If I understand correctly:
1) Magnus' game already tags the edits with 'Widar'.
2) Magnus' game cannot merge protein and genes if they link to each other. With 'ortholog' and 'expressed by' Magnus' merging game does not contribute to the problematic merges (Magnus email from previously today: "FWIW, checked again. Neither game can merge two items that link to each other. So, if the protein is "expressed by" the gene, that pair will not even be suggested.").
There is nothing more that Magnus can do, - except making an unmerging game. :-)
/Finn
On 11/10/2015 05:54 PM, Benjamin Good wrote:
In another thread, we are discussing the preponderance of problematic merges of gene/protein items. One of the hypotheses raised to explain the volume and nature of these merges (which are often by fairly inexperienced editors and/or people that seem to only do merges) was that they were coming from the wikidata game. It seems to me that anything like the wikidata game that has the potential to generate a very large volume of edits - especially from new editors - ought to tag its contributions so that they can easily be tracked by the system. It should be easy to answer the question of whether an edit came from that game (or any of what I hope to be many of its descendants). This will make it possible to debug what could potentially be large swathes of problems and to make it straightforward to 'reward' game/other developers with information about the volume of the edits that they have enabled directly from the system (as opposed to their own tracking data).
Please don't misunderstand me. I am a big fan of the wikidata game and actually am pushing for our group to make a bio-specific version of it that will build on that code. I see a great potential here - but because of the potential scale of edits this could quickly generate, we (the whole wikidata community) need ways to keep an eye on what is going on.
-Ben
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata