Thanks for the stats, Gerard. Two thoughts:
- With so many items without description I wonder why we don't have the
automatic descriptions gadget enabled by default.
- There are many items without statements, but not that many articles
without a category --> would it be possible to have a game that suggests
instance of/subclass of based on the statements of the items in the same or
in the upper category?
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
> I am not in research. I am into making Wikidata into a reasonable
> resource. To achieve this I add gazillions of statements and I am happy
> when people focus on templates. However without the data, templates that
> make use of Wikidata are niche applications. Without some mature
> understanding of what Wikidata is at this time concentrating on templates
> is an exercise in building enabling technology.
> My point is for the "community" to have reasonable expectations. So many
> people consider Wikidata to be useless. That is fine but imho it helps when
> the baseline of where Wikidata is at this time is understood.
> The statistics that explain this best can be found here ..
> On 19 August 2014 10:27, Luca Martinelli <martinelliluca(a)gmail.com
>> Ok, I got the point. What you probably need to consider is that focusing
>> on one goal does not mean at all that we have to dismiss all the others. At
>> least, *I* do not think so.
>> You want to focus on research? Fine, do it. I'd like to focus on
>> templates. That's fine too, I guess. We're both working to let Wikidata
>> appreciated - by separate audiences.
>> Il 19/ago/2014 07:57 "Gerard Meijssen"
>>> What is the point of Wiktionary, WIkipedia, Wikispecies et al as a WMF
>>> project? Like Wikidata they all help us share in the sum of all knowledge.
>>> Wikidata already provides an application in being the vehicle for
>>> interlanguage links.
>>> The low hanging fruit of Wikidata is not sharing info in templates, it
>>> is in providing search results where a Wikipedia does NOT have an article.
>>> It is used for this and it does have a measurable impact. It is
>>> have the ambition to share data in templates but be realistic. The quality
>>> of the data in Wikidata does not merit this at this time. The
>>> insists on sources and frankly it is assassine to expect that in the first
>>> few years it will be available near the level that some "demand".
>>> only based on the data that is there. That is the next problem we do not
>>> have enough data. We are still at the stage where we are harvesting data
>>> for the first time. Harvesting big amounts, not one item at a time.
>>> It is important to have goals, and it is nice that at the start
>>> providing data to templates was seen as an initial goal. However it will
>>> not be like with Pallas Athena when she came from the head of Zeus in full
>>> armour. This goal is achievable and we are making big strides in that
>>> direction BUT we need smaller goals, small applications that grow our
>>> content in both quality and quantity. As I wrote on my blog, we need to
>>> think in terms of confidence in our data and not so much in sources. Amir
>>> is finishing a tool that will allow us to compare data for "humans"
>>> English, German and Italian Wikipedia. That will be a massive step in the
>>> right direction.
>>> I care about Wikidata and I know that at this time those freakingly hard
>>> templates are the least of our worries. More problematic is that people
>>> think of Wikidata as a service product for Wikipedia and limit their
>>> thinking to templates. The existing search extension with WDQ is there. It
>>> works really well. It is dismissed probably because it demonstrates that
>>> ALL Wikipedias cover less than 50% of the subjects known to us. We know all
>>> of them because of Wikidata.
>>> So yeah by all means blow the horn about our aspiration of servicing
>>> templates in those projects that can handle this. It is fine. It is not
>>> realistic and even counter productive as an aspiration when we do not
>>> appreciate the reality as we have it at this time.
>>> On 18 August 2014 14:41, Luca Martinelli <martinelliluca(a)gmail.com>
>>>> 2014-08-17 17:00 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen
>>>> > Hoi,
>>>> > Importing data from Wikidata (where do you want it??) is just one
>>>> > application. There are so many potential applications for
>>>> > and Wikidata implicitly covers the sum of all knowledge as we know
>>>> > the Wikimedia projects) so there are opportunities galore.
>>>> > For people "not to know how to" is a given. I do not care
>>>> > Wikipedia templates because they are freaking impossibly hard.
>>>> Yet, if we don't use the Wikidata data in the "freaking
>>>> hard" Wikipedia templates, what is the point of Wikidata as a
>>>> Wikimedia project?
>>>> I remember that this project had among its first goals to help
>>>> disseminate structured data on all Wikimedia projects, in order to
>>>> relieve the less-crowded WMF projects of their burden in managing such
>>>> data and to let their few users focus on writing/translating/expanding
>>>> their articles. Now, if we don't show to people on the WMF project -
>>>> even the bigger ones - that Wikidata IS useful by helping them in
>>>> retrieving these data, what is the point of this project?
>>>> "There are so many potential application", I know, yet THIS IS
>>>> THEM -- and in my personal and humble opinion a damn important one.
>>>> Luca "Sannita" Martinelli
>>>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l mailing list
Etiamsi omnes, ego non