Hi,
I have a couple of questions regarding the Wiki Page ID. Does it always
stay unique for the page, where the page itself is just a placeholder for
any kind of information that might change over time?
Consider the following cases:
1. The first time someone creates page "Moon" it is assigned ID=1. If at
some point the page is renamed to "The_Moon", the ID=1 remains intact. Is
this correct?
2. What if we have page "Moon" with ID=1. Someone creates a second-page
"The_Moon" with ID=2. Is it possible that page "Moon" is transformed into a
redirect? Then, "Moon" would be redirecting to page "The_Moon"?
3. Is it possible for page "Moon" to become a category "Category:Moon" with
the same ID=1?
Thanks,
Gintas
Hello everyone,
I'd like to ask if Wikidata could please offer a HDT [1] dump along with the already available Turtle dump [2]. HDT is a binary format to store RDF data, which is pretty useful because it can be queried from command line, it can be used as a Jena/Fuseki source, and it also uses orders-of-magnitude less space to store the same data. The problem is that it's very impractical to generate a HDT, because the current implementation requires a lot of RAM processing to convert a file. For Wikidata it will probably require a machine with 100-200GB of RAM. This is unfeasible for me because I don't have such a machine, but if you guys have one to share, I can help setup the rdf2hdt software required to convert Wikidata Turtle to HDT.
Thank you.
[1] http://www.rdfhdt.org/
[2] https://dumps.wikimedia.org/wikidatawiki/entities/
Rob Speer wrote:
> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
The comparison to DBpedia is interesting: the terms for DBpedia state
"Attribution in this case means keep DBpedia URIs visible and active
through at least one (preferably all) of @href, <link />, or "Link:". If
live links are impossible (e.g., when printed on paper), a textual
blurb-based attribution is acceptable."
http://wiki.dbpedia.org/terms-imprint
So according to these terms, when someone displays data from DBpedia, it is
entirely sufficient to attribute DBpedia.
What that means is that DBpedia follows exactly the same theory as
Wikidata: it is OK to extract data from Wikipedia and republish it as your
own dataset under your own copyright without requiring attribution to the
original source of the extraction.
(A bit more problematic might be the fact that DBpedia also republishes
whole paragraphs of Text under these terms, but that's another story)
My understanding is that all that Wikidata has extracted from Wikipedia is
non-copyrightable in the first place and thus republishing it under a
different license (or, as in the case of DBpedia for simple triples, with a
different attribution) is legally sound.
If there is disagreement with that, I would be interested which content
exactly is considered to be under copyright and where license has not been
followed on Wikidata.
For completion: the discussion is going on in parallel on the Wikidata
project chat and in Phabricator:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4212728https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Wikipedia_and_other_Wik…
I would appreciate if we could keep the discussion in a single place.
Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but we
need to come up with the questions that we want to ask. If it should be,
for example, as Rob Speer states on the bug, "has the copyright of
interwiki links been breached by having them be moved to Wikidata?", I'd be
quite happy with that question - if that's the disagreement, let us ask
Legal help and see if my understanding or yours is correct.
Does this sound like a reasonable question? Or which other question would
you like to ask instead?
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Rob Speer <rob(a)luminoso.com> wrote:
> > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
> enemy of science and knowledge
>
> Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
>
> I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
> which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to multiple
> Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
> by CC-By-SA.
>
> Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against CC-By-SA.
> I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude
> toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding us
> back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
> us follow it", etc.
>
> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is
> > predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
> > knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
> > welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere
> > and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
> >
> > In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
> Wikipedia,
> > it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
> > feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
> > maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as
> > well as "we" do it.
> >
> > When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things
> > we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
> uploaded
> > (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and
> > operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a
> > consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
> copyright
> > holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that,
> > annoying.
> >
> > As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from
> > Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data
> > from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
> there
> > is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good because
> it
> > is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is superior
> > as a tool for disambiguation.
> >
> > About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do you
> > copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is
> > about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that
> is
> > corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This
> > negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of
> the
> > data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
> notion
> > that data that is only present in single sources is what needs attention.
> > It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish
> > credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright
> > moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process negating
> > the copyright held on databases.
> >
> > I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However
> our
> > attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get
> > around existing copyright and how can we protect our own. As argued,
> > Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place
> > that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to
> be
> > used as a repository of quality, open and linked data.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-copyright-and-linked-d…
> >
> > On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer <rob(a)luminoso.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects
> > that
> > > change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no
> > idea
> > > that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative
> Commons
> > > violation is coming from inside the house!
> > >
> > > On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> > > psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello everybody,
> > > >
> > > > There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata
> > > > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728> that you might be
> > interested
> > > > to look at and participate in.
> > > >
> > > > As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through
> the
> > > > discussion on the Wikidata chat
> > > > <
> > > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
> > > Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
> > > >
> > > > I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Hi Mathieu, Rob, Denny, and Wikidatans,
I'm writing to inquire about further Wikidata CC licensing clarifications.
Wikidata may be heading to
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
which allows for a) sharing b) adapting and even c) commercially
MIT OCW uses, by way of comparison,
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
which allows for a) sharing b) adapting but c) non-commercially
At a Wikimedia conference in early 2017, with Lydia and Dario present, I
think I learned that all books / WikiCitations in all 301 of Wikipedia
languages could be licensed, or heading to be licensed, with CC-0 licensing
- https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ - and per
- https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 - which would allow them to be
data sources for online bookstores even. Is this the case. Could some of
Wikidata's data be licensed with CC-SA-4 (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) and other data be licensed
with CC-0?
Thanks.
Cheers, Scott
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Rob Speer <rob(a)luminoso.com> wrote:
> > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
> enemy of science and knowledge
>
> Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
>
> I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
> which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to multiple
> Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
> by CC-By-SA.
>
> Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against CC-By-SA.
> I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude
> toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding us
> back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
> us follow it", etc.
>
> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is
> > predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
> > knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
> > welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere
> > and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
> >
> > In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
> Wikipedia,
> > it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
> > feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
> > maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as
> > well as "we" do it.
> >
> > When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things
> > we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
> uploaded
> > (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and
> > operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a
> > consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
> copyright
> > holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that,
> > annoying.
> >
> > As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from
> > Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data
> > from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
> there
> > is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good because
> it
> > is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is superior
> > as a tool for disambiguation.
> >
> > About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do you
> > copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is
> > about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that
> is
> > corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This
> > negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of
> the
> > data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
> notion
> > that data that is only present in single sources is what needs attention.
> > It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish
> > credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright
> > moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process negating
> > the copyright held on databases.
> >
> > I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However
> our
> > attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get
> > around existing copyright and how can we protect our own. As argued,
> > Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place
> > that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to
> be
> > used as a repository of quality, open and linked data.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-
> copyright-and-linked-data.html
> >
> > On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer <rob(a)luminoso.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects
> > that
> > > change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no
> > idea
> > > that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative
> Commons
> > > violation is coming from inside the house!
> > >
> > > On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> > > psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello everybody,
> > > >
> > > > There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata
> > > > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728> that you might be
> > interested
> > > > to look at and participate in.
> > > >
> > > > As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through
> the
> > > > discussion on the Wikidata chat
> > > > <
> > > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
> > > Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
> > > >
> > > > I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
--
--
- Scott MacLeod - Founder & President
- https://twitter.com/WorldUnivAndSch
- World University and School
- http://worlduniversityandschool.org
- http://scottmacleod.com
- CC World University and School - like CC Wikipedia with best STEM-centric
CC OpenCourseWare - incorporated as a nonprofit university and school in
California, and is a U.S. 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt educational organization.
Hello all,
As a reminder, we will have an office hour today, from 18:00 to 19:00 (UTC+2,
Berlin time
<https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20180529T160000&p…>).
It will take place on the channel #wikimedia-office.
First, we will present what the Wikidata development team has been working
on during the last months, and collect your questions and feedback. The
second part will be dedicated to lexicographical data on Wikidata, and the
first release that happened last week. We will give some news but again,
keep time for your questions and suggestions.
See you there!
--
Léa Lacroix
Project Manager Community Communication 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 27/029/42207.
Dear List,
currently I am working on a digital bibliography of all published texts by
the Austrian writer Ilse Aichinger. My intention is to make this list
publicly available as a digitally structured database. I found that
wikidata could be the right place for this. (Am I right?)
At first I wanted to use the FRBR vocabulary to describe the relations
between the texts, but librarians recommended to use BIBFRAME, as this
seems to get to be the standard vocabulary – and wikidata also uses this
vocabulary, as I learned from the wikidata-project group
Wikidata:WikiProject_Books
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Books>. --- Currently I
am recording the bibliographic units locally in BIBTEX format (because I
started in this format). Later on I will transform the dataset to BIBFRAME
and the wikidata-bibframe-vocabulary so that I can load it to wikidata.
Now I would like to ask you: Are there comparable, perhaps even exemplary
projects for bibliographies on wikidata? Which ones? Should I suggest or
announce the project somewhere? Do you have recommendations regarding the
workflow (e.g. is quickstatements
<https://tools.wmflabs.org/quickstatements>-tool the best way to push my
data to wikidata)? Is someone here with experience regarding building a
bibliography in wikidata?
With best regards,
Andrew
Hello all,
After several years discussing about it, and one year of development and
discussion with the communities, the development team has now released the
first version of lexicographical data support on Wikidata
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Lexicographical_data>.
