Indeed, the things that make a Wikipedia article high quality (such as well
written and engaging prose) are not necessarily the same things that are
useful for a data-driven product like Wikidata. When Wikidata offers
assistance to another project, and that assistance is not received
enthusiastically because the project feels it will not improve their own
quality metrics; that is not a "black box" communication problem, nor is it
anyone in particular's fault, that is an issue of differing priorities.
On 20 November 2015 at 23:30, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com
> 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(a)gmail.com>
> > 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
> > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
> > 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
> > both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how
> > deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
> > I blogged about it..
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l