Am 28.09.2015 um 16:43 schrieb Thomas Douillard:
> Daniel Wrote:
>> (*) This follows the principle of "magic is bad, let people edit". Allowing
>> inconsistencies means we can detect errors by finding such inconsistencies.
>> Automatically enforcing consistency may lead to errors propagating out of view
>> of the curation process. The QA process on wikis is centered around edits, so
>> every change should be an edit. Using a bot to fill in missing "reverse" links
>> follows this idea. The fact that you found an issue with the data because you
>> saw a bot do an edit is an example of this principle working nicely.
>
> That might prove to become a worser nightmare than the magic one ... It's seems
> like refusing any kind of automation because it might surprise people for the
> sake of exhausting them to let them do a lot of manual work.

I'm not arguing against "any" kind of automation. I'm arguing against
"invisible" automation baked into the backend software. We(*) very much
encourage "visible" automation under community control like bots and other
(semi-)automatic import tools like WiDaR.

-- daniel


(*) I'm part of the wikidata developer team, not an active member of the
community. I'm primarily speaking for myself here, from my personal experience
as a wikipedia and common admin. I know from past discussions that "bots over
magic" is considered Best Practice among the dev team, and I believe it's also
the approach preferred by the Wikidata community, but I cannot speak for them.

--
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer

Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata