Jump to content

User talk:Alsee/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:26, 26 July 2020 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from User talk:Alsee) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 20

Growth team updates #12

17:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

19:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Alsee,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

16:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

20:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to streamline the welcome template. Sdkb (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee#Making the visual editor the default for new/IP users. Sdkb (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

00:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

17:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

21:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

17:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

17:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

19:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

15:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #1 – Discussion tools

Read this in another languageSubscription list

Screenshot showing what the Reply tool looks like
This early version of the Reply tool automatically signs and indents comments.

The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. The goal of the talk pages project is to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. This project is the result of the Talk pages consultation 2019.

Reply tool improved with edit tool buttons
In a future update, the team plans to test a tool for easily linking to another user's name, a rich-text editing option, and other tools.

The team is building a new tool for replying to comments now. This early version can sign and indent comments automatically. Please test the new Reply tool.

  • On 31 March 2020, the new reply tool was offered as a Beta Feature editors at four Wikipedias: Arabic, Dutch, French, and Hungarian. If your community also wants early access to the new tool, contact User:Whatamidoing (WMF).
  • The team is planning some upcoming changes. Please review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page. The team will test features such as:
    • an easy way to mention another editor ("pinging"),
    • a rich-text visual editing option, and
    • other features identified through user testing or recommended by editors.

To hear more about Editing Team updates, please add your name to the "Get involved" section of the project page. You can also watch these pages: the main project page, Updates, Replying, and User testing.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

18:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

16:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

20:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Growth team newsletter #13

14:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

17:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: Loop

Continuing from Here (the last part). The topic is related to ShortDescription and Wikipedia, attracting WMF attention. We have already 2 off-topic posts, after User:RexxS's last post I was thinking not to post, however, ended up posting one more time. Now, I won't post there about this topic further. Wanted to inform you that I have read your post. As you have suggested you can actually move that part of discussion anywhere else (or ping me if you find a similar one).

So, what is the order? Wikidata imports a value (such as IMDb, official website) from English Wikipedia (or any Wikipedia) and stores the value on a Wikidata item. Now we show that Wikidata item link on Wikipedia. However, why? Earlier interwikis were taken and stored on Wikidata (the first phase of Wikidata).

Now, as a Wikidata item is showing a statement is imported from English Wikipedia, the statement was definitely correct on English Wikipedia. Now there are 2 possibilities:

  1. the data was incorrect on English Wikipedia. In that case, the data, which is imported from Wikipedia is incorrect as well, and should not be used on English Wikipedia.
  2. the data was correct on English Wikipedia. In that case, we exported data to Wikidata, and then decided to rely on Wikidata for this field.

However why? There was not anything broken per #1, and #2 above. The only logic I can find here, treating these fields as "interwiki" to be managed on Wikidata only. However, I don't think there is a community consensus on it, and it is definitely not a practice. What is really lacking: a clear understanding and guideline "why" and "when"? --Titodutta (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Titodutta the situation is definitely a mess. You pretty much already figured out the answer to "why". There is a significant group (including the Foundation, the Wikidata community, and a significant number of EnWiki editors) who want to use Wikidata as an interwiki repository for... well pretty much anything and everything that could plausibly be managed in that fashion. Wikidata isn't a wiki, it's basically a database. Wikidata doesn't have much of a community, it's largely a bot-farm. They don't care about sources or reliability of anything or BPL issues - they're a bot farm with a mission of inhaling as much raw data as possible from anywhere and everywhere. A handful of Wikidata-enthusiasts eagerly began switching infoboxes and other templates to remote-display of Wikidata values. In some cases they engaged in bulk-deletion of content from Wikipedia, so that the newly-empty Wikipedia templates would pull and display nothing but Wikidata values.
Some editors began to object and push back. Everything was in chaos and things got ugly.
  • May 2013 WP:Requests_for_comment/Wikidata_Phase_2 was the beginning. The Foundation gave a sales-pitch of awesome new features we could use (or not-use) however we wanted. A no-strings-attached "gift". The community allowed Wikidata to be enabled on Wikipedia, so we could try it out. The RFC issued an ambiguous consensus somewhere between "allowing" infoboxes to be converted to wikidata and requiring consensus to convert, it banned Wikidata in article text, and other parts of the article (like external link templates) were overlooked/indeterminate.
  • The 2016 RFC WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_128#RfC:_Wikidata_in_infoboxes,_opt-in_or_opt-out? closure basically said there was widespread confusion, split views, and that we'd need another RFC to produce any meaningful outcome.
  • November 2017 WP:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Motion:_Crosswiki_issues. The community was in open warfare. Wikidata advocates were running around converting everything to Wikidata, and critics were seeking-and-achieving consensus to roll back case-by-case. Massive wasted-work and disruption as data-enthusiasts wiped out the content from THOUSANDS of pages, replacing them with empty infoboxes-pulling-values-from-wikidata and per-consensus other editors had to rollback and reconstruct all of those pages. Tempers flared, ARBCOM case filed, ARBCOM declares Wikidata to be a a Discretionary Sanctions area, ARBCOM orders that we develop an RFC to deal with it, and both sides are ordered to halt any large-scale efforts to roll-forwards or roll-back the Wikidata situation.
  • Feb 2018 RFC WT:Manual_of_Style/Archive_202#RfC:_Linking_to_wikidata was "no consensus" and tells us to run another RFC later.
  • April 2018 - the Really Big RFC that ARBCOM told us to run. You're welcome to try reading the close at WP:Wikidata/2018_Infobox_RfC#Discussion, but it's a long rambling "no consensus, go run another RFC". If I may offer my personal summary: One third of the community wants to largely scrap use of Wikidata. One third want as much Wikidata possible, everywhere possible. And approximately one third were (in my opinion) confused-as-fuck and tried to agree with both sides. Basically the middle-third said enthusiasts were right about the benefits and critics were right about the problems. They sorta said we should use Wikidata if we can magically get all of the benefits and none of the problems. Maybe I am biased, but all of my logic classes taught me that "we can use Wikidata if impossible magic" has a logic-value of nope.
The status quo is, approximately, both sides abandoning any systematic efforts to roll forwards or roll back. Revised: looking around, I'm finding that the Wikidata-crusaders have broken the truce. I see they have gone back to spamming Wikidata into thousands and thousand of article at a shot. Ugh! I've got a mountain of WMF-related matters to attend to, and the last thing I need right now is massive work trying to search-out and deal with THIS crap. Alsee (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The other points that need adding include:
  • The English Wikipedia (enwiki) is by far the largest Wikipedia, but there also another 300 language Wikipedias. Every piece of data we exported from enwiki into Wikidata became available for use on those 300 other Wikipedias, and much of it has been used. The other large wikipedias also contributed to the datatabase. It is true that enwiki gets the least benefit from that because much of the information is already present on enwiki, so we don't have as much to gain in terms of new information, but we still benefit from having data stored and updated in one place.
  • I've spent a considerable amount of my wiki-time over the last seven years working on the code that pulls information from Wikidata into an infobox on enwiki, and dealing with the problems and complaints generated over that time. I think I can claim to have a reasonable overview of the issues. I completely agree that we need to move toward getting the benefits and eliminating the problems. But that doesn't happen through magic. It happens by developing the tools to enable editors to reap the benefits and minimise the problems.
  • By default, infoboxes constructed using Module:WikidataIB never replace any value that is already supplied locally with one from Wikidata.
  • By default, calls to the module filter out values that are not referenced to something other than a Wikipedia project (the WP:V problem).
  • By default, calls to the module don't add any new fields to an existing infobox in any article unless an editor deliberately enables fetching wikidata in that article (the opt-in problem).
  • By default, calls to the module display an "edit" icon (the blue pen) at the end of each value fetched from Wikidata which takes an editor directly to the Wikidata statement that's used, facilitating finding where the value came from and what their references are.
  • By default, calls to the module don't display the contents of the Wikidata label which is very prone to vandalism; they use the sitelink to the enwiki article which is much harder to vandalise.
Can these measures be circumvented? Of course, nothing is foolproof. Can they be improved? Yes, but you'll be very hard-pushed to find any sensible suggestions for improvement that haven't been implemented.
New editors are arriving on enwiki all the time, and a lot of them are more inclined (in my experience) to want to make changes like automatically-generated infoboxes. Nobody wants to see conflict break out, so we need the two extreme "thirds" to start working with the middle "third" to make sure that when changes get consensus, they can be implemented seamlessly. --RexxS (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi RexxS. Most of your points above I would summarize by saying that I think you do a great job making the wikidata stuff work as well as possible. I do get it why some people support the wikidata approach. The issue is the things you can't fix or and can't meaningfully improve. That's where discussions break down. The pro side wants to talk about the things you can do and you can improve. The con side wants to talk about the things you can't fix. The two sides see approximately nil value re-re-re-discussing the opposite (irrelevant) topic. To oversimplify, it's a question of whether Wikipedia should be handling the content as remote data. There's a lot of unavoidable baggage that comes with doing it that way.
While we may be on opposite sides of this issue I do hope for the ideal that we both want the "middle third" to express a resolution, and that we collaborate whichever way it turns out.
What upsets me is when it appears the 'truce' is being violated. (Note: I'm not pointing at you.) To quote ARBCOM: editors should refrain from taking any steps that might create a fait accompli situation (i.e., systematic Wikidata-related edits on English Wikipedia that would be difficult to reverse without undue effort if the RfC were to decide that a different approach should be used). That ARBCOM directive has technically expired. When I see a wikidata-advocate WP:Boldly make a large scale roll-forwards of wikidata negligible or no consensus, I feel a strong urge to declare an equal right for wikidata-critics to WP:Boldly preform large scale roll-backs of wikidata with negligible or no consensus. That's not how we should do things. Alsee (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you absolutely (apart from the bit about me - I just code stuff that people ask me to). I suspect that the drive to draw more and more information from Wikidata is irresistible – Module:WikidataIB is in use on over 60 Wikipedias as well as Commons. But converting from a plain infobox to a Wikidata-enabled one is something that ought to be done with consensus. I don't mean that everybody has to go and get permission before making an edit – that is anathema to me – but I do think that bold edits that are reverted for good reason should immediately trigger a discussion and a consensus genuinely sought by both sides of the discussion. BRD should work just as well there as in any edit. I see my part in that as someone who can sometimes offer a solution that folks can agree on after they become aware of the technical capabilities and limitations. I'm more than happy to advise editors on how to structure work-flows to ensure that bringing in Wikidata meets the demands of as many interested editors as possible, but I don't think the stance of "no Wikidata anywhere" is tenable any longer. I do want to see us using Wikidata more, but we already have an example of WMF developers imposing information from Wikidata into the English Wikipedia, and that was sub-optimally done. The last thing I want is to move the responsibility for content away from enwiki editors to unaccountable WMF staff, if they decide it would be a good idea to make infoboxes automatically draw from Wikidata, for example. --RexxS (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Yapperbot (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

14:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

22:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

21:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #2 – Quick updates

Read this in another languageSubscription list

Mockup of the new reply feature, showing new editing tools
The new features include a toolbar. What do you think should be in the toolbar?

This edition of the Editing newsletter includes information the Wikipedia:Talk pages project, an effort to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. The central project page is on MediaWiki.org.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

21:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)