I *am* a fan of structured, semantic databases like wikidata, but
that's not what I'm talking about.
In highly structured databases, adding properties that may be useful
for your research and the work of others would require altering the
structure itself, like adding a field, for example. That isn't easy,
because the powers that be have to first agree that it is appropriate,
worthy, and fits correctly in to the ontology. If there is a type
hierarchy, then the sample set would probably have to conform to a
sub-tree in the type hierarchy which may not correspond well to the
sample set that the researcher is actually interested in.
I'm talking about the exact opposite, actually. Unstructured databases
can be easily altered and indexed in much more flexible ways. The
indices for these databases wouldn't normally be stored with the data
itself; the researchers would get a data dump and create the indices
needed for their own studies. Conventions would be enforced if the
researchers wish to contribute anything back.
Most importantly, if I understand correctly, wikidata is a secondary
database that doesn't correspond one-to-one with Wikipedia articles
yet, and it's not clear to me whether it ever will. While it might be
interesting to someone using the data collected in Wikipedia and
imported in wikidata for semantic-oriented research like basic AI that
would help computers win on Jeopardy, it wouldn't be interesting to
someone studying Wikipedia itself.
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Wil Sinclair
I imagine this isn't the first time someone has thrown something like
this in to the Wikipedosphere. If so, what did people think? If not,
what do you guys think? :)
I think it sounds a little bit like wikidata.org
, with some innovation of
potential future applications.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: