OK, it seems that Wikipedia does have a few nice features. :) I was able to quickly search History on the entity and find that Dexbot had imported the erroneous statements https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Dexbot <-- pretty cool options there, Good Job whomever ! and let the User (owner of the bot) know of the problem. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Ladsgroup Thad +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Thad Guidry &lt;thadguidry(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

From a technical point of view there's nothing wrong with those statemets.

Italian Wikipedia says it's correct: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hefei On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 8:21 PM Thad Guidry &lt;thadguidry(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

​I live there sometimes. :) Partner City (an alias of that Sister City description) does even help make them closer to any sister city. If anyone disagrees with me, then you would have to fully describe what the property Sister City really means...because there is little to go on other than the idea of a "twin city". ​ Thad +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Vi to &lt;vituzzu.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Great. ValterVB doesn't think I am right in removing them and has reverted them. I think I now remember why I left Wikipedia... too many chiefs who think they know better, rather than talking through things as a community. Thad +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Thad Guidry &lt;thadguidry(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Op 27 sep. 2015, om 21:02 heeft Thad Guidry &lt;thadguidry(a)gmail.com&gt; het volgende geschreven: I didn't revert a bot. I removed a few erroneous statements that a bot made incorrectly. Thad +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Vi to &lt;vituzzu.wiki(a)gmail.com <mailto:vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com>> wrote: Actually you didn't talk about it, but still you can ask him for explanations. Generally reverting a bot which is working fine (since the mistake, if any, is onwiki) is useless. Vito 2015-09-27 20:11 GMT+02:00 Thad Guidry &lt;thadguidry(a)gmail.com <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>>: Great. ValterVB doesn't think I am right in removing them and has reverted them. I think I now remember why I left Wikipedia... too many chiefs who think they know better, rather than talking through things as a community. Thad +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Thad Guidry &lt;thadguidry(a)gmail.com <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>> wrote: sorry, that should have been ... does NOT even help make them closer to any sister city. Thad +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Thad Guidry &lt;thadguidry(a)gmail.com <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>> wrote: ​I live there sometimes. :) Partner City (an alias of that Sister City description) does even help make them closer to any sister city. If anyone disagrees with me, then you would have to fully describe what the property Sister City really means...because there is little to go on other than the idea of a "twin city". ​ Thad +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Vi to &lt;vituzzu.wiki(a)gmail.com <mailto:vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com>> wrote: From a technical point of view there's nothing wrong with those statemets. Original infos were added by https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/ILoveKorea <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/ILoveKorea> which doesn't seem to be a vandal. How did you find they are wrong? Vito 2015-09-27 18:57 GMT+02:00 Amir Ladsgroup &lt;ladsgroup(a)gmail.com <mailto:ladsgroup@gmail.com>>: Italian Wikipedia says it's correct: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hefei <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hefei> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 8:21 PM Thad Guidry &lt;thadguidry(a)gmail.com <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>> wrote: OK, it seems that Wikipedia does have a few nice features. :) I was able to quickly search History on the entity and find that Dexbot had imported the erroneous statements https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Dexbot <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Dexbot> <-- pretty cool options there, Good Job whomever ! and let the User (owner of the bot) know of the problem. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Ladsgroup <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Ladsgroup> Thad +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Thad Guidry &lt;thadguidry(a)gmail.com <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>> wrote: I had to clean up this entity that had Sister City property filled in with lots of erroneous statements for it that I removed. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q185684 <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q185684> How can I figure out where the import went wrong, how it happened, and how to ensure it doesn't happen again ? How does one look at Wikidata bots and their efficiency or incorrectness ? Trying to learn more, Thad +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata> _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata> _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata> _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata> _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata> _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

OK, it seems that Wikipedia does have a few nice features. :) I was able to quickly search History

then you would have to fully describe what the property Sister City

2015-09-27 22:11 GMT+02:00 Thad Guidry &lt;thadguidry(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: You have improved the English description on the property. However, without updating the documentation page (which is the talk page) I guess most community members will not notice. Just to take myself as an example, I only check the documentation page on how a property is supposed to be used, not a random language version description of it. /Jan _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

​I live there sometimes. :) Partner City (an alias of that Sister City description) does even help make them closer to any sister city. If anyone disagrees with me, then you would have to fully describe what the property Sister City really means...because there is little to go on other than the idea of a "twin city". ​ Thad +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Vi to &lt;vituzzu.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

I have added my viewpoint to the P190 Discussion page.

Are you seriously saying that a Talk Page (where many are 2 - 10 pages scrollable) is the culmination of a definition of a property in Wikidata ?

You expect folks to read 10 pages of Talk to fully understand the intent and how to use a Property in Wikidata ?

Does WP not value the input of ontologists and researchers ?

Thad +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Jan Ainali &lt;jan.ainali(a)wikimedia.se&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Jan Ainali &lt;jan.ainali(a)wikimedia.se <mailto:jan.ainali@wikimedia.se>> wrote: 2015-09-27 23:03 GMT+02:00 Thad Guidry &lt;thadguidry(a)gmail.com <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>>: I have added my viewpoint to the P190 Discussion page. Great, thanks! Are you seriously saying that a Talk Page (where many are 2 - 10 pages scrollable) is the culmination of a definition of a property in Wikidata ? In theory, only the top box should be needed. In practice, since everything in the Wikimedia movement is a work in progress, the talk page are almost always worth reading, especially if you have doubts on how to use it. ​Good to know. I will use it profusely from now on. ​ You expect folks to read 10 pages of Talk to fully understand the intent and how to use a Property in Wikidata ? No, _I_ do not expect "folks" to read it. But I do expect people who want to improve the use of a property to read it before they setup their own definitions of that property. ​As I shall from now on, knowing its importance, or more to the point, where I can help with confusion. ​ Thad +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

2015-09-28 11:16 GMT+02:00 Markus Krötzsch &lt;markus(a)semantic-mediawiki.org&gt;rg>: +1, the more broad the application of certain property is, the better. We really don't need to be 100% specific with a property, if we can exploit qualifiers.

