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(a)wikimedia.org&gt; 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 &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Thomas Douillard &lt;thomas.douillard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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.

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Thomas Douillard &lt;thomas.douillard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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 -- 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.

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 &lt;dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org > 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 &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com> >> 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 &lt;ymbalt(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> >>> 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(a)wikimedia.org>>> >>>> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikidata mailing list >>> Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata mailing list >> Wikidata(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata > >

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(a)wikimedia.de&gt; wrote:

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:31 AM, john cummings &lt;mrjohncummings(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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.

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Dario Taraborelli < dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: 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

On 21 September 2017 at 20:09, LeadSongDog &lt;leadsong(a)webname.com&gt; wrote: 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

On 22 September 2017 at 01:45, LeadSongDog &lt;leadsong(a)webname.com&gt; wrote: 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

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: --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com

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: --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com

On 19 September 2017 at 19:18, Dario Taraborelli &lt;dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: Closed as "no consensus"; it's worth reading the full comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussi…

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 &lt;wikigamaliel(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

2017-10-03 17:39 GMT+02:00 Andrew Lih &lt;andrew.lih(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: 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.

Crossed with Luca, making exact same point. Cheers Yaroslav On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Yaroslav Blanter &lt;ymbalt(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;andrew.lih(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- -- - Scott MacLeod - Founder & President - World University and School - http://worlduniversityandschool.org - 415 480 4577 - http://scottmacleod.com - 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.