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