Hi,
This may be a total newbie question, sorry about that!
While linking YSO places to Wikidata we have stumbled on a few cases where there is a Wikipedia article about the place we want to link, but that page has no Wikidata link visible. And it seems that Wikidata itself does not contain that entity.
An example is the village Teuro in Tammela, Finland. It has a page on the Finnish Wikipedia: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teuro
But that page has no Wikidata link. A search for "Teuro" in Wikidata gives a few hits, but none of them represent the village.
What's the correct way to correct this? I found this guide: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Linking_Wikipedia_pages
But I'm not 100% it addresses this exact situation. How did this happen in the first place? My naïve understanding was that every normal article in Wikipedia would have a corresponding Wikidata entity, but apparently that's not entirely true!
-Osma
Hi Osma,
the page youlink to was created on the Finnish Wikipedia on 5 Juky. Usually Wikidata items are created by bot, and it takes longer for smaller projects. Apparently, the bot has not yet created the item. An appropriate way to respond would be te create and item manually.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Osma Suominen osma.suominen@helsinki.fi wrote:
Hi,
This may be a total newbie question, sorry about that!
While linking YSO places to Wikidata we have stumbled on a few cases where there is a Wikipedia article about the place we want to link, but that page has no Wikidata link visible. And it seems that Wikidata itself does not contain that entity.
An example is the village Teuro in Tammela, Finland. It has a page on the Finnish Wikipedia: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teuro
But that page has no Wikidata link. A search for "Teuro" in Wikidata gives a few hits, but none of them represent the village.
What's the correct way to correct this? I found this guide: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Linking_Wikipedia_pages
But I'm not 100% it addresses this exact situation. How did this happen in the first place? My naïve understanding was that every normal article in Wikipedia would have a corresponding Wikidata entity, but apparently that's not entirely true!
-Osma
-- Osma Suominen D.Sc. (Tech), Information Systems Specialist National Library of Finland P.O. Box 26 (Kaikukatu 4) 00014 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO Tel. +358 50 3199529 osma.suominen@helsinki.fi http://www.nationallibrary.fi
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Checking the history of that page shows it was recently created. Not sure how the Finns do this but like the Dutch they probably have a bot that creates Wikidata items after a month or so has passed (this avoids creating items for things that get deleted through the "speedy delete" process). You can create the item yourself, or wait another month I guess. https://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teuro&action=history
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Osma Suominen osma.suominen@helsinki.fi wrote:
Hi,
This may be a total newbie question, sorry about that!
While linking YSO places to Wikidata we have stumbled on a few cases where there is a Wikipedia article about the place we want to link, but that page has no Wikidata link visible. And it seems that Wikidata itself does not contain that entity.
An example is the village Teuro in Tammela, Finland. It has a page on the Finnish Wikipedia: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teuro
But that page has no Wikidata link. A search for "Teuro" in Wikidata gives a few hits, but none of them represent the village.
What's the correct way to correct this? I found this guide: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Linking_Wikipedia_pages
But I'm not 100% it addresses this exact situation. How did this happen in the first place? My naïve understanding was that every normal article in Wikipedia would have a corresponding Wikidata entity, but apparently that's not entirely true!
-Osma
-- Osma Suominen D.Sc. (Tech), Information Systems Specialist National Library of Finland P.O. Box 26 (Kaikukatu 4) 00014 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO Tel. +358 50 3199529 osma.suominen@helsinki.fi http://www.nationallibrary.fi
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
So each language wikipedia does this on an ad-hoc basis?
On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Checking the history of that page shows it was recently created. Not sure how the Finns do this but like the Dutch they probably have a bot that creates Wikidata items after a month or so has passed (this avoids creating items for things that get deleted through the "speedy delete" process). You can create the item yourself, or wait another month I guess. https://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teuro&action=history
It is not a language, this depends on the bot owners. I would not be surprised if there projects they never visit.
I am a Russian Wikivoyage admin, and we make sure all newly created items have a Wikidata link, but I think if we for whatever reason fail to create an item manually, it never gets bot created.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
So each language wikipedia does this on an ad-hoc basis?
On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Checking the history of that page shows it was recently created. Not
sure how the Finns do this but like the Dutch they probably have a bot that creates Wikidata items after a month or so has passed (this avoids creating items for things that get deleted through the "speedy delete" process). You can create the item yourself, or wait another month I guess.
https://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teuro&action=history
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hi all,
I am glad that Osma Suominen asked this "newbie" question, since I was wondering about the same. I'm just looking for compared statistics between Wikidata, the different editions of Wikipedia and those of DBpedia.
The question I am trying to solve is simply: what is the probability that a place or a person name that is not mentioned in Wikidata can be found somewhere in Wikipedia or in DBpedia? If anyone has any elements to answer that question, it would be appreciated. Ettore Rizza
2017-09-01 17:03 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com:
It is not a language, this depends on the bot owners. I would not be surprised if there projects they never visit.
I am a Russian Wikivoyage admin, and we make sure all newly created items have a Wikidata link, but I think if we for whatever reason fail to create an item manually, it never gets bot created.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
So each language wikipedia does this on an ad-hoc basis?
On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Checking the history of that page shows it was recently created. Not
sure how the Finns do this but like the Dutch they probably have a bot that creates Wikidata items after a month or so has passed (this avoids creating items for things that get deleted through the "speedy delete" process). You can create the item yourself, or wait another month I guess.
https://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teuro&action=history
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
Depends on the domain of expertise of the volunteer contributors. I work on paintings and for painters we have included alias names from painter databases in the alias field on Wikidata, so searches for painters will probably work better on Wikidata than on any Wikipedia. For writers, this hasn't been done (but to be fair I don't know if there are any databases with alias names in them such as the ones for painters). For items about women this is a problem when some Wikipedias use the married name instead of the maiden name. It would be nice if everyone would add proper aliases to Wikidata, but there are still lots of Wikipedians who write articles and never go to Wikidata at all.
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Ettore RIZZA ettorerizza@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I am glad that Osma Suominen asked this "newbie" question, since I was wondering about the same. I'm just looking for compared statistics between Wikidata, the different editions of Wikipedia and those of DBpedia.
The question I am trying to solve is simply: what is the probability that a place or a person name that is not mentioned in Wikidata can be found somewhere in Wikipedia or in DBpedia? If anyone has any elements to answer that question, it would be appreciated. Ettore Rizza
2017-09-01 17:03 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com:
It is not a language, this depends on the bot owners. I would not be surprised if there projects they never visit.
I am a Russian Wikivoyage admin, and we make sure all newly created items have a Wikidata link, but I think if we for whatever reason fail to create an item manually, it never gets bot created.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
So each language wikipedia does this on an ad-hoc basis?
On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Checking the history of that page shows it was recently created. Not
sure how the Finns do this but like the Dutch they probably have a bot that creates Wikidata items after a month or so has passed (this avoids creating items for things that get deleted through the "speedy delete" process). You can create the item yourself, or wait another month I guess.
https://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teuro&action=history
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
Thank you Jane and everyone else for your speedy responses. Postponing the creation of Wikidata entities for newly created Wikipedia articles that may turn out to be short-lived makes total sense. So we will simply create the corresponding Wikidata entities manually in cases like this.
-Osma
Jane Darnell kirjoitti 01.09.2017 klo 16:36:
Checking the history of that page shows it was recently created. Not sure how the Finns do this but like the Dutch they probably have a bot that creates Wikidata items after a month or so has passed (this avoids creating items for things that get deleted through the "speedy delete" process). You can create the item yourself, or wait another month I guess. https://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teuro&action=history
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Osma Suominen <osma.suominen@helsinki.fi mailto:osma.suominen@helsinki.fi> wrote:
Hi, This may be a total newbie question, sorry about that! While linking YSO places to Wikidata we have stumbled on a few cases where there is a Wikipedia article about the place we want to link, but that page has no Wikidata link visible. And it seems that Wikidata itself does not contain that entity. An example is the village Teuro in Tammela, Finland. It has a page on the Finnish Wikipedia: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teuro <https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teuro> But that page has no Wikidata link. A search for "Teuro" in Wikidata gives a few hits, but none of them represent the village. What's the correct way to correct this? I found this guide: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Linking_Wikipedia_pages <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Linking_Wikipedia_pages> But I'm not 100% it addresses this exact situation. How did this happen in the first place? My naïve understanding was that every normal article in Wikipedia would have a corresponding Wikidata entity, but apparently that's not entirely true! -Osma -- Osma Suominen D.Sc. (Tech), Information Systems Specialist National Library of Finland P.O. Box 26 (Kaikukatu 4) 00014 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO Tel. +358 50 3199529 <tel:%2B358%2050%203199529> osma.suominen@helsinki.fi <mailto:osma.suominen@helsinki.fi> http://www.nationallibrary.fi _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata>
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Thank you for your answer, Jane. I had not thought about the fact that some professions could be better represented than others. I imagined that the mapping between Wikipedia and Wikidata was ultra-automated. It's very interesting.
2017-09-01 19:34 GMT+02:00 Osma Suominen osma.suominen@helsinki.fi:
Thank you Jane and everyone else for your speedy responses. Postponing the creation of Wikidata entities for newly created Wikipedia articles that may turn out to be short-lived makes total sense. So we will simply create the corresponding Wikidata entities manually in cases like this.
-Osma
Jane Darnell kirjoitti 01.09.2017 klo 16:36:
Checking the history of that page shows it was recently created. Not sure how the Finns do this but like the Dutch they probably have a bot that creates Wikidata items after a month or so has passed (this avoids creating items for things that get deleted through the "speedy delete" process). You can create the item yourself, or wait another month I guess. https://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teuro&action=history
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Osma Suominen <osma.suominen@helsinki.fi mailto:osma.suominen@helsinki.fi> wrote:
Hi, This may be a total newbie question, sorry about that! While linking YSO places to Wikidata we have stumbled on a few cases where there is a Wikipedia article about the place we want to link, but that page has no Wikidata link visible. And it seems that Wikidata itself does not contain that entity. An example is the village Teuro in Tammela, Finland. It has a page on the Finnish Wikipedia: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teuro <https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teuro> But that page has no Wikidata link. A search for "Teuro" in Wikidata gives a few hits, but none of them represent the village. What's the correct way to correct this? I found this guide: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Linking_Wikipedia_pages <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Linking_Wikipedia_pages> But I'm not 100% it addresses this exact situation. How did this happen in the first place? My naïve understanding was that every normal article in Wikipedia would have a corresponding Wikidata entity, but apparently that's not entirely true! -Osma -- Osma Suominen D.Sc. (Tech), Information Systems Specialist National Library of Finland P.O. Box 26 (Kaikukatu 4) 00014 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO Tel. +358 50 3199529 <tel:%2B358%2050%203199529> osma.suominen@helsinki.fi <mailto:osma.suominen@helsinki.fi> http://www.nationallibrary.fi _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata>
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
-- Osma Suominen D.Sc. (Tech), Information Systems Specialist National Library of Finland P.O. Box 26 (Kaikukatu 4) 00014 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO Tel. +358 50 3199529 osma.suominen@helsinki.fi http://www.nationallibrary.fi
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Your note really made me feel so sad. I try to motivate my Wikipedian friends into doing more on Wikidata and each time they react the way you did, with a sentence like "I imagined that the mapping between Wikipedia and Wikidata was ultra-automated." I guess there is something about the "data" word in the same that makes people assume it is technical, or that being "machine-readable" makes it impossible for humans to read and without "bot" knowlege, there is no place for "normal contributors" to help out.
I am not a bot operator in the sense that I have created any bots. I have slowly started to appreciate the bots that have been built and do use the ones available to me on Wikipedia, Commons, Wikidata, and Wikisource. I also have really learned to appreciate the bot operators who take the time to create them and tend to them through all the iterations of the mediawiki software that seem to change ad infinitum. It's important to remember that these are all volunteers too. Once I tried to follow a very acrimonious conversation on English Wikipedia about "semi-automated edits" as if this was the worst thing that could possibly happen. As someone who tends to leave a lot of typos hanging around, I really appreciate the "semi-automated edits" that correct them. I don't know what "ultra-automated edits" are, but I can assure you there is a warm-blooded human being behind each one of them.
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Ettore RIZZA ettorerizza@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for your answer, Jane. I had not thought about the fact that some professions could be better represented than others. I imagined that the mapping between Wikipedia and Wikidata was ultra-automated. It's very interesting.
2017-09-01 19:34 GMT+02:00 Osma Suominen osma.suominen@helsinki.fi:
Thank you Jane and everyone else for your speedy responses. Postponing the creation of Wikidata entities for newly created Wikipedia articles that may turn out to be short-lived makes total sense. So we will simply create the corresponding Wikidata entities manually in cases like this.
-Osma
Jane Darnell kirjoitti 01.09.2017 klo 16:36:
Checking the history of that page shows it was recently created. Not sure how the Finns do this but like the Dutch they probably have a bot that creates Wikidata items after a month or so has passed (this avoids creating items for things that get deleted through the "speedy delete" process). You can create the item yourself, or wait another month I guess. https://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teuro&action=history
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Osma Suominen <osma.suominen@helsinki.fi mailto:osma.suominen@helsinki.fi> wrote:
Hi, This may be a total newbie question, sorry about that! While linking YSO places to Wikidata we have stumbled on a few cases where there is a Wikipedia article about the place we want to link, but that page has no Wikidata link visible. And it seems that Wikidata itself does not contain that entity. An example is the village Teuro in Tammela, Finland. It has a page on the Finnish Wikipedia: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teuro <https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teuro> But that page has no Wikidata link. A search for "Teuro" in Wikidata gives a few hits, but none of them represent the village. What's the correct way to correct this? I found this guide: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Linking_Wikipedia_pages <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Linking_Wikipedia_pages> But I'm not 100% it addresses this exact situation. How did this happen in the first place? My naïve understanding was that every normal article in Wikipedia would have a corresponding Wikidata entity, but apparently that's not entirely true! -Osma -- Osma Suominen D.Sc. (Tech), Information Systems Specialist National Library of Finland P.O. Box 26 (Kaikukatu 4) 00014 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO Tel. +358 50 3199529 <tel:%2B358%2050%203199529> osma.suominen@helsinki.fi <mailto:osma.suominen@helsinki.fi> http://www.nationallibrary.fi _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata>
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
-- Osma Suominen D.Sc. (Tech), Information Systems Specialist National Library of Finland P.O. Box 26 (Kaikukatu 4) 00014 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO Tel. +358 50 3199529 osma.suominen@helsinki.fi http://www.nationallibrary.fi
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
On Sep 2, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Your note really made me feel so sad. I try to motivate my Wikipedian friends into doing more on Wikidata and each time they react the way you did, with a sentence like "I imagined that the mapping between Wikipedia and Wikidata was ultra-automated." I guess there is something about the "data" word in the same that makes people assume it is technical, or that being "machine-readable" makes it impossible for humans to read and without "bot" knowlege, there is no place for "normal contributors" to help out.
I appreciate this perspective a great deal. I think it's great that you are motivating users to edit Wikidata--it's really important. Wikidata is nothing (IMHO) without the human-in-the-loop.
But as a practical matter wouldn't it be useful if there were stubs in Wikidata that would help editors identify which entities need attention? Or would the vastness of it cause a problem?
I can certainly see an argument for an embargo period to give counter-vandalism efforts a chance to triage the new pages. But after that point wouldn't it be useful if a bot monitored the language wikipedias for new entries and then added them to Wikidata so that people could fill them out?
I'm just throwing ideas around here, and am not trying to be critical of the current state of affairs. You all are doing amazing work.
//Ed
Hi Jane,
I'm really sorry if my naïve comment made you sad. :/ To be clearer, I never wanted to minimize the contribution of the volunteers! It's just that I still don't know the internal mechanics of Wikidata. I recently read in a paper, already a bit old*, that 90% of editions were made by bots. I just thought that the mapping between the Wikipedia editions and Wikidata was part of these 90% automated tasks, after which the volunteers had to add the missing 10%, correct and enrich the automatic operations, etc. I'm sorry if I misunderstood.
** " Wikidata has grown significantly since its launch in October 2012; see the table here for key facts about its current content. It has also become the most edited Wikimedia project, with 150– 500 edits per minute, or a half million per day, about three times as many as the English Wikipedia. Approximately 90% of these edits are made by bots contributors create for automating tasks, yet almost one million edits per month are still made by humans."* (VRANDEČIĆ, Denny et KRÖTZSCH, Markus. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. *Communications of the ACM*, 2014, vol. 57, no 10, p. 78-85.)
2017-09-02 14:42 GMT+02:00 Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com:
On Sep 2, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Your note really made me feel so sad. I try to motivate my Wikipedian
friends into doing more on Wikidata and each time they react the way you did, with a sentence like "I imagined that the mapping between Wikipedia and Wikidata was ultra-automated." I guess there is something about the "data" word in the same that makes people assume it is technical, or that being "machine-readable" makes it impossible for humans to read and without "bot" knowlege, there is no place for "normal contributors" to help out.
I appreciate this perspective a great deal. I think it's great that you are motivating users to edit Wikidata--it's really important. Wikidata is nothing (IMHO) without the human-in-the-loop.
But as a practical matter wouldn't it be useful if there were stubs in Wikidata that would help editors identify which entities need attention? Or would the vastness of it cause a problem?
I can certainly see an argument for an embargo period to give counter-vandalism efforts a chance to triage the new pages. But after that point wouldn't it be useful if a bot monitored the language wikipedias for new entries and then added them to Wikidata so that people could fill them out?
I'm just throwing ideas around here, and am not trying to be critical of the current state of affairs. You all are doing amazing work.
//Ed
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Thanks! That really made me laugh and I needed that. The wonderful story of Wikidata's history set within the wonderful story of Wikipedia's history anno 2014 is truly amazing. Using that information to describe Wikidata today is like trying to imagine the "bot wars" that have recently become a viral hit on various social media websites. You could say Wikidata was born out of a need to end "bot wars" between updating interwikilink bots. After that "bot war" ended though, it looks like we created a new "bot war" where Wikipedians became afraid of this new project because they might get bitten by a bot. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/08/30/wikipedia-bot-pocalypse/
On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Ettore RIZZA ettorerizza@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jane,
I'm really sorry if my naïve comment made you sad. :/ To be clearer, I never wanted to minimize the contribution of the volunteers! It's just that I still don't know the internal mechanics of Wikidata. I recently read in a paper, already a bit old*, that 90% of editions were made by bots. I just thought that the mapping between the Wikipedia editions and Wikidata was part of these 90% automated tasks, after which the volunteers had to add the missing 10%, correct and enrich the automatic operations, etc. I'm sorry if I misunderstood.
