My experience is that pretty much all Wikimedians care about quality,
though some have different, even diametrically opposed views as to what
quality means and which things are cosmetic or crucial.
My experience of the sadly dormant death anomaly project
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Death_anomalies_table> was that people
react positively to being told "here is a list of anomalies on your
language wikipedia" especially if those anomalies are relatively serious.
My experience of edits on many different languages is that wikipedians
appreciate someone who improves articles, even if you don't speak their
language. Dismissing any of our thousand wikis as a "black box" is I think
One of the great opportunities of Wikidata is to do the sort of data driven
anomaly finding that we pioneered with the death anomalies report. But we
always need to remember that there are cultural difference between wikis,
and not just in such things as the age at which we assume people are dead.
Diplomacy is a useful skill in cross wiki work.
On 20 November 2015 at 07:18, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia.
Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and
arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata
for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are
already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality
because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality issue
both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how to
deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
I blogged about it..
Wiki-research-l mailing list