Hoi,

I am very comfortable with items not having articles. I am very comfortable with items that have one or more articles.

When you suggest that Wikidata items link to redirects, there are many assumptions that break down. You cannot longer assume what the templates, the categories are about. They are NOT necessarily about the article, they may be about all kinds of everything.

The notion that Wikidata is subservient to Wikipedia can be considered but WHAT Wikipedia and why should Wikidata be subservient to the English Wikipedia ?

Some people "representing" the English Wikipedia make demands however, Wikidata can provide services the English Wikipedia is not able to provide. Things like providing search results based on information from Wikidata. Why is this not even considered?

Thanks,

GerardM

On 19 October 2014 18:54, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner@gmail.com> wrote:

david, i think you hit the major point here. at the end of the day it
is a document management problem, and the idea to recombine contents
is followed by some extensions, like books extension. would it make
sense to use wikidata for such tasks as well? i am not convinced that
it makes sense to go onto a sentence level, but paragraphs do imo make
sense. alone because e.g. the german wikipedia often stores an item in
a paragraph, what is stored in an article in the english wikipedia.
redirects are managed in de:wp, and there is no notion of storing
wrong redirects to cover typo's.

of course there are some wikidata purists, like jane and gerard, who
seem to be a little imprisoned in the original semantic mediawiki
notation that every entry needs to be an article. one may even
consider this opinion as correct in a greenfield approach where the
contents is created from scratch. but - unfortunately this is not the
case. wikidata came after wikipedia, and i consider it a fundamental
failure of wikidata to not address the issue.

rupert

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:03 AM, David Cuenca <dacuetu@gmail.com> wrote:
> As Wikidata grows this problem will become more significant. Using redirects
> doesn't seem a sustainable approach, but it will be hard to find better ones
> considering the number of people involved and the investment in the current
> platform.
>
> The biggest challenge will be to convince Wikipedians to break free of the
> "article box". There is no reason to limit oneself to articles when there
> can be smaller building blocks that can be recombined in different articles
> with as much detail level as needed.
>
> Maybe after Commons there should be also a "Wikidata for Wikipedia content",
> where each article section or sentence is represented by an item that can be
> displayed in several articles or translated into different languages.
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Derric Atzrott
> <datzrott@alizeepathology.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thought I'd throw in my opinion on the matter. After reading this thread
>> I think that I agree with the folks who believe that Wikidata items should
>> be able to specify a Wikipedia article that is a redirect as a sitelink to
>> Wikipedia.
>>
>> Its by no means an ideal solution, but I can't see any problems that it
>> causes and I do see problems that it fixes. If there are problems /for
>> Wikidata/ that allowing Wikidata items to link to Wikipedia redirects
>> causes, I would be happy to hear them. I imagine someone likely tried
>> to point some out, but I just didn't quite grasp them.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Derric Atzrott
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
>
>
>
> --
> Etiamsi omnes, ego non
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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