** " Wikidata has grown significantly since its launch in October 2012; see the table here for key facts about its current content. It has also become the most edited Wikimedia project, with 150– 500 edits per minute, or a half million per day, about three times as many as the English Wikipedia. Approximately 90% of these edits are made by bots contributors create for automating tasks, yet almost one million edits per month are still made by humans."* (VRANDEČIĆ, Denny et KRÖTZSCH, Markus. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. *Communications of the ACM*, 2014, vol. 57, no 10, p. 78-85.)
2017-09-02 14:42 GMT+02:00 Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com:
On Sep 2, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Your note really made me feel so sad. I try to motivate my Wikipedian
friends into doing more on Wikidata and each time they react the way you did, with a sentence like "I imagined that the mapping between Wikipedia and Wikidata was ultra-automated." I guess there is something about the "data" word in the same that makes people assume it is technical, or that being "machine-readable" makes it impossible for humans to read and without "bot" knowlege, there is no place for "normal contributors" to help out.
I appreciate this perspective a great deal. I think it's great that you are motivating users to edit Wikidata--it's really important. Wikidata is nothing (IMHO) without the human-in-the-loop.
But as a practical matter wouldn't it be useful if there were stubs in Wikidata that would help editors identify which entities need attention? Or would the vastness of it cause a problem?
I can certainly see an argument for an embargo period to give counter-vandalism efforts a chance to triage the new pages. But after that point wouldn't it be useful if a bot monitored the language wikipedias for new entries and then added them to Wikidata so that people could fill them out?
I'm just throwing ideas around here, and am not trying to be critical of the current state of affairs. You all are doing amazing work.
//Ed
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
Well, here is a fresh paper that seems to have been written to answer the questions I had after this discussion.
" We performed a regression analysis to investigate how the contribution of different types of users, i.e. bots and human editors, registered or anonymous, influences outcome quality in Wikidata. Moreover, we looked at the effects of tenure and interest diversity among registered users. Our findings show that a balanced contribution of bots and human editors positively influence outcome quality, whereas higher numbers of anonymous edits may hinder performance. Tenure and interest diversity within groups also lead to higher quality. "
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-67217-5_19
2017-09-02 15:53 GMT+02:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Thanks! That really made me laugh and I needed that. The wonderful story of Wikidata's history set within the wonderful story of Wikipedia's history anno 2014 is truly amazing. Using that information to describe Wikidata today is like trying to imagine the "bot wars" that have recently become a viral hit on various social media websites. You could say Wikidata was born out of a need to end "bot wars" between updating interwikilink bots. After that "bot war" ended though, it looks like we created a new "bot war" where Wikipedians became afraid of this new project because they might get bitten by a bot. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/08/30/wikipedia-bot-pocalypse/
On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Ettore RIZZA ettorerizza@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jane,
I'm really sorry if my naïve comment made you sad. :/ To be clearer, I never wanted to minimize the contribution of the volunteers! It's just that I still don't know the internal mechanics of Wikidata. I recently read in a paper, already a bit old*, that 90% of editions were made by bots. I just thought that the mapping between the Wikipedia editions and Wikidata was part of these 90% automated tasks, after which the volunteers had to add the missing 10%, correct and enrich the automatic operations, etc. I'm sorry if I misunderstood.
** " Wikidata has grown significantly since its launch in October 2012; see the table here for key facts about its current content. It has also become the most edited Wikimedia project, with 150– 500 edits per minute, or a half million per day, about three times as many as the English Wikipedia. Approximately 90% of these edits are made by bots contributors create for automating tasks, yet almost one million edits per month are still made by humans."* (VRANDEČIĆ, Denny et KRÖTZSCH, Markus. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. *Communications of the ACM*, 2014, vol. 57, no 10, p. 78-85.)
2017-09-02 14:42 GMT+02:00 Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com:
On Sep 2, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Your note really made me feel so sad. I try to motivate my Wikipedian
friends into doing more on Wikidata and each time they react the way you did, with a sentence like "I imagined that the mapping between Wikipedia and Wikidata was ultra-automated." I guess there is something about the "data" word in the same that makes people assume it is technical, or that being "machine-readable" makes it impossible for humans to read and without "bot" knowlege, there is no place for "normal contributors" to help out.
I appreciate this perspective a great deal. I think it's great that you are motivating users to edit Wikidata--it's really important. Wikidata is nothing (IMHO) without the human-in-the-loop.
But as a practical matter wouldn't it be useful if there were stubs in Wikidata that would help editors identify which entities need attention? Or would the vastness of it cause a problem?
I can certainly see an argument for an embargo period to give counter-vandalism efforts a chance to triage the new pages. But after that point wouldn't it be useful if a bot monitored the language wikipedias for new entries and then added them to Wikidata so that people could fill them out?
I'm just throwing ideas around here, and am not trying to be critical of the current state of affairs. You all are doing amazing work.
//Ed
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
Hoi, Sorry but with only conclusions it is just that.. hidden behind a paywall. Consequently it does not make a difference; our community cannot comment. Please choose a different venue for publications. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 September 2017 at 08:37, Ettore RIZZA ettorerizza@gmail.com wrote:
Well, here is a fresh paper that seems to have been written to answer the questions I had after this discussion.
" We performed a regression analysis to investigate how the contribution of different types of users, i.e. bots and human editors, registered or anonymous, influences outcome quality in Wikidata. Moreover, we looked at the effects of tenure and interest diversity among registered users. Our findings show that a balanced contribution of bots and human editors positively influence outcome quality, whereas higher numbers of anonymous edits may hinder performance. Tenure and interest diversity within groups also lead to higher quality. "
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-67217-5_19
2017-09-02 15:53 GMT+02:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Thanks! That really made me laugh and I needed that. The wonderful story of Wikidata's history set within the wonderful story of Wikipedia's history anno 2014 is truly amazing. Using that information to describe Wikidata today is like trying to imagine the "bot wars" that have recently become a viral hit on various social media websites. You could say Wikidata was born out of a need to end "bot wars" between updating interwikilink bots. After that "bot war" ended though, it looks like we created a new "bot war" where Wikipedians became afraid of this new project because they might get bitten by a bot. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/08/30/wikipedia-bot-pocalypse/
On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Ettore RIZZA ettorerizza@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jane,
I'm really sorry if my naïve comment made you sad. :/ To be clearer, I never wanted to minimize the contribution of the volunteers! It's just that I still don't know the internal mechanics of Wikidata. I recently read in a paper, already a bit old*, that 90% of editions were made by bots. I just thought that the mapping between the Wikipedia editions and Wikidata was part of these 90% automated tasks, after which the volunteers had to add the missing 10%, correct and enrich the automatic operations, etc. I'm sorry if I misunderstood.
** " Wikidata has grown significantly since its launch in October 2012; see the table here for key facts about its current content. It has also become the most edited Wikimedia project, with 150– 500 edits per minute, or a half million per day, about three times as many as the English Wikipedia. Approximately 90% of these edits are made by bots contributors create for automating tasks, yet almost one million edits per month are still made by humans."* (VRANDEČIĆ, Denny et KRÖTZSCH, Markus. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. *Communications of the ACM*, 2014, vol. 57, no 10, p. 78-85.)
2017-09-02 14:42 GMT+02:00 Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com:
On Sep 2, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Your note really made me feel so sad. I try to motivate my Wikipedian
friends into doing more on Wikidata and each time they react the way you did, with a sentence like "I imagined that the mapping between Wikipedia and Wikidata was ultra-automated." I guess there is something about the "data" word in the same that makes people assume it is technical, or that being "machine-readable" makes it impossible for humans to read and without "bot" knowlege, there is no place for "normal contributors" to help out.
I appreciate this perspective a great deal. I think it's great that you are motivating users to edit Wikidata--it's really important. Wikidata is nothing (IMHO) without the human-in-the-loop.
But as a practical matter wouldn't it be useful if there were stubs in Wikidata that would help editors identify which entities need attention? Or would the vastness of it cause a problem?
I can certainly see an argument for an embargo period to give counter-vandalism efforts a chance to triage the new pages. But after that point wouldn't it be useful if a bot monitored the language wikipedias for new entries and then added them to Wikidata so that people could fill them out?
I'm just throwing ideas around here, and am not trying to be critical of the current state of affairs. You all are doing amazing work.
//Ed
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
The Springer paywall is no longer a problem for open science since there is a certain Russian website, but in this case I see that we can find the full article on ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alessandro_Piscopo/publication/31927294... .pdf about:invalid#zClosurez
2017-09-07 8:46 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Sorry but with only conclusions it is just that.. hidden behind a paywall. Consequently it does not make a difference; our community cannot comment. Please choose a different venue for publications. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 September 2017 at 08:37, Ettore RIZZA ettorerizza@gmail.com wrote:
Well, here is a fresh paper that seems to have been written to answer the questions I had after this discussion.
" We performed a regression analysis to investigate how the contribution of different types of users, i.e. bots and human editors, registered or anonymous, influences outcome quality in Wikidata. Moreover, we looked at the effects of tenure and interest diversity among registered users. Our findings show that a balanced contribution of bots and human editors positively influence outcome quality, whereas higher numbers of anonymous edits may hinder performance. Tenure and interest diversity within groups also lead to higher quality. "
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-67217-5_19
2017-09-02 15:53 GMT+02:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Thanks! That really made me laugh and I needed that. The wonderful story of Wikidata's history set within the wonderful story of Wikipedia's history anno 2014 is truly amazing. Using that information to describe Wikidata today is like trying to imagine the "bot wars" that have recently become a viral hit on various social media websites. You could say Wikidata was born out of a need to end "bot wars" between updating interwikilink bots. After that "bot war" ended though, it looks like we created a new "bot war" where Wikipedians became afraid of this new project because they might get bitten by a bot. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/08/30/wikipedia-bot-pocalypse/
On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Ettore RIZZA ettorerizza@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jane,
I'm really sorry if my naïve comment made you sad. :/ To be clearer, I never wanted to minimize the contribution of the volunteers! It's just that I still don't know the internal mechanics of Wikidata. I recently read in a paper, already a bit old*, that 90% of editions were made by bots. I just thought that the mapping between the Wikipedia editions and Wikidata was part of these 90% automated tasks, after which the volunteers had to add the missing 10%, correct and enrich the automatic operations, etc. I'm sorry if I misunderstood.
** " Wikidata has grown significantly since its launch in October 2012; see the table here for key facts about its current content. It has also become the most edited Wikimedia project, with 150– 500 edits per minute, or a half million per day, about three times as many as the English Wikipedia. Approximately 90% of these edits are made by bots contributors create for automating tasks, yet almost one million edits per month are still made by humans."* (VRANDEČIĆ, Denny et KRÖTZSCH, Markus. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. *Communications of the ACM*, 2014, vol. 57, no 10, p. 78-85.)
2017-09-02 14:42 GMT+02:00 Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com:
On Sep 2, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Your note really made me feel so sad. I try to motivate my
Wikipedian friends into doing more on Wikidata and each time they react the way you did, with a sentence like "I imagined that the mapping between Wikipedia and Wikidata was ultra-automated." I guess there is something about the "data" word in the same that makes people assume it is technical, or that being "machine-readable" makes it impossible for humans to read and without "bot" knowlege, there is no place for "normal contributors" to help out.
I appreciate this perspective a great deal. I think it's great that you are motivating users to edit Wikidata--it's really important. Wikidata is nothing (IMHO) without the human-in-the-loop.
But as a practical matter wouldn't it be useful if there were stubs in Wikidata that would help editors identify which entities need attention? Or would the vastness of it cause a problem?
I can certainly see an argument for an embargo period to give counter-vandalism efforts a chance to triage the new pages. But after that point wouldn't it be useful if a bot monitored the language wikipedias for new entries and then added them to Wikidata so that people could fill them out?
I'm just throwing ideas around here, and am not trying to be critical of the current state of affairs. You all are doing amazing work.
//Ed
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
Well you would have to drill down into the data to find their definitions of bot users, but the conclusions seem to state that this is all pretty premature anyway. If you look at the overall statistics that just measure the basics (number of labels/descriptions/statements per item over time, etc.) it starts to tell the story of Wikidata in a more meaningful way. See the stats page here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Ettore RIZZA ettorerizza@gmail.com wrote:
The Springer paywall is no longer a problem for open science since there is a certain Russian website, but in this case I see that we can find the full article on ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alessandro_Piscopo/ publication/319272942_What_makes_a_good_collaborative_ knowledge_graph_Group_composition_and_quality_in_Wikidata/links/ 599fd3d2a6fdccf594266835/What-makes-a-good-collaborative- knowledge-graph-Group-composition-and-quality-in-Wikidata .pdf
2017-09-07 8:46 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Sorry but with only conclusions it is just that.. hidden behind a paywall. Consequently it does not make a difference; our community cannot comment. Please choose a different venue for publications. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 September 2017 at 08:37, Ettore RIZZA ettorerizza@gmail.com wrote:
Well, here is a fresh paper that seems to have been written to answer the questions I had after this discussion.
" We performed a regression analysis to investigate how the contribution of different types of users, i.e. bots and human editors, registered or anonymous, influences outcome quality in Wikidata. Moreover, we looked at the effects of tenure and interest diversity among registered users. Our findings show that a balanced contribution of bots and human editors positively influence outcome quality, whereas higher numbers of anonymous edits may hinder performance. Tenure and interest diversity within groups also lead to higher quality. "
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-67217-5_19
2017-09-02 15:53 GMT+02:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Thanks! That really made me laugh and I needed that. The wonderful story of Wikidata's history set within the wonderful story of Wikipedia's history anno 2014 is truly amazing. Using that information to describe Wikidata today is like trying to imagine the "bot wars" that have recently become a viral hit on various social media websites. You could say Wikidata was born out of a need to end "bot wars" between updating interwikilink bots. After that "bot war" ended though, it looks like we created a new "bot war" where Wikipedians became afraid of this new project because they might get bitten by a bot. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/08/30/wikipedia-bot-pocalypse/
On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Ettore RIZZA ettorerizza@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jane,
I'm really sorry if my naïve comment made you sad. :/ To be clearer, I never wanted to minimize the contribution of the volunteers! It's just that I still don't know the internal mechanics of Wikidata. I recently read in a paper, already a bit old*, that 90% of editions were made by bots. I just thought that the mapping between the Wikipedia editions and Wikidata was part of these 90% automated tasks, after which the volunteers had to add the missing 10%, correct and enrich the automatic operations, etc. I'm sorry if I misunderstood.
** " Wikidata has grown significantly since its launch in October 2012; see the table here for key facts about its current content. It has also become the most edited Wikimedia project, with 150– 500 edits per minute, or a half million per day, about three times as many as the English Wikipedia. Approximately 90% of these edits are made by bots contributors create for automating tasks, yet almost one million edits per month are still made by humans."* (VRANDEČIĆ, Denny et KRÖTZSCH, Markus. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. *Communications of the ACM*, 2014, vol. 57, no 10, p. 78-85.)
2017-09-02 14:42 GMT+02:00 Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com:
> On Sep 2, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote: > > Your note really made me feel so sad. I try to motivate my Wikipedian friends into doing more on Wikidata and each time they react the way you did, with a sentence like "I imagined that the mapping between Wikipedia and Wikidata was ultra-automated." I guess there is something about the "data" word in the same that makes people assume it is technical, or that being "machine-readable" makes it impossible for humans to read and without "bot" knowlege, there is no place for "normal contributors" to help out.
I appreciate this perspective a great deal. I think it's great that you are motivating users to edit Wikidata--it's really important. Wikidata is nothing (IMHO) without the human-in-the-loop.
But as a practical matter wouldn't it be useful if there were stubs in Wikidata that would help editors identify which entities need attention? Or would the vastness of it cause a problem?
I can certainly see an argument for an embargo period to give counter-vandalism efforts a chance to triage the new pages. But after that point wouldn't it be useful if a bot monitored the language wikipedias for new entries and then added them to Wikidata so that people could fill them out?
I'm just throwing ideas around here, and am not trying to be critical of the current state of affairs. You all are doing amazing work.
//Ed
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
Thanks for your comments Ed. To answer your question, all Wikidata items created after someone else made a WIkipedia page (like the original Finnish Wikipedia article at the beginning of this thread) are by definition "stubs". Often (because of spelling differences in names) these should be merged and not fleshed out further. This stubby group of possible merge candidates happens precisely because the person making the item is not the same as the person making the article. One of the requests I have made before is to have a tool that generates a list of items linked to the Wikipedia pages I personally created. In my case, this would be the Wikipedia pages I created before 2014 or so, which I believe is more than a thousand. If I had a list of these with the number of statements in the items I would go through the ones with less than 5 statements and fix them. Since Wikidata I have flipped my way of work: instead of starting with images on Commons and then writing an article on Wikipedia, I now start with items on Wikidata and add images and articles much further down the road.
On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
On Sep 2, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Your note really made me feel so sad. I try to motivate my Wikipedian
friends into doing more on Wikidata and each time they react the way you did, with a sentence like "I imagined that the mapping between Wikipedia and Wikidata was ultra-automated." I guess there is something about the "data" word in the same that makes people assume it is technical, or that being "machine-readable" makes it impossible for humans to read and without "bot" knowlege, there is no place for "normal contributors" to help out.
I appreciate this perspective a great deal. I think it's great that you are motivating users to edit Wikidata--it's really important. Wikidata is nothing (IMHO) without the human-in-the-loop.
But as a practical matter wouldn't it be useful if there were stubs in Wikidata that would help editors identify which entities need attention? Or would the vastness of it cause a problem?
I can certainly see an argument for an embargo period to give counter-vandalism efforts a chance to triage the new pages. But after that point wouldn't it be useful if a bot monitored the language wikipedias for new entries and then added them to Wikidata so that people could fill them out?
I'm just throwing ideas around here, and am not trying to be critical of the current state of affairs. You all are doing amazing work.
//Ed
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata