The ontology of Wikidata has nothing to do with English Wikipedia. The
notion that English Wikipedia is the only endless resource of free labour
is pathetic. Its dismissive attitude prevents functional contributions that
will benefit the users of Wikimedia projects.
For authors of "scholarly articles" we have an increasing amount of
information that is impossible for Wikipedia to include. It does not take
much to have a template that show them (standard collapsed) and links to
"Scholia" information for the paper.
For authors of books we could have a similar template. They could link to
*your local library* where you can check if it is available for reading.
Alternatively we could link to the "Open Library".
What it would do is provide a SERVICE to our readers that is easy enough to
provide, that leverages the data in Wikidata and is of a high quality. The
issue about the ontology has everything to do with the discovery of images
in Commons. It cannot get worse as it is, it is disfunctional. It only
works for English and I understand that is something you do not really
Yes, I do recognise Wikidata is a wiki. It is a work in progress and as
such the quality and quantity steadily improves.. Just like English
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 at 07:10, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I would appreciate clarification what is proposed with
regard to exposing
problematic Wikidata ontology on Wikipedia. If the idea involves inserting
poor-quality information onto English Wikipedia in order to spur us to fix
problems with Wikidata, then I am likely to oppose it. English Wikipedia is
not an endless resource for free labor, and we have too few skilled and
good-faith volunteers to handle our already enormous scope of work.
Wikidata mailing list