Sunday, January 25, 2015

#Wikipedia - Khaled Idris Bahray a victim of terrorism is to be forgotten II

The good news is, Mr Idris Bahray is not a victim of terrorism. He is dead nonetheless. Mr Idris Bahray was apparently killed by his roommate.

When you read the article in Der Spiegel, you will read that he died in an area where swastikas are painted, with an unresponsive police according to the Wikipedia articles. It is a grim atmosphere were "us and them" thinking prevails.

Such an atmosphere exists not only in Germany, it can be found in so many places including the Netherlands where I live. People are afraid. They are afraid on both sides. It is what terrorism does and intends to do. As a result people are looked at and treated as if they are the enemy. It is done by "us and them" and both sided feel justified in their fear and anger.

Mr Idris Bahray died in Germany, he was not murdered by a terrorist. As we are all terrorised, Mr Idis Bahray's death got the attention it did get.

#Wikidata - Piet van der Sanden MP

Mr van der Sanden died. He was a member of the Dutch parliament and, he was both a journalist and a politician. His relevance was mostly in politics and not in journalism.

Adding a date of death is easy. Given that "member of parliament" is mostly used as a meta value, it is obvious that it should be taken away. Adding a new item for "member of the Dutch parliament" is easy as well.

The descriptions I will not touch with a bargepole. For Mr van der Sanden it is not wrong but it is not complete and it will always be in need of more finetuning. It is the one aspect of Wikidata that is without hope of it ever being good enough. Compare the difference with automated descriptions..

Friday, January 23, 2015

#Wikidata - John Wayne Mason and stress

Mr Mason died March 4, 2014. He is one of many who died in 2014 that have not been registered yet. Currently there are 755 people whose death in 2014 is waiting for inclusion in Wikidata.

All these people are notable; they have a Wikipedia article. Mr Mason is notable because he published significantly on the subject of stress. His contribution to the understanding of stress was that the psychological and emotional state of the subjects under study required more careful attention.

You can relieve my stress by registering the deaths of these people. You can find them here.

PS as far as I am aware we do not register what people were relevant for, on what subject(s) they published.

Thursday, January 22, 2015

#Wikidata - a year in numbers

The Wikidata dumps are finally available, Magnus did run his job so we have new statistics for Wikidata.

As we have the statistics for all of 2015, we know how much Wikidata has changed. The two most relevant indicators are labels and statements.

It is great to notice how many items have more than 5 labels. It is great to notice that we have few items with no labels; it is a constant struggle to keep it that way. Amir does a great job.

Statements are doing fine. Many more have been made. The number of items with no statement fell by 15.92%.The number of items with more than 10 statements more than doubled and the high end of this table has increased considerably as well.

It is obvious that in the last year, Wikidata became considerably more relevant.When you have used a tool like Reasonator for a long time, this is obvious. It will be interesting to see what 2015 will bring us in new functionality and data. Wikidata is like Wikipedia in its early days; interesting and showing promise. It is very much in need for collaboration to expose the parts where a Wikipedia does not reach.

#Wikipedia - Khaled Idris Bahray a victim of terrorism is to be forgotten

In #Dresden they protest against #Islam. In Dresden they killed Khaled Idris Bahray because he was clearly a foreigner and a muslim at that. As a consequence of his death people are terrorised. They are terrorised because they fear for their life and they have every reason to fear for their life.

Many people assume that their right to freedom of speech is paramount and a death like the one of Mr Idris Bahray is inconvenient and a side issue. Their point of view prohibits them to realise how people are terrorised by people they share this point of view with.

I would be totally ashamed, I find it extremely regrettable that some suggested for the German article is to be deleted. They quote a relevant rule as their argument. Wikipedia was about "Ignore all rules". This is certainly one moment to do just that and keep the article.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

#Wikipedia is #teamwork. That is why we need more #women

#Diversity is a top priority at the Wikimedia Foundation and, rightly so. The argument used is typically more women will ensure more information that is of interest to women. Often it is said that it will improve our community because it will make it more balanced.

The New York times provides a different argument that is equally compelling. It reports on research on intelligent groups. It is part of long running research and the findings of what makes a great group are really relevant:
  • a group works well with equal input from all members
  • members are adept at reading emotions
  • women outperform men
As a consequence it is obvious that any and all male chauvinists that abuse women are a serious liability. The argument that they are used to sexist banter is no excuse, it has nothing to do with freedom of expression and everything with abuse.

Wikipedia and the collaboration on all of its sister projects relies on groups working together bringing us the best possible results. Clearly we want to have everybody on board. Social interaction is a vital ingredient for the best results and that needs more attention. There are technical and social consequences of this research that we need to figure out and, last but not least, we need more women.

Saturday, January 17, 2015

#Wikipedia - #Signpost ... Citation needed ... REALLY ?

It is shocking and awful to find such drivel in a publication like the Signpost in "Featured content". A reaction like "Citation needed" is not appreciating how wrong it is and on how many levels it detracts from the English Wikipedia.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

#Wikidata - my #bias and two articles about #diversity

As a volunteer, I spend a great amount of time making Wikidata more informative. With currently 1,896,739 edits, it is obvious that I use tools.

What I am looking for in tools is that I can use them. They do not have to be scientific, they just have to be functional. It means that I can use it at home or wherever I happen to be on any computer.

At this time there are two tools for querying Wikidata. One provides us with near real time data and the other has huge prerequisites. It is however the preferred option by people with a scientific bend.

Both approaches have been used to write about diversity. Their outcome is similar. However, I am biased towards the tool that is available to me. If I wanted to, I could run the same queries and will have have similar results. Results that will be different because of the time that has passed.

The other tool requires huge investments of me and it will only provide me with static data. Maybe the results are the same and very scientific but it will not help me improve Wikidata, it is therefore of no use to me. It reflects on data from the past. It does not compare data from the present with data I have elsewhere.

On this blog I did mention gender ratios like the two publications do. My issue with all that information is that it misses on one thing; how Wikidata is becoming more informative about diversity. As it is becoming more informative, it becomes also more useful as a tool to look at diversity in Wikipedia in the past.

#Wikidata - a #disambiguation best practice: Mr Bob Boyd

Mr Bob Boyd died. At some time they all do. As you can see several of them already did. What you see is in Finnish. This example of disambiguation could have been in any language.

That is very much the point. With Reasonator we disambiguate in any language.

We can when we ignore the effort that goes in adding descriptions. Many of these descriptions are out of date, incomplete or just not available. I do not fix descriptions; I prefer to fix automated descriptions. I do this by adding missing statements. In this way the automated description is fixed in any language.

When people add descriptions with a bot, they could have added statements in stead. It would have been useful and when all the effort had gone into adding statements, Wikidata would be in much better shape.

As it is, there is no convincing argument for having fixed descriptions. They suck. They are mono-lingual where Wikidata is not.

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

#Wikimedia has more #money to achieve more #resultus

The latest fundraiser was a success. It raised all the money needed and then some. The public entrusted us with all this money and the question is now what are we going to do with it all and how.

As a movement we have a mission. This mission is to share in the sum of all knowledge. Our track record is stellar. Never before in history has so little money achieved so much. This is a documented fact; no discussion is needed. We did not achieve our mission fully; no discussion is needed about that either. Wikipedia Zero is just one of our initiatives to achieve more, Kiwix is another.

We are entrusted with all this money. We can put the money to use or put it in a bank. When we are to put in to use, we have to trust that it is spend wisely. The current model is very much one of a benevolent central deity that knows best for all of us. It provides money in a miserly way. It does not trust for the money to be spend wisely; it requires huge amounts of paperwork, reporting. Just as if we are all in business and if business procedures will necessarily produce the best results to achieve our mission.

We have chapters, they are member organisations of Wikimedians. The chapters are accountable to its members. All Wikimedia organisations share the same objective. The chapters are burdened by the requirement of producing reports. Reports that serve little purpose but to satisfy central command. A burden that seriously impacts the effectiveness of the money spend. It is to "prove" that money is spend wisely and effectively.  It results in projects that neatly fit a "best practices" pattern. It does not really allow for experiments, it does seriously hamper potential projects.

It shows how a lack of trust kills us as a movement. It prevents us to use all of our talents, it has us occupied with drudgery.

The alternative is to share the money of this windfall that is the extra money that was raised in the fundraiser with an instruction to the chapters to do good. They can spend it on local projects, on local initiatives. It will certainly be more effective than the current money distribution mechanism. It is not able to cope under the strain of too many requests. Sharing in our excess of wealth will be more effective because in this way more money will be used to achieve our mission.

We should have faith because of our past performance and spend all the money that has been entrusted to us. That is how we shine.