User:Pelagic/Journal/2020/08

August 2020.

Governance and institutional memory

 * https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2020-August/095478.html et seq.
 * meta:user:Peteforsyth/governance

Rules and Policies as Negotiated Settlements and Trophies
https://people.eng.unimelb.edu.au/vkostakos/courses/socialweb10F/reading_material/5/butler08.pdf (do web search to find other free copies)

Fri 4
https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/science/environment/2020/08/29/queensland-sets-aside-577000-hectares-as-a-koala-paradise/

WDEMI
[expanded Tue 1, Wed 2]

I’ve been thinking over this for a week or more, especially after reading https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/PoCo-2017/WorkEntitity%20Preliminary%20White%20Paper-2017-09-27.pdf. FRBR/LRM have their 4-level WEMI model, and other systems have 3-level (BIBFRAME) or 2-level (e.g. a Library Management System (LMS, a.k.a. ILS for US readers), I once worked with had catalogue-item and stock-item).

To me, the difference between a 1st edition and 2nd revised edition is quite unlike the difference between a novel and its translation or screenplay or cinematic interpretation. Yet FRBR treats all those as “Expressions” of the underlying Work.

I was considering a 5-layer model: Work, Derivative, Expression, Manifestation, Item (WDEMI). But on writing this, I started to consider that something like a movie based on a book is qualitatively different from a translation. “The work concept is defined fuzzily in all these models. To the extent that the concept can be defined, it must be extracted from the set of relations that are valid between instances. For example, if translation is not a valid relation between works in RDA, then the translation of a work does not result in a new RDA work, but since translation is a valid relation between works in BIBFRAME, the translation of a work can result in the creation of a new BIBFRAME work...”

Open questions:

For OCLC Schema Model, see https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2013/2013-05.pdf (mentioned at BIBFRAME).
 * How to treat say an edition of a novel that contains both the text of the novel itself, plus a biography or explanatory notes by another author? Copyright will be different for each part.  But the item will be sold under the name of its main part, and identifiers such as ISBN apply to the whole.  Does the Manifestation contain multiple Expressions or Works?  Or is it the Expression that contains other Expressions?  Does it make any difference if different editions are word-for-word identical in their main part but differ in end-matter?
 * How do you handle multiple digital-preservation scans of different items (or even the same item!) from the same manifestation (e.g. print run)? They may have very different scanning production processes, so would become separate manifestations. What if the same scan is encapsulated in different formats (PDF, ePub, …): are they separate manifestations, and if so what is the next layer up that connects them?  What if the same scan is made available at different websites presenting different metadata and page navigation?
 * How to represent reprint years? Significant event with qualifiers is cumbersome.
 * WIkidata has items for museum pieces, should it have Q-items for specific significant library books? E.g. a book that was used to create a digital scan. What properties/statements would you make on the item rather than elsewhere? Holding institution, location, catalogue number, collection, ...
 * For referencing/citation purposes, how do you handle things that are the same translation, edition or version but have different pagination or page numbering? Do differences in numbering always warrant a separate item, even when the content is otherwise identical?

Friday 28
Whose knowledge? I wonder how long these edits will stand on Wikidata? The "famous IT consultant" not only has an IMDb page, but also a page on Sinhalese Wikipedia. Hah! That article has a Controversy section sourced to a website with a self-signed certificate. Google refuses to translate it.

Update: lasted a day, undone by an IPv6 mobile device. Possibly the subject/author/owner of the item has an email alert set for watchlist.

Sunday 16
d:Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData has links to explore on WikiCite, using Scholia, SourceMD, Wikidata lists, collaborators. Plus steps for profiling authors.

See also https://figshare.com/articles/Some_Fun_with_Wikicite_and_WikiCite_in_Wikidata_TechStorm_2018_/7454915

d:Wikidata:Entity Explosion Chrome plug-in.

"The Wikipedia War That Shows How Ugly This Election Will Be: An editing battle over Kamala Harris’s race is a sign of what’s to come." (2020-08-13, The Atlantic [limited monthly views]) Joshua Benton does a good job of communicating Wikipedia processes in this article.

Misc.

 * "Why I edit Wikipedia" by bradv Special:Permalink/970535425


 * Superlinks user:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks

Toxic
"[Fram incident] could be an example where there is a violation of the UCoC and the community was unable to intervene, while the user was seen as 'toxic'. So it is about protecting the community and protecting the values ​​of the projects. ... Ciell Jul 4, 2020 8:28 PM (CEST)" [quotes are in original, but might be denoting foreign word rather than acting as scare quotes] "Incidentally, I think toxic is a buzzword that has blown over from American English and nowadays, as a result of expansion, is almost meaningless, which should be avoided where possible. Wutsje 4 Jul 2020 21:02 (CEST)" [machine translations from Dutch] nl:Overleg Wikipedia:Universele gedragscode (permalink]). (06:48 Fri 07, AEST)

WMF CoC
On Dutch Wikipedia, Marrakech points out

Code of conduct for the WMF

This code of conduct for the WMF seems to me to be a much better idea than the code of conduct that it intends to impose on the various communities.

The last rule of conduct - The WMF recognizes that it is, by far, less diverse than the different communities representing all cultures of the world. It will not attempt to impose their notions of civility upon the communities with very diverse cultural backgrounds in the form of a central "code of conduct" - exposes an interesting paradox and incongruity: the WMF's intention to subject all chapters worldwide to one and the same code of conduct is at odds with its self-proclaimed commitment to diversity. For example, the preoccupation with alleged privileges, and the idea that certain groups would lack them, is exclusively American in origin. Yet that preoccupation is clearly reflected in the Contributor Covenant that must form the foundation of the universal code of conduct (Question: Doesn't this code of conduct just promote political correctness? Answer: Only if you define political correctness as the belief that women, non-binary people, gay, lesbian, queer, and / or transgender people, people of color, and people of different religious backgrounds should be afforded the same rights and privileges as everyone else ). Marrakech ( concert ) 4 Jul 2020 10:31 (CEST)

UCoC and rogue wikis
It’s all fine and good to say "no personal attacks", but then you get situations like "Personal attack" saying became an excuse for banning unwanted users. Requests for comment/Vote of confidence on sysops and unblock for user Deu on kawiki. Admin accountability and preventing abuses of power has to come first. Otherwise people will take all the fine CoCs and twist them to their own ends.

NC licenses

 * https://creativecommons.org/2012/08/29/ongoing-discussions-noncommercial-and-noderivatives/
 * https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC
 * https://freedomdefined.org/The_non-commercial_provision_obfuscates_intent

Sunday 2
Brazil wants to legislate against fake news, requiring services to identify their contributors and distinguish them by nationality.