That's a fair assessment of the situation. I can understand the other side of the conversation as well; it is somewhat debatable whether or not the items actually fill a structural need for the conference page, though I would suggest that any data that can be included on an item presents a need to be kept.

But as I said above, if people want to really move forward with this, a general discussion on the project chat is probably the best way to go. I'd be glad to organise it! Something that asks about whether items for presentations and presenters at notable conferences in general satisfy the notability policy by being identifiable entities and filling a structural need. I think it fits under both myself.

Adrian Raddatz

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Brill Lyle <> wrote:
Isn't Wikimania a public conference that includes much live streaming? If an editor wishes to be anonymous and not filmed or photographed the event organizers can provide red dots etc. and their presentation and appearance can be adjusted accordingly. 

But this is a public event with a mission of outreach and connectivity, unless I misunderstand completely. 

BLP is a problem everywhere not just on Wiki projects. 

If the owner of the data objects that's one thing. But I think to delete all content for the conference is overzealous and works against the idea of encyclopedic and semantic information. 


On Jul 31, 2016, at 2:15 PM, wrote:

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, <> 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 <> wrote:

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.

On 31 July 2016 at 17:25, Daniel Kinzler <> 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 mailing list
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata mailing list

Wikidata mailing list