To pick up on a few different comments from this thread:
@revi (Hong, Yongmin)
-- Yes, of course you are correct that it is categories rather than
galleries that are the important structure for finding and navigating
images on Commons.
But even if we were to change the status-quo and ban sitelinks from
Wikidata items to Commons galleries (which might not be 100% popular,
since we currently have 87,000 sitelinks to galleries, up by about 3000
in the last year) -- even if we were to ban sitelinks to galleries, this
would still leave the question of whether Commons categories should be
sitelinked to categories or to articles.
Currently there are 311,000 Commonscats sitelinked to category items on
Wikidata, and 207,000 sitelinked to article items on Wikidata. So the
status-quo is for Commonscats to be sitelinked to category items (and in
the past has been even more so).
The problem is that, the way the software exists at the moment, you
can't have both. So if a Commonscat is sitelinked to an article item,
that precludes a Commonscat being sitelinked to a category item, and
vice-versa.
At the moment, the expectation is that a Commonscat will be sitelinked
to a category item, if possible. Of 323,825 Commonscats that can be
identified with a Wikidata category item, 311,000 are connected by
corresponding sitelinks. So if people are writing scripts or queries to
look for such relationships, they will most likely look for sitelinks.
On the other hand, of 884,439 Commonscats that can be identified with
article-like Wikidata items, only 207,494 (= 23.4%) are connected by
sitelinks -- even if this number has doubled in the last 12 months, the
expectation in the current status quo is that such a connection is more
likely *not* to be represented in a sitelink, by a three-to-one margin.
Instead, links between Commonscats and article-like Wikidata items are
currently overwhelmingly represented by the P373 property, which at the
moment records 807,776 (= 91.3%) of such identifications.
This is the property that the script
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald/wdcat.js
looks up in order to display a link to Reasonator if there is a Wikidata
article-item for a Commonscat.
To get the best idea of whether there is a corresponding Wikidata item
and Wikipedia articles for a Commonscat, Commons users should therefore
use wdcat.js -- which is easily activated by adding a line to the
common.js file, such as at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jheald/common.js
-- because this will pick up four times more connections than currently
exist as sitelinks.
The important think is to establish and preserve clear expectations,
that software can build against.
At the moment, with the confusion of sitelinks of Commonscats to
articles and to categories, there is no guarantee that it is possible to
create a sitelink to an article. On the other hand, it should always be
possible to create a P373 connection. They are the connections that
systematically *can* be made, so it is important to make sure that they
systematically *are* made, to drag up the return rate from the current
91.3% to nearer 100%.
That would be helped by a policy that was absolutely systematic in
prescribing what should and what should not be sitelinked.
@ RomaineWiki:
You say that actively enforcing the longstanding Wikidata sitelink
policy of only sitelinking Commons categories to category-like items,
and Commons galleries to article-like items would be a plan to
"demolish the navigational structure of Commons".
But it wouldn't change any of the internal structures on Commons, and
would merely underline the current fact that even now only 23% of
Commonscats are linked to articles by sitelinks, compared to 91% by P373.
Isn't it better to get Commons users used to using (and improving) the
wdcat.js script, which uses the P373 property that can always be added,
rather than perpetuating the current muddle of Commonscat <-> article
sitelinks, which are so haphazard ?
@ Steinsplitter
As I understand it, the long-term plans for a new Wikibase structure
specifically for Commons are currently no longer an immediate
development priority; but will presumably start to move forward again
sooner or later.
On the other hand, this discussion was specifically about sitelinks.
Here I believe what has driven the Wikidata side has been the desire to
have a rule that is simple and consistent and predictable, because that
is the foundation needed to develop queries and scripts and tools and
user-interfaces on top of.
Combining that desideratum with the technical restriction of only
allowing one sitelink to each item from each wiki and vice-versa, is
what has led to the recommended scheme of linking
Commons categories <-> category-like items
Commons galleries <-> article-like items
with property P373 to handle identification of Commons categories <->
article-like items.
This fulfils the requirements of simplicity, consistency and predictability.
It's not ideal from a user-interface point of view (or a philosophical
point of view). But so long as the rule is applied consistently, the
limitations it leads to can be worked round with appropriate software
improvements -- eg in the first instance the wdcat.js script.
But to encourage people to develop and improve such software, it is
helpful for the above structure to be applied consistently.
In contrast perpetuating inconsistency and muddle blurs what is needed,
and works against the stable predictable basis needed to make such
software work.
All best,
James.
On 29/08/2015 14:39, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
> Wikidata needs to ask the Commons Community before doing commons related changes.
>
> It is so hard to understand what the wikidata people like to do with commons. Tons of text, hard to read. I don't understand what they like to do, but if this change is affecting commons then commons community consensus is needed.
>
>
> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:34:28 +0200
> From: romaine.wiki(a)gmail.com
> To: wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org; commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] [Wikidata] Trends in links from Wikidata items to Commons
>
> As I wrote before, that thought is too simple. You only say that a zero belongs to a zero, and a two belongs to a two, then you only describe the type of page, but you ignore the subject of a page. That subject matters much more than the namespace number.
>
> Especially Wikinews is a wrong example, as most categories on Commons do not have a 1 to 1 relationship with Commons.
> However, articles on Wikipedia do have mostly a 1 on 1 relationship with categories on Commons.
>
> Romaine
>
> 2015-08-28 17:09 GMT+02:00 Luca Martinelli <martinelliluca(a)gmail.com>:
> 2015-08-28 12:09 GMT+02:00 Romaine Wiki <romaine.wiki(a)gmail.com>:
>
>> And I agree completely with what Revi says:
>
>>> Wikidata ignores this Commons' fact by trying to enforce ridiculous rules
>
>>> like this.
>
>
>
> It's not such a ridiculous rule, if you think of the rationale behind
>
> it: if gallery = ns0 and category = ns2, linking ns0 <--> ns2 in the
>
> same item is IMHO not a rational thing to do (not even for Wikinews if
>
> you ask me, but I'm digressing).
>
>
>
> So the *practical* problem that we have to address is the list of
>
> links in the left column. We really don't have any possibilty to
>
> exploit P373 in any way, not even with a .js, to fix this?
>
>
>
> L.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Wikidata mailing list
>
> Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
Prompted by this thread at Project Chat,
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Identical_data_sets
here's a query to find multiple humans with nationality:Greece that have
the same day of birth and day of death:
http://tinyurl.com/ow6lpen
It produces one pair, and executes in about 0.6 seconds.
Here's a query to try to add item numbers and labels to the previous search:
http://tinyurl.com/ovjwzc9
It *just* completes, taking just over 60 seconds to execute.
(Please don't merge the two items yet, because that will destroy the
example).
Analogous queries with lookups for France (71 apparent sets of
duplicates), UK (32), and Italy(14) fail to complete.
Two questions therefore:
(1) Why are the two queries taking such different times to run ?
(2) Is there a good way to rewrite the second to make it faster ?
Obviously the second query as written at the moment involves a
sub-query, which inevitably must make it a bit slower -- but given the
solution set of the sub-query only has two rows, and an exact date for a
given property ought to be a fairly quick key to look up, why is the
second query taking 100 times longer than the first ?
And is there a better way I should be doing this, since the query does
appear to be producing useful real matches ?
Thanks,
James.
Hey folks,
As you know Wikidata is one of the 100 winners of the "Germany - Land
der Ideen" competition 2015. We now have the chance to win the
Public’s Choice Award as well! At the moment, Wikidata is ranked 15th.
We need to be among the first 10 to enter the next round and win the
Public’s Choice Award. Voting is open until 23 August.
The information about the competition and projects is available in
English (https://www.land-der-ideen.de/en/projects-germany/landmarks-land-ideas/comp…
and https://www.land-der-ideen.de/en/projects-germany/landmarks-land-ideas/2015…)
but the voting process only in German. But it’s pretty easy to vote
anyway:
* Go to the Wikidata voting page at
https://www.land-der-ideen.de/ausgezeichnete-orte/preistraeger/wikidata
* Click the yellow button on the right ("Jetzt abstimmen").
* Type in your email address and tick the box to agree to the voting rules.
* You will receive a link via email. Click the link within 24 hours.
You can repeat this daily until 23 August. You have one vote every day.
Let's win this! :D
Cheers
Lydia
--
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Product Manager for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Hey folks :)
It is time to give some more sister projects access to the sitelink or
data part of Wikidata. The schedule is as follows:
* September 22nd: Wikibooks will get access to statements (aka Phase 2)
* Oktober 20th: Meta, Mediawiki and Wikispecies will get access to the
sitelinks (aka Phase 1)
Please give them a warm welcome and watch
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wikibooks,
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Meta-Wiki and
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wikispecies for questions.
Cheers
Lydia
--
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Product Manager for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Hi,
Now that the SPARQL endpoint is "official", will the life RDF data
(which you get, e.g, via Special:EntityData) also be switched to show
the content using in SPARQL? Since this is already implemented, I guess
this would be a minor switch. It could be very useful for users who want
to learn about how to use SPARQL, since it can help a lot to see the
data for one item to know what to query for.
Cheers,
Markus
Hi all!
I'm wondering if there is a way (SQL, api, tool or otherwise) for finding
out how often a particular source is used on Wikidata.
The background is a collaboration with two GLAMs where we have used ther
open (and CC0) datasets to add and/or source statements on Wikidata for
items on which they can be considered an authority. Now I figured it would
be nice to give them back a number for just how big the impact was.
While I can find out how many items should be affected I couldn't find an
easy way, short of analysing each of these, for how many statements were
affected.
Any suggestions would be welcome.
Some details: Each reference is a P248 claim + P577 claim (where the latter
may change)
Cheers,
André / Lokal_Profil
André Costa | GLAM-tekniker, Wikimedia Sverige | Andre.Costa(a)wikimedia.se |
+46 (0)733-964574
Stöd fri kunskap, bli medlem i Wikimedia Sverige.
Läs mer på blimedlem.wikimedia.se
Hey folks :)
Wikidata's birthday is coming up in less than 2 months (29th of
October). We're currently brainstorming some cool ideas for presents.
Last year we had a few very cool ones from different corners of our
community: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Second_Birthday So
if you're interested in preparing a present of some sort for
Wikidata's 3rd birthday this is your advance warning so you have
enough time to prepare ;-)
Cheers
Lydia
--
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Product Manager for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.