Am 29.09.2015 um 11:05 schrieb Thomas Douillard:
> No it's not, because of the "undoing" problem. A user can't delete a statement
> assuming this will be enough as he will not be explicit that the statement is
> bot added and implied by other statements, as opposed as a statement explicitely
> inferred by Wikibase and marked explicitely as such in the UI. If Wikibase
> tracks the root explicit statements used to make the inference, they could be
> exposed in the UI as well to tell the user what he might have to do to correct
> the mistake (closer to or) at the actual root.

I agree: if we had built in inference done Just Right (tm), with everything
editable and visible in all the right places, that would be great. But this
would add a lot of complexity to the system, and would take a lot of resources
to implement. It would also diverge quite a bit from the classic idea of a wiki,
potentially cause community issues.

The approach using bots was never ideal, but is still hugely successful on
wikipedia. The same seems to be the case here. Also don't underestimate the fact
that the community has a lot of experience with bots, but is generally very
skeptical against automatic content (even just including information from
wikidata on wikipedia pages).

So, while bots are not ideal, and a better solution is conceivable, I think bots
as the optimal solution for the moment. We should not ignore the issues that
exist with bots, and we should not lose sight of other options. But I think we
should focus development on more urgent things, like a better system for source
references, or unit conversion, or better tools for constraints, or for re-use
on wikipedia.


--
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer

Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata