It is problematic, because of two things: 1: you take away editorial control from the community (what fact gets shown and what doesn't and for what reasons). you will have to work on providing editorial controls to do basic manipulation of this. 2: Editors can no longer override WikiData, which is a separate community. You will have to work on bridging the interaction gap between those two sites (we see similar problems with Commons, though they have been mild by stuff "just being an image". DJ On 13 aug. 2014, at 00:17, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

The visual way the content is displayed should not be controversial. It only gets complicated if the developers/designers start making editorial-decisions about *what information* should be inside the infobox (without tons of input from the editors). Ie. * Changing the look would be relatively easy. (Making the sections/items/images/captions clearer, changing the box design including header-background-color, etc) * Changing the method for entering infobox-content might be complicated, depending on how much editors have to learn new workflows, or overhaul millions of existing pages. But it should be achievable, because there's a wide agreement that having ~100 lines of template code at the top of articles is not ideal. (We could change this fairly easily, e.g. with subpage transclusion but...: * Changing where the infomation is stored is very complicated, because anything that separates content from the central page that the editors are watchlisting, suddenly becomes a lot more susceptible to vandalism/inaccuracy, due to lack of scrutiny. There is an option in Special:preferences to "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist" - but I find using this tends to be a bit annoying, because of the uninformative edit-summaries and lack of navpopups support for diff-links (so I have visit every change, to see what it did). * Changing what information is included in an article/infobox, should be left in the hands of the editors. (With discussion encouraged, and change being possible; but it would need to be a very well-researched and cross-wiki discussion) I would suggest that as a first step: someone needs to do a deep-dive into exactly how many items there are in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16 vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada 's (infobox) etc: for a handful of topics, and language-projects. (exhaustion disclaimer. Jet-lagged and not thinking clearly) On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Jon Robson <jdlrobson(a)gmail.com> wrote:

2014-08-13 11:34 GMT+03:00 Erwin Dokter <erwin(a)darcoury.nl>nl>: I agree; see the other thread about Wikidata and VE integration. I am suggesting this as a goal to consider, not as a thing to do immediately. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com ‪“We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