I think infoboxes and Wikidata crosses the line from invisible to highly visible, which is why we are seeing a more in-depth discussion now. Plus, the whole area of infoboxes (even without Wikidata) has been a battleground.

In the Facebook group Wikipedia Weekly, one of the folks from pt.wp mentioned that they had a whole summit about Wikipedia and Wikidata integration, with infoboxes at the center of discussion:

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Edit-a-thon/Atividades_em_portugu%C3%AAs/Wikidata_Lab_I

João Alexandre Peschanski: ”Amidst intense discussions on the use of automated infoboxes on Wikipedia in Portuguese, we held yesterday a Wikidata Lab, specifically on how to build these automated infoboxes and took this as an opportunity to calmly discuss benefits and pitfalls of these infoboxes as is. We will hold a second Wikidata Lab in November on preparing automated lists.”

-Andrew




On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, this sounds like correct. When Wikidata was about interwiki links, nobody cared because nobody cared about interwiki links. Then it started to be about the templates, but still nobody cared because nobody noticed. Now they did, and there are already some users whoc want to "ban" Wikidata.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com> wrote:
I think this is why it has escalated now, rather than a few years ago. It is only now that the mono-lingual English Wikipedians are being confronted with Wikidata labels via mobile access and they just have not had much exposure until now. The debate centers on infoboxes, but the resentment comes from a feeling of helplessness caused by complete ignorance of how to "fix" mistakes they see popping up in either an infobox or on mobile. I think that the communication about Wikidata has been fairly good consistently, but this is not enough for people who didn't listen "because it's about other languages I don't speak". Now it has grown to be something that is on their radar. I think that is a good thing. 

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, most (I guess) English Wikipedia active users do not speak any languages other than English, and they are not in a position to appreciate that there could be Wikimedia projects beyond the English Wikipedia worthwhile to talk about. I remember once the Signpost asked a user who was indefinitely blocked on the English Wikivoyage to write the article on Wikivoyage. The article of course contained all the standard prejudices but in particular it said that the only Wikivoyage was the English Wikivoyage. On the talk page I objected, and the answer was: Who cares about other languages?

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih@gmail.com> wrote:
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.

-Andrew

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt@gmail.com> 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.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Robert Fernandez <wikigamaliel@gmail.com> 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 <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
On 19 September 2017 at 19:18, Dario Taraborelli
<dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org> 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:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_15&curid=55240730&diff=803445497&oldid=803444684

--
Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite
Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite
---
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 wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.



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



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



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



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



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



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