<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Software Research and the Industry</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dirkriehle.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dirkriehle.com</link>
	<description>Dirk Riehle&#039;s blog about everything computer science, applied and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 02:12:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on On the Technology Behind the Wikipedia Sexism Debate on &#8220;American Women Novelists&#8221; by obiwan</title>
		<link>http://dirkriehle.com/2013/04/28/on-the-technology-behind-the-wikipedia-sexism-debate-on-american-women-novelists/#comment-23688</link>
		<dc:creator>obiwan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 02:12:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirkriehle.com/?p=3188#comment-23688</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[interested in your thoughts on this approach- category intersections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>interested in your thoughts on this approach- category intersections:<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on On the Technology Behind the Wikipedia Sexism Debate on &#8220;American Women Novelists&#8221; by Dirk Riehle</title>
		<link>http://dirkriehle.com/2013/04/28/on-the-technology-behind-the-wikipedia-sexism-debate-on-american-women-novelists/#comment-23685</link>
		<dc:creator>Dirk Riehle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 08:18:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirkriehle.com/?p=3188#comment-23685</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@john I don&#039;t see how you are contradicting what I said; I read you repeating it.

More specifically, I didn&#039;t say these improvement projects are all there is. Of course not, many editors are not associated with any projects, some are associated with several. 

When you look at online communities, you see a series of roles that people play and take on over time. From pure content focus to structural focus to admin focus. Which is to say you people move on from caring about particular topics to caring about the whole thing. Members of wiki projects are somewhere in between---beyond single articles, into improving whole categories, not yet running back office processes.

As to who did this: I couldn&#039;t figure it out clearly, nor could Jimmy Wales or folks from the Wikimedia foundation, as various emails showed. So I only said &quot;let&#039;s assume&quot; it is &quot;the usual culprit&quot; which is good enough for my focus on technology that needs improvement. Refactoring categories is a typical improvement project activity.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@john I don&#8217;t see how you are contradicting what I said; I read you repeating it.</p>
<p>More specifically, I didn&#8217;t say these improvement projects are all there is. Of course not, many editors are not associated with any projects, some are associated with several. </p>
<p>When you look at online communities, you see a series of roles that people play and take on over time. From pure content focus to structural focus to admin focus. Which is to say you people move on from caring about particular topics to caring about the whole thing. Members of wiki projects are somewhere in between&#8212;beyond single articles, into improving whole categories, not yet running back office processes.</p>
<p>As to who did this: I couldn&#8217;t figure it out clearly, nor could Jimmy Wales or folks from the Wikimedia foundation, as various emails showed. So I only said &#8220;let&#8217;s assume&#8221; it is &#8220;the usual culprit&#8221; which is good enough for my focus on technology that needs improvement. Refactoring categories is a typical improvement project activity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on On the Technology Behind the Wikipedia Sexism Debate on &#8220;American Women Novelists&#8221; by John Broughton</title>
		<link>http://dirkriehle.com/2013/04/28/on-the-technology-behind-the-wikipedia-sexism-debate-on-american-women-novelists/#comment-23684</link>
		<dc:creator>John Broughton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 04:44:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirkriehle.com/?p=3188#comment-23684</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is *not* true: &quot;Wikipedia bureaucracy is structured into &#039;improvement projects&#039;, groups of volunteers who care about a particular topic, and work together to improve this topic’s presentation on Wikipedia. ...  So in most cases, there would be an American Novelist improvement group. Any complaints should be directed to that group.&quot;

By &quot;improvement projects&quot; you must mean WikiProjects. However, (a) WikiProjects don&#039;t &quot;own&quot; or otherwise control the articles associated with them; (b) most editors don&#039;t belong to *any* WikiProject, and those who do belong do not in any way restrict their editing to associated articles; (c) most WikiProjects are inactive (a polite way of saying &quot;defunct&quot;); (d) virtually all active WikiProjects have far too many associated articles to be able to monitor all of them, even if members were so inclined (they are not); rather, they tend to work on a very small subset at any given time.

And no, there is no American Novelist improvement group. There is a WikiProject Novels group, but it is (a) focused on books, not people, and (b) not limited by geography.  

And this is flatly wrong: &quot;This group decided that &#039;American Women Novelists&#039; is a good new category. In fact, *no* group made that decision; it was made by a single person. And yes, Wikipedia is so decentralized that a single person can not only create a new category, but can then use semi-automated tools to do fairly high-speed edits to move articles from older categories to the new one.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is *not* true: &#8220;Wikipedia bureaucracy is structured into &#8216;improvement projects&#8217;, groups of volunteers who care about a particular topic, and work together to improve this topic’s presentation on Wikipedia. &#8230;  So in most cases, there would be an American Novelist improvement group. Any complaints should be directed to that group.&#8221;</p>
<p>By &#8220;improvement projects&#8221; you must mean WikiProjects. However, (a) WikiProjects don&#8217;t &#8220;own&#8221; or otherwise control the articles associated with them; (b) most editors don&#8217;t belong to *any* WikiProject, and those who do belong do not in any way restrict their editing to associated articles; (c) most WikiProjects are inactive (a polite way of saying &#8220;defunct&#8221;); (d) virtually all active WikiProjects have far too many associated articles to be able to monitor all of them, even if members were so inclined (they are not); rather, they tend to work on a very small subset at any given time.</p>
<p>And no, there is no American Novelist improvement group. There is a WikiProject Novels group, but it is (a) focused on books, not people, and (b) not limited by geography.  </p>
<p>And this is flatly wrong: &#8220;This group decided that &#8216;American Women Novelists&#8217; is a good new category. In fact, *no* group made that decision; it was made by a single person. And yes, Wikipedia is so decentralized that a single person can not only create a new category, but can then use semi-automated tools to do fairly high-speed edits to move articles from older categories to the new one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on On the Technology Behind the Wikipedia Sexism Debate on &#8220;American Women Novelists&#8221; by bawolff</title>
		<link>http://dirkriehle.com/2013/04/28/on-the-technology-behind-the-wikipedia-sexism-debate-on-american-women-novelists/#comment-23677</link>
		<dc:creator>bawolff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:42:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirkriehle.com/?p=3188#comment-23677</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As an aside, the whole categories can&#039;t be easily renamed thing will hopefully be fixed somewhat soon in mediawiki (I would really like to see it fixed by the end of this summer)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As an aside, the whole categories can&#8217;t be easily renamed thing will hopefully be fixed somewhat soon in mediawiki (I would really like to see it fixed by the end of this summer)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on On the Technology Behind the Wikipedia Sexism Debate on &#8220;American Women Novelists&#8221; by Nemo</title>
		<link>http://dirkriehle.com/2013/04/28/on-the-technology-behind-the-wikipedia-sexism-debate-on-american-women-novelists/#comment-23676</link>
		<dc:creator>Nemo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:09:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirkriehle.com/?p=3188#comment-23676</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On the Italian Wikipedia, these categories are defined by https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Bio
Crowded categories like https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Scrittori_italiani are disambiguated by century; all distinctions are applied via the central template for our 220+ thousands articles.
This is a tool, but the point is that the rules for biographies are defined centrally, by the biographies WikiProject; no such tool would exist if such a coordination hadn&#039;t existed. On en.wiki they&#039;re more chaotic, so categories are more inconsistent and a consensus has to be found after the fact to reorganise them.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On the Italian Wikipedia, these categories are defined by <a href="https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Bio" rel="nofollow">https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Bio</a><br />
Crowded categories like <a href="https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Scrittori_italiani" rel="nofollow">https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Scrittori_italiani</a> are disambiguated by century; all distinctions are applied via the central template for our 220+ thousands articles.<br />
This is a tool, but the point is that the rules for biographies are defined centrally, by the biographies WikiProject; no such tool would exist if such a coordination hadn&#8217;t existed. On en.wiki they&#8217;re more chaotic, so categories are more inconsistent and a consensus has to be found after the fact to reorganise them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on On the Technology Behind the Wikipedia Sexism Debate on &#8220;American Women Novelists&#8221; by Dirk Riehle</title>
		<link>http://dirkriehle.com/2013/04/28/on-the-technology-behind-the-wikipedia-sexism-debate-on-american-women-novelists/#comment-23675</link>
