Gerard, you seem confused.

(1) There would be no change to the item structure on Wikidata in any way -- no change to the values of any of the item properties -- only some extra sitelinks.

So I don't see *why* you think there would be any risk to Wikidata's "own integrity".

In particular, there would be no change at all to what Reasonator would be showing, apart from a few extra badged sitelinks.


(2) You seem to be worried that Wikidata would pick up and import the categories of the article that the redirect redirects to.

But there's no obvious reason why this should happen.  It would not be those articles that Wikidata would sitelink to, but the redirects.  So it would be the categories (if any) of the redirect that would be relevant.

Similarly, it would not be the item sitelinked to the redirect that any template on the article that was the target of the redirect would compare itself with -- the target article would have its own item, just as it does today; so just as it is today, that is the item that any templates on that article would compare themselves to; or that any data migration would load data into -- just exactly the same as it is today.

"Death of Alice Gross" is not the article about Alice Gross.

But this is not the article that would be sitelinked to Alice Gross.

Instead "Alice Gross" (a redirect) is the article that would be sitelinked to Alice Gross.

So none of the problems you foresee should occur.


(3)  Reasonator is great.  But ultimately, Reasonator and Wikidata can only give a summary of the facts.

In cases like Daniel Havell, and the question of his exact relationship to other members of the Havell family, Wikidata/Reasonator can note that sources disagree.  Wikidata/Reasonator can identify a preferred value. But it is harder for them to present the context as to *why* that value is preferred, in the way that can be done in continuous free text.

It is good to make Wikidata/Reasonator as comprehensive as possible; but there is added value in having the ecosystem of text Wikipedia connected to them.


(4)  One additional point is that by tracking the redirects, specifically by adding a property noting what items an item may redirect to in different languages, we actually improve Wikidata.

* We add to the "related items" that Wikidata can display.

* We make it possible to ask whether the item can be connected to these new additional 'related items' within one, two, three, or ''n'' hops, using the item's existing properties.  If it cannot, then there is probably an existing property that is missing.  So we can identify ways to build and improve the database.


In summary:  your apparent view that linking to redirects will lead to data being migrated onto the wrong items on Wikidata seems to me to be mis-founded.

Instead, allowing sitelinking to redirects that accurately match the topic, rather than enforcing that sitelinks can only be to primary articles (which may not quite so closely match the topic), is, if anything, likely to create a *more* accurate structure, which will make make *less* likely any risk of item data pollution through ingestion from a not-quite-properly-matched article.

(ie: if linking to redirects is supported, it will make it *less* likely that users will be tempted to sitelink :en:hatmaking directly to :d:hatmaker,  and so *less* likely for data to be ingested to a wikidata article from a not-quite-comparable wiki article).


I look forward to your comments.

All best,

   James.






On 22/10/2014 06:43, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
When a position is taken that is manifestly wrong, it is worse to desist.
Andy I like you too but calling someone a dick because he does not agree
with you and calls bullshit on the points taken, the examples supplied is
not in the best tradition of our projects.

Wikidata is NOT there to serve the English Wikipedia  at the expense of its
own integrity.  A wish has been formulated to support redirects by
WIkipedians while Wikidata has been EXPLICITLY designed NOT to support
redirects but more importantly parts of articles.

If a project does not have or want to have an article on a given subject,
Wikidata can provide information when used in combination with the
Reasonator.

Articles are about a subject and CONSEQUENTLY they should have categories
and info boxes that are in line with the subject of the article. The
ARTICLE 2014 ISIL beheading incidents
<http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17985279> for instance is NOT about a human

and it should NOT have a category "deaths in 2014" or any other information
that is particular to one person. The same is true for "Death of Alice
Gross"; it is NOT about Alice Gross. When an article is just text and
nobody cares about such consistencies, fine. However, you want articles
like this linked and someone else is to clean up such mess. This prevents
automated processes, it is bad practice and it is part of the same
practice/school of thought whereby we are to have redirects ...  Hell no!

Please reconsider your arguments and please do not be a dick yourself..
Thanks,
        GerardM

On 21 October 2014 21:21, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

On 21 October 2014 07:13, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:

If this Jackson Douglas is the best that you can do, you destroyed the
argument that it has merit.

Gerard,

I like you; but you're being a dick. Please desist.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

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