Hello Wikidata users,
I am worried about a growing trend I have been noticing in new property
proposals over the last 3 years or so. This is around SEO tactics, but
slighted against our lovely GLAM institutions who I have the utmost
respect for as I've worked for some over my career.
I've written a quick summary comment in one of the pending property
proposals to bring some attention to my worries, but I thought it was
probably important enough to copy here for a wider audience.
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/documented_files#D…
[image: Pictogram voting comment.svg] *Comment* Finally, I'm worried that I
am seeing more "at" kind of properties being proposed in the last 3 years,
that are basically providing little metadata to users, and instead are
simply being minted as more or less "GLAM SEO tactics". We should be trying
to provide deeper information for users, and not simply "more info about
subject at this institution" style properties (in whatever subform they are
taking). We are better than that. We can do better than that. Let's think
more about what users are likely missing from finding information on a
given subject, and their needs for *disambiguating that information*. It
might mean we need less properties and instead provide richer metadata in
the form of qualifiers or better qualifiers than we have now to help users.
--Thadguidry <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Thadguidry> (talk
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Thadguidry>) 05:08, 28 December
2021 (UTC)
Replies in kind are best done in the property proposal discussion link
above for the best context, if you can.
Otherwise, you can reply in this thread.
Thad
https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
https://calendly.com/thadguidry/