If I want the most current/accurate VIAF ids, should I be looking at Wikidata or Wikipedia?
When I look at the EN Wikipedia pages for these two topics:
http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9094 http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9095
both of which have property P214, the VIAF identifer, the second displays the VIAF identifier, but the first doesn't and the one that does display the identifier appears to be using information from the embedded AuthorityControl template, not Wikidata.
My concern is that if the Wikidata VIAF data isn't being viewed/edit on Wikipedia, it can easily be invisibly wrong like the infamous Persondata template.
Tom
That's a good question. I was also thinking about the case of items that have VIAF property, but the code is not shown on Wikipedia because the related article lacks the template.
We can make a list of all items that have VIAF (and/or related properties), then check which WP articles don't have an authority control template, and just add it with a bot, so that it can recall the code from Wikidata.
L. Il 16/ott/2013 18:34 "Tom Morris" tfmorris@gmail.com ha scritto:
If I want the most current/accurate VIAF ids, should I be looking at Wikidata or Wikipedia?
When I look at the EN Wikipedia pages for these two topics:
http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9094 http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9095
both of which have property P214, the VIAF identifer, the second displays the VIAF identifier, but the first doesn't and the one that does display the identifier appears to be using information from the embedded AuthorityControl template, not Wikidata.
My concern is that if the Wikidata VIAF data isn't being viewed/edit on Wikipedia, it can easily be invisibly wrong like the infamous Persondata template.
Tom
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
I think it is a problem of the WP community: maybe they *don't* want those data in the WP page. Of course, it's good to remind them about VIAF ids on WD, and ask why they are not displayed. On it.pedia, the VIAF is always visible (well, not too visible, up there over the infobox), and the data are on WD.
Aubrey
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Luca Martinelli martinelliluca@gmail.comwrote:
That's a good question. I was also thinking about the case of items that have VIAF property, but the code is not shown on Wikipedia because the related article lacks the template.
We can make a list of all items that have VIAF (and/or related properties), then check which WP articles don't have an authority control template, and just add it with a bot, so that it can recall the code from Wikidata.
L. Il 16/ott/2013 18:34 "Tom Morris" tfmorris@gmail.com ha scritto:
If I want the most current/accurate VIAF ids, should I be looking at Wikidata or Wikipedia?
When I look at the EN Wikipedia pages for these two topics:
http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9094 http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9095
both of which have property P214, the VIAF identifer, the second displays the VIAF identifier, but the first doesn't and the one that does display the identifier appears to be using information from the embedded AuthorityControl template, not Wikidata.
My concern is that if the Wikidata VIAF data isn't being viewed/edit on Wikipedia, it can easily be invisibly wrong like the infamous Persondata template.
Tom
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Tom,
On the Occitan Wikipedia they indicate the VIAF (and other) identifiers are shown from Wikidata. When a new identifier is added, this new identifier will be shown as well. When it is changed it is changed as well.
When information in both Wikidata and Wikipedia is the same, it would be good when the information is removed from Wikipedia (and shown from Wikidata). When there is a difference, the information needs to be verified and the resolution needs to go to Wikidata and sourced. In this way information will gradually become be improved and be available in more Wikipedias.
Yes you can concentrate your efforts on Wikipedia but it will only benefit one Wikipedia. It could do so much more good. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 October 2013 18:34, Tom Morris tfmorris@gmail.com wrote:
If I want the most current/accurate VIAF ids, should I be looking at Wikidata or Wikipedia?
When I look at the EN Wikipedia pages for these two topics:
http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9094 http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9095
both of which have property P214, the VIAF identifer, the second displays the VIAF identifier, but the first doesn't and the one that does display the identifier appears to be using information from the embedded AuthorityControl template, not Wikidata.
My concern is that if the Wikidata VIAF data isn't being viewed/edit on Wikipedia, it can easily be invisibly wrong like the infamous Persondata template.
Tom
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Tom et al,
I've actually been pondering this, and don't know the best migration plan for using Wikidata data in a template after its been harvested. So in abstract this is an open question to the community:
"Question: Let W_1 ... W_n be Wikipedias. And T_1 ... T_n be common Templates of {W_i} all represtented by a Wikidata Property P. And V_t_1 ... V_t_n be the values of Template T_i harvested into Wikidata as P.
Suppose that there Exists V_t_i, such that it is not that case V_t_1 = V_t_2 = ... V_t_n-1 = V_t_n-2. That is, there are conflicting values. What is the best strategy to incorporate the Wikidata values back into to W_1 ... W_n so that T_1 ... T_n call wikidata data?"
In our case in specific we have for example: Let W_1 := English Wikipedia, W_2 := German Wikipedia T_1 := Authority control T_2 := Normdaten Q= Q18391 Elie Wiesel P = P214 VIAF. V_1 = "108176447" != V_2 = "49233033"
In this case, its a bit weird, because during import time, my bot found a redirect at VIAF for 49233033 when importing the English data, so id didn't actually import what's on the page in English currently. However V_1 is the correct ID now. Even though this happened in a strange way, by bot fixing, it is equivalent to the case that it was manually corrected by a human.
So my feeling is that, and it would be best to delete the local data at W_1, and adjust the template to display V_1 and V_2 (or all sourced values). This would push the potential need of a merge or correction in front of the noses of all {W_i}, and once it was fixed on Wikidata, all {W_i} would be displaying corrected data.
It seems really strange, but I think the solution is delete our local template parameter-values, so the fallback mechanisms fetch Wikidata by default, and then still keep manual override option if needed. (By the way if you didn't know that's how the English {{Authority control}} template now works using the LUA module [1])
Its a more automatic alternative to than Gerard's mark-coflicts-for-humans approach, but I'm not sure if its potentially too disruptive. Thoughts?
(Also posting these comments onwiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Authority_control#Mixing_WP_and_... )
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:Authority_control
Maximilian Klein Wikipedian in Residence, OCLC +17074787023
________________________________ From: wikidata-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org wikidata-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 11:32 AM To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project. Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Is Wikidata VIAF data being used in Wikipedia?
Tom,
On the Occitan Wikipedia they indicate the VIAF (and other) identifiers are shown from Wikidata. When a new identifier is added, this new identifier will be shown as well. When it is changed it is changed as well.
When information in both Wikidata and Wikipedia is the same, it would be good when the information is removed from Wikipedia (and shown from Wikidata). When there is a difference, the information needs to be verified and the resolution needs to go to Wikidata and sourced. In this way information will gradually become be improved and be available in more Wikipedias.
Yes you can concentrate your efforts on Wikipedia but it will only benefit one Wikipedia. It could do so much more good. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 October 2013 18:34, Tom Morris <tfmorris@gmail.commailto:tfmorris@gmail.com> wrote: If I want the most current/accurate VIAF ids, should I be looking at Wikidata or Wikipedia?
When I look at the EN Wikipedia pages for these two topics:
http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9094 http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9095
both of which have property P214, the VIAF identifer, the second displays the VIAF identifier, but the first doesn't and the one that does display the identifier appears to be using information from the embedded AuthorityControl template, not Wikidata.
My concern is that if the Wikidata VIAF data isn't being viewed/edit on Wikipedia, it can easily be invisibly wrong like the infamous Persondata template.
Tom
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Thanks for the feedback everyone. Not the unambiguous "Use this, it's the best source" answer I was hoping for, but I've got a better understanding of the issues.
Aubrey - The Italian approach sounds good (and I like the position on the page where the VIAF et al identifiers are rendered), but appears to still depend on the inclusion of the {{Controllo di autorità}} template which is missing in this case http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mujica Not sure if that's just a synchronization issue or something where people need to manually noticed that the data is available in VIAF and include it (seems like a job for a bot). Also, for Max's example, it only includes one of the two different VIAF identifiers: http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18391
GerardM - The Occitan approach sounds good in theory, but when I look at these two pages currently, they not only don't include the VIAF identifier, but they've got all kinds of other rendering problems. http://oc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Alberto_Mujica http://oc.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell
Max - I'm not familiar enough with the universe of possible technical options or the Wikipedians culture to really have a valuable opinion, but that sounds like it would probably be too aggressive from some of the comments that I've read along the lines of "not sure if I want to invest the time to learn how to edit things in a new (ie Wikidata) way."
Clearly data that's not visible isn't going to get reviewed or corrected. The trick is to make it visible in a way that makes the local editors still believe they have control.
