Wikimedia Commons will have its own structured data repository soon, and it
will need to tackle this BLP problem also.
Wikidata really needs a BLP policy; then it is easier to trust Wikidata
with the grey area.
Wikimedians will be worried that while Gerard's intention is noble, when
they have an item about them there is nothing to someone with less noble
intentions from adding more intrusive information to the item.
The result will be less people willing to speak at Wikimania.
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 01:07 Brill Lyle, <wp.brilllyle(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Gerard's point that the items are typically found
in Wikimedia Commons I
think is key. If the item is part of a sister project to Wikidata then it
has a corresponding place on Wikidata. Unless I misunderstand the
interoperability and mission of Wikidata.
Also: I am not a fan of deleting content -- especially content that is
curated, focused, captures a time and place, incorporates hard work on
projects especially as it relates to a Wikimedia project. To me this is not
defensible. So deleting entries seems similar to my experience with
Wikipedia editors hostile to added content focused on deletionism -- of
course to a notable women's page where I as an editor am trying to
establish said notability -- who characterize the information as yes, "too
encyclopedic." #Ridiculous I wish this wasn't true.
So I agree with Gerard and others here.
- Erika
On Jul 31, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi,
There are several things at play. First, Wikimania and its talks will find
its place in Wikidata because typically much of the papers, presentations
and registrations will be found in Commons. So they will be registered
anyway. Second, this thread is also about the way our policies are
maintained. This is done in an arbitrary way and consequently much of the
arguments based on policies have lost much of their validity. Third, the
number of items involved is so low that it not even registers. When other
conferences like TED find their way, it is not a problem so why should
granularity be a problem now?
When people want to know about how we think about what we do, the
Wikimania talks is a prime resource. Papers are published about what we do.
We could easily refer people to Wikimania and other talks. We could and
should because it makes sense to do so. In the end it is our history.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 31 July 2016 at 17:25, Daniel Kinzler <daniel.kinzler(a)wikimedia.de>
wrote:
Am 31.07.2016 um 17:04 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
Hoi,
I am not to judge what conferences will be deemed relevant for an item
in
Wikidata. When a conference is relevant, it is
the talks and
particularly the
registrations of the talks, the papers and the
presentations that make
the
conference relevant after the fact.
So you think that for every relevant conference, all talks and speakers
should
automatically be considered relevant? Does the same aregument apply to all
courses and theachers at all relevant universities and schools?
I'm trying to understand your point. To me it's a question of
granularity. We
can't manage arbitrarily fine grained information, so we have to stop at
some
point. What do you think, where should that point be for Wikimania, for
other
(relevant) conferences, for universities, for schools?
--
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
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata