To be sure, some of the arguments had merit - better sourcing needed, BLP, user interface improvements, etc. 

But I was astonished to see many remarks amounting to, “Never Wikidata.” 

A significant number saw EN.WP as its own exceptional isolated sustainable entity that would only be polluted or weakened by decentralizing control with Wikidata-generated content. Or that the sharing in the sum of all human knowledge (and therefore, citations) was of no interest.

That’s quite sad to see.


On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Yaroslav Blanter <> wrote:
I would say the arguments of users who voted to delete the template have merit, and the template was kept (and not even banished to the draft space) under the condition that attemps will be made to reduce the issues.


On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Robert Fernandez <> wrote:
While Wikidata certainly has concerns to deal with about accuracy and vandalism, I think we need to push back against this mindset that Wikipedia works perfectly while Wikidata is this unregulated free-for-all.  I've run into editors on en.wp objecting to a Wikidata infobox displaying the very same information that was unsourced in that Wikipedia article for nearly a decade.  Both are a work in progress, both can do better, and these should not be barriers to progress or integration. 

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Andy Mabbett <> wrote:
On 19 September 2017 at 19:18, Dario Taraborelli
<> wrote:

> I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for an
> experimental template – {{Cite Q}} – pulling bibliographic data from
> Wikidata:

Closed as "no consensus"; it's worth reading the full comment:

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "wikicite-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

Wikidata mailing list

Wikidata mailing list