My (rejected) message below anyway. Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <[email protected]> wrote: > Why is my message to this thread getting rejected? It says "Message > rejected by filter rule match"? > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> I guess we are discussing this contest: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in >> _Red/The_World_Contest >> >> because this is the one which starts in two weeks. >> >> For the full disclosure, I have absolutely no relation to the contest and >> will likely not participate. >> >> First, this is an internal affair of the English Wikipedia. I am not sure >> why it should be discussed on wikimedia-l. >> >> Second, we have seen many writing contests and drives and personal >> initiatives on Wikipedia. Some were successful, some were complete >> disaster. Whether the contest/drive is successful depends on the >> organizers, and, in particular, on whether the goals are set properly. >> >> This one aims at 10K (not 100K) new articles in two months. This is >> realistic and, even if some articles are substandard, will not disturb the >> flow of Wikipedia. I recognize a lot of people who signed up as established >> editors who certainly know how to source articles. The rules of the contest >> establish 1K of pure prose (it indeed stated in one place 0.75K, which I >> changed to align with what is written in the rules of the contest.) They >> also specify that the articles must be properly sourced. A fully sourced 1K >> prose is a solid stub, and I do not see how it could harm Wikipedia. The >> organizer is Dr. Blofeld, who previously organized events of similar scope >> which were successful. (I for example participated in the Arfica destubaton >> last year and won a prize; I closely monitored the quality and I saw how >> Dr. Blofeld handled the quality control, I have no issues with that). >> >> To summarize, at this point I do not see any reasons for alarm. >> >> I would like, however, to address two more points which were raised in >> this topic. First, the monetary prizes. I personally oppose giving monetary >> prizes for writing Wikipedia articles. When I participated in the Africa >> destubaton I mentioned above, I made it very clear that I am not going to >> accept a monetary prize. After I won the contest in the nomination of the >> articles on Mozambique, I had an Amazon voucher sent to me, which I spent >> to buy an article on the history of Mozambique. So I am definitely not a >> fan of monetary prizes, on the other hand, this is not the first contest >> which offers monetary prizes, the prizes are of a scope comparable to what >> what offered at similar contests previously, and if the issue has to be >> discussed, it has to be discussed in a broader scope, not in relation to >> this particular contest. >> >> Second, I am not sure how I should interpret the opinions that the >> articles about women should be sourced worse than the articles about men, >> but currently there is consensus on the English Wikipedia on how the >> notability and verifiability policies should be implemented (I guess this >> could be different in other projects). The community is currently not >> accepting unsourced and poorly sourced articles, we have the trial running >> for autoconfirmed article creation, and the queue of new page patrol, which >> is now 13K articles, slowly goes down. (We actually struggled a lot to get >> it going down, for several years). Any unsourced article about living >> people gets PRODded within hours. No action which would attempt to revert >> this trend is going to be accepted. It is not about woman vs man or Africa >> vs Europe, it is about verifiability. >> >> Having said this, if there is a competition suddenly up in the air, aimed >> at 100K articles, poorly organized and with unrealistically weak >> requirements, I would definitely call it a road to disaster. It is just >> what I referenced is not this. >> >> Cheers >> Yaroslav >> >> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Gnangarra <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> This has nothing to do with Gender, >>> >>> The issue is the standards required and the aim of the event not the >>> subjects of the content.... >>> >>> The event set a minimum standard at 0.75k per article created, new >>> editors >>> going through articles for creation are required to have 1.5k of prose >>> which is twice the requirement for this competition. >>> >>> I'll repeat we should not expect more from new editors than we do from >>> existing editors, regardless of the subject. With any competition we >>> should be expecting a higher amount than the minimum from existing >>> community members, mass creation of stubs is not the best way to address >>> to >>> encourage those editors to take an interest in developing subjects. >>> >>> Any competition of this magnitude should also have the resources to >>> ensure >>> that in the process we dont do more damage >>> >>> >>> >>> On 16 October 2017 at 13:57, Natacha Rault <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > Dear All, >>> > >>> > I can only agree with GorillaWarfare. I am also tired of having to >>> proove >>> > anything concernig gender has to be perfect, when the whole principle >>> of >>> > Wikipedia is that everything is always perfectible. >>> > I think we should assume good faith and avoid <sarcastic> comments. >>> > Doing nothing about the gender gap would not bring a positive image of >>> our >>> > movement. The gap is huge and we do need quantity. Readers noticing >>> > mistakes sometimes become contributors (dont we need new >>> contributors?). >>> > Chosing such a tone “intentionally” (citing Gnangarra) is something I >>> find >>> > shocking. I think criticism is good to make progress, one does not >>> need to >>> > fuel resentmemt by making it <sarcastic>. >>> > >>> > >>> > Kind regards, >>> > >>> > Nattes à chat / Natacha >>> > >>> > >>> > > Le 16 oct. 2017 à 05:51, GorillaWarfare <gorillawarfarewikipedia@ >>> > gmail.com> a écrit : >>> > > >>> > > Also, in case it's not clear from my forwarding of Emily's/Keilana's >>> > > message, I endorse it completely and am glad she made her points. >>> > > >>> > > I agree fully with Keegan and Sydney. I don't think the concerns that >>> > this >>> > > will be overtaken by bots are well-founded; that was planned for in >>> the >>> > > document outlining the competition, and editors involved in this >>> project >>> > > will be subject to all expectations of normal editors (including not >>> > > mass-producing poor-quality content). >>> > > >>> > > As for Keegan's original post, there is a major difference between >>> > > describing an email as sexist versus labeling the sender as a >>> sexist. I >>> > > believe Keegan meant the former, and I'm not sure anything he's said >>> can >>> > be >>> > > described as an attack on the sender so much as a valid criticism of >>> poor >>> > > wording. >>> > > >>> > > – Molly (GorillaWarfare) >>> > > >>> > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:44 PM, GorillaWarfare >>> > <gorillawarfarewikipedia@ >>> > > gmail.com> wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> Emily (User:Keilana) is having some trouble getting mails through to >>> > this >>> > >> list, so