User talk:AdamBMorgan/2013

transcribe a thon

hi - just a note of appreciation for your work in setting up the Wikisource project on the Ford Presidential Library - it is so exciting to see the Ford project grow in the various wiki-spaces. Thank you!

We recently had a successful Edit-a-thon at the Library, and it occurred to me that we might also plan a 'transcribe-a-thon' - is there a model for that, or should we just wing it?

The Ford Library/Museum got into Wikipedia via a GLAM project. One of the issues I grapple with is the usefulness of documents in the Wikimedia space....and I'm trying to figure out ways to show staffers that there is a reason to upload documents. A 'transcribe-a-thon' event might create a sense of ownership, and make the idea of future uploads more acceptable.

what do you think? Bdcousineau (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You are probably going to have to wing it for a 'transcribe-a-thon.' I've thought about the concept and heard other people suggest it but I do not know of any such event actually taking place. If you do go ahead with this I would be interested in hearing about how it goes. I expect it to be very similar to an edit-a-thon.

I think proofreading, the main part of transcribing, on Wikisource is fairly straight forward and should work well in a 'transcribe-a-thon.' It may help to have some index pages ready before you start, so you can go straight into transcribing pages. At least, that was my plan if I were to ever do this myself.

Good luck with the project whatever you decide. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Bdcousineau (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 re-enabled

Hey AdamBMorgan :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Annotations

I did get your message but was so invested elsewhere I didn't have the heart to pick it back up. My comment in Signpost was off the cuff and not constructive but appreciate your reply. After looking through the RfC it seems there were about half a dozen users discussing and basically one or two making a decision. This is typical of how things work since at any given time there are only a few really active and interested users in policy discussions on Wikisource. And they are not always the same people over time. It wasn't a "community consensus" honestly, and some of what was "decided" there runs counter to work that has already been done on Wikisource by editors making good faith efforts to annotate works. It seems like there is a top-down approach trying to tell users what they can do, rather than looking at what users are doing and trying to make sure it's acceptable and encouraging them to do more work. The goal of all Wikimedia projects is to get people to participate. The RfC seems blind to the existing annotation work already done on Wikisource. This is the clue on what users actually want to do. It is a bottom up approach, consensus by doing. If we follow the lead of the editors who are doing the annotations, it will result in people wanting to contribute. If we try to force the issue and tell people "no", they'll just go away. It's really not complicated. Does Wikisource want to grow based on user demand, or micromanaged by regulars who don't want to check text for NOR and V. Maybe I'm overstating the issue, I don't know fully where things stand right now. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The project was at a stalemate between people who happily accepted annotations and people who were vehemently against them (with many inbetween). We needed to actually decide what we were going to do; otherwise it would just be a mess that could potentially alienate every new user. There were users going around removing all wikilinks as unacceptable annotations while new users tend to make this one of their first edits (and many established administrators add wikilinks too). It was a mess in danger of becoming a serious problem.

I did try to point out how people were already annotating on Wikisource. Mostly this is wikilinking to Wikipedia, as mentioned. I was worried opinion was going against this but it was still allowed in the end. Wikisource still needs to discuss a wikilinks policy but I believe we are OK with light wikilinking to Wikipedia or Wiktionary as non-annotations (as well as purely internal wikilinks to other works and author pages). I was really worried about the annotation on Field Notes of Junius Henderson/Notebook 1, which has been mentioned in an academic journal, but that made it through as well (although it will have to be tagged as annotated when everything is fully implemented).

I was surprised that translations became a big issue; I thought that might just get nodded through. As a result, we now have a new namespace and a new policy. This is still being tested (the namespace only went live about a week ago) but every Wikisource user translation should be moved across soon.

There are a few more intensive annotations, which imply or suggest things to the reader, and these fell foul of the new policy. If Wikibooks will have them, they can be exported there and deleted on Wikisource; nothing should be lost. These annotated works were rare and hardly a matter of significant user demand, however. Even so, the participation can still continue, it will just continue on Wikibooks instead.

Most people on Wikisource want to either read texts or transcribe them. Most of the transcribers seem to come into the project via Proofread of the Month. Aside from the wikilinks annotations are not important, nor a large barrier to entry, for most people.

Besides there is a need for policy and the occasional heavy-handed top-down approach. Wikipedia enforces citations and notability over the desires of many new users to maintain its mission and credibility. Wikisource enforces textual purity to maintain its mission and credibility.

PS: It might not help, but English is actually one of the more liberal subdomains. If you look at Wikisource:Subdomain coordination on mul.ws, German requires scans for all texts (no copying from Gutenberg or transcribing in a library), French bans annotation outright, many languages ban translations (eg. Italian, Norwegian, etc), and several add additional policies on top of strict copyright law for inclusion purposes (although, to be fair, Commons does this too). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"If Wikibooks will have them" is one of the traditional gridlocks, a cross project hot potato. Anyway congrats on getting this far, the translation issue, you've done a lot, but a lot left, the actual policy. I'm not sure which sources are included in "intensive annotations, which imply or suggest things to the reader", but there are some annotated works I care about and would like to be involved with that aspect. This is really the crux of it all. There are not many of them only because we have not encouraged, but there could be many if we had it set up right. They are hybrids and don't fit well into any project being part source, part encyclopedia, part original book. There is an obvious demand from the bottom up to create and read them, the top down folks needs to accommodate somehow somewhere, but not micromanaged, each project needs freedom to experiment and try different things. It's asking a lot of certain hard line exclusionists. Maybe it's just impossible to ever fully accept for the community. I once tried contacting someone at MediaWiki in SF about it and they said they are aware of it, dismayed as well by the protracted gridlock, but basically left it in the hands of the editors to decide. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The texts most likely to be moved to Wikibooks are The Annotated "Privateersman" and The Annotated Strange Case Of Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde. I think Wikibooks is a better place for them, where they are more likely to flourish and grow. Wikibooks actively encourages original books (provided they are NPOV etc). It has also been slightly awkward having two projects doing the same thing (Wikibooks has its own annotated text policy and examples like The Poetry of Gaius Valerius Catullus, which is admittedly incomplete at this point in time).

Wikisource has been fairly rules-light for a long time and still is, even with the three new policies coming out of this RfC. In a conversation with another Wikisourcer recently, he suggested this might be a problem as Wikisource grows; it's too big to keep just making things up as it goes along and still too small to have anything like the full range of Wikipedia's bureaucracy. It has on average about 300 active editors, which is twice Dunbar's number (the theoretical limit on simple, cohesive groups). Some bureaucracy is necessary for projects to function properly. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You named one of the texts I care about - and Travels with a Donkey also by RLS. I wonder how do we coordinate a transwiki of these to Wikibooks? I can do the work, just don't know what the politics are, if any. Also hope we can maintain a notice on Wikisource at the old URL pointing to the new location. Maybe we can try to transwiki Jekyll and Hyde and see what happens as a test run? Or is it too soon. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It isn't urgent yet; there's still some work to do first. The transwiki should be easy. It just means making a request for Wikibooks to import the pages from Wikisource. This has happened at least once before that I know of, "History of Edmeston, New York", and soft redirects were left behind on Wikisource point to the new location on Wikibooks. (Sorry for not responding sooner but recentyly my internet connection has kept dropping out for some reason). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:DrumsOfFuManchu.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:DrumsOfFuManchu.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kazys Bobelis

The article Kazys Bobelis has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Fram (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Crossrail

Hi,

It's great that you're interested in helping make the Crossrail article better. However, you should be careful with what you write, otherwise the article becomes outright factually incorrect. There was a discussion regarding the wording of the lede so that it did not imply completely new construction. Please read it before making further changes: Talk:Crossrail. Cheers, Travelpleb (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This crossed with a message I left on your talk page. I've replied there if that's OK. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Your revised wording was not great. It still implied the whole thing is under construction and suggests that the whole 118 km is in London. I'm working on a revision, and I'd appreciate help, but precisely thought through wording is necessary.Travelpleb (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Your nasty comment

It's laughable that you display an "assume good faith" box on your userpage when you're willing to make a gratuitous, toxic comment against me with no specific evidence, or irrelevant evidence. I'm not in the business of cleaning up sex-tourism on Wikivoyage, and you should not feel free to lampoon me for that. If you make further uncivil and denigrating comments I'll take action against you on this site. Tony (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Do not threaten me. Do not carry drama over to my talk page. Do not bother me with your baseless accusations or pettiness. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Your baseless allegations were returned. And now we see the measure of your bad faith. Don't bother me either, if you don't mind. Tony (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I mean it, keep this where it should be, on The Signpost. As you have taken the trouble to threaten me I have responded in more detail there. "Your baseless allegations were returned" doesn't even make any sense in this context, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Generally, however, if you can't take criticsm, don't write contentious articles on high-profile newsletters. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If you make baseless and bad-faith attacks, expect flack back on your talk page. You're coming over as a very nasty person. I'm sure you're not normally like this. Tony (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)