[07:18:51] 1st. Class transport in Switzerland being more carbon intensive than a car... (re @dpriskorn: For trains there are interesting differences between countries according to this table. pkm = person kilometer [07:18:52] I suggest a funct...) [08:23:21] This is not correct, the emissions are only tied to the fuel consumed. [08:23:21] Efficiency is only interesting if you want to design a more efficient motor. (re @dpriskorn: Indeed you are correct.) [08:53:16] That assumes that you have a perfect combustion and actually consume all input... (Lots of old motors drip fuel as output.) (re @dpriskorn: This is not correct, the emissions are only tied to the fuel consumed. [08:53:18] Efficiency is only interesting if you want to design a m...) [08:54:12] Hello everyone, I'm new to wikifunctions and I have question. Seeing discussion about fuel consumption and travel distance function I'm bit confused about my understanding about purpose of wikifunctions project at all. Isn't this project about building software basis to make Wikipedia language independent? So I understand need for functions that manipulate lexemes and [08:54:12] grammar con [08:54:12] structions. But I'm not so sure about purpose for function of fuel consumption? Could anyone clarify please [08:55:59] The greatest loss of a combustion motor is in the form of heat. [08:56:00] You are right that a small fraction of the fuel might not enter the motor and thus not contribute to emissions. That is neglible IMO. Perhaps we should mention that the assumption behind the function is that all the fuel consumed is combusted and leading to emissions. (re @Jan_ainali: That assumes that you have a perfect combustion and actually consume all input... [08:56:00] (Lots of old m [08:56:01] otors drip fuel as output.)) [08:59:42] All functions that make assumptions (perhaps all "real world" functions) and does not make *e_xactly*_ what the label says should be super clear about that in the description (re @dpriskorn: The greatest loss of a combustion motor is in the form of heat. [08:59:42] You are right that a small fraction of the fuel might not enter ...) [08:59:44] Hi, thanks for asking. My take is that Wikifunctions is a project for the world to store useful functions that can be used in different settings, not just the Wikimedia projects. [08:59:45] In science a lot of functions are used. Using the functions I created to calculate climate cost you could build an app that helps users make choices about how to reduce emissions from transport no matter where they are and how they travel. (re @T_2x2: Hello everyone, I'm new to wikifunctions and I have question. Seeing discussion about fuel consumption and travel [08:59:45] distance funct...) [09:02:22] The description is unfortunately very limited. Climate emissions are near impossible to calculate exactly. As in many calculations in physics you have to make certain assumptions. [09:02:22] Engineering as a science is very much about knowing which assumptions you are making. (re @Jan_ainali: All functions that make assumptions (perhaps all "real world" functions) and does not make exactly what the label says should be...) [09:04:23] I don't think so. Wikifunctions isn't library of every possible function. There is section about 'What Wikifunction Is Not' (or similar title) that exactly says that it is not to collect all possible functions and redirects to RosetaCode for this (re @dpriskorn: Hi, thanks for asking. My take is that Wikifunctions is a project for the world to store useful functions [09:04:23] that can be used in di...) [09:05:24] A good way to see it: [09:05:25] - Commons stores media, for Wikimedia projects and otherwise [09:05:27] - Wikidata stores data, for Wikimedia projects and otherwise [09:05:28] - Wikifunctions stores code, for Wikimedia projects and otherwise (re @T_2x2: Hello everyone, I'm new to wikifunctions and I have question. Seeing discussion about fuel consumption and travel distance funct...) [09:07:10] Perhaps we then should only allow such functions that are described on another project and then put the link to it in the description? In my opinion misleading (and that include such that does not do what the label says) functions are more harmful to the reputation of the project than missing a couple of functions. (re @dpriskorn: The description is unfortunately [09:07:10] very limited. Cl [09:07:10] imate emissions are near impossible to calculate exactly. As in many calculatio...) [09:08:40] These kinds of functions could be very useful on Wikiversity or Wikibooks. (re @T_2x2: I don't think