I am hereby officially protesting against GerardM being the contactperson with regards to kennisnet. He is manipulative, changes your own words, the words you wrote or said yourself. He never listens to others ideas.
Waerth did send a mail asking if Kennisnet
I never send a mail to kennisnet with regards to this I asked you in IRC!
would be willing to pay for access to statistical content.
Not correct. My full question was:
Many statistics bureaus give their data away for free partially or wholly, some ask a fee for the rest of their data mostly small. Would it be possible especially with regards to data for third world countries which isn't really obtainable without someone paying for it to get them to buy some of that data for us.
Kennisnet, the portal organisation it is, cannot fulfil such a request.
Because you hated the idea when I first proposed it, you told me it was a bad idea and you didn't want to ask me in the first place so I do not believe that you actually defended it or argued in favour of it. So I am thinking you used my idea to launch your own. which is under here, which everyone we spoke to about hates but only you like.
There was however a discussion on how such data would be best hosted. Localisation and versioning were discussed. When you have statistical content, you want to know the date and the source of the content. アム ステルダム, 암스테르담 and Амстердам have the same statistics it makes little sense to store this in many projects. Consequently the possibilities that Wikidata offer for this type of information and the possibilities that the Ultimate Wiktionary offer for localisation need to be considered. Kennisnet might consider helping with the creation of the infrastructure for such a project.
Cool we have a database BUT NO DATA TO HOST IN IT ..... sounds like a great idea. The reason for the discrepacies between the projects are simple. As I pointed out on nl: I use for the countries I maintain the data from the statistical organizations, the official sources. On other wikipedia's they use unofficial estimates by sites such as citypopulation.de which are more often than not way off in respect to the official data, ever wondered why the Dutch wikipedia has a province more for Cambodia than all other wikipedia's? Because it is there and it was formed recently according to the statistical data, but try to say it on en: and it gets deleted. Now I do not feel that doing this in one central place will help. We will only get estimates which is a totally wrong thing, I rather have the data per wikipedia seperately so I can at least make sure the data as we have it on nl: is right. I have no time to go in heated arguments with a bunch of teenagers on en: who also happen to have found wikidata. Centralization is good, but not for everything. Yet another project would only harm wikimedia. As we get spread out to much especially a project that is overlapping with other projects.
Now for the end, as long as Gerard is not being questioned about his role with regards to kennisnet, nor the foundation is giving some opening as to what gerards actual mandates are I am against any further collaberation between the Dutch languaged wikimedia projects and Kennisnet.
Waerth/Walter van Kalken