Hoi, Lets talk Thanks, Gerard On 16 June 2014 13:29, Anders Wennersten <mail(a)anderswennersten.se> wrote:

Just a few examples. *It takes up to 6 months and a lot of argumentations to get a new datatype defined. If you are commited you succeed but if it just need it but do not have the time, you fail *The discussions among the Wikidatapeople are most trying *The data and datatypes are not stable. Suddenly someone can suggest that a bunch of existing datatypes are redifined/deleted even if it makes invested code using these obsolete (it has become better this year) *A lot of critical functionality is missing, and even when said it is released there are still restrictions (that "soon" will be fixed) *The small number of people understanding the intricicies of Wikidata. On svwp there are just 4-7 who really worked with wikidata and at least one has now left because of the longdrawn discussions on Wikdata We can use some dataelements from Wikidata in some articles, but not a commit a set of articles to Wikidata which our botefforts requires (where you need to be 100% sure of the quality and be able to correct these automatically if problems) Anders David Cuenca skrev 2014-06-16 15:40:

That is quite unfortunate. I understand that when you say "datatype" you mean "property"? From my experience those are best suggested in the frame of a "task force" or "wikiproject", then you have some context and a broader view on how data can be represented. Sometimes new users come with the question "where is this datatype/property?" when a better question to ask is "how do I represent this data?". When I started I was under the false impression that the data in wikipedias could be copied structured without much trouble into wikidata, and that is not always like that. Since wikipedia has no constraints, the data in infoboxes is not always readily importable into the data item, and frequently needs to be re-structured. That needs more effort, but in the end it is rewarding. And yes, I agree that at the beginning some properties were created that had to be changed to make the data consistent, I would say that now everything is more stable, but being a brand-new project is something that was expected. As Lodewijk asks, what are the properties/datatypes/functionality that you need? Cheers, Micru On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Anders Wennersten &lt;mail(a)anderswennersten.se > Just a few examples. > *It takes up to 6 months and a lot of argumentations to get a new datatype > defined. If you are commited you succeed but if it just need it but do not > have the time, you fail > *The discussions among the Wikidatapeople are most trying > *The data and datatypes are not stable. Suddenly someone can suggest that > a bunch of existing datatypes are redifined/deleted even if it makes > invested code using these obsolete (it has become better this year) > *A lot of critical functionality is missing, and even when said it is > released there are still restrictions (that "soon" will be fixed) > *The small number of people understanding the intricicies of Wikidata. On > svwp there are just 4-7 who really worked with wikidata and at least one > has now left because of the longdrawn discussions on Wikdata > > We can use some dataelements from Wikidata in some articles, but not a > commit a set of articles to Wikidata which our botefforts requires (where > you need to be 100% sure of the quality and be able to correct these > automatically if problems) > > Anders > > David Cuenca skrev 2014-06-16 15:40: > > It would be interesting to know what needs to be improved, so... what >> prevented you of using the data? >> And from which different perspectives? >> >> Cheers, >> Micru >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Anders Wennersten < >> mail(a)anderswennersten.se >> >>>>> we have now spent one year trying to use Wikidata operationally, in our >>> botprojects, but found it is impossible in the state it is now, from many >>> perspectives. It has been a big disappointment but we hope it will look >>> better a year from now >>> Anders >>> >>> >>> >>> Gerard Meijssen skrev 2014-06-16 12:44: >>> >>> Hoi, >>> >>>> I blogged about Lsjbot.. [1]. I really hope that a lot of attention is >>>> given in finding the links to existing items in Wikidata. >>>> Thanks, >>>> GerardM >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/06/wikipedia- >>>> to-bot-or-not-to-bot.html >>>> >>>> >>>> On 16 June 2014 12:25, Anders Wennersten &lt;mail(a)anderswennersten.se&gt; >>>>>>> >>>> After having changed job and residence Sverker is now on it again. >>>> This >>>> >>>>> time Lsjbot will generate some 300 000 articles on plant species. The >>>>> initiative is now receiving full support and even enthusiasm from the >>>>> fellow wikipedians on svwp >>>>> >>>>> It is now close to one year since the 1M article on insects, animal etc >>>>> was generated and we now have had some feedback whereof I here give >>>>> some >>>>> examples >>>>> *The students on a university veterinary course was given the >>>>> assignment >>>>> to write article on parasitic worms and put them up om Wikipedia. These >>>>> became excellent: complete and voluminous. This was in many way >>>>> helped/made >>>>> possible by that there already existed Lsjbot stubs with complete >>>>> Taxobox, >>>>> iw-links, categories and basic sources. The students are expert on >>>>> subjects >>>>> not the wikispecialities >>>>> *the experts on animal etc among our Wikipedians has now shifted focus. >>>>> There are species where the authorities disagree on the taxonomy and >>>>> here >>>>> Lsjbot did not generate any article. among birds there are some 500 >>>>> disputed species. These articles our experts now work with, >>>>> highlighting >>>>> the disputes, why, what and by whom. And when we compare these >>>>> manually >>>>> created articles we find that on most other language versions, these >>>>> only >>>>> take data from one authority and are not correctly describing the >>>>> dispute. >>>>> Perhaps svwp will after this not only be most complete but also most >>>>> correct version on species? >>>>> >>>>> As a side effect (not a goal in itself) we expect svwp to be the second >>>>> biggest version, when it comes to number of articles, by >>>>> August/September >>>>> >>>>> And when it comes to botgeneration in general, we are continuing our >>>>> researcheffort into generate some 0,3-0,5 M articles on geographic >>>>> entities >>>>> from all over the world by end 2015/2016 using Wikidata as a source. >>>>> >>>>> Anders >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>>> Wikimedia-l(a)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 >>>> Wikimedia-l(a)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 >>> Wikimedia-l(a)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 > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non