I guess the issue may be different for Wikipedia and Wikidata in that the
size of the community to number of items/articles is very different.
I don't know what the solution is but the current situation doesn't seem to
work, I spent at least 40 hours (+ Nav's time) to import the 670 items and
the data I imported has already started to become less correct through user
edits and bot edits.
On 9 June 2016 at 18:42, Yellowcard <yellowcard(a)wikipedia.de> wrote:
Luca Martinelli schrieb:
Moreover, there was already a preliminary study
on vandalisms on
Wikidata, and it found out that vandalism impact is very low and most
of the vandalisms happen to "sensitive" items such as... FC Barcelona,
Justin Bieber, and the like.
... which will change in the moment we're widely obtaining data from
Wikidata directly in Wikipedia articles, as vandalism on Wikidata will
be much more worthwhile compared to vandalism on Wikipedia regarding all
Wikipedias that use flagged revisions. Providing direct links to the
Wikidata item, e.g. in infoboxes (see ), will increase this problem
also. Vandalism on Wikidata will become much more attractive than it is
at the moment.
I still don't have an idea how to avoid the situation that data obtained
from Wikidata and used in Wikipedia articles bypasses the flagged
revisions. In many Wikipedias, all edits by IPs / new editors have to be
flagged as "vandalism free" before they become visible for all readers.
Obtaining data directly from Wikidata weakens this principle, as edits
on Wikidata are not part of the flagged revisions procedure.
Locking certain statements against changes would solve this problem. As
there are many statements that are proven to be true and will never turn
false again, it would be very useful to lock these statements. Only
trusted users would be able to edit locked statements, then.
Locking items as a whole, however, should only happen if it is necessary
due to acute vandalism and should stay a privilege of administrators.
Wikidata mailing list