Hoi,
Well if this was not a Wiki, I could agree with you. However in a Wiki we
need to be complete, we need to understand an issue and work towards a
solution. Your assertion that the community "is not fixing that problem and
indeed is unable to fix that problem" is therefore an assertion that is
best used elsewhere. To a large extend, the notion some have: "everything
needs to be sourced" reads better as "everything should be sourced", much
more reasonable. Such a difference allows for requiring sources when an
issue is controversial.
Having said that a lot of work is being done and we have had our first
articles changed because the facts supported by citations are invalid; the
sources were retracted. Now that is exactly where we need our community to
understand the implications. Science is not immutable, it is not an opinion
and when thing are untrue, our articles need to reflect this. The
mechanisms that make this possible require technology, we need people like
librarians that understand this as part of our community, because at this
time many people do not appreciate science and its processes.
And by the way, I do understand the scale of this issue. It is why I spend
a large amount of time adding scientists, scholarly papers to Wikidata.
Particularly on those subjects that I think are important where there is a
lot of misinformation, where points of view, including political points of
view are not supported by science, better where science indicates that
those points of view are wrong. In addition I add those scientists that are
"in the news"
Thanks,
GerardM
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 08:38, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsummers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Gerard
Thank you for explaining to me what it is that I fail to understand. In
the same spirit, let me adopt for once your own, somewhat assertive
terminology, to explain to you what you do not understand, namely the scale
of the problem: the major Wikipedia projects have millions of unreferenced
or inadequately referenced articles, including thousands which are
biographies of living people. What you do not understand is that the
community on which you place such emphasis has created that problem, is not
fixing that problem and indeed is unable to fix that problem. You also do
not understand the simple arithmetic that the collaboration with librarians
equally does not and cannot fix that problem.
In future, please do not say "you do not understand X" when what you mean
is "I disagree with you about X".
JPS
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 8:54 PM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi,
The thing you fail to understand is how much of what we do is done by a
community. What we need is collaboration with the world of libraries. It
is
embodied by librarians and yes, it is important
that they are on our
side.
To be on our side, they need to know Wikipedia,
what we are doing in
Wikidata with scholarly papers. They need to know, be involved in order
to
help their clients understand the Internet and
Wikipedia. Their clients
are
> or may become Wikimedians.
> So yes, we are dabbling with AI to
find where citations are most needed.
We
need to work on including science in Wikidata so
that its references may
be
used in a scalable way. A way that allows us to
check Wikipedia for the
retractions we are finally including in Wikidata. The technology may
become
> available to us but we need people who understand it, live it. Librarians
> are great at that.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 19:37,
Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsummers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Jake
>
> > Thanks for that, but I
think we need to preserve a sense of proportion
> > here. According to a recent WMF Research finding, see
>
>
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/03/can-machine-learning-uncover-wik…
> > ,
> > <
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/03/can-machine-learning-uncover-wik…
,
>
> > "one
> > out of four articles in English Wikipedia does not have any references
at
> > all". That' something like 1.5 million articles, and maybe 3 million
> > across all languages. Your report suggests that around 6000 articles
> were
> > updated: that's at best 0.2% of the backlog. At this rate it will take
> > about 250 years to clear it. Perhaps a new approach is needed -- WMF
> > researchers are looking into AI.
>
> > JPS
>
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at
6:27 PM Jake Orlowitz <jorlowitz(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > Librarians and library
lovers,
> >
> > > Next month from
May 15th to June 5th we will be joining together
around
> > the
> > > world to make Wikipedia more reliable. You can participate in
> #1Lib1Ref
> > by
> > > simply adding a citation to Wikipedia's content.
> >
> > > That's all we
ask and imagine: a world in which every librarian (or
> > > archivist, reference professional, and scholar) adds 1 more reference
> to
> > > Wikipedia.
> >
> > > This is the
fourth year of the #1Lib1Ref campaign and our second time
> > > running it in May, when it's more convenient for the southern
> hemisphere.
> > > You can learn about this year's January campaign too in our recently
> > > released learnings report.
> >
> >
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Library/1Lib1Ref/Lessons/2019
> >
> > > Full resources
and guides for participating in May are available on
the
> > >
http://1lib1ref.org campaign website.
> >
> > > The campaign will
be fully tracked with daily metrics and leaderboard
> > > updates. You can make sure your contribution is counted by using the
> > > Program and Events Dashboard for your event, institution, or region.
> >
> > > Login to start a
new event or join up with an existing group for the
> May
> > > Campaign here:
> >
> >
>
https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/campaigns/1lib1ref_may_2019/programs
> >
> > > Please tell your
library and library-loving friends about #1Lib1Ref
in
> > > May. We need everyone's help to make Wikipedia more reliable!
> >
> > > Sincerely,
> >
> > > Jake Orlowitz
> >
> > > Head of the
Wikipedia Library
> >
> > > Wikimedia
Foundation
> >
> > >
wikipedialibrary(a)wikimedia.org
> >
> > > @Wikilibrary
> >
> > > P.S. Don’t worry
if you can’t make it for the May campaign, as now
> > 1Lib1Ref
> > > receives annual support and you can always reach out for assistance
any
> > time of the year.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>