wikimedia

Valg til Wikimedia Foundation-bestyrelsen af affiliates-valgte medlemmer

Posted on Updated on

De såkaldte affiliates, hvilket er Wikimedia chapters, User groups og Thematic groups, har mulighed for at vælge to pladser til Wikimedia Foundations (WMF) bestyrelse (Board of Trustees). Tidligere har det blot været Chapters der har haft mulighed for at vælge medlemmer, men fra januar 2019 er det nu også det betydelige antal af User groups der får indflydelse. Som jeg forstår er det for at få en bredere fundering, måske specielt af hvad der betegnes “emerging communities”.

De to nuværende affiliates-valgte er tidligere formand Christophe Henner fra Frankrig og ukrainske Nataliia Tymkiv. Communities vælger tre bestyrelsesmedlemmer. Disse medlemmer er James Heilman, Canada, Dariusz Jemielniak, Polen og spanske María Sefidari der i øjeblikket er formand. I forhold til affiliates-valgte synes der at være en fornemmelse for at community-valgte er fra store communities: Engelsk Wikipedia, Spansk Wikipedia. Det gælder så ikke helt for den polsk-valgte Jemielniak, der dog har gjort sig bemærket med en engelsk-sproget bog.

Affiliates-valget vil ske hurtigt i løbet af foråret 2019, hvor der først er en periode med nominereringer og derefter det egentlige valg. En håndfuld Wikimedianere fungerer som facilitatorer for valget. Disse facilitatorer kan ikke samtidig være nominerede, men hvis de fratræder facilitatorrollen kan de godt stille op. Jeg har indtryk af at de to nuværende medlemmer genopstiller.

Wikimedia Danmark skal deltage i afstemningen og spørgsmålet er så hvem vi skal stemme på og hvilke kriterier vi skal benytte. Henner og Tymkiv virker udmærkede og har jo erfaring. I hvilken grad de har evner til at banke i bordet og komme med originale levedygtige visioner står mindre klart for mig. Af andre der muligvis vil nomineres kan være Shani Evenstein. Hun virker også udmærket.

En person der stiller op bør ud over det formelle krav om bestyrelsesværdighed, have vægtig bestyrelseserfaring, forståelse for Wikimedia-bevægelsen og være et rimeligt tilgængeligt ansigt i det internationale Wikimediamiljø. Derudover være indstillet på at lægge en god portion ulønnet arbejdstimer på skæver timer af døgnet, og være opmærksom på at man arbejder for WMF, – ikke for affiliates, community eller Wikipedia. Hvis man kigger på sammensætningen i WMF er Europa & Nordamerika godt repræsenteret, dog ingen fra Nordeuropa. Der er en læge (James Heilman), akademikere, grundlæggeren Jimmy Wales, en med økonomierfaring (Tanya Capuano) og forskellige andre erfaringer. Henner synes at være den eneste med teknisk erfaring (et element jeg ville værdsætte) og derudover kan man sige at der mangler repræsentation fra Latinamerika (omend Seridari jo taler spansk), Afrika og Østasien (Esra’a Al Shafei har rod i Bahrain).

Afstemningen koordineres på Meta ved Affiliates-selected Board seats. Der findes vejledning til vælgere på Primer for user groups. Den hollandske formand Frans Grijzenhout har oploadet en handy scorematrix for kandidaterne. Nomineringen har også sin egen side. Nomineringerne er åbne indtil 30. April 2019. Efter at nomineringerne er indkommet er der kort tid i april og lidt af maj til at udfritte de nominerede.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Luftige spørgsmål til Wikimedia Strategi 2030

Posted on

Wikimedia forsøger at tænke langsigtet og lægge en strategi der sigter mod året 2030. Et udkast er tilgængelig fra https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction

Her er nogle luftige spørgsmål der måske ville kunne få folk til at tænke over tingene:

  1. Hvorfor skal vi ha’ en strategi? Bør Wikimedia ikke blot udvikling sig organisk? Kan vi overhovedet forsige meget til 2030? Hvis vi ikke allerede kender vores strategi sidder vi så ikke allerede fast?
  2. Sidder vi fast i wiki-interfacet?
  3. Skal vi fortsætte med PHP MediaWiki interfacet som det primære software?
  4. Hvorfor er Wikiversity ikke blevet større, og slet ikke eksisterende på dansk? Er det fordi folk ikke gide lave Wikiversity? Er det fordi vi ikke ved hvad wikiversity er eller skal være? Er det fordi wiki-tekniske ikke fungerer i undervisningssammenhæng. Hvad skal vi ændre for at få det til at fungere?
  5. Hvorfor laver folk ikke flere video? Er det fordi at det er teknisk for besværlig? Er det for produktionsmæssigt for besværligt? Hvordan kunne Wikimedia hjælpe?
  6. Hvorfor er Stackoverflow det primære sted for faglige spørgsmål og svar? Burde det ikke have været Wikimedia der var det?
  7. Skal Wikimedia Foundation modtage penge fra firmaer så som Google? Vil det kunne skabe et afhængighedsforhold? Ifølge Peter Gøtzsches mening er patientforeninger påvirket i uheldig retning på grund af afhængighed til medicinalfirmaer. Kan Wikimedia-bevægelsen løbe ind i samme problem? Skaber det problemer med pengedonation, for eksempel i forbindelse med lobbyvirksomhede til EU’s ophavsretsdirektiv?
  8. Hvorfor kan OpenStreetMap kører med et mindre budget? Skyldes det langt mindre server load? Burde Wikimedia neddrosle og vælge en slags OpenStreetMap-model med hvor server værket bliver bedre distribueret til andre?
  9. “Knowledge equity” er et af to centrale begreber i Wikimedia Foundations strategi og noget svært at oversætte. Financial equity er hvad der på danske betegnes egenkapital. Et latinsk ord der nærmer sig findes i Den Store Danske, ellers er min nærmeste tanke det forældede udtryk “billighed”, – “ret og billighed” som det hedder i en dansk sang. Et sådant ord kan vi næppe bruge. Hvad kan vi på dansk forstå som “knowledge equity”?
  10. Kan Wikimedia komme i en situation som man har set Cochrane Collaboration hvor den professionaliserede del af organisationen kommer til at udmanøvrere græsrødderne? Hvad gør vi for at det ikke ske?
  11. Skal vi være stolt af at den danske Wikipedia stort set er opbygget gratis? Sidst jeg spurgte på den danske Wikipedias Landsbybrønd om Wikimedia Strategi blev det nævnt.
  12. Knowledge as a service følger en as-a-service-mønster man ser i datalogi. Her kan det hedder Platform-as-a-service e software-as-a-service. Hvad skal vi egentlig ligge i det? Jeg selv har skabt Scholia, et websted der viser videnskabelige data fra Wikidata via SPARQL-forespørgsler til Wikidata Query Service og Ordia, der gør det samme for leksikografiske data. Som sådan falder tanker om knowledge as a service fint i slag, – og jeg har da også forgæves forsøgt at erindre om det var mig der var med til at foreslå begrebet ved et internationalt Wikimedia-møde i 2017.
  13. Skal Wikimedia engagere sig i aktivisme, så som det sås til afstemningen om EU’s nye ophavsretsdirektiv? Har vi nogen succeshistorier på at det hjælper?
  14. Wikimedia Danmark har fået penge af Wikimedia Foundation til blandt andet et roll-up-banner. Det har været brugt i nogle få sammenhænge og vist været i tv. Er det sådan at Wikimedia Foundation skal bruge dets penge?
  15. Den visuelle editor synes at kunne hjælpe mange nye brugere, men er redigering af Wikipedia på en smartphone ikke meget besværlig? Kan man overhoved gøre noget ved det?
  16. Skal Wikimedia Foundation støtte forskere der bygger værktøjer eller undersøger fænomener på Wikimedia’s wikier?
  17. Normalt fungerer Wikipedia hurtigt, men hvis man kommer til et net der er langsomt oplever man at der kan være frustrerende at arbejde med, for eksempel Wikidata. Er det mon ikke frustrere at arbejde med wikier fra lande som ikke har hurtigt Internet? HVad kan der gøres ved det?
  18. Linux udvikles med en distribueret model, og sådan gør man med mange andre software systemer. Hvor er Wikipedia og andre Wikimedia wikier ikke distribuerede hvor fork og pull requests er nemt?
  19. Hvor mange af Wikimedia Foundations indsamlede midler skal anvendes på events, så som Wikimania?

