of Member's Advocates." They were disbanded because everyone saw them as a huge waste of time with 0 net benefit. -Chad On Nov 26, 2009 8:56 PM, wrote: I already pointed out that you cannot impose "friendliness". Our current state is one i

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

I already pointed out that you cannot impose "friendliness". Our current state is one in which any particular admin may sit on any particular editor with or without adequate cause and that editor has nearly no power to affect a hearing. There is no advocate for the editors who are not admins

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Samuel Klein wrote: > I've been working with swahili-speaking students over the past week > introducing them to Wikipedia (as part of an article-writing contest sw:wp > is running this winter). They're net-savvy, many maintain a blog, but > they're not geeks. And they tend to be totally baffled b

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

within the next few hours, I'll do it > once I'm back at my laptop. > > Thanks, > Sue > > -Original Message- > From: David Moran > Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:28:24 > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Thanks for pointing out the interview and explaining the most current research Felipe. Most helpful! Steven Walling On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > Felipe Ortega wrote: > > The problem with it is that it's difficult to contact former > editors/admins, once they abando

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Felipe Ortega wrote: > The problem with it is that it's difficult to contact former editors/admins, > once they abandon the project definitely (in my experience). Other strategies > are too aggressive (like spamming talk pages) etc. and they should always be > avoided. Some editors haven't supp

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

--- El mar, 24/11/09, Nikola Smolenski escribió: > De: Nikola Smolenski > Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia > Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Fecha: martes, 24 de noviembre, 2009 08:50 > Felipe Ortega wrote: > > Wikipedia just entered

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Felipe Ortega wrote: > Wikipedia just entered a new phase. Our responsibility (as long-time > Wikipedia researchers) is to find out the causes (not necessarily negative, > please read a PDF summarizing a recent electronic interview for the Strategy > plan, at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/I

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

--- El lun, 23/11/09, Andrew Lih escribió: > De: Andrew Lih > Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia > Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Fecha: lunes, 23 de noviembre, 2009 22:49 > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM, > David Moran > wrote: > &

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

--- El lun, 23/11/09, Steven Walling escribió: > De: Steven Walling > > I didn't see any of the graphs from the piece or any > conclusions in the > thesis which are equivalent to the statements made in the > Journal, so this > must be new research. > Hi, Steven. I'm Felipe Ortega the author

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

On Nov 23, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Sue Gardner wrote: > > People who want to help do some of this work should engage on the > strategy wiki: there's a task force focused on community health that > will be looking at these issues. I can't post the URL (I'm on my > Blackberry and between meetings)

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

One essential problem is that once Wikipedia embraced the multipage multimedia-heavy Encarta style as what makes for a "good" article -- without a radical improvement in the editing technology -- the ease of editing has fallen drastically. Basically all of the policy trends -- agglomeration, delet

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Sue Gardner wrote: > > People who want to help do some of this work should engage on the strategy > wiki: there's a task force focused on community health that will be looking > at these issues.  I can't post the URL (I'm on my Blackberry and between > meetings)

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM, David Moran wrote: > > I think a lot of attention is paid to the way the technical interface is > hostile to newbies, and making that more user-friendly and democratic is > certainly a concern that needs to be addressed.  But I think the tendency of > older users,

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

s, I'll do it once I'm back at my laptop. Thanks, Sue -Original Message- From: David Moran Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:28:24 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia Getting back to the content of the article: I get that inclusionism vs deletionis

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Michael Snow wrote: > Gerard Meijssen wrote: > >> books are available for years the copy of >> the day may be available in a library, but how about last years copy of the >> WSJ ? Do you really think the WSJ can be found in every USA library ?? >> > I don't know about "every" library, but l

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote: >> If we're going to have a thread, let's focus on the substance of the >> article.  This is a digression. >> >> > This seems to beg the question: "What do we mean by 'on topic'?" > > In the present circumstance

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote: > If we're going to have a thread, let's focus on the substance of the > article. This is a digression. > > This seems to beg the question: "What do we mean by 'on topic'?" In the present circumstances, is it about the actual content of the WSJ article, or is it

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Getting back to the content of the article: I get that inclusionism vs deletionism is a tired way to talk about divisions between camps of editors, and that everyone rolls their eyes when you start talking about it, but yeah, it's real. Every single person I know who was once a producing contribut

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

altally wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: >> >>> Hoi, >>> Given that the WSJ is making a lot of noise about moving all its content >>> behind a paywall and is planning to remove its headlines from the "pryin

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

So the content of the WSJ article may be behind a paywall, but I just did a cursory search of the researcher's 2009 Ph.D. thesis which was a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia in several languages. I didn't see any of the graphs from the piece or an

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Gerard Meijssen wrote: > books are available for years the copy of > the day may be available in a library, but how about last years copy of the > WSJ ? Do you really think the WSJ can be found in every USA library ?? > I don't know about "every" library, but libraries are about more than just

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

If we're going to have a thread, let's focus on the substance of the article. This is a digression. Newyorkbrad On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > I wonder if the WSJ can be found in the British Australian Canadian New > Zealand libraries ... also books are av

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi. > Maybe. However the request was to make available articles that are not > freely available.. Posting them somewhere so that people who do not have > access can formulate an opinion is probably not even legally allowed. > > A book can

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Hoi, I wonder if the WSJ can be found in the British Australian Canadian New Zealand libraries ... also books are available for years the copy of the day may be available in a library, but how about last years copy of the WSJ ? Do you really think the WSJ can be found in every USA library ?? T

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

altally wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:57 PM, William Pietri wrote >> A reporter pal points out to me that the Wall Street Journal has a >> front page story on Wikipedia: "Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages". >> Alas, it's subscriber-only: >> >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258939811837

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

And the WSJ can be found in essentially every library in the English speaking world also. There is thus a free way to verify--much more easily than 99.99% of books. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Hoi. Maybe. However the request was to make available articles that are not freely available.. Posting them somewhere so that people who do not have access can formulate an opinion is probably not even legally allowed. A book can be found in a library and consequently there is a way to verify. Tha

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Gerard Meijssen > wrote: > > Hoi, > > Given that the WSJ is making a lot of noise about moving all its content > > behind a paywall and is planning to remove its headlines from the "prying > > eyes" of Google, I t

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Given that the WSJ is making a lot of noise about moving all its content > behind a paywall and is planning to remove its headlines from the "prying > eyes" of Google, I think it is appropriate to honour their wish and no > longer c

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

By that logic, a book, which costs money to buy, would never be a "verifiable source" either. We might *prefer* to cite free (gratis) accessible sources over others, all things being equal, but the fact that a source is behind a paywall does not negate verifiability. Newyorkbrad On Mon, Nov 23,

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Hoi, Given that the WSJ is making a lot of noise about moving all its content behind a paywall and is planning to remove its headlines from the "prying eyes" of Google, I think it is appropriate to honour their wish and no longer consider the WSJ as a verifiable source. It is appropriate because it

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:57 PM, William Pietri wrote: > A reporter pal points out to me that the Wall Street Journal has a > front page story on Wikipedia: "Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages". > Alas, it's subscriber-only: > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html > I'm ab

[Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

A reporter pal points out to me that the Wall Street Journal has a front page story on Wikipedia: "Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages". Alas, it's subscriber-only: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html There's also a publicly viewable blog article "Is Wikipedia Too Unfrien