I am firmly opposed to the idea that the Wikidatification of Commons is about Commons. That is imho a disaster.

It is about mediafiles and they exist in many Wikis.

The categories of Commons are in and off themselves useful to a very limited extend. Associating the images they refer to with existing items in Wikidata is one way in which they may be useful. As it is, because of naming conventions and the use of English only, the categories are pretty lame. They do not help me when I am looking for an image in Commons at all. 

Really my point is forget about Commons notability start thinking in terms of "what does it take to help people find images". Yes, those people will be 8 years old and they may speak Mandarin or Japanese.

On 3 September 2014 12:05, James Heald <j.heald@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

I agree with you that I would like the kind of tools currently available with WikiData also to be available on CommonsData.

Queries that combine the two in an integrated way ought to be made simple and straightforward.

What I don't understand is your objection to placing items that really only have a Commons notability, not a world notability, into a specific namespace, or (notionally) the separate database CommonsData, so that it is possible to run those queries that only relate to Commons information solely on CommonsData, and those queries that only relate to world information solely on WikiData.

Does that not make more sense, than requiring the full bulk of the combined database to always be addressed in order to run any query?

  -- James.

On 01/09/2014 07:07, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Wikidata is very much a "working database". Its relevance is exactly
because of this. Without the connection to the interwiki links, it would
not be the same, it would not have the coverage and it would not have the
same sized community.

Considerations about secondary use are secondary. Yes, people may use it
for their own purposes and when it fits their needs, well and good. When it
does not, that is fine too. As it is, we do have all kind of Wiki "junk" in
there. We have disambiguation pages, list articles, templates, categories.
The challenge is to find a use for them.

When I add statements based on categories, I "document" many categories
[1]. As a result over 900 items for categories will show the result of a
query in the Reasonator. The results is what I think a category could
contain given the subject of a category. For Wikipedians they are articles
not categorised, red links and blue links.

There are several reasons why this is not (yet) a perfect fit. The most
obvious one is including articles that are not part of the selection eg a
list in a category full of humans. Currently not everything can be
expressed in a way that allows Reasonator to pick things up in a query..
dates come to mind. Then there are the categories that have an "arbitrary"
set of entries.

I am not going to speculate on what kind of qualifiers Commons will come up
with. In essence when you can sort it / select it Wikidata will do a better
job for you. The "only" thing we have to do is identify the items that fit
the mold. This is something that you can often find the basis for in
existing categories.



Wikidata-l mailing list