Since the start of Wikidata in 2012, the multilingual knowledge base was
mainly focused on concepts: Q-items are related to a thing or an idea, not
to the word describing it. Starting now, Wikidata stores a new type of
data: words, phrases and sentences, in many languages, described in many
languages. This information will be stored in new types of entities, called
Lexemes, Forms and Senses. It will allow editors to describe precisely all
words in all languages, and will be reusable, just like the whole content
of Wikidata, by multiple tools and queries, everything that the community
creates to play with words. Lexicographical data can be reused inside and
outside the Wikimedia projects, and can provide support for Wiktionary.
The first release
A new namespace and several new entity types have been created in order to
model words and phrases. If you’re new to this project, you can learn more
by looking at the documentation
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Lexicographical_data/Documentation>,
briefly describing the data model and the interface. The technical
structure is set, but the editors remain free to model and organize data as
they prefer, with the usual open discussions and community processes that
we apply on Wikidata. Some discussions about new properties
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Lexemes> to
create have already started: if you want to be involved in the early stage
of the project to shape it, please participate!
Please note that the version that is now deployed is a first experiment,
that will be continuously improved in the future. Some features are
missing, some bugs may certainly occur. Here are the features that are
included in the first release:
- Add, edit and delete Lexemes, Forms, statements, qualifiers, references
- Link between the different entity types (Item to Lexeme, Form to Item,
etc.)
- Entity suggestion when adding a property or a value
And the following features will not be included in the first version, but
are planned for the future:
- Find Lexemes and Forms via Special:Search
- RDF support (which also means: the ability to query it with
query.wikidata.org)
- Support for Senses
- Merging of Lexemes
- Including the data on other Wikimedia projects, such as Wiktionary
How to try it?
The features described above are now deployed on Wikidata.org. Here are
some suggestions of what you can do to explore this new territory:
- If you’re not familiar with the structure of Lexemes, have a look at the
documentation
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Lexicographical_data/Documentation>
- Look at what is already existing
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:AllPages?from=&to=&namespace=146>.
Please note that Special:Search and the search bar on the top right corner
of pages is not supporting Lexemes yet. We’re working on this.
- Create a new Lexeme with Special:NewLexeme
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:NewLexeme>
- If a property that you need is missing, you can suggest it here
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Lexemes>
- Discuss about how to model words and ask questions on Wikidata
talk:Lexicographical data
- Report bugs or issues that you may encounter: either on the talk page
or on Phabricator, if you’re comfortable using it (create a task, add the
tag Lexicographical data, and add Lea_Lacroix_(WMDE) as a subscriber)
About mass imports and tools
We kindly ask you to *not plan any mass import from any source for the
moment*. There are several reasons behind that: first of all, like
mentioned above, the release is a first version and we need to observe how
our system reacts to the manual edits before starting considering automatic
ones. The system may not be ready for big massive imports at the beginning.
Second reason is legal. Lexicographical data in Wikidata is released under
CC0, and the responsibility of each editor is to make sure that the data
they will add is compatible with CC0. For more information, you can have a
look at the advice of WMF Legal team
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Lexicographical_Data>. Finally,
we strongly encourage you to discuss with the communities before
considering any import from the Wiktionaries. Wiktionary editors have been
putting a lot of efforts during years to build definitions, and we should
be respectful of this work, and discuss with them to find common solutions
to work on lexicographical data and enjoy the use of it together.
We also suggest you to wait a bit before building tools or scripts on the
top of lexicographical data. The interface and its API are probably going
to evolve during the next months, and the system may not be stable enough
to support such tools. We will inform you as soon as it will be possible.
Next steps
After this first release, some improvements will be made on a very regular
basis (new deployments every week). Once you tried playing with the new
data, feel free to give us feedback. We’re looking especially to know what
are the most important features for you to be worked on next.
- What did you experiment while editing lexicographical data? What went
wrong or was unexpected?
- What bugs or troubles during the process did you encounter?
- What are the features that are, in your opinion, the most important?
Which one should we work on next?
If you’re interested in following the discussions and further announcements
about lexicographical data, I encourage you to follow Wikidata:Lexicographical
data <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Lexicographical_data> and its
talk page, where we will discuss about how to organize and structure data,
new features to be added, ideas of tools and queries, and a lot of other
things.
Additional note: with this new kind of data enabled on Wikidata, we expect
some new editors to get interest in it, edit Lexemes, suggest properties or
ask questions. They may not be familiar with all of our community processes
and our ways to organize content. They will need help and support as well
as links to useful resources to understand how the Wikidata community
works. I hope that we will all be kind and patient, both with other editors
and with the software that may not work exactly as we want it to at the
beginning :)
Thanks to the people who tested the model and the interface before the
release, who showed support and curiosity about lexicographical data on
Wikidata!
If you have any question or idea, feel free to write on Wikidata
talk:Lexicographical data or contact me.
--
Léa Lacroix
Project Manager Community Communication 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 27/029/42207.