A question to Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimania 2014

Posted on Updated on

An open question to Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimania 2014 and its organizing committee with Ed:

Almost everything with the Wikimania meeting in London in August 2014 went very well, people, talks, entertainment, organization, monkey, squirrel, etc. What I am confused about is what happen during my last hour at the meeting Sunday evening: After the buffet I had the experience of meeting two females, one who gave me a business card with a link to wikitranslate.org, and claimed to be behind the wiki web site. The females seemed not very old, in fact when queried one of them claimed to be 10 years old, and when queried further, she responded she had made the web site when 6 years old with a little help from a family member…

During the Wikimania meeting the documentary about Aaron Swartz, The Internet’s Own Boy, was shown. In that documentary we learned that Aaron Swartz was 12 years old when he created the Wikipedia-like site InfoBase. Thus prodigies can create wiki web sites when they are 12 years old. From that we can deduce that it is unlikely that a six year old female can produce a wiki web site. The closest explanation for my extraordinary vivid experience at Wikimania I can come up with is then that it was a hallucination.

My question is then: How do I get rid of the hallucination? Have other Wikimania participants had a similar hallucinations of meeting preteens claiming to make web sites? Or am I just getting old?

The hallucination has persisted for many days now because I still both see and feel the business card I got.

Wikimania money movie mystery

Posted on Updated on

Finn_at_wikimania

So it is around half a year ago the WikiSym 2010 and Wikimania 2010 conferences took place in Gdansk. Before the conference I paid the registration for WikiSym. In another transaction I paid Wikimania registration and the shared dorm via PayPal. They were good meetings and I have written a bit about them here and here (I still seem to miss a rightup of the Wikimania meeting).

 When I got back to Danmark I wanted to get my travel expenses reimbursed from my university. Just as I was handing in the information August 3rd I got an email saying that my PayPal transaction was reversed, so I stopped the reimbursement. Apparently, I was not the only one it happened to. Jon from Norway reported it too, as well as a number of others. No one on the Wikimania mailing list seemed to know much, and in the end of August Jon seemed to have been the last to ask Any news on this? with no reply. One should think that someone is missing these money? Somewhat of a mystery.

Well, I waited. I waited so long that my university changed travel reimbursement system and the papers that I had filled out were no longer valid. At new year 2010/2011 I still hadn’t heard of what to do, so I began to to use the new online reimbursement system. I had an initial login problem there and got around nine to ten people involved in the problem stretching over several days. Finally, our system administrator superman came up with a useful guess that solved the login problem and I smoothly completed my travel reimbursement for WikiSym.

Not long after I had completed the reimbursement (was it within hours?) I got an email from an executive assistant at the Wikimedia Foundation saying that they were missing the payments and could I please pay! The payment should go to another PayPal account. Just to check I looked at the email header and saw that the email didn’t seem to originate from the Wikimedia Foundation but instead from Gmail. I had then already emailed the person and received a reply, so I guess things are alright. :-) There must be email forwarding somewhere. After trying to pay the second time I got acknowledgment both from the Wikimedia staff and PayPal around January 21st.

Registration payment hows and wheres were not the only mystery of Wikimania 2010. The movie mystery was another. The Polish company iStream setup parallel realtime streaming. Neat. (The image above shows me while I screengrab an image of me) However, as far as I understand the recorded movies should also be ogg-theora’ed and put on Wikimedia Commons Open Access media archive. This step seems never to have happened. I have seen a few emails on a mailing list asking about the videos but now one has an explaination. The realtime streaming was fine as the rest of Wikimania. However, I was looking forward to see how silly I looked on video. Maybe the video people have taken a look on my performance and found it best not to make it public to spare me the embarrassment. Then thanks.

Organizing Wikimania is a tough job done by more or less volunteers with perhaps little conference organizing experience. I don’t envy the organizers. Scientific conferences, such as the Human Brain Mapping conference, usually have an organization behind with paid staff, pays an event organizer company for management, pays a publisher for handling incoming manuscripts and have an overlapping organizing committee. The conference registration fee for such conference is typically also much higher than Wikimania. Wikimania is really a bargain.

There has recently been some discussions on the Wikimania mailing list beginning when Harel Cain suggested having the conference every second year. The most constructive handle on the Wikimania organizing issue came perhaps from Phoebe Ayers that one rainy Saturday afternoon sat down a drafted a Wikimania Handbook. Hopefully that wiki-approach will help the organizers. Lets hope for some more rainy days for Phoebe Ayers in Davis, California. I thought it never rains in California. Maybe its a Northern/Southern California thing.

BTW there is a call for papers out on WikiSym 2011. This time WikiSym will not be co-located with Wikimania. WikiSym will take place at the Microsoft Research Campus in Silicon Valley. — that is, in the part of California where it probably sometimes rains.

Two-way citations in MediaWiki

Posted on

There has been some discussions on bibliographies and citations in wikis. Recently, wikimedian Samuel Klein wrote an entry on the Wiki research mailing list pointing to Wikimedia proposals WikiTextrose and Wikicite.

There is a general problem with citations: To cite the Wikicite page “[a] fact is only as reliable as the ability to source that fact, and the ability to weigh carefully that source”*. Think of the following sentence with Niels Bohr awfully miscited:

John Wayne is probably the best Flamenco dancer in the World (Bohr, 1913).

Although the MediaWiki software has an extension to structure footnotes on the individual wiki page, there is really no technical help to ensure that the stated fact is supported by the source. And we usually cannot go the to “(Bohr, 1913)” Wikipedia page and check which other wiki pages use (Bohr, 1913) as s source.

It is, however, possible to some extent to get MediaWiki to use more structured citations. In my Brede Wiki I make wiki pages for each primary sources, in my case, mostly scientific articles. Furthermore, the cite journal template in the Brede Wiki will automatically make wiki links based on the title parameter. So when I write “An early human brain mapping study with positron emission tomography found that the temporoparietal area was involved in spatial attention,[1]” on a page and the citation uses the cite journal template I get a wiki link to “A PET study of visuospatial attention”. With the “What links here” link on that page it is possible to see the citations, ??? although not in particularly detail. At least it will allow us to go both ways in the citations.

WikiTextrose and Wikicite goes further in a attempt to ensure that facts are cited, ??? and cited correctly.

The syntax suggested by WikiTextrose for a structured citations looks like this:

[[cite:isbn:067943593X:p11|”In the Second Century of the Christian Era, the empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth and most civilized portion of mankind.”| Gibbon describes the Roman empire at the time of the Antonines in very favorable terms.]]

Wikicite suggest a wiki syntax extension with “++fn”, e.g.,

Columbus was most likely Genoese++fn, although ++some historians claim he could have been born in other places, from the Crown of Aragon to the Kingdoms of Galicia or Portugal++fn, or in the Greek island of Chios++fn among others.

With a form interface Wikicite editors should then add the bibliographic details for each ‘fn’ instance. With an extra tool it would be possible to perform an article review on the citations, see the Wikicite review mockup.

Instead of having the bibliographic entries of the sources on the wiki itself, e.g., on Wikipedia, proposers suggest Wikicat as a bibliographic catalog used to support Wikicite and WikiTextrose.

I have been thinking if it would be possible to do more precise two-way citations with MediaWiki and the Semantic MediaWiki extension, and I have come up with the following scheme:

On a page with a primary source, here Scientific citations in Wikipedia, we added the bibligraphic details in an infobox-like template as well as the “facts” of the article within “fact” templates:

{{Paper
| title = Scientific citations in Wikipedia
| author1 = Finn ??rup Nielsen
| journal = First Monday
| volume = 3
| pages = 26
| year = 2009
}}

== Facts ==
{{fact|Wikipedia uses scientific citations}}
{{fact|Scientific citations in Wikipedia shows some correlation with ordinary scientific citations}}

On a page that uses one of the facts we write, e.g.,

{{cite|Wikipedia uses scientific citations}}

== References ==
<references/>

The fact template uses semantic markup and a semantic query

# {{{1}}} [[fact::{{{1}}}| ]] (citations: {{#ask: [[Cite::{{{1}}}]] | format=list }})

The paper template uses here only semantic markup, e.g.,

[[title::{{{title}}}]] is authored by [[has author::{{{author1}}}]] and published in [[{{{journal}}}]] in [[has publication year::{{{year}}}]].

The cite template makes use of the semantic search and query:

[[Cite::{{{1}}}]]{{#tag:ref | {{#ask: [[Fact::{{{1}}}]] | ?has author | mainlabel=- | format=list | headers=hide }} ({{#ask: [[Fact::{{{1}}}]] | ?has publication year | mainlabel=- | format=list | headers=hide }}) {{#ask: [[Fact::{{{1}}}]] }} }}.

This last template uses the somewhat obscure “#tag:ref” construct since template parameters in the standard application of the <ref> tag doesn’t work.

Twowaymediawikicitation