Actually you got to have an item to make use of wikidata properties. I think we are making too much of a deal to get or not to get an item in Wikidata. An item just identify something, whether or not this something is important to knowledge or not.
2013/6/20 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com
I don't see each file on Commons having its own WikiData item, but I do think each subject of files should have their own item (and some, but not all of them, may also have their own wikipedia pages). These files on Commons could make use of properties on wikidata like "is designed by", "is a copy of", "is an example of", "is the best image of" or something like that. When the work is a sculpture or a garden and there are many photos, it would be nice to promote one of them to "best choice image" for some works, this way you can easily replace photos across many Wikipedia's for some of the great pictures coming in with efforts like "Wiki Loves Monuments".
Similarly, I don't think each poem or each book should have its own WikiData item, but I think each first edition should have its own item, and all other editions should be able to link to it, regardless of translated versions and so on. I see WikiSource and WikiBooks as the same in this respect.
2013/6/20, Martynas Jusevičius martynas@graphity.org:
You probably mean Linked Data?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:41 PM, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
While on the Hackathon I had the opportunity to talk with some people
from
sister projects about how they view Wikidata and the relationship it should have to sister projects. Probably you are already familiar with the
views
because they have been presented already several times. The hopes are high, in my opinion too high, about what can be accomplished when Wikidata is deployed to sister projects.
There are conflicting needs about what belongs into Wikidata and what sister projects need, and that divide it is far greater to be overcome than
just
by installing the extension. In fact, I think there is a confusion between the need for Wikidata and the need for structured data. True that Wikidata embodies that technology, but I don't think all problems can be
approached
by the same centralized tool. At least not from the social side of it. Wikiquote could have one item for each quote, or Wikivoyage an item for each bar, hostel, restaurant, etc..., and the question will always be: are
they
relevant enough to be created in Wikidata? Considering that Wikidata was initially thought for Wikipedia, that scope wouldn't allow those uses. However, the structured data needs could be covered in other ways.
It doesn't need to be a big wikidata addressing it all. It could well
be a
central Wikidata addressing common issues (like author data, population data, etc), plus other Wikidata installs on each sister project that requires it. For instance there could be a data.wikiquote.org, a data.wikivoyage.org, etc that would cater for the needs of each
community,
that I predict will increase as soon as the benefits become clear, and
of
course linked to the central Wikidata whenever needed. Even Commons
could
be "wikidatized" with each file becoming an item and having different
labels
representing the file name depending on the language version being accessed.
Could be this the right direction to go?
Cheers, Micru
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l