Hoi, At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia. Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality issue both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how to deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
I blogged about it.. Thanks, GerardM
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.htm...
Gerard Meijssen, 20/11/2015 08:18:
At this moment there are already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
And some wikipedians say the same of Wikidata. So "quality" in such discussions is just a red herring used to raise matters of control (i.e. power and social structure). Replace "quality" with "the way I do things" in all said discussions and suddenly things will make more sense.
The first step to improve the situation, imho, is to banish the word "quality".
Nemo
Hoi, It is not a red herring, it is lists with facts existing on a Wikipedia that differ from what exists on other sources including Wikidata. When you check out these issues you have a fair chance of finding local errors or contributing to the quality on other sources including Wikidata. This is one of the more relevant moments where sources indeed have value.
It is not about the way we do things, it is about quality. Sorry for refuting your logic. Thanks, GerardM
On 20 November 2015 at 09:18, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard Meijssen, 20/11/2015 08:18:
At this moment there are already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
And some wikipedians say the same of Wikidata. So "quality" in such discussions is just a red herring used to raise matters of control (i.e. power and social structure). Replace "quality" with "the way I do things" in all said discussions and suddenly things will make more sense.
The first step to improve the situation, imho, is to banish the word "quality".
Nemo
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On 20.11.2015 09:18, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Gerard Meijssen, 20/11/2015 08:18:
At this moment there are already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
And some wikipedians say the same of Wikidata. So "quality" in such discussions is just a red herring used to raise matters of control (i.e. power and social structure). Replace "quality" with "the way I do things" in all said discussions and suddenly things will make more sense.
+1 to this accurate analysis
What we need to overcome this is more mutual trust, and more personal overlaps between communities. There are already some remarkable projects where the boundary between "Wikipedian" and "Wikidatista" (or what's our demonym now?) has vanished. I think these will naturally grow and prosper as Wikidata becomes better and better (bigger, more reliable, more usable, etc.), but it will take some patience and we should not expect Wikipedia veterans to change their processes overnight to accommodate Wikidata. I think the right strategy is to do this grass-roots style, not by expecting big policy changes, but by showing the gain of Wikidata to individual domains one by one.
Markus
The first step to improve the situation, imho, is to banish the word "quality".
Nemo
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
+1 I think many Wikipedians are control freaks who like to think their articles are the endpoint in any internet search on their article subjects. We really need to suppress the idea that the data they have curated so painstakingly over the years is less valuable because it is not on Wikidata or disagrees with data on Wikidata in some way. We can and should let these people continue to thrive on Wikipedia without pressuring them to look at their data on Wikidata, which might confuse and overwhelm them. They figured out Wikipedia at some point and presumably some of them have figured out Commons. In future they may figure out Wikidata, but that will be on their own terms and in their own individual way.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Markus Krötzsch < markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
On 20.11.2015 09:18, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Gerard Meijssen, 20/11/2015 08:18:
At this moment there are already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
And some wikipedians say the same of Wikidata. So "quality" in such discussions is just a red herring used to raise matters of control (i.e. power and social structure). Replace "quality" with "the way I do things" in all said discussions and suddenly things will make more sense.
+1 to this accurate analysis
What we need to overcome this is more mutual trust, and more personal overlaps between communities. There are already some remarkable projects where the boundary between "Wikipedian" and "Wikidatista" (or what's our demonym now?) has vanished. I think these will naturally grow and prosper as Wikidata becomes better and better (bigger, more reliable, more usable, etc.), but it will take some patience and we should not expect Wikipedia veterans to change their processes overnight to accommodate Wikidata. I think the right strategy is to do this grass-roots style, not by expecting big policy changes, but by showing the gain of Wikidata to individual domains one by one.
Markus
The first step to improve the situation, imho, is to banish the word "quality".
Nemo
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 21.11.2015 12:21, Jane Darnell wrote:
+1 I think many Wikipedians are control freaks who like to think their articles are the endpoint in any internet search on their article subjects. We really need to suppress the idea that the data they have curated so painstakingly over the years is less valuable because it is not on Wikidata or disagrees with data on Wikidata in some way. We can and should let these people continue to thrive on Wikipedia without pressuring them to look at their data on Wikidata, which might confuse and overwhelm them. They figured out Wikipedia at some point and presumably some of them have figured out Commons. In future they may figure out Wikidata, but that will be on their own terms and in their own individual way.
Yes, one can also understand the point of view of many seasoned Wikipedians. Because of the popularity of the platform, large parts of their daily work consist in defending "their" content against all kinds of absurd ideas and changes for the worse. Rather than writing new, better content, their main work is in rejecting content that is worse. They therefore are spending a lot of time on talk pages, having debates with people whom most of us would simply ignore on the Internet, but which they cannot ignore if they want to protect what has been achieved already. Doing this is hard work, since Wikipedia rejects the notion of personal standing or seniority as a basis for "trusting" someone to be right -- every puny battle of opinions has to be fought out on the talk page. The only thing to allude to is some abstract notion of "quality" -- and a complex system of policies and processes.
This tough work hardens people and gives them a negative bias towards change, especially towards process changes that might lead to reduced control. They worry (not unreasonably!) that Wikidata does not have this community of gate keepers that can fend off the irrational and the misguided. They also worry that they themselves may not have enough time to take on this task, watching yet another site in addition to what they already do in their Wikipedias.
Conversely, people on Wikidata are (not unreasonably!) frustrated when being met with the same distrust as the average Internet freak that Wikipedians are fighting off on a daily basis, rather than being accepted as members of the Wikimedia community who are working towards the same goal.
Considering all this, it is amazing what has been achieved already :-)
Markus
First they ignore you, then they fight you ... :)
and eventually evrebody wins !
2015-11-21 13:56 GMT+01:00 Markus Krötzsch markus@semantic-mediawiki.org:
On 21.11.2015 12:21, Jane Darnell wrote:
+1 I think many Wikipedians are control freaks who like to think their articles are the endpoint in any internet search on their article subjects. We really need to suppress the idea that the data they have curated so painstakingly over the years is less valuable because it is not on Wikidata or disagrees with data on Wikidata in some way. We can and should let these people continue to thrive on Wikipedia without pressuring them to look at their data on Wikidata, which might confuse and overwhelm them. They figured out Wikipedia at some point and presumably some of them have figured out Commons. In future they may figure out Wikidata, but that will be on their own terms and in their own individual way.
Yes, one can also understand the point of view of many seasoned Wikipedians. Because of the popularity of the platform, large parts of their daily work consist in defending "their" content against all kinds of absurd ideas and changes for the worse. Rather than writing new, better content, their main work is in rejecting content that is worse. They therefore are spending a lot of time on talk pages, having debates with people whom most of us would simply ignore on the Internet, but which they cannot ignore if they want to protect what has been achieved already. Doing this is hard work, since Wikipedia rejects the notion of personal standing or seniority as a basis for "trusting" someone to be right -- every puny battle of opinions has to be fought out on the talk page. The only thing to allude to is some abstract notion of "quality" -- and a complex system of policies and processes.
This tough work hardens people and gives them a negative bias towards change, especially towards process changes that might lead to reduced control. They worry (not unreasonably!) that Wikidata does not have this community of gate keepers that can fend off the irrational and the misguided. They also worry that they themselves may not have enough time to take on this task, watching yet another site in addition to what they already do in their Wikipedias.
Conversely, people on Wikidata are (not unreasonably!) frustrated when being met with the same distrust as the average Internet freak that Wikipedians are fighting off on a daily basis, rather than being accepted as members of the Wikimedia community who are working towards the same goal.
Considering all this, it is amazing what has been achieved already :-)
Markus
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Jane & all,
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
+1 I think many Wikipedians are control freaks ...
That probably is not the best wording to win some hearts and minds, while working towards mutual goals.
who like to think their articles are the endpoint in any internet search on their article subjects. We really need to suppress the idea that the data they have curated so painstakingly over the years is less valuable because it is not on Wikidata or disagrees with data on Wikidata in some way. We can and should let these people continue to thrive on Wikipedia without pressuring them to look at their data on Wikidata ...
This is better, your saying everyone's input is worthwhile and valuable.
, which might confuse and overwhelm them.
Careful, you seem to allude that they are incapable of understanding. Not the ideal choice of words. :)
Please generate less animosity towards others by using thoughtful word choices. (In essence, there are no others...instead we are one whole family. Humans.) Use helpful unbiased communication and collaboration with one another.
Thanks.
Thad +ThadGuidry https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry
Sorry Thad, I am just a control freak who felt overwhelmed when I took my first steps on Wikidata. My apologies for assuming that most Wikipedians are like me.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Thad Guidry thadguidry@gmail.com wrote:
Jane & all,
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
+1 I think many Wikipedians are control freaks ...
That probably is not the best wording to win some hearts and minds, while working towards mutual goals.
who like to think their articles are the endpoint in any internet search on their article subjects. We really need to suppress the idea that the data they have curated so painstakingly over the years is less valuable because it is not on Wikidata or disagrees with data on Wikidata in some way. We can and should let these people continue to thrive on Wikipedia without pressuring them to look at their data on Wikidata ...
This is better, your saying everyone's input is worthwhile and valuable.
, which might confuse and overwhelm them.
Careful, you seem to allude that they are incapable of understanding. Not the ideal choice of words. :)
Please generate less animosity towards others by using thoughtful word choices. (In essence, there are no others...instead we are one whole family. Humans.) Use helpful unbiased communication and collaboration with one another.
Thanks.
Thad +ThadGuidry https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hi Markus, GeratdM and Wikidatans,
Quality generativity unfoldingly in Wikidata will be key for future creative Wikidata-Wikipedia achievements, and even decades and centuries ahead. Is there any focus on comparing Wikimedia "assets" in Wikidata itself or by the WMF, in terms of "quality generativity" rather than the term "quality control," that might both include the generative wiki conversation between individuals as well as a machine learning component?
I'm sharing a Lightning Talk at the WMF in SF, in a Google Hangout too, on Tuesday 11/24 (https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Lightning_Talks) re donating CC WUaS to CC Wikidata and may touch on this since WUaS seeks to become the Harvard of the internet in all languages, with online accrediting universities in each of all ~200 countries' main languages (eg accrediting on MIT OCW in 7 languages and CC Yale OYC).
Thanks for this Wikidata conversation, Scott MacLeod http://worlduniversityandschool.org/ On Nov 21, 2015 8:21 AM, "Jane Darnell" jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry Thad, I am just a control freak who felt overwhelmed when I took my first steps on Wikidata. My apologies for assuming that most Wikipedians are like me.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Thad Guidry thadguidry@gmail.com wrote:
Jane & all,
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
+1 I think many Wikipedians are control freaks ...
That probably is not the best wording to win some hearts and minds, while working towards mutual goals.
who like to think their articles are the endpoint in any internet search on their article subjects. We really need to suppress the idea that the data they have curated so painstakingly over the years is less valuable because it is not on Wikidata or disagrees with data on Wikidata in some way. We can and should let these people continue to thrive on Wikipedia without pressuring them to look at their data on Wikidata ...
This is better, your saying everyone's input is worthwhile and valuable.
, which might confuse and overwhelm them.
Careful, you seem to allude that they are incapable of understanding. Not the ideal choice of words. :)
Please generate less animosity towards others by using thoughtful word choices. (In essence, there are no others...instead we are one whole family. Humans.) Use helpful unbiased communication and collaboration with one another.
Thanks.
Thad +ThadGuidry https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry
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
Gerard, I think this was always the case. Most Wikidatans are as at home on Wikipedia as they are on Commons. The issue you describe also happened to Commons - both communities feel the other is less focussed on quality. Many Commonists spend hours on high quality images and these are rarely picked up by Wikipedia unless a Commonist notices and does so in their own language. There is no requirement for Wikipedians to get to know any other project and this is normal wiki behavior. We don't want anyone to feel pressured to do anything they feel uncomfortable doing. It's already difficult to get Wikipedians to do small tasks like add catagories to their articles. The list of things necessary to create an acceptable article on Wikipedia just seems to get longer and longer, while the associated work for illustrations of that article or for data of that article is not even mentioned in current AfC policies on Wikipedia. I have thought about this, but I still think we need to break down the list of things necessary to make new short articles on Wikipedia, not extend the list. So in summary, I think that what you describe is normal predictable behavior for a "Wikipedia support" project such as Commons and Wikidata. This will change as more and more external users find out that Commons and Wikidata are valuable resources in and of themselves. This is already the case for many GLAMs which have found collaborations with Commons to be valuable experiences. I have high hopes this will become the case for Wikidata as well. Jane
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia. Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality issue both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how to deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
I blogged about it.. Thanks, GerardM
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.htm... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
My experience is that pretty much all Wikimedians care about quality, though some have different, even diametrically opposed views as to what quality means and which things are cosmetic or crucial.
My experience of the sadly dormant death anomaly project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Death_anomalies_table was that people react positively to being told "here is a list of anomalies on your language wikipedia" especially if those anomalies are relatively serious. My experience of edits on many different languages is that wikipedians appreciate someone who improves articles, even if you don't speak their language. Dismissing any of our thousand wikis as a "black box" is I think less helpful.
One of the great opportunities of Wikidata is to do the sort of data driven anomaly finding that we pioneered with the death anomalies report. But we always need to remember that there are cultural difference between wikis, and not just in such things as the age at which we assume people are dead. Diplomacy is a useful skill in cross wiki work.
~~~~
On 20 November 2015 at 07:18, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia. Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality issue both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how to deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
I blogged about it.. Thanks, GerardM
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.htm...
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l