so. Wikifunctions isn't library of every possible function. There is section about 'What Wikifunction Is Not' (or ...) [09:08:56] So I have another question how do we know what functions are required for Wikimedia projects? If I know what is required then I can contribute new function that will solve problem that project needs (re @Nicolas: A good way to see it: [09:08:57] - Commons stores media, for Wikimedia projects and otherwise [09:08:58] - Wikidata stores data, for Wikimedia projec...) [09:10:06] It's not just what is required [09:10:07] And for what is required, looking at the template and modules is a good starts (re @T_2x2: So I have another question how do we know what functions are required for Wikimedia projects? If I know what is required then I ...) [09:11:27] At the very least, we need functions to be able to generate encyclopedic text in all languages. Much more is needed, but that is a good place to start working at. (re @T_2x2: So I have another question how do we know what functions are required for Wikimedia projects? If I know what is required then I ...) [09:11:35] BTW, hasn't the last WF report been shared here? [09:13:59] Wikiversity and Wikibooks open whole world. So it will assume need for many more functions. Then perhaps the statement that Wikifunctions isn't a store of all possible functions is in contrary somewhat (re @Jan_ainali: These kinds of functions could be very useful on Wikiversity or Wikibooks.) [09:16:36] I think it is still somewhat true that it isn't made to _store_ them. If they are actively used by projects, I'd argue they are not in storage. (re @T_2x2: Wikiversity and Wikibooks open whole world. So it will assume need for many more functions. Then perhaps the statement that Wiki...) [09:20:00] Ah, nice semantics there (re @Jan_ainali: I think it is still somewhat true that it isn't made to store them. If they are actively used by projects, I'd argue they are no...) [09:27:53] Are we talking about the page what Wikifunctions is not? [09:27:54] If yes could you quote? [09:27:55] I understand the project is opem ro any kind of useful function but not necessarily all historic implementations of it. [09:27:57] Now comes the question: who decides what is useful and not? The community, just like in Wikipedia where the community set up clear limits for what is included and not. [09:27:58] This project is very young still so we don't have clear rules about inclusion yet, much like Wikidata. [09:28:00] I encourage you to be bold and have fun and contribute suggestions to improve the project as you best see fit 😀 (re @T_2x2: Wikiversity and Wikibooks open whole world. So it will assume need for many more functions. Then perhaps the statement that Wiki...) [09:32:10] Wikidata has clear rules... (re @dpriskorn: Are we talking about the page what Wikifunctions is not? [09:32:10] If yes could you quote? [09:32:12] I understand the project is open to any kind of...) [09:32:40] An advantage of this project over Wikidata is that the scaling complexity of the system is lower and this means that we might some day end up with more Zids than Qids 😅 [09:32:40] Or put in another way: don't wory about creating too many functions, instead focus on usefulness and having fun together. 😀 [09:35:42] Did Wikidata have clear rules in the beginning? Are they really that clear? [09:35:43] Would I be allowed to create items for every fire pit, shelter and bench in Openstreetmap in Wikidata? You could link them to OSM, photos in commons, wikitravel, and thus argue there is a structural need 😉 (re @Jan_ainali: Wikidata has clear rules...) [09:39:21] No, yes, no. [09:39:21] (Structural need is within Wikidata, not for external projects.) [09:39:22] (People getting away with breaking the rules is a problem with enforcement, not that the rules are not clear.) (re @dpriskorn: Did Wikidata have clear rules in the beginning? Are they really that clear? [09:39:24] Would I be allowed to create items for every fire pi...) [09:44:10] We could probably just adopt it, almost as is, no? (re @Jan_ainali: No, yes, no. [09:44:10] (Structural need is within Wikidata, not for external projects.) [09:44:12] (People getting away with breaking the rules i...) [12:49:05] OK, maybe it's too early for me to get my head around what's happening with Abstract Wikipedia (re @dpriskorn: Are we talking about the page what Wikifunctions is not? [12:49:06] If yes could you quote? [12:49:07] I understand the project is open to any kind of...) [12:52:43] yeah I don't recall শর্বাণী sending a reminder email nor a Telegram message about the latest status update (from August 2nd) (re @Nicolas: BTW, hasn't the last WF report been shared here?) [12:54:16] (speaking of which, the images in that status update appear in their full size rather than as thumbnails) [13:02:07] We just forgot because we're all busy packing and/or travelling to Wikimania (re @mahir256: yeah I don't recall শর্বাণী sending a reminder email nor a Telegram message about the latest status update (from August 2nd)) [13:05:17] The wikidata policy you mean? (re @Nicolas: We could probably just adopt it, almost as is, no?) [13:15:50] Ok, let me rephrase: Let's pick this notability criteria instead: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." [13:15:51] So the Swedish authorities publish a database of all park benches and shelters in all the protected areas in Sweden, can I add them as items? (I might start taking photos of them and linking to their common photos) [13:15:52] Or various scientific databases decide to go all CC0, can I add an item for all the papers (even the not that notable ones)? [13:15:54] What I'm fishing for is that even though if we had a clear notability criteria for functions, it always comes down to the community to decide whether they want the particular function or functions or not and the community has not yet had to handle deletion of functions from new users enough to hammer out a notability policy or page (yet). [13:15:55] @T_2x2 nobody questioned any of my functions yet, so we don't know if they are welcome/useful or not according to the community. WDYT? You can try making a deletion request for one of them if you want and see what happens 😀 (re @Jan_ainali: No, yes, no. [13:15:57] (Structural need is within Wikidata, not for external projects.) [13:15:58] (People getting away with breaking the rules i...) [13:17:04] Yes but more specifically the part I quoted (re @dpriskorn: The wikidata policy you mean?) [13:21:59] In Wikidata there is a very interesting situation going on since I joined a few years ago: some users want to create millions of new items for not that useful papers and other users are scared that infrastructure will break the graph part of the backend. [13:22:00] The thing most interesting is that this has NOT yet caused any changes of the notability page even though it has been discussed for years now... (re @Jan_ainali: No, yes, no. [13:22:01] (Structural need is within Wikidata, not for external projects.) [13:22:03] (People getting away with breaking the rules i...) [13:26:43] I just found [[Wikifunctions:Notability]] (draft) and [[Wikifunctions:Valuable]] which might be interesting to you @T_2x2 [13:28:33] Yes because notability is not really the issue here [13:28:34] Also, the graph has been split, so the scaling problem is solved (more or less and for now at least) (re @dpriskorn: In Wikidata there is a very interesting situation going on since I joined a few years ago: some users want to create millions of...) [13:28:36] Criteria 2 on the first one is: [13:28:37] It is described in at least one reliable source. [13:28:39] Have we discussed how to best do that? For my climate functions, where would I link to the source? (The interface does make it easy for me to populate the description with links and there is no source field currently.) (re @wikilinksbot: [[Wikifunctions:Notability]] [13:28:40] [[Wikifunctions:Valuable]]) [13:29:43] agreed [13:29:45] the split will be official in a few months (when 'query.wikidata.org' no longer has article items) (re @Nicolas: Yes because notability is not really the issue here [13:29:46] Also, the graph has been split, so the scaling problem is solved (more or l...) [13:31:10] @T_2x2 if the first one was not a draft you could easily petition my functions to be deleted because they are not currently used (and cannot be used because of technical limitations) by any other Wikimedia page. [13:31:10] My hope is that once they can be used they will be used by the climate emission pages to help users easily calculate their emissions. (re @wikilinksbot: [[Wikifunctions:Notability]] [13:31:12] [[Wikifunctions:Valuable]]) [13:31:15] On the talk page? (re @dpriskorn: Criteria 2 on the first one is: [13:31:16] It is described in at least one reliable source. [13:31:18] Have we discussed how to best do that? For my ...) [13:32:07] Well most of the functions are unused right now 🙃 (re @dpriskorn: @T_2x2 if the first one was not a draft you could easily petition my functions to be deleted because they are not currently used...) [13:32:59] Yes, that is the least bad solution I came up with yesterday. I don't like it