		<dc:creator>Dirk Riehle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2013 11:29:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirkriehle.com/?p=3188#comment-23675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In my mind, this is all object-oriented modeling of the world. Having subclasses (categories) of Novelists makes sense. Following the abstract superclass rule you&#039;d even want the superclass (more general category) to be empty. But you are exactly correct, that use cases determine how stuff gets categorized rather than that clear conceptual modeling determines how stuff should get categorized after which different tools allow for different use cases.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In my mind, this is all object-oriented modeling of the world. Having subclasses (categories) of Novelists makes sense. Following the abstract superclass rule you&#8217;d even want the superclass (more general category) to be empty. But you are exactly correct, that use cases determine how stuff gets categorized rather than that clear conceptual modeling determines how stuff should get categorized after which different tools allow for different use cases.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on On the Technology Behind the Wikipedia Sexism Debate on &#8220;American Women Novelists&#8221; by Adrian Kuhn</title>
		<link>http://dirkriehle.com/2013/04/28/on-the-technology-behind-the-wikipedia-sexism-debate-on-american-women-novelists/#comment-23674</link>
		<dc:creator>Adrian Kuhn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2013 11:15:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirkriehle.com/?p=3188#comment-23674</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interesting post. I find the motivation to &quot;keep categories small&quot; absolutely mind blowing. So apparently, Wikipedia&#039;s bureaucratic underbelly has put an upper limit on the number of American novelists and when there’s to many, some of them have to be segregated to another category? Sounds to me like a UX problem with categories becoming hard to navigate when they are large, so maybe that should be fixed rather than resorting apartheid …]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting post. I find the motivation to &#8220;keep categories small&#8221; absolutely mind blowing. So apparently, Wikipedia&#8217;s bureaucratic underbelly has put an upper limit on the number of American novelists and when there’s to many, some of them have to be segregated to another category? Sounds to me like a UX problem with categories becoming hard to navigate when they are large, so maybe that should be fixed rather than resorting apartheid …</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Single-Vendor Commercial Open Source Business Model by Challenges in Selling Commercial Open Source &#124; Open Source Integration for Business</title>
		<link>http://dirkriehle.com/publications/2009-2/the-commercial-open-source-business-model/#comment-23668</link>
		<dc:creator>Challenges in Selling Commercial Open Source &#124; Open Source Integration for Business</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 05:46:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.riehle.org/?page_id=823#comment-23668</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] This is not easy. Understanding the commercial open source model and its intricacies along with the economics behind the model is very important while striking a conversation and handling objections. The commercial open source model has very well been described here in &#8220;Single Vendor Commercial Open Source&#8220; [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This is not easy. Understanding the commercial open source model and its intricacies along with the economics behind the model is very important while striking a conversation and handling objections. The commercial open source model has very well been described here in &#8220;Single Vendor Commercial Open Source&#8220; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on A Dual Model of Open Source License Growth by Links 16/4/2013: Xen in Linux Foundation, Fuduntu Overhaul &#124; Techrights</title>
		<link>http://dirkriehle.com/2013/04/13/a-dual-model-of-open-source-license-growth/#comment-23662</link>
		<dc:creator>Links 16/4/2013: Xen in Linux Foundation, Fuduntu Overhaul &#124; Techrights</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 22:25:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirkriehle.com/?p=3172#comment-23662</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] A Dual Model of Open Source License Growth [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] A Dual Model of Open Source License Growth [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on A Dual Model of Open Source License Growth by Open Source Software: exponentielles Wachstum, weniger Copyleft</title>
		<link>http://dirkriehle.com/2013/04/13/a-dual-model-of-open-source-license-growth/#comment-23661</link>
		<dc:creator>Open Source Software: exponentielles Wachstum, weniger Copyleft</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2013 21:59:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirkriehle.com/?p=3172#comment-23661</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] am Blog von Dirk Riehle im Volltext (PDF) verfügbare Beitrag bestätigt auf Basis eines Samples, das ca. 30 Prozent des [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] am Blog von Dirk Riehle im Volltext (PDF) verfügbare Beitrag bestätigt auf Basis eines Samples, das ca. 30 Prozent des [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