I'm forwarding this on her behalf in case it's an issue >>> with >>> > her >>> > >> email address. >>> > >> >>> > >> "This is some sexist bullshit. You really think we can't handle some >>> > >> stubs? And do you really, really think that people won't try to AFD >>> > >> everything that comes out of this contest as it is? >>> > >> >>> > >> I'm sick and tired of this idea that we have to hold shit about >>> women >>> > to a >>> > >> higher standard than literally anything else. The encyclopedia isn't >>> > going >>> > >> to break because, god forbid, some inexperienced newbies write a >>> bunch >>> > of >>> > >> stubs. >>> > >> >>> > >> And so what if people think we're paying lip service to women? It's >>> > better >>> > >> than being seen as being actively hostile to women, which, as I >>> > shouldn't >>> > >> have to remind you, is our reputation as it currently stands." >>> > >> >>> > >> – Molly (GorillaWarfare) >>> > >> >>> > >>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Gnangarra <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >>> > >>> No worries Keegan I read it as sarcastic, given the amount of >>> noise on >>> > >>> here >>> > >>> I chose my tone intentionally to draw attention to the competition, >>> > yes it >>> > >>> looks like a wonderful idea until to look at the mechanics of >>> > comeptition >>> > >>> given it has a start time in 2 weeks, people are being encourage to >>> > start >>> > >>> now in sandboxes, its being advertised on banners yet it has very >>> > obvious >>> > >>> under lying issues >>> > >>> >>> > >>> - unrealistic targets >>> > >>> - quantity not quality >>> > >>> - an expectation that competitors are required to do half of >>> what is >>> > >>> expected from new editors , we should hold ourselves and expect >>> of >>> > >>> higher >>> > >>> standards than that we expect from new comers >>> > >>> - no methodology for notability. blp, copyright issues arent >>> weeded >>> > out >>> > >>> during the event or judging >>> > >>> - judging is done by a bot just doing a count >>> > >>> >>> > >>> To win this event all you need is a list, a script, and reliable >>> > internet >>> > >>> connection, despite having so many signed up well experience good >>> > editors >>> > >>> on the list. <sarcasm> Sadly one person using a Wikidata script >>> to >>> > >>> create >>> > >>> articles could be the winner, just imagine the unimaginable >>> > >>> frankenstienian horror that would create </sarcasm> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Any competition that relies on numbers alone is fraught with >>> danger, >>> > the >>> > >>> big international events all succeed not because of numbers but >>> > because >>> > >>> of >>> > >>> large teams(this run by one person alone) focused on quality with >>> the >>> > >>> whole >>> > >>> processes divided into manageable opt-in regional sections. All >>> the >>> > >>> initiatives to focus on under represented topics need to be >>> careful few >>> > >>> thousands of poor quality stubs about women is more harmful than >>> having >>> > >>> nothing as people will perceive Wikipedia to be paying lip service >>> to >>> > >>> women. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> On 16 October 2017 at 07:18, Keegan Peterzell < >>> [email protected]> >>> > >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >>> > >>>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Gergő Tisza <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Keegan Peterzell < >>> > >>>> [email protected]> >>> > >>>>> wrote: >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>>> "The nerve of these women, to think that they can write >>> encyclopedia >>> > >>>>>> articles on women who must inherently be non-notable! There's >>> > >>> nothing >>> > >>>> to >>> > >>>>>> write about here." >>> > >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> That's basically what your email says. No complaints when the >>> > >>> subject >>> > >>>> is >>> > >>>>>> anything else from you, when these thematic editing are held on >>> > >>> other >>> > >>>>>> subjects. >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> Please avoid personal attacks based on hidden motivations you >>> assume >>> > >>>> other >>> > >>>>> parties to have; it's contrary to the Wikimedia movement's social >>> > best >>> > >>>>> practices [1] and bound to take discussions in unproductive >>> > >>> directions. >>> > >>>>> When criticizing what someone said, stick to what they actually >>> said. >>> > >>>>> Especially so if your accusation of bad faith would be >>> essentially >>> > >>>>> content-free. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> Todd, Gnangarra, Gergő, >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> My intention, as I touched on earlier, was not to make a personal >>> > attack >>> > >>>> but to address the tone in which I perceived the email to be >>> written. >>> > I >>> > >>>> don't believe Gnangarra is actually sexist. I certainly stand by >>> my >>> > >>>> position that the content of the initial post is unhelpful >>> criticism >>> > and >>> > >>>> mostly hyperbole, but I'm more than willing to apologize if my >>> > language >>> > >>>> came across as a personal attack. I could have written it >>> differently. >>> > >>> So, >>> > >>>> sorry about that. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> -- >>> > >>>> ~Keegan >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email >>> > >>> address >>> > >>>> is in a personal capacity. >>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> > >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>> > >>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>> > >>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> > >>>> New messages to: [email protected] >>> > >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma >>> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >>> > , >>> > >>>> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsu >>> bscribe> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> -- >>> > >>> GN. >>> > >>> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.or >>> g/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page >>> > >>> 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/wik >>> > >>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik >>> > >>> i/Wikimedia-l >>> > >>> New messages to: [email protected] >>> > >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma >>> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> > >>> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsu >>> bscribe> >>> > >>> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>> > wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> > > New messages to: [email protected] >>> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma >>> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>> > wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> > New messages to: [email protected] >>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> GN. >>> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page >>> 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/wik >>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik >>> i/Wikimedia-l >>> New messages to: [email protected] >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
