So instead better to limit your freedom to express yourself in the first place.

I'd take the bot. At least in the history of the article it is recorded that it was tried to enter 123.45 for a population, and we can later figure out what was happening.

Why not wait and see if this is really a problem? I wonder how many such mistakes will ever be entered, besides "jokes" and vandalism. And the latter is easier to catch if we don't require the pranksters to use data that sounds correct. Do we have any indication that contributors are being supported by a system that doesn't let them enter negative numbers for populations?

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Lukas Benedix <> wrote:
I don't want to feel like John Connor... hunted by a bot that comes after my edits and reverts them only because I entered 123.45 for a property that should be an integer.

Am Fr 22.11.2013 21:56, schrieb Denny Vrandečić:
It is either obvious that they should be entering only integers or positive numbers, in which case such feedback isn't helpful, or it might end up being too restrictive again. Who tells me that a system like this won't get used in order to force cities to have a population of an integer bigger than 10,000? 

I understand the wish and desire to restrict user input, but I would like to remind everyone that Wikidata comes from the wiki side, which adheres more to the 'let's gather input and then verify it' than the 'let's make everyone give us correct input in the first place' side.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Helder . <> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Lukas Benedix
<> wrote:
> The problem I see with this practice is that a user doesn't get any feedback
> that he is entering 'invalid' values.



Wikidata-l mailing list

Wikidata-l mailing list

Wikidata-l mailing list