much though. As a programmer and user of a function I don't want to have to navigate to a talk page to see the sources for a function (or which unit it returns). (re @Nicolas: On the talk page?) [13:34:28] Imagine sitting in PyCharm and there is a plugin for Wikifunctions. How would the plugin developer make it easy for you as a user to [13:34:28] 1) tell you what unit the output is? [13:34:30] 2) help you peruse the source for the function or a particular implementation? [13:35:14] As user, most people don't care about the source. [13:35:15] It should be there ideally but no need to access it most of the time (re @dpriskorn: Yes, that is the least bad solution I came up with yesterday. I don't like it much though. As a programmer and user of a functio...) [13:35:53] Which unit a function returns seems to me a crucial part of the function, is it not? [13:36:22] Like I don't know the context here I'm just thinking in terms of coding ease or function perusing ease [13:37:04] No, no why would I? As I mentioned I'm new to the whole wiki ecosystem and don't know about much hence asking and trying to figure out. (re @dpriskorn: Ok, let me rephrase: Let's pick this notability criteria instead: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual...) [13:37:59] indeed; the Mars Climate Orbiter failed because some code output metric units and other code expected US units (re @Egezort: Which unit a function returns seems to me a crucial part of the function, is it not?) [13:38:08] 1 and 2 are wildly different [13:38:09] 1 should be (and often already is) in the description and input names [13:38:10] 2 is often not needed, description is enough in most cases (re @dpriskorn: Imagine sitting in PyCharm and there is a plugin for Wikifunctions. How would the plugin developer make it easy for you as a use...) [13:39:04] I'm still crying about that [13:39:04] That said, in that case, there was hundreds of pages of documentation giving explicitly the units used. (re @mahir256: indeed; the Mars Climate Orbiter failed because some code output metric units and other code expected US units) [13:40:10] Wikifunctions itself is new, any input, especially, from outside, is welcome (re @T_2x2: No, no why would I? As I mentioned I'm new to the whole wiki ecosystem and don't know about much hence asking and trying to figu...) [13:40:33] Sorry if my questions offended you somehow. I'm not at all against your functions or contributions at all. As mentioned I'm just trying to figure out what's happening in general (re @dpriskorn: @T_2x2 if the first one was not a draft you could easily petition my functions to be deleted because they are not currently used...) [13:45:58] I think the best summary of what is happening in general is: we're experimenting to learn as we go [13:46:10] I added a new section here [[Wikifunctions:Valuable#Examples_of_high-value_ideas]] and shamelessly added a function I created as example 😎 [13:49:54] I did not know that. Thanks for sharing. [13:49:56] That is a fantastic example of why having this public library of functions where many people can improve, read and discuss functions is a fantastic game-changing idea like Wikipedia was when it was invented. [13:49:57] Also NASA could have used a specific version of a function and published which ones they were going to use and ask people to find flaws in them and given them a bounty. [13:49:59] Everybody wins on open editable functions (especially if you are consuming tax payers money) 😀 (re @mahir256: indeed; the Mars Climate Orbiter failed because some code output metric units and other code expected US units) [13:50:56] There was also a plane incident in Canada (fortunately not a crash) that was caused by the metric/imperial unit mismatch [13:50:59] I'm very happy when people ask questions like you did, because it helps us be mindful of the common goals and align together. Please keep asking, I'm not offended at all :) (re @T_2x2: Sorry if my questions offended you somehow. I'm not at all against your functions or contributions at all. As mentioned I'm just...) [13:52:31] I think NASA is already publishing all code as open source, but I am not sure if they only do it post-deploy or if they also develop in an open spirit. (re @dpriskorn: I did not know that. Thanks for sharing. [13:52:31] That is a fantastic example of why having this public library of functions where many ...) [13:52:46] The description is not enough for the climate functions I created. 100 char does not get you very far when the units are long and complicated. (re @Nicolas: 1 and 2 are wildly different [13:52:46] 1 should be (and often already is) in the description and input names [13:52:48] 2 is often not needed, descr...) [13:53:54] We can implement their functions then (if they are not copyrighted or whatever) 🤩 (re @Jan_ainali: I think NASA is already publishing all code as open source, but I am not sure if they only do it post-deploy or if they also dev...) [13:54:33] NASA is federal, I think it is public domain (re @dpriskorn: We can implement their functions then (if they are not copyrighted or whatever) 🤩) [13:56:44] There is a lot of examples, and almost every time the units were correctly documented, the error were always from humans not reading the documentation (pebkac) (re @Msz2001: There was also a plane incident in Canada (fortunately not a crash) that was caused by the metric/imperial unit mismatch) [14:00:08] I found this https://code.nasa.gov/ which linked to https://github.com/orgs/nasa/repositories where there are 527 repositories and at least one of them has a compatible license 🤩 (re @Jan_ainali: NASA is federal, I think it is public domain) [14:04:36] Wouldn't post-deploy also be really good, it only matters for a few years doesn't it? (re @Jan_ainali: I think NASA is already publishing all code as open source, but I am not sure if they only do it post-deploy or if they also dev...) [14:04:58] Why put in the description something that doesn't belong there? (re @dpriskorn: The description is not enough for the climate functions I created. 100 char does not get you very far when the units are long an...) [14:05:35] yet another reason why statements might be a great thing to add (re @mahir256: if zobjects had statements then adding a hierarchy of some sort would be easier) [14:05:48] and why I don't really believe this 'heavyweight' argument (re @vrandecic: Yes, agreed that it would be helpful to organize functions and objects better. Statements are one possibility, but it's a very h...) [14:05:55] If the definition is that long, then yes it shouldn't be there IMO, a statement like "more info on the talk page" could/should be there though (re @dpriskorn: The description is not enough for the climate functions I created. 100 char does not get you very far when the units are long an...) [14:06:33] So how would you structure the talk page in that case? (re @Egezort: If the definition is that long, then yes it shouldn't be there IMO, a statement like "more info on the talk page" could/should b...) [14:06:40] Description of the functions describes the functions, just a general "SI" or "Imperial units" is enough [14:06:40] The precise unit of the input can go in the input [14:06:52] Programmers do get used to things like this very easily, if enough functions have this at the end (ie, if it is standardized somehow), they would learn it quickly (re @Egezort: If the definition is that long, then yes it shouldn't be there IMO, a statement like "more info on the talk page" could/should b...) [14:07:22] Probably there should be a space at the very top reserved for what the author wants to put in, this would come before all the actual talk (re @dpriskorn: So how would you structure the talk page in that case?) [14:07:37] Or creating a new namespace for these sorts of things is also something but is probably overkill [14:08:06] I changes Z18421 to have this description: "Outputs kilogram of carbon dioxide equivalents (kg CO2e) based on 2 inputs." [14:08:42] It could be even shorter if I just stated the Qid of the output unit instead. [14:18:32] Say I would like to search for all functions that somehow use Q57084901. [14:18:33] That is not really possible using one search right now (because we cannot annotate functions with statements or Qids besides in the description or the talk page as text) [14:18:40] Speaking about, a thing a would love is some way to check that the input is indeed in the unit it should be. eg. not entering "12" but "12 meters". [14:19:55] Do you mean forcing the user to supply the unit? Then we would need Zids for all the units. That would actually solve my issue of not being able to easily list all functions using a certain unit. [14:21:00] In this case input field natural number "12" and unit "Zxxx" where Zxxx is the unit meter (re @Nicolas: Speaking about, a thing I would love is some way to check that the input is indeed in the unit it should be. eg. not entering "1...) [14:21:28] Yes, that would be clearer and easier I guess (re @dpriskorn: Do you mean forcing the user to supply the unit? Then we would need Zids for all the units. That would actually solve my issue o...) [14:21:35] Then we