Hey folks,
I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for an experimental template – {{Cite Q}} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Q – pulling bibliographic data from Wikidata:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_Se...
As you'll see, there is significant resistance against the broader usage of a template which exemplifies how structured bibliographic data in WIkidata could be reused across Wikimedia projects.
I personally think many of the concerns brought up by editors who support the deletion request are legitimate. As the editor who nominated the template for deletion notes: "The existence of the template is one thing; the advocacy to use this systematically is another one altogether. Anybody seeking that kind of systematic, radical change in Wikipedia must get consensus for that in Wikipedia first. Being BOLD is fine but has its limits, and this kind of thing is one of them."
I find myself in agreement with this statement, which I believe applies to much more than just bibliographic data from Wikidata: it's about virtually any kind of data and contents reused across projects governed by different policies and expectations. I think what's happening is that an experimental template – primarily meant to showcase how data reuse from Wikidata *might *work – is perceived as a norm for how references *will* or *should* work in the future.
If you're involved in the WikiCite initiative, and are considering participating in the deletion discussion, I encourage you to keep a constructive tone and understand the perspective of people who are concerned about the use and misuse of this template.
As one of the WikiCite organizers, I see the success of the initiative as coming from rich, highly curated data that other projects will want to reuse, and from technical and usability advances for all contributors, not from giving an impression that the goal is to use Wikidata to subvert how other Wikimedia communities do their job. I'll post a note explaining my perspective.
Dario
Thanks Dario.
May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course open to everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of the English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely negatively. Please be considerate.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dario Taraborelli < dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hey folks,
I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for an experimental template – {{Cite Q}} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Q – pulling bibliographic data from Wikidata:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_ discussion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q
As you'll see, there is significant resistance against the broader usage of a template which exemplifies how structured bibliographic data in WIkidata could be reused across Wikimedia projects.
I personally think many of the concerns brought up by editors who support the deletion request are legitimate. As the editor who nominated the template for deletion notes: "The existence of the template is one thing; the advocacy to use this systematically is another one altogether. Anybody seeking that kind of systematic, radical change in Wikipedia must get consensus for that in Wikipedia first. Being BOLD is fine but has its limits, and this kind of thing is one of them."
I find myself in agreement with this statement, which I believe applies to much more than just bibliographic data from Wikidata: it's about virtually any kind of data and contents reused across projects governed by different policies and expectations. I think what's happening is that an experimental template – primarily meant to showcase how data reuse from Wikidata *might *work – is perceived as a norm for how references *will* or *should* work in the future.
If you're involved in the WikiCite initiative, and are considering participating in the deletion discussion, I encourage you to keep a constructive tone and understand the perspective of people who are concerned about the use and misuse of this template.
As one of the WikiCite organizers, I see the success of the initiative as coming from rich, highly curated data that other projects will want to reuse, and from technical and usability advances for all contributors, not from giving an impression that the goal is to use Wikidata to subvert how other Wikimedia communities do their job. I'll post a note explaining my perspective.
Dario
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Yes Yaroslav, I totally agree with you (and don't worry, I wouldn't dream of commenting there). On the other hand, this is extremely relevant for the Wikidata mailing list and I am really grateful to Dario for posting about it, because I had no idea. I stopped following that "2017 state of affairs" thing when it first got ugly back in January. I suggest that in cases where (as Dario suggests) highly structured and superior data from Wikidata *could* be used in Wikipedia, that we create some sort of property to indicate this on Wikidata, along the lines of the P31->Q17362920 we use to show that a certain Wikipedia has a pending merge problem. If the information is ever used on that Wikipedia (either with or without that "Cite-Q" template) then the property for that specific Wikipedia should be removed. Ideally this property could be used as a qualifier at the statement level (so e.g. for paintings, a statement on a collection property for a painting that it was stolen and rediscovered, or on a significant event property that it was restored and reattributed, or that it was owned by the Hitler museum and stored it the depot in Linz during WWII, etc).
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Dario.
May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course open to everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of the English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely negatively. Please be considerate.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dario Taraborelli < dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hey folks,
I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for an experimental template – {{Cite Q}} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Q – pulling bibliographic data from Wikidata:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discus sion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q
As you'll see, there is significant resistance against the broader usage of a template which exemplifies how structured bibliographic data in WIkidata could be reused across Wikimedia projects.
I personally think many of the concerns brought up by editors who support the deletion request are legitimate. As the editor who nominated the template for deletion notes: "The existence of the template is one thing; the advocacy to use this systematically is another one altogether. Anybody seeking that kind of systematic, radical change in Wikipedia must get consensus for that in Wikipedia first. Being BOLD is fine but has its limits, and this kind of thing is one of them."
I find myself in agreement with this statement, which I believe applies to much more than just bibliographic data from Wikidata: it's about virtually any kind of data and contents reused across projects governed by different policies and expectations. I think what's happening is that an experimental template – primarily meant to showcase how data reuse from Wikidata *might *work – is perceived as a norm for how references *will* or *should* work in the future.
If you're involved in the WikiCite initiative, and are considering participating in the deletion discussion, I encourage you to keep a constructive tone and understand the perspective of people who are concerned about the use and misuse of this template.
As one of the WikiCite organizers, I see the success of the initiative as coming from rich, highly curated data that other projects will want to reuse, and from technical and usability advances for all contributors, not from giving an impression that the goal is to use Wikidata to subvert how other Wikimedia communities do their job. I'll post a note explaining my perspective.
Dario
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
There is also a more general and very useful discussion of the same issues at this page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_State_of_affairs
(check recent edits, last 5 days or so).
Since it is not related to any decision-making (at least not yet) I would expect it is easier to comment there, though some editors are really hostile (I was at some point labeled as a "part of Wikidata crowd" in a negative sense and had to point out that I have 15 times as many edits on the English Wikipedia than the editor who was attacking me).
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Yes Yaroslav, I totally agree with you (and don't worry, I wouldn't dream of commenting there). On the other hand, this is extremely relevant for the Wikidata mailing list and I am really grateful to Dario for posting about it, because I had no idea. I stopped following that "2017 state of affairs" thing when it first got ugly back in January. I suggest that in cases where (as Dario suggests) highly structured and superior data from Wikidata *could* be used in Wikipedia, that we create some sort of property to indicate this on Wikidata, along the lines of the P31->Q17362920 we use to show that a certain Wikipedia has a pending merge problem. If the information is ever used on that Wikipedia (either with or without that "Cite-Q" template) then the property for that specific Wikipedia should be removed. Ideally this property could be used as a qualifier at the statement level (so e.g. for paintings, a statement on a collection property for a painting that it was stolen and rediscovered, or on a significant event property that it was restored and reattributed, or that it was owned by the Hitler museum and stored it the depot in Linz during WWII, etc).
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Dario.
May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course open to everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of the English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely negatively. Please be considerate.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dario Taraborelli < dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hey folks,
I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for an experimental template – {{Cite Q}} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Q – pulling bibliographic data from Wikidata:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discus sion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q
As you'll see, there is significant resistance against the broader usage of a template which exemplifies how structured bibliographic data in WIkidata could be reused across Wikimedia projects.
I personally think many of the concerns brought up by editors who support the deletion request are legitimate. As the editor who nominated the template for deletion notes: "The existence of the template is one thing; the advocacy to use this systematically is another one altogether. Anybody seeking that kind of systematic, radical change in Wikipedia must get consensus for that in Wikipedia first. Being BOLD is fine but has its limits, and this kind of thing is one of them."
I find myself in agreement with this statement, which I believe applies to much more than just bibliographic data from Wikidata: it's about virtually any kind of data and contents reused across projects governed by different policies and expectations. I think what's happening is that an experimental template – primarily meant to showcase how data reuse from Wikidata *might *work – is perceived as a norm for how references *will* or *should* work in the future.
If you're involved in the WikiCite initiative, and are considering participating in the deletion discussion, I encourage you to keep a constructive tone and understand the perspective of people who are concerned about the use and misuse of this template.
As one of the WikiCite organizers, I see the success of the initiative as coming from rich, highly curated data that other projects will want to reuse, and from technical and usability advances for all contributors, not from giving an impression that the goal is to use Wikidata to subvert how other Wikimedia communities do their job. I'll post a note explaining my perspective.
Dario
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
Yes the hostility is so general that it is pointless to try to discuss anything with those anti-WD people at this point. We can better disregard such discussions and focus on ways to help any Wikipedia editors who are eager to tap into WD resources, such as enabling people to easily add high quality references to Wikipedia in cases of articles that currently have zero references, for example. I think that was the original idea behind the cite-Q thing before the implementation got completely derailed, wasn't it? The main question in this type of situation, namely where Wikidata has something truly useful that Wikipedia lacks, is how to indicate this to potential editor/readers at the Wikipedia-level? Maybe some sort of basic gadget that indicates the number of statements in the associated item?
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
There is also a more general and very useful discussion of the same issues at this page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_ State_of_affairs
(check recent edits, last 5 days or so).
Since it is not related to any decision-making (at least not yet) I would expect it is easier to comment there, though some editors are really hostile (I was at some point labeled as a "part of Wikidata crowd" in a negative sense and had to point out that I have 15 times as many edits on the English Wikipedia than the editor who was attacking me).
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Yes Yaroslav, I totally agree with you (and don't worry, I wouldn't dream of commenting there). On the other hand, this is extremely relevant for the Wikidata mailing list and I am really grateful to Dario for posting about it, because I had no idea. I stopped following that "2017 state of affairs" thing when it first got ugly back in January. I suggest that in cases where (as Dario suggests) highly structured and superior data from Wikidata *could* be used in Wikipedia, that we create some sort of property to indicate this on Wikidata, along the lines of the P31->Q17362920 we use to show that a certain Wikipedia has a pending merge problem. If the information is ever used on that Wikipedia (either with or without that "Cite-Q" template) then the property for that specific Wikipedia should be removed. Ideally this property could be used as a qualifier at the statement level (so e.g. for paintings, a statement on a collection property for a painting that it was stolen and rediscovered, or on a significant event property that it was restored and reattributed, or that it was owned by the Hitler museum and stored it the depot in Linz during WWII, etc).
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Dario.
May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course open to everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of the English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely negatively. Please be considerate.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dario Taraborelli < dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hey folks,
I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for an experimental template – {{Cite Q}} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Q – pulling bibliographic data from Wikidata:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discus sion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q
As you'll see, there is significant resistance against the broader usage of a template which exemplifies how structured bibliographic data in WIkidata could be reused across Wikimedia projects.
I personally think many of the concerns brought up by editors who support the deletion request are legitimate. As the editor who nominated the template for deletion notes: "The existence of the template is one thing; the advocacy to use this systematically is another one altogether. Anybody seeking that kind of systematic, radical change in Wikipedia must get consensus for that in Wikipedia first. Being BOLD is fine but has its limits, and this kind of thing is one of them."
I find myself in agreement with this statement, which I believe applies to much more than just bibliographic data from Wikidata: it's about virtually any kind of data and contents reused across projects governed by different policies and expectations. I think what's happening is that an experimental template – primarily meant to showcase how data reuse from Wikidata *might *work – is perceived as a norm for how references *will* or *should* work in the future.
If you're involved in the WikiCite initiative, and are considering participating in the deletion discussion, I encourage you to keep a constructive tone and understand the perspective of people who are concerned about the use and misuse of this template.
As one of the WikiCite organizers, I see the success of the initiative as coming from rich, highly curated data that other projects will want to reuse, and from technical and usability advances for all contributors, not from giving an impression that the goal is to use Wikidata to subvert how other Wikimedia communities do their job. I'll post a note explaining my perspective.
Dario
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
No, I actually disagree. There is a number of English Wikipedia users who advocate banning Wikidata completely (I mean, not banning it as a project, but banning any direct interaction with Wikidata). Some of them are reasonable, some of them are not reasonable. Some of their arguments have merit, other arguments do not (for instance, one argument frequently repeated is that everything what shows up on a Wikipedia page should be in the code of the page - whereas it is not true already for many years for pages using complex templates such as railway lines etc). If we just ignore this, they open an RfC at some point and ban Wikidata. Also, discussing arguments help to convince those who are sane that at least something from Wikidata can be eventually used. There are of course always people who are centered on the Default Language Wikipedia and do not care about other projects, but completely ignoring the argument would not help here.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Yes the hostility is so general that it is pointless to try to discuss anything with those anti-WD people at this point. We can better disregard such discussions and focus on ways to help any Wikipedia editors who are eager to tap into WD resources, such as enabling people to easily add high quality references to Wikipedia in cases of articles that currently have zero references, for example. I think that was the original idea behind the cite-Q thing before the implementation got completely derailed, wasn't it? The main question in this type of situation, namely where Wikidata has something truly useful that Wikipedia lacks, is how to indicate this to potential editor/readers at the Wikipedia-level? Maybe some sort of basic gadget that indicates the number of statements in the associated item?
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
There is also a more general and very useful discussion of the same issues at this page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_S tate_of_affairs
(check recent edits, last 5 days or so).
Since it is not related to any decision-making (at least not yet) I would expect it is easier to comment there, though some editors are really hostile (I was at some point labeled as a "part of Wikidata crowd" in a negative sense and had to point out that I have 15 times as many edits on the English Wikipedia than the editor who was attacking me).
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Yes Yaroslav, I totally agree with you (and don't worry, I wouldn't dream of commenting there). On the other hand, this is extremely relevant for the Wikidata mailing list and I am really grateful to Dario for posting about it, because I had no idea. I stopped following that "2017 state of affairs" thing when it first got ugly back in January. I suggest that in cases where (as Dario suggests) highly structured and superior data from Wikidata *could* be used in Wikipedia, that we create some sort of property to indicate this on Wikidata, along the lines of the P31->Q17362920 we use to show that a certain Wikipedia has a pending merge problem. If the information is ever used on that Wikipedia (either with or without that "Cite-Q" template) then the property for that specific Wikipedia should be removed. Ideally this property could be used as a qualifier at the statement level (so e.g. for paintings, a statement on a collection property for a painting that it was stolen and rediscovered, or on a significant event property that it was restored and reattributed, or that it was owned by the Hitler museum and stored it the depot in Linz during WWII, etc).
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Dario.
May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course open to everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of the English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely negatively. Please be considerate.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dario Taraborelli < dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hey folks,
I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for an experimental template – {{Cite Q}} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Q – pulling bibliographic data from Wikidata:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discus sion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q
As you'll see, there is significant resistance against the broader usage of a template which exemplifies how structured bibliographic data in WIkidata could be reused across Wikimedia projects.
I personally think many of the concerns brought up by editors who support the deletion request are legitimate. As the editor who nominated the template for deletion notes: "The existence of the template is one thing; the advocacy to use this systematically is another one altogether. Anybody seeking that kind of systematic, radical change in Wikipedia must get consensus for that in Wikipedia first. Being BOLD is fine but has its limits, and this kind of thing is one of them."
I find myself in agreement with this statement, which I believe applies to much more than just bibliographic data from Wikidata: it's about virtually any kind of data and contents reused across projects governed by different policies and expectations. I think what's happening is that an experimental template – primarily meant to showcase how data reuse from Wikidata *might *work – is perceived as a norm for how references *will* or *should* work in the future.
If you're involved in the WikiCite initiative, and are considering participating in the deletion discussion, I encourage you to keep a constructive tone and understand the perspective of people who are concerned about the use and misuse of this template.
As one of the WikiCite organizers, I see the success of the initiative as coming from rich, highly curated data that other projects will want to reuse, and from technical and usability advances for all contributors, not from giving an impression that the goal is to use Wikidata to subvert how other Wikimedia communities do their job. I'll post a note explaining my perspective.
Dario
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
I don’t know what you disagree with but personally I investd a lot of time in those discussions in frwiki, and I keep a lot of bitterness over the process. This seems like a wierdly very very similar redux of those discussions with the exact same arguments, and I’m done with all this. I’m also done with the « it’s not the use by itself who is the problem it’s the advocacy » who is very close to the one of conspiracy theory (a group of outsider want to steal the control of your wiki and invade it) who is a serious attack on the good faith of everyone borderline to push everything on fire. Enough with this.
2017-09-20 11:41 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com:
No, I actually disagree. There is a number of English Wikipedia users who advocate banning Wikidata completely (I mean, not banning it as a project, but banning any direct interaction with Wikidata). Some of them are reasonable, some of them are not reasonable. Some of their arguments have merit, other arguments do not (for instance, one argument frequently repeated is that everything what shows up on a Wikipedia page should be in the code of the page - whereas it is not true already for many years for pages using complex templates such as railway lines etc). If we just ignore this, they open an RfC at some point and ban Wikidata. Also, discussing arguments help to convince those who are sane that at least something from Wikidata can be eventually used. There are of course always people who are centered on the Default Language Wikipedia and do not care about other projects, but completely ignoring the argument would not help here.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Yes the hostility is so general that it is pointless to try to discuss anything with those anti-WD people at this point. We can better disregard such discussions and focus on ways to help any Wikipedia editors who are eager to tap into WD resources, such as enabling people to easily add high quality references to Wikipedia in cases of articles that currently have zero references, for example. I think that was the original idea behind the cite-Q thing before the implementation got completely derailed, wasn't it? The main question in this type of situation, namely where Wikidata has something truly useful that Wikipedia lacks, is how to indicate this to potential editor/readers at the Wikipedia-level? Maybe some sort of basic gadget that indicates the number of statements in the associated item?
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
There is also a more general and very useful discussion of the same issues at this page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_S tate_of_affairs
(check recent edits, last 5 days or so).
Since it is not related to any decision-making (at least not yet) I would expect it is easier to comment there, though some editors are really hostile (I was at some point labeled as a "part of Wikidata crowd" in a negative sense and had to point out that I have 15 times as many edits on the English Wikipedia than the editor who was attacking me).
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Yes Yaroslav, I totally agree with you (and don't worry, I wouldn't dream of commenting there). On the other hand, this is extremely relevant for the Wikidata mailing list and I am really grateful to Dario for posting about it, because I had no idea. I stopped following that "2017 state of affairs" thing when it first got ugly back in January. I suggest that in cases where (as Dario suggests) highly structured and superior data from Wikidata *could* be used in Wikipedia, that we create some sort of property to indicate this on Wikidata, along the lines of the P31->Q17362920 we use to show that a certain Wikipedia has a pending merge problem. If the information is ever used on that Wikipedia (either with or without that "Cite-Q" template) then the property for that specific Wikipedia should be removed. Ideally this property could be used as a qualifier at the statement level (so e.g. for paintings, a statement on a collection property for a painting that it was stolen and rediscovered, or on a significant event property that it was restored and reattributed, or that it was owned by the Hitler museum and stored it the depot in Linz during WWII, etc).
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Dario.
May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course open to everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of the English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely negatively. Please be considerate.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dario Taraborelli < dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hey folks,
I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for an experimental template – {{Cite Q}} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Q – pulling bibliographic data from Wikidata:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discus sion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q
As you'll see, there is significant resistance against the broader usage of a template which exemplifies how structured bibliographic data in WIkidata could be reused across Wikimedia projects.
I personally think many of the concerns brought up by editors who support the deletion request are legitimate. As the editor who nominated the template for deletion notes: "The existence of the template is one thing; the advocacy to use this systematically is another one altogether. Anybody seeking that kind of systematic, radical change in Wikipedia must get consensus for that in Wikipedia first. Being BOLD is fine but has its limits, and this kind of thing is one of them."
I find myself in agreement with this statement, which I believe applies to much more than just bibliographic data from Wikidata: it's about virtually any kind of data and contents reused across projects governed by different policies and expectations. I think what's happening is that an experimental template – primarily meant to showcase how data reuse from Wikidata *might *work – is perceived as a norm for how references *will* or *should* work in the future.
If you're involved in the WikiCite initiative, and are considering participating in the deletion discussion, I encourage you to keep a constructive tone and understand the perspective of people who are concerned about the use and misuse of this template.
As one of the WikiCite organizers, I see the success of the initiative as coming from rich, highly curated data that other projects will want to reuse, and from technical and usability advances for all contributors, not from giving an impression that the goal is to use Wikidata to subvert how other Wikimedia communities do their job. I'll post a note explaining my perspective.
Dario
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
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
I don’t know what you disagree with but personally I investd a lot of time in those discussions in frwiki, and I keep a lot of bitterness over the process. This seems like a wierdly very very similar redux of those discussions with the exact same arguments, and I’m done with all this. I’m also done with the « it’s not the use by itself who is the problem it’s the advocacy » who is very close to the one of conspiracy theory (a group of outsider want to steal the control of your wiki and invade it) who is a serious attack on the good faith of everyone borderline to push everything on fire. Enough with this.
Since this is indeed the same discussions over and over again would it maybe be helpful to create a central page that lines out our thinking and arguments about them so you can point there instead of doing this over and over again?
Cheers Lydia
If my experience in correct, this would not stop anything. There are usually very basic arguments about data duplication and data reuse, ease of maintenance and so on, stuffs that should be on an introduction about Wikidata and Wikipedia.
But this won’t be enough and some people will push stuff more and more and demand more and more stuffs, and don’t care about those arguments. « Fake News » are in the air, and the Truth is not stopping them. Improvements in watchlist integration, edition on the client wiki and so on are stuffs which resulted of those discussion. There was a war on frwiki to slow down Wikidata infobox deployment enough to lead deployment that will need decades.
And in the end, I’m afraid this will not be enough because some people have a problem with the very idea of using data external of « their » wiki, a sensation of loosing control and will try to react by any mean, a fear to collaborate with foreigners …
2017-09-20 13:14 GMT+02:00 Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
I don’t know what you disagree with but personally I investd a lot of
time
in those discussions in frwiki, and I keep a lot of bitterness over the process. This seems like a wierdly very very similar redux of those discussions with the exact same arguments, and I’m done with all this.
I’m
also done with the « it’s not the use by itself who is the problem it’s
the
advocacy » who is very close to the one of conspiracy theory (a group of outsider want to steal the control of your wiki and invade it) who is a serious attack on the good faith of everyone borderline to push
everything
on fire. Enough with this.
Since this is indeed the same discussions over and over again would it maybe be helpful to create a central page that lines out our thinking and arguments about them so you can point there instead of doing this over and over again?
Cheers Lydia
-- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
If my experience in correct, this would not stop anything. There are usually very basic arguments about data duplication and data reuse, ease of maintenance and so on, stuffs that should be on an introduction about Wikidata and Wikipedia.
But this won’t be enough and some people will push stuff more and more and demand more and more stuffs, and don’t care about those arguments. « Fake News » are in the air, and the Truth is not stopping them. Improvements in watchlist integration, edition on the client wiki and so on are stuffs which resulted of those discussion. There was a war on frwiki to slow down Wikidata infobox deployment enough to lead deployment that will need decades.
And in the end, I’m afraid this will not be enough because some people have a problem with the very idea of using data external of « their » wiki, a sensation of loosing control and will try to react by any mean, a fear to collaborate with foreigners …
Absolutely. But maybe it will help take off pressure and anger from you all and be seen by all the bystanders in the discussions which I believe is the silent majority.
Cheers Lydia
Jane – I think you hit it on the nail.
I don't know exactly how this should be designed (some user research seems in order before coming up with any solution). The problem to me is how to design subscription/synchronization mechanisms giving people freedom to choose which data to reuse or not and which "fixes" to send upstream to a centralized knowledge base. I believe this is how the relation between Wikidata and other projects was originally conceived: something like this would allow structured data to be broadly reused without neglecting the very legitimate concerns, policies and expectations of data consumers.
Yaroslav – agreed, my mail was mostly a heads up about a problem that's an instance of something much bigger the Wikidata community needs to think about.
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Yes Yaroslav, I totally agree with you (and don't worry, I wouldn't dream of commenting there). On the other hand, this is extremely relevant for the Wikidata mailing list and I am really grateful to Dario for posting about it, because I had no idea. I stopped following that "2017 state of affairs" thing when it first got ugly back in January. I suggest that in cases where (as Dario suggests) highly structured and superior data from Wikidata *could* be used in Wikipedia, that we create some sort of property to indicate this on Wikidata, along the lines of the P31->Q17362920 we use to show that a certain Wikipedia has a pending merge problem. If the information is ever used on that Wikipedia (either with or without that "Cite-Q" template) then the property for that specific Wikipedia should be removed. Ideally this property could be used as a qualifier at the statement level (so e.g. for paintings, a statement on a collection property for a painting that it was stolen and rediscovered, or on a significant event property that it was restored and reattributed, or that it was owned by the Hitler museum and stored it the depot in Linz during WWII, etc).
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Dario.
May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course open to everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of the English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely negatively. Please be considerate.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dario Taraborelli < dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hey folks,
I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for an experimental template – {{Cite Q}} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Q – pulling bibliographic data from Wikidata:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discus sion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q
As you'll see, there is significant resistance against the broader usage of a template which exemplifies how structured bibliographic data in WIkidata could be reused across Wikimedia projects.
I personally think many of the concerns brought up by editors who support the deletion request are legitimate. As the editor who nominated the template for deletion notes: "The existence of the template is one thing; the advocacy to use this systematically is another one altogether. Anybody seeking that kind of systematic, radical change in Wikipedia must get consensus for that in Wikipedia first. Being BOLD is fine but has its limits, and this kind of thing is one of them."
I find myself in agreement with this statement, which I believe applies to much more than just bibliographic data from Wikidata: it's about virtually any kind of data and contents reused across projects governed by different policies and expectations. I think what's happening is that an experimental template – primarily meant to showcase how data reuse from Wikidata *might *work – is perceived as a norm for how references *will* or *should* work in the future.
If you're involved in the WikiCite initiative, and are considering participating in the deletion discussion, I encourage you to keep a constructive tone and understand the perspective of people who are concerned about the use and misuse of this template.
As one of the WikiCite organizers, I see the success of the initiative as coming from rich, highly curated data that other projects will want to reuse, and from technical and usability advances for all contributors, not from giving an impression that the goal is to use Wikidata to subvert how other Wikimedia communities do their job. I'll post a note explaining my perspective.
Dario
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
Lydia, I would be happy to help work on your suggestion, which page do you think this info should be added to? Should it be a new page or info added to an existing one?
Thanks
On 21 September 2017 at 01:22, Dario Taraborelli <dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Jane – I think you hit it on the nail.
I don't know exactly how this should be designed (some user research seems in order before coming up with any solution). The problem to me is how to design subscription/synchronization mechanisms giving people freedom to choose which data to reuse or not and which "fixes" to send upstream to a centralized knowledge base. I believe this is how the relation between Wikidata and other projects was originally conceived: something like this would allow structured data to be broadly reused without neglecting the very legitimate concerns, policies and expectations of data consumers.
Yaroslav – agreed, my mail was mostly a heads up about a problem that's an instance of something much bigger the Wikidata community needs to think about.
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Yes Yaroslav, I totally agree with you (and don't worry, I wouldn't dream of commenting there). On the other hand, this is extremely relevant for the Wikidata mailing list and I am really grateful to Dario for posting about it, because I had no idea. I stopped following that "2017 state of affairs" thing when it first got ugly back in January. I suggest that in cases where (as Dario suggests) highly structured and superior data from Wikidata *could* be used in Wikipedia, that we create some sort of property to indicate this on Wikidata, along the lines of the P31->Q17362920 we use to show that a certain Wikipedia has a pending merge problem. If the information is ever used on that Wikipedia (either with or without that "Cite-Q" template) then the property for that specific Wikipedia should be removed. Ideally this property could be used as a qualifier at the statement level (so e.g. for paintings, a statement on a collection property for a painting that it was stolen and rediscovered, or on a significant event property that it was restored and reattributed, or that it was owned by the Hitler museum and stored it the depot in Linz during WWII, etc).
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Dario.
May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course open to everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of the English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely negatively. Please be considerate.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dario Taraborelli < dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hey folks,
I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for an experimental template – {{Cite Q}} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Q – pulling bibliographic data from Wikidata:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discus sion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q
As you'll see, there is significant resistance against the broader usage of a template which exemplifies how structured bibliographic data in WIkidata could be reused across Wikimedia projects.
I personally think many of the concerns brought up by editors who support the deletion request are legitimate. As the editor who nominated the template for deletion notes: "The existence of the template is one thing; the advocacy to use this systematically is another one altogether. Anybody seeking that kind of systematic, radical change in Wikipedia must get consensus for that in Wikipedia first. Being BOLD is fine but has its limits, and this kind of thing is one of them."
I find myself in agreement with this statement, which I believe applies to much more than just bibliographic data from Wikidata: it's about virtually any kind of data and contents reused across projects governed by different policies and expectations. I think what's happening is that an experimental template – primarily meant to showcase how data reuse from Wikidata *might *work – is perceived as a norm for how references *will* or *should* work in the future.
If you're involved in the WikiCite initiative, and are considering participating in the deletion discussion, I encourage you to keep a constructive tone and understand the perspective of people who are concerned about the use and misuse of this template.
As one of the WikiCite organizers, I see the success of the initiative as coming from rich, highly curated data that other projects will want to reuse, and from technical and usability advances for all contributors, not from giving an impression that the goal is to use Wikidata to subvert how other Wikimedia communities do their job. I'll post a note explaining my perspective.
Dario
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
--
*Dario Taraborelli *Director, Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter http://twitter.com/readermeter
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:46 AM, john cummings mrjohncummings@gmail.com wrote:
Lydia, I would be happy to help work on your suggestion, which page do you think this info should be added to? Should it be a new page or info added to an existing one?
<3 Maybe as a subpage of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:FAQ like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:FAQ/Freebase ?
Cheers Lydia
Well I firmly believe most of the friction is just basic "not invented here" sentiments, which we have seen since Commons was started. Maybe there is some central page there that we can follow which is dealing with the same basic issues? As I recall one of the biggest problems in the beginning was the semi-automatic deletion of PD Commons files lacking proper copyright tags when the uploaders weren't informed and worse, not having the deletion show up in Wikipedia watchlists when the file was used by other editors in various language editions of Wikipedia projects. I don't know of any other issues that turned acrimonious in the early days of Commons, but this new "Wikidata state of affairs conversation" (if you can call it that) is pretty much the same problem.
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lydia Pintscher < lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:46 AM, john cummings mrjohncummings@gmail.com wrote:
Lydia, I would be happy to help work on your suggestion, which page do
you
think this info should be added to? Should it be a new page or info
added to
an existing one?
<3 Maybe as a subpage of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:FAQ like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:FAQ/Freebase ?
Cheers Lydia
-- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Lydia, so something called something like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/ Help:FAQ/Wikipedia_infoboxes ?
Thanks
John
On 21 September 2017 at 10:09, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Well I firmly believe most of the friction is just basic "not invented here" sentiments, which we have seen since Commons was started. Maybe there is some central page there that we can follow which is dealing with the same basic issues? As I recall one of the biggest problems in the beginning was the semi-automatic deletion of PD Commons files lacking proper copyright tags when the uploaders weren't informed and worse, not having the deletion show up in Wikipedia watchlists when the file was used by other editors in various language editions of Wikipedia projects. I don't know of any other issues that turned acrimonious in the early days of Commons, but this new "Wikidata state of affairs conversation" (if you can call it that) is pretty much the same problem.
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lydia Pintscher < lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:46 AM, john cummings mrjohncummings@gmail.com wrote:
Lydia, I would be happy to help work on your suggestion, which page do
you
think this info should be added to? Should it be a new page or info
added to
an existing one?
<3 Maybe as a subpage of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:FAQ like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:FAQ/Freebase ?
Cheers Lydia
-- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
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 Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:31 AM, john cummings mrjohncummings@gmail.com wrote:
Lydia, so something called something like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:FAQ/Wikipedia_infoboxes ?
How about "Wikidata in Wikimedia projects" or similar? Because we're seeing similar questions in other projects like Wiktionary as well.
Cheers Lydia
OK, I was unsure how much overlap in general information there would be between different implementations on different projects but I guess its quite a lot :)
2017-09-21 10:37 GMT+02:00 Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:31 AM, john cummings mrjohncummings@gmail.com wrote:
Lydia, so something called something like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:FAQ/Wikipedia_infoboxes ?
How about "Wikidata in Wikimedia projects" or similar? Because we're seeing similar questions in other projects like Wiktionary as well.
Cheers Lydia
-- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Dario Taraborelli < dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org> wrote:
I don't know exactly how this should be designed (some user research seems in order before coming up with any solution). The problem to me is how to design subscription/synchronization mechanisms giving people freedom to choose which data to reuse or not and which "fixes" to send upstream to a centralized knowledge base. I believe this is how the relation between Wikidata and other projects was originally conceived: something like this would allow structured data to be broadly reused without neglecting the very legitimate concerns, policies and expectations of data consumers.
One of the main issues is when using the wikitext editor on Wikipedia. Most of the editors complain about unreadable references ({{cite Q|Q29581755}}), but in order to be readable, the wikitext editor should have some sort of mechanism to display more information about the item. I don't know if with the current Wikitext editor it is doable, however I think it is worth exploring.
Cheers, Micru
It is unsurprising that editors find such references unreadable, they are. When working on a wp article with, in some cases, several hundred references, one needs mnemonic tools to keep from confusing them. Requiring a legible refname or Harvard ref would go far to addressing this, though it might not relieve all concerns.
LeadSongDog
On Sep 21, 2017, at 6:10 AM, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote: I don't know exactly how this should be designed (some user research seems in order before coming up with any solution). The problem to me is how to design subscription/synchronization mechanisms giving people freedom to choose which data to reuse or not and which "fixes" to send upstream to a centralized knowledge base. I believe this is how the relation between Wikidata and other projects was originally conceived: something like this would allow structured data to be broadly reused without neglecting the very legitimate concerns, policies and expectations of data consumers.
One of the main issues is when using the wikitext editor on Wikipedia. Most of the editors complain about unreadable references ({{cite Q|Q29581755}}), but in order to be readable, the wikitext editor should have some sort of mechanism to display more information about the item. I don't know if with the current Wikitext editor it is doable, however I think it is worth exploring.
Cheers, Micru _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On 21 September 2017 at 20:09, LeadSongDog leadsong@webname.com wrote:
When working on a wp article with, in some cases, several hundred references, one needs mnemonic tools to keep from confusing them. Requiring a legible refname or Harvard ref would go far to addressing this
The template's documentation already recommends using a meaningful reference name (there is as yet no technical method of "enforcing" such good practice) .
Of course, those attacking the template and calling for its deletion didn't mention that, and nor did they include one when they gave examples.
Not "enforcing", but it's certainly possible to show an error message for missing parameters. Many other cite templates do so.
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 21, 2017, at 4:20 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 21 September 2017 at 20:09, LeadSongDog leadsong@webname.com wrote:
When working on a wp article with, in some cases, several hundred references, one needs mnemonic tools to keep from confusing them. Requiring a legible refname or Harvard ref would go far to addressing this
The template's documentation already recommends using a meaningful reference name (there is as yet no technical method of "enforcing" such good practice) .
Of course, those attacking the template and calling for its deletion didn't mention that, and nor did they include one when they gave examples.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On 22 September 2017 at 01:45, LeadSongDog leadsong@webname.com wrote:
Not "enforcing", but it's certainly possible to show an error message for missing parameters. Many other cite templates do so.
The subject under discussion was "a legible refname"; that's not a parameter of the template and no cite templates currently warn if a refname is missing, let alone not "legible".
My point, Andy, was that some parameters can be required, such as CS1 requiring the parameter Title. Further, the Ref parameter can be automated, as with ref=harv.
On Sep 22, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 22 September 2017 at 01:45, LeadSongDog leadsong@webname.com wrote:
Not "enforcing", but it's certainly possible to show an error message for missing parameters. Many other cite templates do so.
The subject under discussion was "a legible refname"; that's not a parameter of the template and no cite templates currently warn if a refname is missing, let alone not "legible".
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
It's not just other wikis where cryptic template invocations can be an issue.
I sometimes think that on Wikidata itself, with templates {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}}, we could use a bot to add the label of the property or item in the default language of the page as an extra parameter to the template.
(If I remember correctly, both the P and Q templates permit the presence of such a extra, undisplayed parameter).
For one thing, this would make discussions significantly easier to interpret for anyone who is following the diffs as raw wikitext.
It also might help with people arguing at cross-purposes, basing their arguments on the label of a property or item in their own language, which is what is visible to them because it is their language labels that the {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}} templates show them -- but may be different to what the {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}} templates show to other participants who have a different mother tongue. Often both sides think their arguments are right and obvious, based on the different native labels that the P and Q templates are showing them. If there was a label added in a single language, even if displayed only in the wikitext of the page, they might sometimes realise this sooner.
So, for both of these reasons, I think there can be a case for human-meaningful "explanatory" or "identificatory" parameter-slots in templates, even if they are never displayed in actual page-output.
A bot-added Harvardesque-ref courtesy field in {{Cite_Q}} could be exactly another such example.
-- James.
On 23/09/2017 05:50, LeadSongDog wrote:
My point, Andy, was that some parameters can be required, such as CS1 requiring the parameter Title. Further, the Ref parameter can be automated, as with ref=harv.
On Sep 22, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 22 September 2017 at 01:45, LeadSongDog leadsong@webname.com wrote:
Not "enforcing", but it's certainly possible to show an error message for missing parameters. Many other cite templates do so.
The subject under discussion was "a legible refname"; that's not a parameter of the template and no cite templates currently warn if a refname is missing, let alone not "legible".
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
Hi all
I'm putting aside time next week to write up an information page on Wikidata for contributors to other Wikimedia projects who want to know more about/may have concerns about reusing Wikidata on other projects. I hope this will help people having the same discussions over and over and allay many of the concerns of users from other projects.
I'm starting off with a list of common arguments for not using data from Wikidata and working my way back from there, please do take a look and brain dump
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:John_Cummings/Wikidata_in_Wikimedia_proje...
Thanks very much
John
On 23 September 2017 at 14:34, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
It's not just other wikis where cryptic template invocations can be an issue.
I sometimes think that on Wikidata itself, with templates {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}}, we could use a bot to add the label of the property or item in the default language of the page as an extra parameter to the template.
(If I remember correctly, both the P and Q templates permit the presence of such a extra, undisplayed parameter).
For one thing, this would make discussions significantly easier to interpret for anyone who is following the diffs as raw wikitext.
It also might help with people arguing at cross-purposes, basing their arguments on the label of a property or item in their own language, which is what is visible to them because it is their language labels that the {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}} templates show them -- but may be different to what the {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}} templates show to other participants who have a different mother tongue. Often both sides think their arguments are right and obvious, based on the different native labels that the P and Q templates are showing them. If there was a label added in a single language, even if displayed only in the wikitext of the page, they might sometimes realise this sooner.
So, for both of these reasons, I think there can be a case for human-meaningful "explanatory" or "identificatory" parameter-slots in templates, even if they are never displayed in actual page-output.
A bot-added Harvardesque-ref courtesy field in {{Cite_Q}} could be exactly another such example.
-- James.
On 23/09/2017 05:50, LeadSongDog wrote:
My point, Andy, was that some parameters can be required, such as CS1 requiring the parameter Title. Further, the Ref parameter can be automated, as with ref=harv.
On Sep 22, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 22 September 2017 at 01:45, LeadSongDog leadsong@webname.com wrote:
Not "enforcing", but it's certainly possible to show an error message for missing parameters. Many other cite templates do so.
The subject under discussion was "a legible refname"; that's not a parameter of the template and no cite templates currently warn if a refname is missing, let alone not "legible".
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Equally, the page may usefully serve to inform contributors to Wikidata about legitimate concerns from other projects that have arisen out of test integrations, that there is a need to do more to address.
-- James.
On 23/09/2017 22:18, john cummings wrote:
Hi all
I'm putting aside time next week to write up an information page on Wikidata for contributors to other Wikimedia projects who want to know more about/may have concerns about reusing Wikidata on other projects. I hope this will help people having the same discussions over and over and allay many of the concerns of users from other projects.
I'm starting off with a list of common arguments for not using data from Wikidata and working my way back from there, please do take a look and brain dump
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:John_Cummings/Wikidata_in_Wikimedia_proje...
Thanks very much
John
On 23 September 2017 at 14:34, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
It's not just other wikis where cryptic template invocations can be an issue.
I sometimes think that on Wikidata itself, with templates {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}}, we could use a bot to add the label of the property or item in the default language of the page as an extra parameter to the template.
(If I remember correctly, both the P and Q templates permit the presence of such a extra, undisplayed parameter).
For one thing, this would make discussions significantly easier to interpret for anyone who is following the diffs as raw wikitext.
It also might help with people arguing at cross-purposes, basing their arguments on the label of a property or item in their own language, which is what is visible to them because it is their language labels that the {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}} templates show them -- but may be different to what the {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}} templates show to other participants who have a different mother tongue. Often both sides think their arguments are right and obvious, based on the different native labels that the P and Q templates are showing them. If there was a label added in a single language, even if displayed only in the wikitext of the page, they might sometimes realise this sooner.
So, for both of these reasons, I think there can be a case for human-meaningful "explanatory" or "identificatory" parameter-slots in templates, even if they are never displayed in actual page-output.
A bot-added Harvardesque-ref courtesy field in {{Cite_Q}} could be exactly another such example.
-- James.
On 23/09/2017 05:50, LeadSongDog wrote:
My point, Andy, was that some parameters can be required, such as CS1 requiring the parameter Title. Further, the Ref parameter can be automated, as with ref=harv.
On Sep 22, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 22 September 2017 at 01:45, LeadSongDog leadsong@webname.com wrote:
Not "enforcing", but it's certainly possible to show an error message for missing parameters. Many other cite templates do so.
The subject under discussion was "a legible refname"; that's not a parameter of the template and no cite templates currently warn if a refname is missing, let alone not "legible".
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
Absolutely, I don't want to push anything under the rug. I'll put a section in there for issues and what the Wikidata community is planning to do about them.
On 24 September 2017 at 01:00, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Equally, the page may usefully serve to inform contributors to Wikidata about legitimate concerns from other projects that have arisen out of test integrations, that there is a need to do more to address.
-- James.
On 23/09/2017 22:18, john cummings wrote:
Hi all
I'm putting aside time next week to write up an information page on Wikidata for contributors to other Wikimedia projects who want to know more about/may have concerns about reusing Wikidata on other projects. I hope this will help people having the same discussions over and over and allay many of the concerns of users from other projects.
I'm starting off with a list of common arguments for not using data from Wikidata and working my way back from there, please do take a look and brain dump
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:John_Cummings/Wikidata_in _Wikimedia_projects
Thanks very much
John
On 23 September 2017 at 14:34, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
It's not just other wikis where cryptic template invocations can be an
issue.
I sometimes think that on Wikidata itself, with templates {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}}, we could use a bot to add the label of the property or item in the default language of the page as an extra parameter to the template.
(If I remember correctly, both the P and Q templates permit the presence of such a extra, undisplayed parameter).
For one thing, this would make discussions significantly easier to interpret for anyone who is following the diffs as raw wikitext.
It also might help with people arguing at cross-purposes, basing their arguments on the label of a property or item in their own language, which is what is visible to them because it is their language labels that the {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}} templates show them -- but may be different to what the {{P|...}} and {{Q|...}} templates show to other participants who have a different mother tongue. Often both sides think their arguments are right and obvious, based on the different native labels that the P and Q templates are showing them. If there was a label added in a single language, even if displayed only in the wikitext of the page, they might sometimes realise this sooner.
So, for both of these reasons, I think there can be a case for human-meaningful "explanatory" or "identificatory" parameter-slots in templates, even if they are never displayed in actual page-output.
A bot-added Harvardesque-ref courtesy field in {{Cite_Q}} could be exactly another such example.
-- James.
On 23/09/2017 05:50, LeadSongDog wrote:
My point, Andy, was that some parameters can be required, such as CS1
requiring the parameter Title. Further, the Ref parameter can be automated, as with ref=harv.
On Sep 22, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 22 September 2017 at 01:45, LeadSongDog leadsong@webname.com wrote:
Not "enforcing", but it's certainly possible to show an error message for missing parameters. Many other cite templates do so.
The subject under discussion was "a legible refname"; that's not a parameter of the template and no cite templates currently warn if a refname is missing, let alone not "legible".
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On 19 September 2017 at 19:18, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote:
I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for an experimental template – {{Cite Q}} – pulling bibliographic data from Wikidata:
Closed as "no consensus"; it's worth reading the full comment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussio...
While Wikidata certainly has concerns to deal with about accuracy and vandalism, I think we need to push back against this mindset that Wikipedia works perfectly while Wikidata is this unregulated free-for-all. I've run into editors on en.wp objecting to a Wikidata infobox displaying the very same information that was unsourced in that Wikipedia article for nearly a decade. Both are a work in progress, both can do better, and these should not be barriers to progress or integration.
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 19 September 2017 at 19:18, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote:
I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for
an
experimental template – {{Cite Q}} – pulling bibliographic data from Wikidata:
Closed as "no consensus"; it's worth reading the full comment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templa tes_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_15&curid=55240730& diff=803445497&oldid=803444684
-- Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "wikicite-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.
I would say the arguments of users who voted to delete the template have merit, and the template was kept (and not even banished to the draft space) under the condition that attemps will be made to reduce the issues.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
While Wikidata certainly has concerns to deal with about accuracy and vandalism, I think we need to push back against this mindset that Wikipedia works perfectly while Wikidata is this unregulated free-for-all. I've run into editors on en.wp objecting to a Wikidata infobox displaying the very same information that was unsourced in that Wikipedia article for nearly a decade. Both are a work in progress, both can do better, and these should not be barriers to progress or integration.
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 19 September 2017 at 19:18, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote:
I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for
an
experimental template – {{Cite Q}} – pulling bibliographic data from Wikidata:
Closed as "no consensus"; it's worth reading the full comment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templa tes_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_15&curid=55240730&diff =803445497&oldid=803444684
-- Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "wikicite-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
To be sure, some of the arguments had merit - better sourcing needed, BLP, user interface improvements, etc.
But I was astonished to see many remarks amounting to, “Never Wikidata.”
A significant number saw EN.WP as its own exceptional isolated sustainable entity that would only be polluted or weakened by decentralizing control with Wikidata-generated content. Or that the sharing in the sum of all human knowledge (and therefore, citations) was of no interest.
That’s quite sad to see.
-Andrew
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
I would say the arguments of users who voted to delete the template have merit, and the template was kept (and not even banished to the draft space) under the condition that attemps will be made to reduce the issues.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
While Wikidata certainly has concerns to deal with about accuracy and vandalism, I think we need to push back against this mindset that Wikipedia works perfectly while Wikidata is this unregulated free-for-all. I've run into editors on en.wp objecting to a Wikidata infobox displaying the very same information that was unsourced in that Wikipedia article for nearly a decade. Both are a work in progress, both can do better, and these should not be barriers to progress or integration.
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 19 September 2017 at 19:18, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote:
I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion
for an
experimental template – {{Cite Q}} – pulling bibliographic data from Wikidata:
Closed as "no consensus"; it's worth reading the full comment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templa tes_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_15&curid=55240730&diff =803445497&oldid=803444684
-- Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "wikicite-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.
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
2017-10-03 17:39 GMT+02:00 Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com:
To be sure, some of the arguments had merit - better sourcing needed, BLP, user interface improvements, etc.
But I was astonished to see many remarks amounting to, “Never Wikidata.”
A significant number saw EN.WP as its own exceptional isolated sustainable entity that would only be polluted or weakened by decentralizing control with Wikidata-generated content. Or that the sharing in the sum of all human knowledge (and therefore, citations) was of no interest.
That’s quite sad to see.
Sorry to be that guy, but this unfortunately comes from a long way.
What saddens me is that this kind of attitude is blatantly offending to all the non-English-speaking Wikimedians who are working their arses out to share their part of the sum of human knowledge - and doing it, let me stress it, *playing by the rules*. And my greatest fear is that most of them would just don't care about this.
L.
Well, most (I guess) English Wikipedia active users do not speak any languages other than English, and they are not in a position to appreciate that there could be Wikimedia projects beyond the English Wikipedia worthwhile to talk about. I remember once the Signpost asked a user who was indefinitely blocked on the English Wikivoyage to write the article on Wikivoyage. The article of course contained all the standard prejudices but in particular it said that the only Wikivoyage was the English Wikivoyage. On the talk page I objected, and the answer was: Who cares about other languages?
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
To be sure, some of the arguments had merit - better sourcing needed, BLP, user interface improvements, etc.
But I was astonished to see many remarks amounting to, “Never Wikidata.”
A significant number saw EN.WP as its own exceptional isolated sustainable entity that would only be polluted or weakened by decentralizing control with Wikidata-generated content. Or that the sharing in the sum of all human knowledge (and therefore, citations) was of no interest.
That’s quite sad to see.
-Andrew
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
I would say the arguments of users who voted to delete the template have merit, and the template was kept (and not even banished to the draft space) under the condition that attemps will be made to reduce the issues.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
While Wikidata certainly has concerns to deal with about accuracy and vandalism, I think we need to push back against this mindset that Wikipedia works perfectly while Wikidata is this unregulated free-for-all. I've run into editors on en.wp objecting to a Wikidata infobox displaying the very same information that was unsourced in that Wikipedia article for nearly a decade. Both are a work in progress, both can do better, and these should not be barriers to progress or integration.
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 19 September 2017 at 19:18, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote:
I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion
for an
experimental template – {{Cite Q}} – pulling bibliographic data from Wikidata:
Closed as "no consensus"; it's worth reading the full comment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templa tes_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_15&curid=55240730&diff =803445497&oldid=803444684
-- Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "wikicite-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.
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
Crossed with Luca, making exact same point.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Well, most (I guess) English Wikipedia active users do not speak any languages other than English, and they are not in a position to appreciate that there could be Wikimedia projects beyond the English Wikipedia worthwhile to talk about. I remember once the Signpost asked a user who was indefinitely blocked on the English Wikivoyage to write the article on Wikivoyage. The article of course contained all the standard prejudices but in particular it said that the only Wikivoyage was the English Wikivoyage. On the talk page I objected, and the answer was: Who cares about other languages?
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
To be sure, some of the arguments had merit - better sourcing needed, BLP, user interface improvements, etc.
But I was astonished to see many remarks amounting to, “Never Wikidata.”
A significant number saw EN.WP as its own exceptional isolated sustainable entity that would only be polluted or weakened by decentralizing control with Wikidata-generated content. Or that the sharing in the sum of all human knowledge (and therefore, citations) was of no interest.
That’s quite sad to see.
-Andrew
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
I would say the arguments of users who voted to delete the template have merit, and the template was kept (and not even banished to the draft space) under the condition that attemps will be made to reduce the issues.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Robert Fernandez <wikigamaliel@gmail.com
wrote:
While Wikidata certainly has concerns to deal with about accuracy and vandalism, I think we need to push back against this mindset that Wikipedia works perfectly while Wikidata is this unregulated free-for-all. I've run into editors on en.wp objecting to a Wikidata infobox displaying the very same information that was unsourced in that Wikipedia article for nearly a decade. Both are a work in progress, both can do better, and these should not be barriers to progress or integration.
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Andy Mabbett < andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
On 19 September 2017 at 19:18, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote:
I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion
for an
experimental template – {{Cite Q}} – pulling bibliographic data from Wikidata:
Closed as "no consensus"; it's worth reading the full comment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templa tes_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_15&curid=55240730&diff =803445497&oldid=803444684
-- Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "wikicite-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.
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
I think this is why it has escalated now, rather than a few years ago. It is only now that the mono-lingual English Wikipedians are being confronted with Wikidata labels via mobile access and they just have not had much exposure until now. The debate centers on infoboxes, but the resentment comes from a feeling of helplessness caused by complete ignorance of how to "fix" mistakes they see popping up in either an infobox or on mobile. I think that the communication about Wikidata has been fairly good consistently, but this is not enough for people who didn't listen "because it's about other languages I don't speak". Now it has grown to be something that is on their radar. I think that is a good thing.
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Well, most (I guess) English Wikipedia active users do not speak any languages other than English, and they are not in a position to appreciate that there could be Wikimedia projects beyond the English Wikipedia worthwhile to talk about. I remember once the Signpost asked a user who was indefinitely blocked on the English Wikivoyage to write the article on Wikivoyage. The article of course contained all the standard prejudices but in particular it said that the only Wikivoyage was the English Wikivoyage. On the talk page I objected, and the answer was: Who cares about other languages?
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
To be sure, some of the arguments had merit - better sourcing needed, BLP, user interface improvements, etc.
But I was astonished to see many remarks amounting to, “Never Wikidata.”
A significant number saw EN.WP as its own exceptional isolated sustainable entity that would only be polluted or weakened by decentralizing control with Wikidata-generated content. Or that the sharing in the sum of all human knowledge (and therefore, citations) was of no interest.
That’s quite sad to see.
-Andrew
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
I would say the arguments of users who voted to delete the template have merit, and the template was kept (and not even banished to the draft space) under the condition that attemps will be made to reduce the issues.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Robert Fernandez <wikigamaliel@gmail.com
wrote:
While Wikidata certainly has concerns to deal with about accuracy and vandalism, I think we need to push back against this mindset that Wikipedia works perfectly while Wikidata is this unregulated free-for-all. I've run into editors on en.wp objecting to a Wikidata infobox displaying the very same information that was unsourced in that Wikipedia article for nearly a decade. Both are a work in progress, both can do better, and these should not be barriers to progress or integration.
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Andy Mabbett < andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
On 19 September 2017 at 19:18, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote:
I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion
for an
experimental template – {{Cite Q}} – pulling bibliographic data from Wikidata:
Closed as "no consensus"; it's worth reading the full comment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templa tes_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_15&curid=55240730&diff =803445497&oldid=803444684
-- Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "wikicite-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.
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
Yes, this sounds like correct. When Wikidata was about interwiki links, nobody cared because nobody cared about interwiki links. Then it started to be about the templates, but still nobody cared because nobody noticed. Now they did, and there are already some users whoc want to "ban" Wikidata.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is why it has escalated now, rather than a few years ago. It is only now that the mono-lingual English Wikipedians are being confronted with Wikidata labels via mobile access and they just have not had much exposure until now. The debate centers on infoboxes, but the resentment comes from a feeling of helplessness caused by complete ignorance of how to "fix" mistakes they see popping up in either an infobox or on mobile. I think that the communication about Wikidata has been fairly good consistently, but this is not enough for people who didn't listen "because it's about other languages I don't speak". Now it has grown to be something that is on their radar. I think that is a good thing.
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Well, most (I guess) English Wikipedia active users do not speak any languages other than English, and they are not in a position to appreciate that there could be Wikimedia projects beyond the English Wikipedia worthwhile to talk about. I remember once the Signpost asked a user who was indefinitely blocked on the English Wikivoyage to write the article on Wikivoyage. The article of course contained all the standard prejudices but in particular it said that the only Wikivoyage was the English Wikivoyage. On the talk page I objected, and the answer was: Who cares about other languages?
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
To be sure, some of the arguments had merit - better sourcing needed, BLP, user interface improvements, etc.
But I was astonished to see many remarks amounting to, “Never Wikidata.”
A significant number saw EN.WP as its own exceptional isolated sustainable entity that would only be polluted or weakened by decentralizing control with Wikidata-generated content. Or that the sharing in the sum of all human knowledge (and therefore, citations) was of no interest.
That’s quite sad to see.
-Andrew
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
I would say the arguments of users who voted to delete the template have merit, and the template was kept (and not even banished to the draft space) under the condition that attemps will be made to reduce the issues.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Robert Fernandez < wikigamaliel@gmail.com> wrote:
While Wikidata certainly has concerns to deal with about accuracy and vandalism, I think we need to push back against this mindset that Wikipedia works perfectly while Wikidata is this unregulated free-for-all. I've run into editors on en.wp objecting to a Wikidata infobox displaying the very same information that was unsourced in that Wikipedia article for nearly a decade. Both are a work in progress, both can do better, and these should not be barriers to progress or integration.
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Andy Mabbett < andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
On 19 September 2017 at 19:18, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote:
> I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for an > experimental template – {{Cite Q}} – pulling bibliographic data from > Wikidata:
Closed as "no consensus"; it's worth reading the full comment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templa tes_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_15&curid=55240730&diff =803445497&oldid=803444684
-- Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "wikicite-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.
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
I think infoboxes and Wikidata crosses the line from invisible to highly visible, which is why we are seeing a more in-depth discussion now. Plus, the whole area of infoboxes (even without Wikidata) has been a battleground.
In the Facebook group Wikipedia Weekly, one of the folks from pt.wp mentioned that they had a whole summit about Wikipedia and Wikidata integration, with infoboxes at the center of discussion:
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Edit-a-thon/Atividades_em_portu...
João Alexandre Peschanski: ”Amidst intense discussions on the use of automated infoboxes on Wikipedia in Portuguese, we held yesterday a Wikidata Lab, specifically on how to build these automated infoboxes and took this as an opportunity to calmly discuss benefits and pitfalls of these infoboxes as is. We will hold a second Wikidata Lab in November on preparing automated lists.”
-Andrew
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, this sounds like correct. When Wikidata was about interwiki links, nobody cared because nobody cared about interwiki links. Then it started to be about the templates, but still nobody cared because nobody noticed. Now they did, and there are already some users whoc want to "ban" Wikidata.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is why it has escalated now, rather than a few years ago. It is only now that the mono-lingual English Wikipedians are being confronted with Wikidata labels via mobile access and they just have not had much exposure until now. The debate centers on infoboxes, but the resentment comes from a feeling of helplessness caused by complete ignorance of how to "fix" mistakes they see popping up in either an infobox or on mobile. I think that the communication about Wikidata has been fairly good consistently, but this is not enough for people who didn't listen "because it's about other languages I don't speak". Now it has grown to be something that is on their radar. I think that is a good thing.
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Well, most (I guess) English Wikipedia active users do not speak any languages other than English, and they are not in a position to appreciate that there could be Wikimedia projects beyond the English Wikipedia worthwhile to talk about. I remember once the Signpost asked a user who was indefinitely blocked on the English Wikivoyage to write the article on Wikivoyage. The article of course contained all the standard prejudices but in particular it said that the only Wikivoyage was the English Wikivoyage. On the talk page I objected, and the answer was: Who cares about other languages?
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
To be sure, some of the arguments had merit - better sourcing needed, BLP, user interface improvements, etc.
But I was astonished to see many remarks amounting to, “Never Wikidata.”
A significant number saw EN.WP as its own exceptional isolated sustainable entity that would only be polluted or weakened by decentralizing control with Wikidata-generated content. Or that the sharing in the sum of all human knowledge (and therefore, citations) was of no interest.
That’s quite sad to see.
-Andrew
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
I would say the arguments of users who voted to delete the template have merit, and the template was kept (and not even banished to the draft space) under the condition that attemps will be made to reduce the issues.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Robert Fernandez < wikigamaliel@gmail.com> wrote:
While Wikidata certainly has concerns to deal with about accuracy and vandalism, I think we need to push back against this mindset that Wikipedia works perfectly while Wikidata is this unregulated free-for-all. I've run into editors on en.wp objecting to a Wikidata infobox displaying the very same information that was unsourced in that Wikipedia article for nearly a decade. Both are a work in progress, both can do better, and these should not be barriers to progress or integration.
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Andy Mabbett < andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> On 19 September 2017 at 19:18, Dario Taraborelli > dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote: > > > I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination > discussion for an > > experimental template – {{Cite Q}} – pulling bibliographic data > from > > Wikidata: > > Closed as "no consensus"; it's worth reading the full comment: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templa > tes_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_15&curid=55240730&diff > =803445497&oldid=803444684 > > -- > Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite > Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "wikicite-discuss" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > send an email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org. > >
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
Hoi, One way to bring the different view points together is to consider a halfway house (with benefits of its own). Currently there is this opinion that a binary issue exists; you either import from Wikidata or you have your data at your project.
This is not necessary; what could be done is to have a value where the local data is fixed and shown and in the background there is a link to the statement in Wikidata. When the two values are the same, everything is fine. When the two values differ, there is an issue at either the local project or at Wikidata.
A bot or some functionality highlights on an article level or on a project level or on a Wikimedia level where there are differences. This can be an extremely useful tool against vandalism. When the difference is legitimate; someone died, a town has a new mayor, whatever typically this one statement is not the only value that needs fixing. Articles need to be adapted, other statements need to be changed..
Crucially when changes are made based on a difference, the relevance of sources is higher.
An approach like this gives no higher relevance to either Wikidata, the local project(s) and it adds a level of trust to the totality of what we do. It does allow any project that wants to, to import data directly from Wikidata for specific fields of knowledge where there is not the manpower to maintain all the diffs. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 October 2017 at 22:42, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I think infoboxes and Wikidata crosses the line from invisible to highly visible, which is why we are seeing a more in-depth discussion now. Plus, the whole area of infoboxes (even without Wikidata) has been a battleground.
In the Facebook group Wikipedia Weekly, one of the folks from pt.wp mentioned that they had a whole summit about Wikipedia and Wikidata integration, with infoboxes at the center of discussion:
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Edit-a-thon/ Atividades_em_portugu%C3%AAs/Wikidata_Lab_I
João Alexandre Peschanski: ”Amidst intense discussions on the use of automated infoboxes on Wikipedia in Portuguese, we held yesterday a Wikidata Lab, specifically on how to build these automated infoboxes and took this as an opportunity to calmly discuss benefits and pitfalls of these infoboxes as is. We will hold a second Wikidata Lab in November on preparing automated lists.”
-Andrew
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, this sounds like correct. When Wikidata was about interwiki links, nobody cared because nobody cared about interwiki links. Then it started to be about the templates, but still nobody cared because nobody noticed. Now they did, and there are already some users whoc want to "ban" Wikidata.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is why it has escalated now, rather than a few years ago. It is only now that the mono-lingual English Wikipedians are being confronted with Wikidata labels via mobile access and they just have not had much exposure until now. The debate centers on infoboxes, but the resentment comes from a feeling of helplessness caused by complete ignorance of how to "fix" mistakes they see popping up in either an infobox or on mobile. I think that the communication about Wikidata has been fairly good consistently, but this is not enough for people who didn't listen "because it's about other languages I don't speak". Now it has grown to be something that is on their radar. I think that is a good thing.
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Well, most (I guess) English Wikipedia active users do not speak any languages other than English, and they are not in a position to appreciate that there could be Wikimedia projects beyond the English Wikipedia worthwhile to talk about. I remember once the Signpost asked a user who was indefinitely blocked on the English Wikivoyage to write the article on Wikivoyage. The article of course contained all the standard prejudices but in particular it said that the only Wikivoyage was the English Wikivoyage. On the talk page I objected, and the answer was: Who cares about other languages?
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
To be sure, some of the arguments had merit - better sourcing needed, BLP, user interface improvements, etc.
But I was astonished to see many remarks amounting to, “Never Wikidata.”
A significant number saw EN.WP as its own exceptional isolated sustainable entity that would only be polluted or weakened by decentralizing control with Wikidata-generated content. Or that the sharing in the sum of all human knowledge (and therefore, citations) was of no interest.
That’s quite sad to see.
-Andrew
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
I would say the arguments of users who voted to delete the template have merit, and the template was kept (and not even banished to the draft space) under the condition that attemps will be made to reduce the issues.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Robert Fernandez < wikigamaliel@gmail.com> wrote:
> While Wikidata certainly has concerns to deal with about accuracy > and vandalism, I think we need to push back against this mindset that > Wikipedia works perfectly while Wikidata is this unregulated free-for-all. > I've run into editors on en.wp objecting to a Wikidata infobox displaying > the very same information that was unsourced in that Wikipedia article for > nearly a decade. Both are a work in progress, both can do better, and > these should not be barriers to progress or integration. > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Andy Mabbett < > andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: > >> On 19 September 2017 at 19:18, Dario Taraborelli >> dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote: >> >> > I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination >> discussion for an >> > experimental template – {{Cite Q}} – pulling bibliographic data >> from >> > Wikidata: >> >> Closed as "no consensus"; it's worth reading the full comment: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templa >> tes_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_15&curid=55240730&diff >> =803445497&oldid=803444684 >> >> -- >> Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite >> Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "wikicite-discuss" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> send an email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org. >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Great, GerardM and Wikidatans,
Let's build on this.
Scott
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, One way to bring the different view points together is to consider a halfway house (with benefits of its own). Currently there is this opinion that a binary issue exists; you either import from Wikidata or you have your data at your project.
This is not necessary; what could be done is to have a value where the local data is fixed and shown and in the background there is a link to the statement in Wikidata. When the two values are the same, everything is fine. When the two values differ, there is an issue at either the local project or at Wikidata.
A bot or some functionality highlights on an article level or on a project level or on a Wikimedia level where there are differences. This can be an extremely useful tool against vandalism. When the difference is legitimate; someone died, a town has a new mayor, whatever typically this one statement is not the only value that needs fixing. Articles need to be adapted, other statements need to be changed..
Crucially when changes are made based on a difference, the relevance of sources is higher.
An approach like this gives no higher relevance to either Wikidata, the local project(s) and it adds a level of trust to the totality of what we do. It does allow any project that wants to, to import data directly from Wikidata for specific fields of knowledge where there is not the manpower to maintain all the diffs. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 October 2017 at 22:42, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I think infoboxes and Wikidata crosses the line from invisible to highly visible, which is why we are seeing a more in-depth discussion now. Plus, the whole area of infoboxes (even without Wikidata) has been a battleground.
