Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Japanese Wikipedia - Onwiki discussion
Information
editWhat group or community is this source coming from?
| name of group | Japanese Wikipedia onwiki |
| virtual location (page-link) or physical location (city/state/country) | onwiki |
| Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference) | local wiki |
| # of participants in this discussion (a rough count) | 6 |
- This discussion is ongoing here.
Summary
editThe summary is a group of summary sentences and associated keywords that describe the relevant topic(s). Below is an example.
The first column (after the line number) should be a single sentence. The second column should be a comma-separated list of keywords about that sentence, and so on. Taken together, all the sentences should provide an accurate summary of what was discussed with the specific community.
| Line | Statement (summary sentence) | keywords |
| 1 | Although Strategy process itself is interesting, I can not catch up with it as it sounds extravagantly. | strategy process |
| 2 | As one of the users who enjoy editing, I would be happier if 1) more free images get available on the Wikimedia Projects, and 2) more freely accessible reliable sources on the internet get available. For 1), especially, there are a lot of images that cannot be provided by ordinary people. We welcome more cases like Met's. | GLAM, free resources, reliable sources |
| 3 | Acquiring more contributors in broad disciplines is very important. Although there are a lot of contributions in TV shows topics or domestic topics on Japanese Wikipedia, there is a serious shortage of contributors in the topics other than that. Without resolution of this problem, the quality as an encyclopedia never gets improved. In terms of that, projects like Wikipedia Asian Month or English-Japanese translation seminar seem effective, while Wikipedia TOWN do not. | quality, shortage of contributors |
| 4 | Improving fork and merge: MediaWiki is indeed great to record everything in History, to edit a page by multiple users, however, it easily gets entangled in History once a number of users started to edit across (more than one) pages. I understand it is inevitable as it records whole content every time, especially with copyright and license matters, but current MediaWiki design seems to come to a dead end. Hopes page history to be able to fork on MediaWiki interface, hopefully by a revision (patch). | mediawiki, software design, fork, merge |
| 5 | Templates, modules, MediaWiki interface messages, staging and code review of AbuseFilter: If you try to create a test version or alpha version of templates, modules, or AbuseFilter, on which you write some kind of codes or alike, you must create other pages (or other filters) and set them. But current MediaWiki is an inappropriate platform for such codings, from the viewpoint of licenses or consistency of history. Hopes it able to create branches like git, ideally speaking. I even imagine such codes to be on gerrit/github and make a bot to deploy them. And hope it commentable line-by-line like gerrit/github, from the viewpoint of code review. | mediawiki, branch, development, code management, code review |
| 6 | Needs for undisclosed area: Although I understand MediaWiki is not a CMS but a Wiki engine, I hope detailed view and write permissions in MediaWiki core. This is because some editors want to draft an article privately (by him/herself, or by a small group), or to share confidential information (which should not to be public) among admins. Admin email list of jawp is not working as of now, and email list cannot be "editable" and should not work as "forum to summarize information" as 'one poster posts one message'. Creating other Wiki with viewing restriction (such as arbcom wiki) can work as sharing information among special permissions, but cannot be flexible enough. | mediawiki, permission, edit and view control |
| 7 | If there are curator(s) for/on Commons, large amount of media from partners, including National Diet Library, National Museum or national university archives could be processed. It is too much a responsibility if volunteers do that. Ideally, a WMF staff be the team lead and manage the workflow. Public awareness should be cultivated that a piece of national collection at a national institution shall be basically in public domain as long as it is not copyrighted. | commons, Wikipedian in residence, curator, |
| 8 | Hopes there are some ways for scholars to join as observers. I conceived this idea from hearing that a scholar says certain Wikipedia articles have problems. Articles can be improved dramatically with feedbacks from academia. Contributing to Wikipedia articles and its relevant discussions may be burdensome and only few numbers of professionals have joined so far, however, I wonder if some may agree to join in certain ways, such as pointing out article faults or endorsing references. I heard a doctor complaining it is hard to persuade a patient believing wrong description of Wikipedia. This way of participation would help such professionals to prevent false information spread. Advices from professionals would clear the way when debate in highly specialized domain get stuck. | professional participation, quality improvement |
| 9 | Increasing articles is important as a basis to expand Wikipedia. Quantity helps improve quality. If there are enough amount of articles, it is easier to add contents, translate, or create a new article. Increase of articles will also help incorporate more resources automatically. | quantity and quality, |
| 10 | However, increasing articles of advertisement or publicity seeking should not be allowed. Currently there are a lot of such articles on Japanese Wikipedia. To keep Wikipedia's neutrality, excluding advertisement is the key. Advertisement is farthest thing from neutrality. I understand "excluding ads" is related to "keep pureness of knowledge and facts". It also can be important if my understanding is correct. | NPOV, ad |
| 11 | To protect Wikipedia from censorship by governments or removing inconvenient description by companies is also considered important. If there is enough funds, publishing "Wikipedia Offline" version in shape of (such as) DVD-ROM in all the languages (at least once) by 2030 would be an idea. Because offline version is safe from online vandalism. | censorship, wikipedia offline |
| 12 | "Promoting being kind each other in the community" is essential on Japanese Wikipedia, as Japan's population will decrease to 100 million in 2030 and 40% of them are aged 65 or older, according to the government stats. I imagine elder, stubborn editors would argue each other on it, and would like to avoid a such situation. As projects gets matured, the spirit of "Harmony is to be valued, and an avoidance of wanton opposition to be honoured." will be important, even on other language versions of Wikipedia and its sister projects. | being kind, politeness |
| 13 | "Improving content quality" is important (secondly). According to the stats of Contents Translation, the number of translation import to Japanese is 2,282, whereas translation export is 1,033. Unique translators to Japanese is about 470, while translators from Japanese is approximately 419. Most of translators from Japanese are Chinese and Koreans. Talking about translations between European languages and Japanese, it's totally import excess. So translations from Japanese to other languages, especially English, would be favorable, as a returning the courtesy. Population of emerging countries where English is official language (such as India at 1st place, or Nigeria at 5th place) is expected to increase, and free content should be appreciated. This is why translations to English version matters. I'm feeling hot when imagining Indians or Nigerians would learn something from translation, from contents a Japanese speaker wrote. As citation is considered very important (on English Wikipedia), I suppose more translators will join, by improving contents quality by citation. | Translation to English, content quality |
| 14 | Neutrality should be improved. Even questionable arguments or conspiracies are written as "Reference to this matter". Sometimes specific descriptions in specific fields are written too detailed. Interpretation of WP:RS what's accepted and what's not should be more leveled, such as with actual examples. It would help editors' burden. | neutrality, WP:RS, sources |
| 15 | ||
| 16 | ||
| 17 | ||
| 18 | ||
| 19 | ||
| 20 | ||
| 21 | ||
| 22 | ||
| 23 | ||
| 24 | ||
| 25 | ||
| 26 | ||
| 27 | ||
| 28 | ||
| 29 | ||
| 30 | ||
| 31 | ||
| 32 | ||
| 33 | ||
| 34 | ||
| 35 | ||
| 36 | ||
| 37 | ||
| 38 | ||
| 39 | ||
| 40 |
If you need more lines, you can copy them from Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Lines.
Detailed notes (Optional)
editIf you have detailed notes in addition to the summary, you may add them here. For example, the notes may come from an in-person discussion or workshop. If your discussion happened on a wiki or other online space, you do not need to copy the detailed notes here.
This discussion has been done here.