Hoi, You are right that this will be a concern. There are people that insist that Wikipedia is the fount of all wisdom and that its labels are "correct" even for Wikidata. When you observe Wikidata for as long as I do, I find that many of what some people elevate to collective wisdom is faulty at best. It makes your concern worse.
Technically there are two decisions that are detrimental to what we have. One is that labels are "simple by design". The problem is that when labels change as they often do, it is not possible to account for it. The other thing is that while we need descriptions, the descriptions we have are worse in quality than automated descriptions. Automated descriptions work in any language and are updated based on the availability of statements. Automated descriptions exist for over three years and when I need to disambiguate in Wikidata I add labels and as a result I have my disambiguation.
My point is that these concerns are not entertained. We are stuck with decisions past that will haunt us as we move on. It is easy to have the current automated and manual descriptions side by side and with Wiktionary to be a next project it is worthwhile to consider that any and all labels in Wikidata need at least conjugation. Thanks, GerardM
On 10 January 2017 at 04:58, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
This is great news and look forward to seeing some good outcomes.
I have a concern around the use of language as most people english a very dynamic language and what can hav eone meaning in one place doesnt necessarily hold true for everywhere simple uses like monuments when translated differs. I would like to see caution taken to ensure the uniqueness of each locations use of isnt lost due a great scheme being fixed to one specific language use and spelling. As contributors we have already experienced that on en:WP with the standardisation of info boxes where local varients have been lost.
As Wikimedia community influence on language and connectivity grows, and is strengthened by projects like WikiData we have to allow greater consideration into the moral, cultural, and linguistic impact we are having on communities and languages its potentially no longer just a technical advancement that we are leading.
On 10 January 2017 at 07:12, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Wes and Lisa, this is really wonderful news. Just the sort of
area
where Commons can and should point the way forward for all the world's archives.
And thanks to Sloan for the support and Commonists for maintaining one
of
the quiet, consistent wonders of theodern Web.
Sam _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe