Hoi,
Thanks for your reply. There is one big issue that you do not address and,
it is best explained using a Wikipedia "best practice". The best practice
is that a town, a village whatever is known to be in the next
level "administrative territorial entities". This is done properly for the
first world. Where Wikidata does not hold data, as it often does, it cannot
help in info boxes but what I find is that the data of the Wikipedia is
wrong for more than 6% when I add information.
It does not matter that the information is fractured; coming from many
sources. The data for Egyptian subdivisions is largely in Arabic. This is
not something I can curate but it is something that can be presented.
What does matter is that differences between Wikipedias and Wikidata are
not noticed. Of particular importance is where the data is biased or wrong.
Particularly where the data is wrong and is about "administrative
territorial entities", I have had push back because English Wikipedia was
said to be wrong [1]... My interpretation of the facts is that the German
article was better written but out of date.
In this mail thread, I raise the issue of differences between Wikipedias,
differences between projects and Wikidata. Particularly where the
data/articles are biased or wrong our quality suffers. When for a subject
the error rate is more than 6%, the error rate is more than can be expected
of human adding good faith information to a project. The data I am adding
at this time supports Wikipedia best practices. It is particularly intended
for the "minority languages" [2] but the quality of all our data will be
improved when we are aware of the differences and curate them everywhere.
This is distinctly different from the issue with Commons; its data is good
enough for its current use case but is what holds it back from becoming the
resource you goto because you can "find" what you are seeking.
In a nutshell our problem is that we work in an insular fashion. We do not
have ways to find the differences, the errors, the bias between our
projects. We could do, suggestions for a basic mechanism have been made.
Our quality suffers and it does not need to [3].
Thanks,
GerardM
[1]
fruit-from.html
On 16 July 2018 at 05:41, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
yes, it is an old issue, what you say it's right
but I would be more
optimistic.
To summarize my view (I couls send you more information privately)
1. Wikidata largely reflected what Wikipedia indicated, and that was not
the right way to make it grow, but that was also the past. At the moment,
the reference of the content is increasing, the clean-up too. In some
areas, wikidata items are also created before the wikipedia articles
nowadays.
2. new tools are great and will do a lot, but it's users who do the real
tricks. You have to start to bring local users to wikidata, show them how
it can be used (automatic infoboxes, fast creation of stubs, automatic
lists, detecing missing images). They will start to fix the issues,
curating their wikipedia, wikidata and also indirectly influence the other
ones.
3. IMHO, the wikidata ecosystem is not so bad, it could have more expert
users with real knowledge of topics, but commons with millions of
automatically imported files, and tons of poorly described and
uncategorized images faces a much worse perspective. You need more tools
there than on wikidata, at the moment, if you want to keep some balanced
workflow. What is really missing on wikidata are mostly active projects to
coordinate and catalyze the ongoing efforts. This one
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Ancient_Greece made
miracles, for example. But I couldn't find one about peer-reviewed
researchers or photographers to name a few, at least in the past months.
Investing on this aspect would not change the final situation on wikidata
(that will be positive for me), but it would speed up the process. it will
also influence much more the content on local wikis because it will bring
content-related users closer together and increase their wikidata literacy
with lower effort.
4. In the end, even with a good high quality wikidata platform, there will
always be communities that will not integrated in wikidata massively... but
that's also a good thing for pluralism. You can't assume that a discrepancy
is always a clue for a mistake (I am sure the examples of your experience
are, of course), on the long term some of them are simply effects of gray
areas that need to wait to be resolved even at the level of the sources.
Insome fields, such as taxonomy, there is some confusion and asymmetric
organization of the content and will never be solved easily. But in the
other areas they probably will.
Alex
Il Domenica 15 Luglio 2018 22:37, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> ha scritto:
Hoi,
Wikidata is a reflection of all the Wikimedia projects, particularly the
Wikipedias. Both Wikidata and Wikipedia are secondary sources and when two
Wikipedias have opposing information on singular information, it is a cop
out to state both "opinions" on Wikidata and leave it at that.
Given that Wikidata largely reflects what a Wikipedia indicates, it is
important to curate such differences. The first thing to consider is are we
interested at all in knowing about "false facts" and then how we can
indicate differences to our editing and reading community.
I have been editing about Africa for a long time now and I find that the
content about Africa is woefully underdeveloped. Best Wikipedia practice
has it that cities and villages are linked to "administrative territorial
entities" like provinces and districts and I have added such relations from
primary to secondary entities. Adding such information to villages and
cities as well is too much for me. The basic principle is that I am being
bold in doing so. I do relate to existing items and I have curated a lot of
crap data so far. The result is that Wikidata in places differs
considerably from Wikipedias, particularly the English Wikipedia.
As topics like the ones about Africa are severely underdeveloped, just
adding new data is a 100% improvement even when arguably adding sources is
a good thing. By being bold, by starting from a Wikipedia as a base line,
it is important to note that not adding sources is established practice in
Wikidata.
The issue I raise is that when "another" Wikipedia considers its
information superior, it is all too easy to make accusations of adding
"fake facts" particularly when it is not obvious that the "other"
Wikipedia
provides better information. To counter such insular behaviour, it becomes
relevant to consider how we can indicate discrepancies between stated facts
in any Wikimedia project vis a vis Wikidata. Obviously it would be
wonderful when the total of all our projects are considered in a
visualisation.
Particularly when a subject is of little interest to our current editor
community, the data in the Wikipedias and by inference in Wikidata is weak.
Many of the subjects, Africa just as one example, are relevant to a public,
both a reading and editing public, that we want to develop. Without tools
that help us curate our differences we will rely on insular opinions and
every project is only a part of what we aim to achieve in all our projects.
We will have a hard time growing our audience.
NB this is an old, old issue and it is not going away.
Thanks,
GerardM
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-
fruit-from.html
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>