In the Facebook group Wikipedia Weekly, one of the folks from pt.wp mentioned that they had a whole summit about Wikipedia and Wikidata integration, with infoboxes at the center of discussion:
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Edit-a-thon/Ati vidades_em_portugu%C3%AAs/Wikidata_Lab_I
João Alexandre Peschanski: ”Amidst intense discussions on the use of automated infoboxes on Wikipedia in Portuguese, we held yesterday a Wikidata Lab, specifically on how to build these automated infoboxes and took this as an opportunity to calmly discuss benefits and pitfalls of these infoboxes as is. We will hold a second Wikidata Lab in November on preparing automated lists.”
-Andrew
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, this sounds like correct. When Wikidata was about interwiki links, nobody cared because nobody cared about interwiki links. Then it started to be about the templates, but still nobody cared because nobody noticed. Now they did, and there are already some users whoc want to "ban" Wikidata.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is why it has escalated now, rather than a few years ago. It is only now that the mono-lingual English Wikipedians are being confronted with Wikidata labels via mobile access and they just have not had much exposure until now. The debate centers on infoboxes, but the resentment comes from a feeling of helplessness caused by complete ignorance of how to "fix" mistakes they see popping up in either an infobox or on mobile. I think that the communication about Wikidata has been fairly good consistently, but this is not enough for people who didn't listen "because it's about other languages I don't speak". Now it has grown to be something that is on their radar. I think that is a good thing.
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Well, most (I guess) English Wikipedia active users do not speak any languages other than English, and they are not in a position to appreciate that there could be Wikimedia projects beyond the English Wikipedia worthwhile to talk about. I remember once the Signpost asked a user who was indefinitely blocked on the English Wikivoyage to write the article on Wikivoyage. The article of course contained all the standard prejudices but in particular it said that the only Wikivoyage was the English Wikivoyage. On the talk page I objected, and the answer was: Who cares about other languages?
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
To be sure, some of the arguments had merit - better sourcing needed, BLP, user interface improvements, etc.
But I was astonished to see many remarks amounting to, “Never Wikidata.”
A significant number saw EN.WP as its own exceptional isolated sustainable entity that would only be polluted or weakened by decentralizing control with Wikidata-generated content. Or that the sharing in the sum of all human knowledge (and therefore, citations) was of no interest.
That’s quite sad to see.
-Andrew
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
> I would say the arguments of users who voted to delete the template > have merit, and the template was kept (and not even banished to the draft > space) under the condition that attemps will be made to reduce the issues. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Robert Fernandez < > wikigamaliel@gmail.com> wrote: > >> While Wikidata certainly has concerns to deal with about accuracy >> and vandalism, I think we need to push back against this mindset that >> Wikipedia works perfectly while Wikidata is this unregulated free-for-all. >> I've run into editors on en.wp objecting to a Wikidata infobox displaying >> the very same information that was unsourced in that Wikipedia article for >> nearly a decade. Both are a work in progress, both can do better, and >> these should not be barriers to progress or integration. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Andy Mabbett < >> andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 19 September 2017 at 19:18, Dario Taraborelli >>> dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote: >>> >>> > I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination >>> discussion for an >>> > experimental template – {{Cite Q}} – pulling bibliographic data >>> from >>> > Wikidata: >>> >>> Closed as "no consensus"; it's worth reading the full comment: >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templa >>> tes_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_15&curid=55240730&diff >>> =803445497&oldid=803444684 >>> >>> -- >>> Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite >>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "wikicite-discuss" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>> send an email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org. >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
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
Hi Dario and All,
I was glad to hear in this Wikimedia 2030 panel - https://youtu.be/Gdr2F8aB9y0 from August 2017 (accessible from here - https://scott-macleod.blogspot.com/2017/09/bee-orchid- claire-young-young-scots.html) - (and with the Executive Director of the WMF on this panel, Katherine!) the mention of Wikimedia thinking of/planning for developing in 7,000 languages, and also glad to hear Magnus Manske talking of MediaWiki coming together further ( https://scott-macleod.blogspot.com/2017/09/wikimedia-and- world-university-and.html). If a version of an experimental template goes forward, in what ways will it anticipate all 7,099 living languages, as another expression of the sum of all human knowledge?
Best regards, Scott
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Scott MacLeod < worlduniversityandschool@gmail.com> wrote:
Great, GerardM and Wikidatans,
Let's build on this.
Scott
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, One way to bring the different view points together is to consider a halfway house (with benefits of its own). Currently there is this opinion that a binary issue exists; you either import from Wikidata or you have your data at your project.
This is not necessary; what could be done is to have a value where the local data is fixed and shown and in the background there is a link to the statement in Wikidata. When the two values are the same, everything is fine. When the two values differ, there is an issue at either the local project or at Wikidata.
A bot or some functionality highlights on an article level or on a project level or on a Wikimedia level where there are differences. This can be an extremely useful tool against vandalism. When the difference is legitimate; someone died, a town has a new mayor, whatever typically this one statement is not the only value that needs fixing. Articles need to be adapted, other statements need to be changed..
Crucially when changes are made based on a difference, the relevance of sources is higher.
An approach like this gives no higher relevance to either Wikidata, the local project(s) and it adds a level of trust to the totality of what we do. It does allow any project that wants to, to import data directly from Wikidata for specific fields of knowledge where there is not the manpower to maintain all the diffs. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 October 2017 at 22:42, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I think infoboxes and Wikidata crosses the line from invisible to highly visible, which is why we are seeing a more in-depth discussion now. Plus, the whole area of infoboxes (even without Wikidata) has been a battleground.
In the Facebook group Wikipedia Weekly, one of the folks from pt.wp mentioned that they had a whole summit about Wikipedia and Wikidata integration, with infoboxes at the center of discussion:
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Edit-a-thon/Ati vidades_em_portugu%C3%AAs/Wikidata_Lab_I
João Alexandre Peschanski: ”Amidst intense discussions on the use of automated infoboxes on Wikipedia in Portuguese, we held yesterday a Wikidata Lab, specifically on how to build these automated infoboxes and took this as an opportunity to calmly discuss benefits and pitfalls of these infoboxes as is. We will hold a second Wikidata Lab in November on preparing automated lists.”
-Andrew
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, this sounds like correct. When Wikidata was about interwiki links, nobody cared because nobody cared about interwiki links. Then it started to be about the templates, but still nobody cared because nobody noticed. Now they did, and there are already some users whoc want to "ban" Wikidata.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is why it has escalated now, rather than a few years ago. It is only now that the mono-lingual English Wikipedians are being confronted with Wikidata labels via mobile access and they just have not had much exposure until now. The debate centers on infoboxes, but the resentment comes from a feeling of helplessness caused by complete ignorance of how to "fix" mistakes they see popping up in either an infobox or on mobile. I think that the communication about Wikidata has been fairly good consistently, but this is not enough for people who didn't listen "because it's about other languages I don't speak". Now it has grown to be something that is on their radar. I think that is a good thing.
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Well, most (I guess) English Wikipedia active users do not speak any languages other than English, and they are not in a position to appreciate that there could be Wikimedia projects beyond the English Wikipedia worthwhile to talk about. I remember once the Signpost asked a user who was indefinitely blocked on the English Wikivoyage to write the article on Wikivoyage. The article of course contained all the standard prejudices but in particular it said that the only Wikivoyage was the English Wikivoyage. On the talk page I objected, and the answer was: Who cares about other languages?
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
> To be sure, some of the arguments had merit - better sourcing > needed, BLP, user interface improvements, etc. > > But I was astonished to see many remarks amounting to, “Never > Wikidata.” > > A significant number saw EN.WP as its own exceptional isolated > sustainable entity that would only be polluted or weakened by > decentralizing control with Wikidata-generated content. Or that the sharing > in the sum of all human knowledge (and therefore, citations) was of no > interest. > > That’s quite sad to see. > > -Andrew > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com > wrote: > >> I would say the arguments of users who voted to delete the template >> have merit, and the template was kept (and not even banished to the draft >> space) under the condition that attemps will be made to reduce the issues. >> >> Cheers >> Yaroslav >> >> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Robert Fernandez < >> wikigamaliel@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> While Wikidata certainly has concerns to deal with about accuracy >>> and vandalism, I think we need to push back against this mindset that >>> Wikipedia works perfectly while Wikidata is this unregulated free-for-all. >>> I've run into editors on en.wp objecting to a Wikidata infobox displaying >>> the very same information that was unsourced in that Wikipedia article for >>> nearly a decade. Both are a work in progress, both can do better, and >>> these should not be barriers to progress or integration. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Andy Mabbett < >>> andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 19 September 2017 at 19:18, Dario Taraborelli >>>> dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote: >>>> >>>> > I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination >>>> discussion for an >>>> > experimental template – {{Cite Q}} – pulling bibliographic data >>>> from >>>> > Wikidata: >>>> >>>> Closed as "no consensus"; it's worth reading the full comment: >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templa >>>> tes_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_15&curid=55240730&diff >>>> =803445497&oldid=803444684 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite >>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>> Google Groups "wikicite-discuss" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>> send an email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
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
--
--
Scott MacLeod - Founder & President
World University and School
415 480 4577 <(415)%20480-4577>
CC World University and School - like CC Wikipedia with best
STEM-centric CC OpenCourseWare - incorporated as a nonprofit university and school in California, and is a U.S. 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt educational organization.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable federal or state laws. If the reader of this transmission is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me immediately by email or telephone.
World University and School is sending you this because of your interest in free, online, higher education. If you don't want to receive these, please reply with 'unsubscribe' in the body of the email, leaving the subject line intact. Thank you.