On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5 April 2013 22:24, phoebe ayers
<phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Risker
<risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 April 2013 19:07, Lydia Pintscher <lydia.pintscher(a)wikimedia.de>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:00 AM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> > > Sorry, I don't know what this means. I thought Wikidata was already
> > > deployed to the English Wikipedia (and possibly other projects as
> well).
> >
> > I've posted an announcement with more details on the technical
village
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Wikidata_ph…
> > Let me know if anything is still
unclear so I can clarify.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> > Lydia
> >
> >
>
> Lydia, could you please point me to the discussion on *English
Wikipedia*
> where the community indicated an interest in
deploying this software?
> Infoboxes and sourcing to another website completely outside the
control
of
English Wikipedia is a rather big issue, and I
would expect to see a
Request for Comment with at least 200-300 participants.
Risker/Anne
In my opinion, as a casual Wikidata editor and not-so-casual Wikipedia
editor, I think the Commons analogy continues to hold up pretty well.
Commons exists. We can use it, as a project. We don't *have* to (and
indeed
don't always, on en:wp, where fair use images
are accepted). As I
understand it, the same is true with Wikidata -- it will be around, if
and
when it seems appropriate to use. Of course
Commons and Wikidata will
both
be more useful and more awesome the more projects
do use them. But my
very
non-technical understanding of this deployment is
that basically we made
the projects able to see that Wikidata exists (correct me if I'm wrong!)
Now as far as I can tell there's a whole lot of work yet to do in order
to
figure out how exactly one might link to data or
produce an infobox and
what that might look like -- deployment does not seem to mean ready for
prime-time, yet -- and of course the data-building itself is just barely
getting started. Best practices for infoboxes does seem like a
project-wide
RFC to me. But hopefully, when we get to that
point, wikidata will be a
useful option.
Well, the problem is that we *are* at that point now. Wikidata II *is*
intended to be used in infoboxes. We already have edit skirmishes happening
all over the project with people adding infoboxes where they aren't wanted,
explicitly to take advantage of wikidata, and using wikidata as their
excuse to bring it in.
I fail to see how that's a Wikidata issue. It seems more like a conduct or
disagreement between editors.
Load it up, okay. But don't turn it on until the
community discusses whether or not it wants it turned
on. It's simply
contemptuous of the community to do that. You know as well as I do that as
soon as a feature is available, it's used by some people who will fight to
the death to keep using it, whether or not it is what the community wants.
The community doesn't vote for every single feature turned on on English
Wikipedia. Was their a vote for Scribunto? VisualEditor? PostEdit?
Nope. They just got turned on and people lived with it.
(See revision deletion which, as soon as it was turned
on for
administrators on English Wikipedia before the process had been worked out,
immediately resulted in tens of thousands of inappropriate revision
deletions in its first week. Even now, at least 30% of revision deletions
are inappropriate.) You want to keep editors, you need to actually make
sure that the changes you are adding are what they want, not what they'll
leave over.
Wikidata is a knowledge base. It's up to individual projects/editors on how
to use it. We can try and help, but if people use it incorrectly, there's
only so much we (Wikidatians) can do.
I disagree that the Commons analogy holds up. Commons is very active, and
easily accessible, and it's pretty obvious how to remove unwanted
images/media. It is *not* obvious how to remove wikidata, and it is a site
that is extremely not user friendly (I've checked, and even got someone to
give me a tour, and it makes wikitext look simple).
Wikidata is even more active than commons (
https://wikipulse.herokuapp.com/)
but you're right, it might not be immediately obvious what to do.
Is Help:Editing (
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Editing) not good
enough? Maybe we need a better tutorial?
There is a rather big difference between images to articles, which aren't
essential but are very complementary, and the information contained in an
article. We know for a fact that there are many different versions of even
supposedly factual data (dates of birth for well-known people, names of
battles, Gdansk/Danzig, etc). In many cases, there has been a careful and
sometimes very delicate consensus reached by local editors to address these
variations. Now we will have infoboxes with one version and the actual
article saying something else - and the information in the infobox will be
outside of the control of the editors of the article absent going to
another site. So now those wars about content will have to go to two sites
at once, one of which will be international. So that means users who have
never logged into Wikipedia will have the ability to control the content of
the project.
So? You just set up the infobox to have a local override if the field is
filled in. Using this data is *optional*. If you want it, use it! If not,
it's there if you ever change your mind.
Let's not put this in place until the community decides whether or not it
wants it.
Hasn't the community been asking for interwiki transclusion for a while
now? Personally I just see this as the first step to that.
Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Legoktm
http://enwp.org/User:Legoktm