Hi all;
I have read that every fact for every entity must include a reference. How is Wikidata going to deal with dead links? I hope we can work on this developing an archivist bot, to archive links into WebCitation or using Internet Archive. This is an old problem in all Wikipedias, and it is correctly addressed (the only example I know is French Wikipedia using Wikiwix.com to archive references and external links).
Regards, emijrp
Maybe this GSoC project (from 2011) will be relevant: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Kevin_Brown/ArchiveLinks/Design
Best regards, Helder
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 06:31, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all;
I have read that every fact for every entity must include a reference. How is Wikidata going to deal with dead links? I hope we can work on this developing an archivist bot, to archive links into WebCitation or using Internet Archive. This is an old problem in all Wikipedias, and it is correctly addressed (the only example I know is French Wikipedia using Wikiwix.com to archive references and external links).
Regards, emijrp
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 2:31 AM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
I have read that every fact for every entity must include a reference. How is Wikidata going to deal with dead links?
Does this mean that facts without web references will be ignored/disallowed? What about those that are only available in dead trees or some other non-web official record?
2012/4/1 Scott Beardsley sc0ttbeardsley@gmail.com
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 2:31 AM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
I have read that every fact for every entity must include a reference.
How
is Wikidata going to deal with dead links?
Does this mean that facts without web references will be ignored/disallowed? What about those that are only available in dead trees or some other non-web official record?
Dead trees references are allowed today at Wikipedia. Why not at Wikidata?
I mean archiving all the digital references.
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 2:27 PM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
Dead trees references are allowed today at Wikipedia. Why not at Wikidata?
Thanks, I wasn't sure of the policy for wikipedia. I hope this continues on into wikidata.
I mean archiving all the digital references.
Jeblad's suggestion to store (and potentially republish) the important fragment sounds reasonable (IANAL though). I wonder if the folks at archive.org might have some suggestions since they seem to have blazed a trail in this space.
Scott
US users can use archive.org, but foreigners might get into troubles. Remember that wikipedia/-data isn't US only. Both (?) Archive.org and webcitation removes conten on request, it shall be some tricks to automate it for catalogues and sites. Check it out.
Jeblad On 1. apr. 2012 23.00, "Scott Beardsley" sc0ttbeardsley@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 2:27 PM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
Dead trees references are allowed today at Wikipedia. Why not at
Wikidata?
Thanks, I wasn't sure of the policy for wikipedia. I hope this continues on into wikidata.
I mean archiving all the digital references.
Jeblad's suggestion to store (and potentially republish) the important fragment sounds reasonable (IANAL though). I wonder if the folks at archive.org might have some suggestions since they seem to have blazed a trail in this space.
Scott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
I have an idea that should be revised by lawyers.
So let's store these pages internally, with no public access (no copyvio yet). Then make a button for registered Wikimedians with confirmed e-mail address, protected by a captcha, that will e-mail the stored page. This is not a public redistribution. With pressing the button one must state that he/she will use the source for veryfing a fact or for correcting it, under some kind of fair use. This may perhaps qualify as an internal use within Wikimedia.
A similar example: I can easily check domain.hu for any Hungarian domain if it is free or taken. But if I want to query the detailed record for it, I must press a button and state that I need those data for private purpose, and I am not a machine. That's where my idea comes from.
I believe the point of wikipedia is so that anyone can edit the content? Its crowdsourcing so anyone should be able to edit the content. Correct me if I am wrong.
Quoting Bináris wikiposta@gmail.com:
I have an idea that should be revised by lawyers.
So let's store these pages internally, with no public access (no copyvio yet). Then make a button for registered Wikimedians with confirmed e-mail address, protected by a captcha, that will e-mail the stored page. This is not a public redistribution. With pressing the button one must state that he/she will use the source for veryfing a fact or for correcting it, under some kind of fair use. This may perhaps qualify as an internal use within Wikimedia.
A similar example: I can easily check domain.hu for any Hungarian domain if it is free or taken. But if I want to query the detailed record for it, I must press a button and state that I need those data for private purpose, and I am not a machine. That's where my idea comes from.
-- Bináris
Dead tree references will be oh so totally allowed :)
About archiving the digital ones: let's see. The Wikipedias in general do not solve this problem either, so it seems reasonable to assume that this is not a high requirement. Or, put other way: reliable sources seem to have rather stable URIs.
Archiving might still be interesting, but you mentioned a bunch of problems with this already.
Cheers, Denny
2012/4/2 Scott Beardsley sc0ttbeardsley@gmail.com
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 2:27 PM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
Dead trees references are allowed today at Wikipedia. Why not at
Wikidata?
Thanks, I wasn't sure of the policy for wikipedia. I hope this continues on into wikidata.
I mean archiving all the digital references.
Jeblad's suggestion to store (and potentially republish) the important fragment sounds reasonable (IANAL though). I wonder if the folks at archive.org might have some suggestions since they seem to have blazed a trail in this space.
Scott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l