That seems a very Wikipedia-centric analysis, as though Wikidata were only
there to feed Wikipedia. I think most re-users of Wikidata will be
elsewhere, and indeed be passive consumers and commercial rebranders whose
audience is unlikely to feed back into Wikidata.
The following article in The Register, which resulted from a conversation
with Andy Mabbett, explains this quite well:
There was also another media story last week, about a project by Dutch firm
Lab1100 (complete with some sceptical comments about data quality). It's a
Wikidata-based map of historical military battles fought across the world:
So the commercial potential is huge.
I'm not blind to the argument that use will lead to correction, but it has
to be balanced against the risks of "garbage in, garbage out", given the
huge amount of data that will eventually accumulate and need to be curated
by volunteers, and bearing in mind that the CC-0 licence has the potential
of obscuring the origin of the data, cutting the very feedback loop your
argument relies on for a substantial subset of end users.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:57 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <dacuetu(a)gmail.com>
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Andreas Kolbe
Wikidata and Wikipedia have very different
purposes: Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia to be read; Wikidata is a database. No one reads a database.
The whole purpose of a database is to have its content multiplied and
surfaced elsewhere. Therefore it is even more essential that its content
stand on solid ground.
I disagree with that. In my opinion Wikipedia and Wikidata do not have
different purposes, they complement each other.
In an ideal world all the data present in Wikidata should surface in
Wikipedia, and be referenced from there.
However it is expected that the data comes already referenced at
*statement* level from Wikidata, when Wikipedia doesn't comply with those
standards either. This assumes that the Wikidata community is a generator
of perfectly referenced facts and that the Wikipedia communities are mere
consumers of data. This is a toxic view because it goes against the core
principle of wikis as a tool for taking ownership of the means of knowledge
aggregation and distribution.
It has to be noted too, that in Wikidata many items have external
identifiers, references, and sources, and they apply to the whole
information contained, not just one single statement, that is something
that should be taken into account when speaking about reliability.
Besides this discussion is trite. Quality comes from use, research and
oversight, and without tools for working with wikidata from wikipedia, like
connected infoboxes, there is no point in discussing about data quality,
because as you said "no one reads a database"... except for a few people
like me I guess :)