It is unsurprising that editors find such references unreadable, they are. When working on a wp article with, in some cases, several hundred references, one needs mnemonic tools to keep from confusing them. Requiring a legible refname or Harvard ref would go far to addressing this, though it might not relieve all concerns.


On Sep 21, 2017, at 6:10 AM, David Cuenca Tudela <> wrote:

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Dario Taraborelli <> wrote:
I don't know exactly how this should be designed (some user research seems in order before coming up with any solution). The problem to me is how to design subscription/synchronization mechanisms giving people freedom to choose which data to reuse or not and which "fixes" to send upstream to a centralized knowledge base. I believe this is how the relation between Wikidata and other projects was originally conceived: something like this would allow structured data to be broadly reused without neglecting the very legitimate concerns, policies and expectations of data consumers. 

 One of the main issues is when using the wikitext editor on Wikipedia. Most of the editors complain about unreadable references ({{cite Q|Q29581755}}), but in order to be readable, the wikitext editor should have some sort of mechanism to display more information about the item. I don't know if with the current Wikitext editor it is doable, however I think it is worth exploring.

Wikidata mailing list