On 09/28/2015 04:31 AM, Luca Martinelli wrote: I worry about this way of specializing properties. How are people, and particularly programs, going to be able to find out that a qualifier is needed, which qualifier it is, and how it is to be used, or which broad property is to be used for a specific purpose? peter _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Both Sides ? Wikidata has a true graph representation like FB ? didn't know that. Can you show me the other side your referring too ?

I worry about this way of specializing properties. How are people, and particularly programs, going to be able to find out that a qualifier is needed, which qualifier it is, and how it is to be used, or which broad property is to be used for a specific purpose?

Daniel Wrote: That might prove to become a worser nightmare than the magic one ... It's seems like refusing any kind of automation because it might surprise people for the sake of exhausting them to let them do a lot of manual work.

Am 28.09.2015 um 16:43 schrieb Thomas Douillard: Allowing inconsistencies. of view edits, so "reverse" links because you It's seems for the I'm not arguing against "any" kind of automation. I'm arguing against "invisible" automation baked into the backend software. We(*) very much encourage "visible" automation under community control like bots and other (semi-)automatic import tools like WiDaR. -- daniel (*) I'm part of the wikidata developer team, not an active member of the community. I'm primarily speaking for myself here, from my personal experience as a wikipedia and common admin. I know from past discussions that "bots over magic" is considered Best Practice among the dev team, and I believe it's also the approach preferred by the Wikidata community, but I cannot speak for them. -- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Am 28.09.2015 um 16:43 schrieb Thomas Douillard: I'm not arguing against "any" kind of automation. I'm arguing against "invisible" automation baked into the backend software. We(*) very much encourage "visible" automation under community control like bots and other (semi-)automatic import tools like WiDaR. -- daniel (*) I'm part of the wikidata developer team, not an active member of the community. I'm primarily speaking for myself here, from my personal experience as a wikipedia and common admin. I know from past discussions that "bots over magic" is considered Best Practice among the dev team, and I believe it's also the approach preferred by the Wikidata community, but I cannot speak for them.

Are you arguing against any tool that makes inferences combining multiple pieces of data in Wikidata? Would you also argue against this if the inferred information is flagged in some way?

​​ I have improved the Sister City property with a MUCH better description

Some did, I think. :) Anything that doesn't create a recentchanges entry

Some did, I think. :) Anything that doesn't create a recentchanges entry

On 29 September 2015 at 08:39, Thomas Douillard < thomas.douillard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Isn't option #2 effectively the same (to the end-user) as having someone build a bot to fill in all the inferences as soon as one part is created? It's just making it faster and more robust... Andrew. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Peter F. Patel-Schneider, 28/09/2015 22:27: Some did, I think. :) Anything that doesn't create a recentchanges entry is "hiding that it happened". Nemo

Am 29.09.2015 um 11:05 schrieb Thomas Douillard: statement statement is explicitely Wikibase could be correct I agree: if we had built in inference done Just Right (tm), with everything editable and visible in all the right places, that would be great. But this would add a lot of complexity to the system, and would take a lot of resources to implement. It would also diverge quite a bit from the classic idea of a wiki, potentially cause community issues. The approach using bots was never ideal, but is still hugely successful on wikipedia. The same seems to be the case here. Also don't underestimate the fact that the community has a lot of experience with bots, but is generally very skeptical against automatic content (even just including information from wikidata on wikipedia pages). So, while bots are not ideal, and a better solution is conceivable, I think bots as the optimal solution for the moment. We should not ignore the issues that exist with bots, and we should not lose sight of other options. But I think we should focus development on more urgent things, like a better system for source references, or unit conversion, or better tools for constraints, or for re-use on wikipedia. -- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

entry is "hiding that it happened". Then I'd say the alternatives are either 1) no inferences at all 2) find a solution for inferences to show up on recent changes on related items

Am 29.09.2015 um 11:05 schrieb Thomas Douillard: I agree: if we had built in inference done Just Right (tm), with everything editable and visible in all the right places, that would be great. But this would add a lot of complexity to the system, and would take a lot of resources to implement. It would also diverge quite a bit from the classic idea of a wiki, potentially cause community issues. The approach using bots was never ideal, but is still hugely successful on wikipedia. The same seems to be the case here. Also don't underestimate the fact that the community has a lot of experience with bots, but is generally very skeptical against automatic content (even just including information from wikidata on wikipedia pages). So, while bots are not ideal, and a better solution is conceivable, I think bots as the optimal solution for the moment. We should not ignore the issues that exist with bots, and we should not lose sight of other options. But I think we should focus development on more urgent things, like a better system for source references, or unit conversion, or better tools for constraints, or for re-use on wikipedia.

Am 30.09.2015 um 23:38 schrieb Peter F. Patel-Schneider: To do that, you would have to bake the inference rules into software in the backend software, out of community control, maintained by a small group of people. It's contrary to the idea of letting the community define and maintain the ontology and semantics. We are actually experimenting with something in that direction -- checking constraints defined on-wiki using rules written into software on the backend, hard-coding rules that were defined by the community. It's conceivable that we might end up doing something like that for inference, too, but it's a lot harder, and the slippery slope away from the community model seems much steeper to me. When I started to think about, and work on, wikidata/wikibase, I believed doing inference on the server would be a very useful. The longer I work on the project, the more convinced I become that we have to be very careful with this. Wikidata is a "social machine", cutting the community out of the loop is detrimental in the long run, even if it would make some processes more efficient.