On 08.12.2015 00:02, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Apologies for the late reply.
While you indicated that you had crossposted this reply to Wikimedia-l,
it didn't turn up in my inbox. I only saw it today, after Atlasowa
pointed it out on the Signpost op-ed's talk page.
Yes, we have too many communication channels. Let me only reply briefly
now, to the first point:
me to reply. I wanted to write an email that merely
says: > "Really? Where
did you get this from?" (Google using Wikidata
Multiple sources, including what appears to be your own research group's
What this page suggested was that that Freebase being shutdown means
that Google will use Wikidata as a source. Note that the short intro
text on the page did not say anything else about the subject, so I am
surprised that this sufficed to convince you about the truth of that
claim (it seems that other things I write with more support don't have
this effect). Anyway, I am really sorry to hear that this
quickly-written intro on the web has misled you. When I wrote this after
Google had made their Freebase announcement last year, I really believed
that this was the obvious implication. However, I was jumping to
conclusions there without having first-hand evidence. I guess many
people did the same. I fixed the statement now.
To be clear: I am not saying that Google is not using Wikidata. I just
don't know. However, if you make a little effort, there is a lot of
evidence that Google is not using Wikidata as a source, even when it
could. For example, population numbers are off, even in cases where they
refer to the same source and time, and Google also shows many statements
and sources that are not in Wikidata at all (and not even in Primary
I still don't see any problem if Google would be using Wikidata, but
that's another discussion.
You mention "multiple sources".