Tom
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Tom,
On the Occitan Wikipedia they indicate the VIAF (and other) identifiers are shown from Wikidata. When a new identifier is added, this new identifier will be shown as well. When it is changed it is changed as well.
When information in both Wikidata and Wikipedia is the same, it would be good when the information is removed from Wikipedia (and shown from Wikidata). When there is a difference, the information needs to be verified and the resolution needs to go to Wikidata and sourced. In this way information will gradually become be improved and be available in more Wikipedias.
Yes you can concentrate your efforts on Wikipedia but it will only benefit one Wikipedia. It could do so much more good. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 October 2013 18:34, Tom Morris tfmorris@gmail.com wrote:
If I want the most current/accurate VIAF ids, should I be looking at Wikidata or Wikipedia?
When I look at the EN Wikipedia pages for these two topics:
http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9094 http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9095
both of which have property P214, the VIAF identifer, the second displays the VIAF identifier, but the first doesn't and the one that does display the identifier appears to be using information from the embedded AuthorityControl template, not Wikidata.
My concern is that if the Wikidata VIAF data isn't being viewed/edit on Wikipedia, it can easily be invisibly wrong like the infamous Persondata template.
Tom
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hoi,
Indeed, they do no longer include the VIAF identifier, they did in the past. Yes, there are all kinds of errors with the template used. However, from my perspective this is a Wikipedia with really limited resources making the best of what is on offer.
In the past I blogged about this very issue and in my opinion, we need people to work on localisable templates to be used in every project that cares to use them.
Remember, this IS a wiki, it does not have to be perfect, it does not even have to be good. What it does need is a lot of effort to make it as good as we can get it. This is not academia and it could do with help from the people from academia :)
Thanks, Gerard
On 17 October 2013 18:53, Tom Morris tfmorris@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the feedback everyone. Not the unambiguous "Use this, it's the best source" answer I was hoping for, but I've got a better understanding of the issues.
Aubrey - The Italian approach sounds good (and I like the position on the page where the VIAF et al identifiers are rendered), but appears to still depend on the inclusion of the {{Controllo di autorità}} template which is missing in this case http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mujica Not sure if that's just a synchronization issue or something where people need to manually noticed that the data is available in VIAF and include it (seems like a job for a bot). Also, for Max's example, it only includes one of the two different VIAF identifiers: http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18391
GerardM - The Occitan approach sounds good in theory, but when I look at these two pages currently, they not only don't include the VIAF identifier, but they've got all kinds of other rendering problems. http://oc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Alberto_Mujica http://oc.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell
Max - I'm not familiar enough with the universe of possible technical options or the Wikipedians culture to really have a valuable opinion, but that sounds like it would probably be too aggressive from some of the comments that I've read along the lines of "not sure if I want to invest the time to learn how to edit things in a new (ie Wikidata) way."
Clearly data that's not visible isn't going to get reviewed or corrected. The trick is to make it visible in a way that makes the local editors still believe they have control.
Tom
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Tom,
On the Occitan Wikipedia they indicate the VIAF (and other) identifiers are shown from Wikidata. When a new identifier is added, this new identifier will be shown as well. When it is changed it is changed as well.
When information in both Wikidata and Wikipedia is the same, it would be good when the information is removed from Wikipedia (and shown from Wikidata). When there is a difference, the information needs to be verified and the resolution needs to go to Wikidata and sourced. In this way information will gradually become be improved and be available in more Wikipedias.
Yes you can concentrate your efforts on Wikipedia but it will only benefit one Wikipedia. It could do so much more good. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 October 2013 18:34, Tom Morris tfmorris@gmail.com wrote:
If I want the most current/accurate VIAF ids, should I be looking at Wikidata or Wikipedia?
When I look at the EN Wikipedia pages for these two topics:
http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9094 http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9095
both of which have property P214, the VIAF identifer, the second displays the VIAF identifier, but the first doesn't and the one that does display the identifier appears to be using information from the embedded AuthorityControl template, not Wikidata.
My concern is that if the Wikidata VIAF data isn't being viewed/edit on Wikipedia, it can easily be invisibly wrong like the infamous Persondata template.
Tom
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l