could search for units just like we search for functions in the interface [14:21:47] That is a great idea. Would you consider making a ticket for it? [14:22:34] Don't we have Wikidata items for formulas? Don't they have links to Wikifunctions? They should be queryable (re @dpriskorn: Do you mean forcing the user to supply the unit? Then we would need Zids for all the units. That would actually solve my issue o...) [14:23:04] I think it’s just a type proposal… (re @dpriskorn: That is a great idea. Would you consider making a ticket for it?) [14:23:23] This would completely solve my "descriptions are too short for units" problem. The other problem "descriptions doesnt seem like the right place to link to the source of the function and is very short" [14:24:34] IDK, that's a good idea if we don't. (re @Egezort: Don't we have Wikidata items for formulas? Don't they have links to Wikifunctions? They should be queryable) [14:25:08] Number with unit is not a new idea, we talked about it already 😉 [14:27:11] I went ahead and created this Q128596152. Wikidata seems to be missing an "output" property. (re @Egezort: Don't we have Wikidata items for formulas? Don't they have links to Wikifunctions? They should be queryable) [14:27:51] There's Result I think, if nothing works, then has characteristic, output, value should work [14:28:45] None of these seem good to me : https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/bridgebot/2fcfc79d/file_63311.jpg [14:28:45] Hm. [14:30:15] A wikidata item for every formula used would solve the problems with findability if we find a way to annotate functions with the formula Qid in a consistent way or ask the team to give us a new field "formula Qid" or similar. [14:34:18] I went ahead and bent P2501 and P144 to my needs for output and input. It will be interesting to see if anyone reverts. [14:42:20] I found Q57084968 so we already have one of the units I use as input 🤩 [14:42:50] Hmm, like a string with newlines in it? You should just be able to put `\n` (as in, the precise character sequence of ) in as the value of a string. (re 3:24 PM <+wm-bb> @ Is there any good way to build Wikifunctions tests with multi-line input? I can't test my function any other way) [14:44:21] https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/kiOXZWkd/ [14:51:41] Which Wikidata notability criteria do you claim? (re @dpriskorn: I went ahead and created this Q128596152. Wikidata seems to be missing both "output" and "input" properties.) [14:58:21] It has a sitelink to WF now so criteria 1 😇 (re @Jan_ainali: Which Wikidata notability criteria do you claim?) [14:59:34] @mahir256 does this solve your need for statements linked to a function? We can just create WD items for formulas and link to them in a consistent way (yet to be determined). [14:59:36] speaking of changes to the notability criteria, I see that "Wikifunctions" is not named in criterion 1 🤪 (re @dpriskorn: It has a sitelink to WF now so criteria 1 😇) [14:59:43] and no it does not (re @dpriskorn: @mahir256 does this solve your need for statements linked to a function? We can just create WD items for formulas and link to th...) [15:00:39] . (re @mahir256: Commons files have their own statements, rather than having Wikidata items; why not also Wikifunctions objects?) [15:00:50] I'm trying so hard to play by the book. I'm going to suggest we include Wikifunction in criteria 1 on the talk page. (re @mahir256: speaking of changes to the notability criteria, I see that "Wikifunctions" is not named in criterion 1 🤪) [15:05:46] There probably is, but wikibase statements is the best system to describe and organize millions of functions IMO. Categories on commons and Wikipedias are so much inferior to statements. [15:05:46] For Wikipedias it made sense to keep the data apart. For Commons it did not. I agree with @mahir256 that for functions it makes a lot of sense to keep the statements attached on each function. [15:05:48] The values of the statements should of course be Wikidata items like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q57084901 [15:05:49] Annotating the inputs and outputs using statements would be very powerful compared to just a text string as they are now. (re @vrandecic: Yes, agreed that it would be helpful to organize functions and objects better. Statements are one possibility, but it's a very h...) [15:09:56] [[Wikidata_talk:Notability#Suggestion:_Add_Wikifunctions_to_the_list_of_sitelinks_for_criteria_1]] [15:10:13] [[wikidata:Wikidata_talk:Notability#Suggestion:_Add_Wikifunctions_to_the_list_of_sitelinks_for_criteria_1]]