[02:02:51] I'm not entirely sure I understand what you are suggesting. You think AbstractWiki-generated paragraphs should be shown under manually translated paragraphs on language-specific wikis? But some articles have different structure in different languages. (re @waldyrious: Btw, I've left opposing comments in several name proposals that contain "Wikipedia" or [02:02:51] "pedia", under the assump [02:02:52] tion that the n...) [07:36:05] done! (re @u99of9: Yes, revert the python one please. I think I know what to change once it's editable for me again.) [07:37:58] In most cases I assume that the *whole* article will be coming from Abstract Wikipedia, not individual paragraphs. (re @carbon_starlight: I'm not entirely sure I understand what you are suggesting. You think AbstractWiki-generated paragraphs should be shown under ma...) [10:11:53] +1 (re @waldyrious: Btw, I've left opposing comments in several name proposals that contain "Wikipedia" or "pedia", under the assumption that the n...) [10:33:53] Thanks. I've copied your original math.frexp back into it, but have left my improved special value return. So please can you now re-replace it with Z28845 (re @vrandecic: done!) [10:50:08] done again! Thank you so much! (re @u99of9: Thanks. I've copied your original math.frexp back into it, but have left my improved special value return. So please can you now...) [11:06:14] Success! I've gone through all the tests and am happy with all. (re @vrandecic: done again! Thank you so much!) [11:24:31] Yay! Thank you! And thank you for your patience! [11:37:41] I admit that my patience was tested. This new model of editing a fresh version seems workable, and might be viable until the function maintainer right is ready. (re @vrandecic: Yay! Thank you! And thank you for your patience!) [11:38:32] Thanks again! I also expect to be able to maintan a higher engagement again. [11:40:09] It's fantastic to have you back! (re @u99of9: I miss Denny!) [11:46:40] I just mean that choosing a name for the new project that includes "Wikipedia" or "pedia" would imply that its contents will be encyclopedic articles, and that may limit our options in the future, or simply be misaligned with the goal of the project if it is indeed meant to cover other types of content (e.g. a Wikivoyage travel guide, a Wikiversity module, etc.) [11:46:40] As @vrandecic said, it is expected that this abstract content (be it encyclopedic in nature or otherwise) will be made up of standalone pieces of prose, not modular fragments to be combined or interspersed with manually produced text. I apologize if I gave that impression :) (re @carbon_starlight: I'm not entirely sure I understand what you are suggesting. You [11:46:40] think AbstractWiki- [11:46:42] generated paragraphs should be shown under ma...) [11:47:04] thank you! (re @u99of9: It's fantastic to have you back!) [11:49:41] There's one question, though: I can see the benefits of an abstract content wiki easily for Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikivoyage. But I have trouble to see it for any of the other projects, either because of the content or their structure and setup -- certainly not for Wikisource or Wikiquote or Wikispecies. Or am I missing something? (re @waldyrious: I just mean [11:49:41] that choosing a [11:49:42] name for the new project that includes "Wikipedia" or "pedia" would imply that its contents will be ...) [11:53:00] I was wondering recently if some low-hanging fruit might be write a language-configured function for automatic Wikidata descriptions, but I don't know whether we could actually get them showing on Wikidata items (without manual descriptions). [11:55:22] Chunks of Wikispecies seem viable? (re @vrandecic: There's one question, though: I can see the benefits of an abstract content wiki easily for Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikivoyag...) [11:58:27] Yes, I am also thinking it would be very helpful to have people who are active in these projects (especially in smaller languages) chime in with whether they see support for abstract content as fallback as something that would be useful. [11:58:28] For example, in my limited experience, it seems to me that the usefulness of abstract content for, say, Wikisource and Wikiquote would be primarily in the short paragraph descriptions of the pages (whose main content would be less related to the wiki's content language), and therefore similar to the use case for multilingual wikis like Wikidata, Commons, [11:58:29] Wikispecies, etc., where [11:58:30] I could see the abstract content working for descriptions of pages/items. [11:59:04] It could possibly be used for the Author pages on Wikisource. (re @vrandecic: There's one question, though: I can see the benefits of an abstract content wiki easily for Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikivoyag...) [11:59:38] On a separate note, it seems like we might want to think about whether/how this could interact with manually translated pages, especially in multilingual wikis; for example, do we want abstract content to be produced for pages in Meta, so that languages that don't have many active translators can at least have the fallback rendering of the content? But if so, we [11:59:39] might want to mak [11:59:39] e it an optional add-on, to avoid overloading the process of creating the pages in the first place. [12:00:43] These are open questions that I don't have answers to, but seem like something we should make an explicit decision about. To be clear, I'd be fine with making the new wiki explicitly for encyclopedic articles; I was just excited about the wiki for abstract content fulfilling a central role similar to Commons or Wikidata, i.e. serving all the other wikis, not just [12:00:43] Wikipedias. [12:01:53] But if that vision is mostly academic and not really super useful i practice, deciding to make it a Wikipedia-centered wiki would save us a lot of work in trying to set things up to be generic for potentially little benefit. [12:03:09] (besides, we already have the precedence of mul.wiki*.org as a multilingual wiki for projects that do have language specific editions, so it wouldn't be that bad to make this kind of a mul.wikipedia.org) [12:05:19] WIkispecies is a single wiki, it doesn't do the split by language. They could use functions, absolutely, but there is no advantage of having abstract content on an external wiki, as there are no several language editions to pick up the content. (re @u99of9: Wikispecies seem viable? It's pretty formulaic) [12:06:51] One could argue that there's an advantage in having a central place where people develop the skill of writing abstract content (e.g. Wikidata vs SDC) [12:08:12] I think that is really a good and difficult question. How should Wikifunctions and the translate extension work together? I have a huge amount of respect for the translate extension and anyone using it. How can we make the lives for those people easier? (re @waldyrious: On a separate note, it seems like we might want to think about whether/how this could interact [12:08:12] with manually tr [12:08:13] anslated pages, e...) [12:09:18] Yes, the author pages for Wikisource and Wikiquotes etc. could make sense [12:14:11] yes, for short descriptions I tried my hand at short descriptions for music albums https://www.wikifunctions.org/view/en/Z28803 (re @u99of9: I was wondering recently if some low-hanging fruit might be write a language-configured function for automatic Wikidata descript...) [12:35:11] I see it as being more a question of whether the content is copyright CC BY-SA or CC0. I think text produced by a Wikifunctions function is CC0; text from the new wiki will be CC BY-SA. I think it would also be sensible to support CC0 on the new Wiki, but I leave that question to the new community. (re @vrandecic: WIkispecies is a single wiki, it doesn't do the split by [12:35:11] language. [12:35:12] They could use functions, absolutely, but there is no advanta...) [12:40:09] 2667 [12:59:50] mhhh, did we already had a discussion (or even a vote) to clarify that? [12:59:51] IIRC, the wikifunctions themselves are CC0 but the results are Apache (or something similar) (re @Al: I see it as being more a question of whether the content is copyright CC BY-SA or CC0. I think text produced by a Wikifunctions ...) [13:01:32] I think it was the other way around. The functions has the software license and the generated output is CC0. (re @NicolasVIGNERON: mhhh, did we already had a discussion (or even a vote) to clarify that? [13:01:33] IIRC, the wikifunctions themselves are CC0 but the resul...) [13:02:58] maybe... I can't find it right now but I'm pretty sure it has been clarified somewhere [13:03:36] At least it doesn't make sense to use a software license on content and a content license on (tiny) software. :) [13:49:51] It’s at the foot of every page. The precise status of generated text is unclear to me, but copyright subsists in the software, rather than its execution, and the software is licensed under Apache 2.0, which specifically excludes from its definition of “Derivative works” “works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and [13:49:51] [13:49:52] Derivative Works thereof”. I take this to mean that the result of a call to an embedded function requires no attribution, whether or not copyright subsists 🤷‍♂️ (re @NicolasVIGNERON: maybe... I can't find it right now but I'm pretty sure it has been clarified somewhere) [13:58:49] I was thinking bout a page (or a talk?) where result copyright was explicitly discuss... (re @Al: It’s at the foot of every page. The precise status of generated text is unclear to me, but copyright subsists in the software, r...) [14:00:05] and sidenote: attribution is part of copyright [14:04:46] I was thinking of something else but I found this : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Updates/2021-12-21 :_ Abstract Content for Abstract Wikipedia will be published under CC BY-SA 3.0_ [14:59:04] Yes, that excludes generated content. I’m expecting “abstract” content on the new wiki to be CC BY-SA, but that decision does not extend to Wikifunctions, where mechanical expression of Wikidata’s CC0 content should (?) be CC0. (re @NicolasVIGNERON: I was thinking of something else but I found this : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Updates/2021-12-21 : [14:59:05] Abst...) [19:52:34] Abstract content will be CC BY SA, indeed. I guess we would need to ask a lawyer what that means for the text created, but my gut would guess that's CC BY SA too. [19:53:10] Probably we will have to ask a lawyer eventually. Let me add that to my todo.