I follow what you say. What would the opinion be of the Dutch community
about lists that include information that is NOT available on the Dutch
Wikipedia. You may have noticed that I blogged about the N-Peace award;
none of the people have an article on Dutch Wikipedia and there is no
article about the award yet either. A list created by Magnus's list tool
and bot will maintain the information properly. It is the only way I know
to ensure that the latest (2014 / 2015) people who were awarded a prize
actually get included...
Does this make sense to you?
On 19 May 2015 at 19:53, Romaine Wiki <romaine.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The main use of the codes is to test it in the Wikidata sandbox or in the
user sandboxes. Other usage is so far I know not implemented.
The basic reason for that is that there is no consensus about the usage
of Wikidata data in templates on the Dutch Wikipedia. The usage of
properties in templates is considered a big change, and big changes need
consensus first, as it is not easy to go back if it gives problems or
unwanted situations, and it has impact on many users.
The usage of the codes directly in articles is not the what parser
functions are for, parser functions do not belong in articles. Usage of
these codes directly in articles is not accepted.
If there is consensus of using Wikidata, the question also will be where
this would be welcome and where not. And also which data may be used. (In
the past we had for example discussions about the number of inhabitants,
and there it came up that CIA Factbook data is is not allowed for quality
reasons.) Also some guidelines need to be defined to avoid problems and to
The focus of the Dutch community is (concerning Wikidata) currently
mainly to get all the articles with basic statements on Wikidata. This we
do by hand to make sure all the basic statements are actually there, as
most of them can't simply be added by a bot. Also this makes sure that
there are no/less duplicate items on Wikidata. As Wikidata is pretty new,
most users need to get a bit acquaintanced with Wikidata in the first place.
In April a user organised a voting, which resulted in the situation that
all local interwikis have been removed from all the articles. This was
completed in April. So we do not accept local interwikis any longer.
When all local interwikis were gone, I wrote in the central discussion
page a call for all users to add there articles on Wikidata + to add
certain basic statements as described in the message. Since then, a group
of local users is working on getting the number of not connected articles
in Wikidata down. From the 4000+ unconnected articles already 75% have been
At the same time, new articles have been checked for being linked on
Wikidata. If users forget to add their article, we add their article for
them on Wikidata and a personal message with basic information is added to
the user talk page who created the articled. The message says that maybe
you have been forgotten, or was still intending to add the article to
Wikidata, then the message is not needed, but it is needed that the author
of an article adds his/her article to Wikidata. In the message is also
described why this is needed, where someone can find links, and how to add
an article to Wikidata.
There are two types of messages: one for users who should have added
their article to an existing item (assuming the existing item already has
the basic statements), and one for users who should have created a new item
with the basic statements.
The basic statements include *instance of* (for everything), (for places
and objects:) *coordinates*, *country*, *located in the administrative
territorial entity*, (for people:) *gender*, *date of birth*, *place of
birth*, *date of death*, *place of death*, *occupation*, (music:)
*performer*, *date of publication*, (animals/plants:) *taxon rank*, *taxon
name*, *parent taxon*, and anywhere if exists: *Commons category*. These
are the basic statements for the most written articles. With these
statements it is possible in case of multiple items with the same label, to
add a sitelink to the right item and to easily check if an item is added to
the right item.
By adding their own article for them to Wikidata with the basic
statements, they have a good example (close to home) what is expected. We
ask them with the next article to do it themselves. Also, something that is
important, I say they can come to me with questions any time. Adding a
sitelink mostly works (only 3 people do not want to do this or find it too
difficult). All other users which have been informed, add their articles
now to Wikidata, mostly, if they do not forget as they still get to be used
to it more. Only authors that only write once in a while need to get
informed. The last group of users, the new users, should then still be
acquaintanced with Wikidata, but that is something that is probably only
useful when they manage to write an article that follows the conventions of
But when informing the users about it is needed to add their articles to
Wikidata, the most heard reaction is "I didn't know".
The second most heard reaction is that they do not find it easy or
intuitive to get to Wikidata, add the article and add some statements.
This feedback is given, but having users add their article on Wikidata is
a great success. We notice that users like it to have someone who looks
over their shoulder and helps when it is not added properly. In this way
already some users have grown to do it completely by themselves.
But I also see the signals of users that they are afraid to be asked to
do more than that. The usage of Wikidata for interwikis is now accepted, to
add some statements has a large understanding as they see the benefit of
this. But doing more than that seems mostly not needed, and also seems to
go beyond the maximum of acceptance. That some users are capable of using
codes is great, but the large majority must feel themselves comfortable
with codes as well to be able to allow it, and to me it seems they mostly
are not comfortable with it. It seems for most users a bridge too far.
And having automated lists with data directly from Wikidata seems also
not acceptable in the article namespace, reading the reactions in a current
discussion. Automated lists created by the software seem much like special
pages which have a special namespace. Being able to edit an article (lists
included) is considered to be very important for the functioning of
Wikipedia, if it is not a basic rule for Wikipedia.
If such automated lists are wanted, it would be more likely to have them
accepted if they are added only to a (new) special namespace for automated
And yes, Lydia, has a point, as nlwiki is an early wiki where the
arbitrary data has been made available, users from other wikis have added
codes to articles, which have been undone as such is not acceptable on
Periodically multiple times all parser functions and magic words have
been removed from articles on nlwiki as they are not acceptable in
articles, and are considered to limit and disturb the ability to edit
Wikipedia too much.
2015-05-19 14:41 GMT+02:00 Egon Willighagen <egon.willighagen(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Lydia Pintscher
The rollout of arbitrary access on Dutch
Is there an overview of Dutch WP pages where it is being used? The
Berlin/Germany use case experienced resistance, needed further
discussion and consensus first? Has it been adopted on other Dutch
pages? How was it received there?
Department of Bioinformatics - BiGCaT
Maastricht University (http://www.bigcat.unimaas.nl/
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata mailing list