There is also a more general and very useful
discussion of the same issues
at this page
State_of_affairs
(check recent edits, last 5 days or so).
Since it is not related to any decision-making (at least not yet) I would
expect it is easier to comment there, though some editors are really
hostile (I was at some point labeled as a "part of Wikidata crowd" in a
negative sense and had to point out that I have 15 times as many edits on
the English Wikipedia than the editor who was attacking me).
Cheers
Yaroslav
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yes Yaroslav, I totally agree with you (and
don't worry, I wouldn't dream
of commenting there). On the other hand, this is extremely relevant for the
Wikidata mailing list and I am really grateful to Dario for posting about
it, because I had no idea. I stopped following that "2017 state of affairs"
thing when it first got ugly back in January. I suggest that in cases where
(as Dario suggests) highly structured and superior data from Wikidata
*could* be used in Wikipedia, that we create some sort of property to
indicate this on Wikidata, along the lines of the P31->Q17362920 we use to
show that a certain Wikipedia has a pending merge problem. If the
information is ever used on that Wikipedia (either with or without that
"Cite-Q" template) then the property for that specific Wikipedia should be
removed. Ideally this property could be used as a qualifier at the
statement level (so e.g. for paintings, a statement on a collection
property for a painting that it was stolen and rediscovered, or on a
significant event property that it was restored and reattributed, or that
it was owned by the Hitler museum and stored it the depot in Linz during
WWII, etc).
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks Dario.
May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course open
to everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of the
English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely negatively. Please be
considerate.
Cheers
Yaroslav
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dario Taraborelli <
dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hey folks,
I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for
an experimental template – {{Cite Q}}
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Q> – pulling
bibliographic data from Wikidata:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discus
sion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q
As you'll see, there is significant resistance against the broader
usage of a template which exemplifies how structured bibliographic data in
WIkidata could be reused across Wikimedia projects.
I personally think many of the concerns brought up by editors who
support the deletion request are legitimate. As the editor who nominated
the template for deletion notes: "The existence of the template is one
thing; the advocacy to use this systematically is another one altogether.
Anybody seeking that kind of systematic, radical change in Wikipedia must
get consensus for that in Wikipedia first. Being BOLD is fine but has its
limits, and this kind of thing is one of them."
I find myself in agreement with this statement, which I believe applies
to much more than just bibliographic data from Wikidata: it's about
virtually any kind of data and contents reused across projects governed by
different policies and expectations. I think what's happening is that an
experimental template – primarily meant to showcase how data reuse from
Wikidata *might *work – is perceived as a norm for how references
*will* or *should* work in the future.
If you're involved in the WikiCite initiative, and are considering
participating in the deletion discussion, I encourage you to keep a
constructive tone and understand the perspective of people who are
concerned about the use and misuse of this template.
As one of the WikiCite organizers, I see the success of the initiative
as coming from rich, highly curated data that other projects will want to
reuse, and from technical and usability advances for all contributors, not
from giving an impression that the goal is to use Wikidata to subvert how
other Wikimedia communities do their job. I'll post a note explaining my
perspective.
Dario
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org