On 27 September 2017 at 10:01, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
We don't need to ban statements when we can just deprecate them with a reason. I think the whole point is to allow differing views equal weight, based on sourced statements. By allowing statements to reside side-by-side like this, it will be easy to see which Wikipedia projects (or sub-areas of interest on Wikipedia projects) have the most disputed statements on Wikidata. Right now that would be English Wikipedia overall of course, just by sheer numbers of pages. However, we are already at a point where you can look at specific sub-areas (players of certain national sports for example) and look at the controversial statements per Wikipedia. It could be quite interesting.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I believe that at some point Wikidata will be ready to ban unsourced statements (including sources to other Wikimedia projects unless appropriate), which will automatically solve the BLP issue.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Yes, this is one of the reasons why data from Wikidata must only be included in a Wikipedia at the discretion of users of that specific Wikipedia, like images from Commons. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Sunday, 17 September 2017 10:14 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy
Hoi, There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at
Wikidata.
Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and
a
policy that is a mirror image of their policy.
I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the best practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data. Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it concerns BLP.
Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments for a more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the relevant questions together.
What this approach accomplishes is:
- better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata
- an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red
links to Wikidata items
- it allows for the Wikidata best practices
- it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for
our overall BLP.
What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that
too
is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating
and
not so much in the endless bickering. Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia- and-its-blp-approach.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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
As per Jane, "depreciation" might be usefully interpreted as grading the sources or finding a semi-automatic way to assess notability for different purposes. On my home project of Wikimedia Commons, the concept of notability is irrelevant as whether a media item is valid to host is based on likely educational, historic or cultural value alone. In this way, a portrait photograph of someone winning a local surfing trophy in 1988, or a series of wartime sketches by a non-notable artist, is okay for Commons but are unlikely to ever be of much relevance to Wikipedia.
On Wikidata I can imagine we may wish to import complete datasets creating lots of person-based statements, such as all past registered company directors. The vast majority of these statements would have little use for BLPs on Wikipedia, but for anyone running an analysis of corporate history, tracking the flow of directors across institutions would be a great novel use of Wikidata, and in turn might provide insight for new Wikipedia articles or research outside of the wiki-verse.
"Notability", "Educational value" or "Historical value" are slippery ideas and I suggest that any meaningful community proposals are heavily illustrated with case studies / case books so that we have a credible common (international) understanding of what these words mean.
Fae