Hoi, If anything that would be the only point. It is a very sad piece of FUD. It is not that easy.. Thanks, GerardM
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/12/wikipedia-signpost-yeah-right.htm...
On 9 December 2015 at 23:51, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe have one point,a reference to a Wikipedia article should point to the correct article, and should preferably point to the revision introducing the value. It should be pretty easy to do this for most of the statements...
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Markus Krötzsch < markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
P.S. Meanwhile, your efforts in other channels are already leading some people to vandalise Wikidata just to make a point [1].
Markus
[1] http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2015/12/08/wikidata_special_report/
On 09.12.2015 11:32, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
On 08.12.2015 00:02, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Hi Markus,
...
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.[1]
Yes, we have too many communication channels. Let me only reply briefly now, to the first point:
This prompted me to reply. I wanted to write an email that merely says: > "Really? Where did you get this from?" (Google using Wikidata content)
Multiple sources, including what appears to be your own research group's writing:[2]
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 Sources).
I still don't see any problem if Google would be using Wikidata, but that's another discussion.
You mention "multiple sources". {{Which}}?
Markus
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata