(*)
This follows the principle of "magic is bad, let people edit". Allowing
inconsistencies means we can detect errors by finding such inconsistencies.
Automatically enforcing consistency may lead to errors propagating out of
view
of the curation process. The QA process on wikis is centered around edits,
so
every change should be an edit. Using a bot to fill in missing "reverse"
links
follows this idea. The fact that you found an issue with the data because
you
saw a bot do an edit is an example of this principle working nicely.
That might prove to become a worser nightmare than the magic one ... It's
seems like refusing any kind of automation because it might surprise people
for the sake of exhausting them to let them do a lot of manual work.
2015-09-28 16:23 GMT+02:00 Daniel Kinzler <daniel.kinzler(a)wikimedia.de>de>:
Am 27.09.2015 um 21:19 schrieb Thad Guidry:
Both Sides ? Wikidata has a true graph
representation like FB ?
didn't know
that. Can you show me the other side your
referring too ?
"Both sides" probably means that "sister city" is a reflexive
property,
so if
item A refers to item B as a sister city, item B should also refer to
item A as
a sister city. This is not automatic, and it was a conscious design
decision to
not make it automatic(*).
What do you mean by "true graph representation"? Wikidata internally uses
JSON
structures to represent items, and items reference each other, forming a
graph.
We have a linked data interface for traversing the graph[1]. We also have
an RDF
mapping with a SPARQL endpoint[2] that allows queries against that graph.
-- daniel
[1]
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Data_access#Linked_Data_interface
[2]
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Data_access#SPARQL_endpoints
(*) This follows the principle of "magic is bad, let people edit".
Allowing
inconsistencies means we can detect errors by finding such
inconsistencies.
Automatically enforcing consistency may lead to errors propagating out of
view
of the curation process. The QA process on wikis is centered around
edits, so
every change should be an edit. Using a bot to fill in missing "reverse"
links
follows this idea. The fact that you found an issue with the data because
you
saw a bot do an edit is an example of this principle working nicely.
--
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer
Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata