Hey everyone :)
As promised we just enabled support for quantities with units on Wikidata. So from now on you'll be able to store fancy things like the height of a mountain or the boiling point of an element.
Quite a few properties have been waiting on unit support before they are created. I assume they will be created in the next hours and then you can go ahead and add all of the measurements.
Cheers Lydia
Hoi, It is a good day :) Thank you GerardM
On 9 September 2015 at 21:49, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hey everyone :)
As promised we just enabled support for quantities with units on Wikidata. So from now on you'll be able to store fancy things like the height of a mountain or the boiling point of an element.
Quite a few properties have been waiting on unit support before they are created. I assume they will be created in the next hours and then you can go ahead and add all of the measurements.
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 27/681/51985.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wow, finally, great! I've been waiting for units so long. I'm already in my bed, so will try tomorrow then :-)
Stryn 🐼 Sent from Windows Phone
----- Alkuperäinen viesti ----- Lähettäjä: "Lydia Pintscher" lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de Lähetetty: 9.9.2015 23:00 Vastaanottaja: "Discussion list for the Wikidata project." wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org Aihe: [Wikidata] Units are live! \o/
Hey everyone :)
As promised we just enabled support for quantities with units on Wikidata. So from now on you'll be able to store fancy things like the height of a mountain or the boiling point of an element.
Quite a few properties have been waiting on unit support before they are created. I assume they will be created in the next hours and then you can go ahead and add all of the measurements.
Cheers Lydia
I probably won't sleep tonight :)
Best
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:48 AM Stryn strynwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, finally, great! I've been waiting for units so long. I'm already in my bed, so will try tomorrow then :-)
Stryn 🐼 Sent from Windows Phone
Lähettäjä: Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de Lähetetty: 9.9.2015 23:00 Vastaanottaja: Discussion list for the Wikidata project. wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org Aihe: [Wikidata] Units are live! \o/
Hey everyone :)
As promised we just enabled support for quantities with units on Wikidata. So from now on you'll be able to store fancy things like the height of a mountain or the boiling point of an element.
Quite a few properties have been waiting on unit support before they are created. I assume they will be created in the next hours and then you can go ahead and add all of the measurements.
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 27/681/51985.
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
This is very good news, congratulations! :-)
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Amir Ladsgroup ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
I probably won't sleep tonight :)
Best
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:48 AM Stryn strynwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, finally, great! I've been waiting for units so long. I'm already in my bed, so will try tomorrow then :-)
Stryn 🐼 Sent from Windows Phone
Lähettäjä: Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de Lähetetty: 9.9.2015 23:00 Vastaanottaja: Discussion list for the Wikidata project. wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org Aihe: [Wikidata] Units are live! \o/
Hey everyone :)
As promised we just enabled support for quantities with units on Wikidata. So from now on you'll be able to store fancy things like the height of a mountain or the boiling point of an element.
Quite a few properties have been waiting on unit support before they are created. I assume they will be created in the next hours and then you can go ahead and add all of the measurements.
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 27/681/51985.
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 9, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hey everyone :)
As promised we just enabled support for quantities with units on Wikidata. So from now on you'll be able to store fancy things like the height of a mountain or the boiling point of an element.
Quite a few properties have been waiting on unit support before they are created. I assume they will be created in the next hours and then you can go ahead and add all of the measurements.
For anyone who is curious: Here is the list of properties already created since unit support is available: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListProperties/quantity&a... and here is the list of properties that were waiting on unit support: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Pending/2 Those should change over the next hours/days.
Cheers Lydia
Just created "area" after two years of waiting! yay! congratulations! \o/
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Lydia Pintscher < lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hey everyone :)
As promised we just enabled support for quantities with units on Wikidata. So from now on you'll be able to store fancy things like the height of a mountain or the boiling point of an element.
Quite a few properties have been waiting on unit support before they are created. I assume they will be created in the next hours and then you can go ahead and add all of the measurements.
For anyone who is curious: Here is the list of properties already created since unit support is available:
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListProperties/quantity&a... and here is the list of properties that were waiting on unit support: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Pending/2 Those should change over the next hours/days.
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 27/681/51985.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
So much exciting news lately! many congratulations! :)
On 9 September 2015 at 22:29, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Just created "area" after two years of waiting! yay! congratulations! \o/
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Lydia Pintscher < lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hey everyone :)
As promised we just enabled support for quantities with units on Wikidata. So from now on you'll be able to store fancy things like the height of a mountain or the boiling point of an element.
Quite a few properties have been waiting on unit support before they are created. I assume they will be created in the next hours and then you can go ahead and add all of the measurements.
For anyone who is curious: Here is the list of properties already created since unit support is available:
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListProperties/quantity&a... and here is the list of properties that were waiting on unit support: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Pending/2 Those should change over the next hours/days.
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 27/681/51985.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On 9 Sep 2015, at 22:08, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hey everyone :)
As promised we just enabled support for quantities with units on Wikidata. So from now on you'll be able to store fancy things like the height of a mountain or the boiling point of an element.
Quite a few properties have been waiting on unit support before they are created. I assume they will be created in the next hours and then you can go ahead and add all of the measurements.
For anyone who is curious: Here is the list of properties already created since unit support is available: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListProperties/quantity&a... and here is the list of properties that were waiting on unit support: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Pending/2 Those should change over the next hours/days.
Sweet!
It seems to assume a default uncertainty on values, though: I just added the elevation above sea level to: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1513315 just specifying the central value, and it assumes that this value is +- 0.1 km - which isn't a good assumption to make...
Thanks, Mike
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
It seems to assume a default uncertainty on values, though: I just added the elevation above sea level to: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1513315 just specifying the central value, and it assumes that this value is +- 0.1 km - which isn't a good assumption to make...
Did you mean to write 2.80 km about sea level? Then the error would be 0.01 km .... I am guessing the uncertainty follows the scientific notation of the number... 2.8 has the numeric uncertainty of (about) +/- 0.1...
That sounds like a reasonable approach to me...
Egon
Am 19.09.2015 um 10:27 schrieb Egon Willighagen:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net mailto:email@mikepeel.net> wrote:
It seems to assume a default uncertainty on values, though: I just added the elevation above sea level to: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1513315 just specifying the central value, and it assumes that this value is +- 0.1 km - which isn't a good assumption to make...Did you mean to write 2.80 km about sea level? Then the error would be 0.01 km .... I am guessing the uncertainty follows the scientific notation of the number... 2.8 has the numeric uncertainty of (about) +/- 0.1...
That sounds like a reasonable approach to me...
Yes, the uncertainty follows the scientific convention about significant digits. We are currently thinking about adjusting this a bit, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105623
On 19 Sep 2015, at 19:16, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
Am 19.09.2015 um 10:27 schrieb Egon Willighagen:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net mailto:email@mikepeel.net> wrote:
It seems to assume a default uncertainty on values, though: I just added the elevation above sea level to: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1513315 just specifying the central value, and it assumes that this value is +- 0.1 km - which isn't a good assumption to make...
Did you mean to write 2.80 km about sea level? Then the error would be 0.01 km .... I am guessing the uncertainty follows the scientific notation of the number... 2.8 has the numeric uncertainty of (about) +/- 0.1...
That sounds like a reasonable approach to me...
Yes, the uncertainty follows the scientific convention about significant digits.
Taking that approach is a *really* bad idea. You can't just assume/make up uncertainties!
As an example, say you have a length of 100m. Which significant digit do you assume is correct? Is this +- 100m, 10m or 1m? What if it's referring to the length of a 100m run, where the accuracy could be much higher than the significant digit given, e.g. 100m +- 1cm? Or what if it's the size of a crater on a distant planet, where it might be 100m+-50m? Or if the actual value is 100m +- 3m, but we say that it's +- 1m (which I see is the default in this case), which might be believable to readers but very misleading in reality?
We are currently thinking about adjusting this a bit, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105623
As thiemowmde says there: "The fact that the parser "guesses" a precision based on basically zero information always was and still is wrong. It must default to ±0. Everything else is misleading and a source of significant confusion and actual errors." ... although perhaps a better approach if possible might be to default to -1, or something else indicating the absence of data.
Thanks, Mike
I replied at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105623. Lets keep the discussion there.
Am 19.09.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Peel:
On 19 Sep 2015, at 19:16, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
Am 19.09.2015 um 10:27 schrieb Egon Willighagen:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net mailto:email@mikepeel.net> wrote:
It seems to assume a default uncertainty on values, though: I just added the elevation above sea level to: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1513315 just specifying the central value, and it assumes that this value is +- 0.1 km - which isn't a good assumption to make...
Did you mean to write 2.80 km about sea level? Then the error would be 0.01 km .... I am guessing the uncertainty follows the scientific notation of the number... 2.8 has the numeric uncertainty of (about) +/- 0.1...
That sounds like a reasonable approach to me...
Yes, the uncertainty follows the scientific convention about significant digits.
Taking that approach is a *really* bad idea. You can't just assume/make up uncertainties!
As an example, say you have a length of 100m. Which significant digit do you assume is correct? Is this +- 100m, 10m or 1m? What if it's referring to the length of a 100m run, where the accuracy could be much higher than the significant digit given, e.g. 100m +- 1cm? Or what if it's the size of a crater on a distant planet, where it might be 100m+-50m? Or if the actual value is 100m +- 3m, but we say that it's +- 1m (which I see is the default in this case), which might be believable to readers but very misleading in reality?
We are currently thinking about adjusting this a bit, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105623
As thiemowmde says there: "The fact that the parser "guesses" a precision based on basically zero information always was and still is wrong. It must default to ±0. Everything else is misleading and a source of significant confusion and actual errors." ... although perhaps a better approach if possible might be to default to -1, or something else indicating the absence of data.
Thanks, Mike
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hoi, It is certainly one way to exclude many people who might be interested. Thanks, GerardM
On 20 September 2015 at 20:08, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
I replied at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105623. Lets keep the discussion there.
Am 19.09.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Peel:
On 19 Sep 2015, at 19:16, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de
wrote:
Am 19.09.2015 um 10:27 schrieb Egon Willighagen:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net mailto:email@mikepeel.net> wrote:
It seems to assume a default uncertainty on values, though: I just
added the
elevation above sea level to: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1513315 just specifying the central value, and it assumes that this value
is +- 0.1
km - which isn't a good assumption to make...
Did you mean to write 2.80 km about sea level? Then the error would be
0.01 km
.... I am guessing the uncertainty follows the scientific notation of
the
number... 2.8 has the numeric uncertainty of (about) +/- 0.1...
That sounds like a reasonable approach to me...
Yes, the uncertainty follows the scientific convention about
significant digits.
Taking that approach is a *really* bad idea. You can't just assume/make
up uncertainties!
As an example, say you have a length of 100m. Which significant digit do
you assume is correct? Is this +- 100m, 10m or 1m? What if it's referring to the length of a 100m run, where the accuracy could be much higher than the significant digit given, e.g. 100m +- 1cm? Or what if it's the size of a crater on a distant planet, where it might be 100m+-50m? Or if the actual value is 100m +- 3m, but we say that it's +- 1m (which I see is the default in this case), which might be believable to readers but very misleading in reality?
We are currently thinking about adjusting this a bit, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105623
As thiemowmde says there: "The fact that the parser "guesses" a precision based on basically zero
information always was and still is wrong. It must default to ±0. Everything else is misleading and a source of significant confusion and actual errors."
... although perhaps a better approach if possible might be to default
to -1, or something else indicating the absence of data.
Thanks, Mike
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
-- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer
Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Am 20.09.2015 um 20:52 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
Hoi, It is certainly one way to exclude many people who might be interested.
Focusing a discussion in one place is a bad thing? I find it rather problematic if conversations are scattered across several places. It makes it easy to miss half of it, especially when trying to read up later.
You are welcome to keep this list in sync with the phabricator ticket if you think it's important. I suggest to make a separate threat with a meaningful subject line for that.
BTW: I think you can sign into phabricator using your wikipedia account. That should allow most interrested people to particupate without having to create a new account. I'm not quite sure of the details though.
Hoi, Nitpicking.. I do not have a Wikipedia account, I have multiple all together in a SUL account.
When a discussion takes place you effectively kill it by saying: nanana this is where I will not react and read it. I have a phabricator account and it is not as convenient as good old mail.
Some insist on Phabricator, some on Meta, Mail, Wikidata.. The point is that we want that discussion. When you insist on concentrating, you get situations where you are blamed for the choices you make. Choices that may be unfortunate. And you will complain: but I told you that the discussion was at Phabricator.... Thanks. GerardM
On 20 September 2015 at 21:13, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
Am 20.09.2015 um 20:52 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
Hoi, It is certainly one way to exclude many people who might be interested.
Focusing a discussion in one place is a bad thing? I find it rather problematic if conversations are scattered across several places. It makes it easy to miss half of it, especially when trying to read up later.
You are welcome to keep this list in sync with the phabricator ticket if you think it's important. I suggest to make a separate threat with a meaningful subject line for that.
BTW: I think you can sign into phabricator using your wikipedia account. That should allow most interrested people to particupate without having to create a new account. I'm not quite sure of the details though.
-- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer
Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hi,
I agree with Gerard.
Could someone tell us where to find information about the data migration from Freebase to Wikidata?
This subject seems to be particularly taboo.
Gil
Le 20/09/2015 21:24, Gerard Meijssen a écrit :
Hoi, Nitpicking.. I do not have a Wikipedia account, I have multiple all together in a SUL account.
When a discussion takes place you effectively kill it by saying: nanana this is where I will not react and read it. I have a phabricator account and it is not as convenient as good old mail.
Some insist on Phabricator, some on Meta, Mail, Wikidata.. The point is that we want that discussion. When you insist on concentrating, you get situations where you are blamed for the choices you make. Choices that may be unfortunate. And you will complain: but I told you that the discussion was at Phabricator.... Thanks. GerardM
On 20 September 2015 at 21:13, Daniel Kinzler <daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de mailto:daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de> wrote:
Am 20.09.2015 um 20:52 schrieb Gerard Meijssen: > Hoi, > It is certainly one way to exclude many people who might be interested. Focusing a discussion in one place is a bad thing? I find it rather problematic if conversations are scattered across several places. It makes it easy to miss half of it, especially when trying to read up later. You are welcome to keep this list in sync with the phabricator ticket if you think it's important. I suggest to make a separate threat with a meaningful subject line for that. BTW: I think you can sign into phabricator using your wikipedia account. That should allow most interrested people to particupate without having to create a new account. I'm not quite sure of the details though. -- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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 Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Gil Francopoulo gil.francopoulo@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Gerard.
Could someone tell us where to find information about the data migration from Freebase to Wikidata?
This subject seems to be particularly taboo.
This has nothing to do with this thread. It is not taboo. There is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Primary_sources_tool and https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-primary-sources/status.html. (The latter seems to be having some issues right now and Tpt or Denny will need to give it a kick it seems.)
Cheers Lydia
Hoi, When the situation is often raised and when there is no answer.. as in not at all. The facts contradict what you say.
I have asked often for statistics. I have often raised this aberration. Truly when I have data to offer, the example of Freebase is enough to turn me off.
I also have made the case why the reluctance of including data is wrong. I have even given a mathematical approach for this and all you hear is
silence
Yes, good work is done. But it is all about the mechanics it is not about looking after the database and its quality and quantify. Leaving all of this only to the "community" is arguably a bad idea. Thanks, GerardM
On 21 September 2015 at 11:06, Lydia Pintscher <lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Gil Francopoulo gil.francopoulo@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Gerard.
Could someone tell us where to find information about the data migration from Freebase to Wikidata?
This subject seems to be particularly taboo.
This has nothing to do with this thread. It is not taboo. There is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Primary_sources_tool and https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-primary-sources/status.html. (The latter seems to be having some issues right now and Tpt or Denny will need to give it a kick it seems.)
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 27/681/51985.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Am 21.09.2015 um 09:33 schrieb Gil Francopoulo:
Hi,
I agree with Gerard.
Could someone tell us where to find information about the data migration from Freebase to Wikidata?
This subject seems to be particularly taboo.
In addition to what lydia said, there is also There's also https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Freebase. That seems to be the right place for coordinating the import from freebase, as far as I can tell.
But then, I'm no expert on that, I'm not really active in the community, and data import and curation is done by the community. Please let us, the developers, know if there are technical issues preventing the import (but please let's not discuss this in a thread about unit support - unless the issue is with unit support).
Thanks!
On 20 September 2015 at 20:13, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
It is certainly one way to exclude many people who might be interested.
Focusing a discussion in one place is a bad thing?
Focussing such a discussion in Phabricator is a bad thing . To my mind, discussion of how Wikdiata represents statements should be conducted on Wikidata; Phabricator should be used for discussion of how, in coding terms, to enact the consensus at Wikidata.
Am 21.09.2015 um 12:08 schrieb Andy Mabbett:
Focussing such a discussion in Phabricator is a bad thing . To my mind, discussion of how Wikdiata represents statements should be conducted on Wikidata; Phabricator should be used for discussion of how, in coding terms, to enact the consensus at Wikidata.
As long as we can agree on one place, it's fine with me. I was pointing to Phabricator because the discussion about deriving uncertainty intervals from the dignificant digits of decimal notation has been going on there for some weeks and months already.
Also, the issue does seem rather technical to me. It's a question of how to interpret the decimal (and scientific) notation of measured quantities when parsing user input.
On the other hand the users, especially on some specific domains, are probably the one who knows how the uncertainty data are used and represented in their field and could give good inputs of what they would need, both on the UI and on the technical side. With discussion on a project tracker we may have a big bias on computer-tecchi members on the community.
2015-09-21 12:40 GMT+02:00 Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de:
Am 21.09.2015 um 12:08 schrieb Andy Mabbett:
Focussing such a discussion in Phabricator is a bad thing . To my mind, discussion of how Wikdiata represents statements should be conducted on Wikidata; Phabricator should be used for discussion of how, in coding terms, to enact the consensus at Wikidata.
As long as we can agree on one place, it's fine with me. I was pointing to Phabricator because the discussion about deriving uncertainty intervals from the dignificant digits of decimal notation has been going on there for some weeks and months already.
Also, the issue does seem rather technical to me. It's a question of how to interpret the decimal (and scientific) notation of measured quantities when parsing user input.
-- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer
Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata