Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped off by a tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that displays the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where Wikidata overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
Have a nice day!
Ariel
[1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345
Hoi, So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as Wikidata... HUUUUU Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF ariel@wikimedia.org wrote:
Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped off by a tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that displays the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where Wikidata overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
Have a nice day!
Ariel
[1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hello Ariel Glenn, Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than on Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-) Kind regards Ziko
Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
Hoi, So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as Wikidata... HUUUUU Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF ariel@wikimedia.org wrote:
Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped off
by a
tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that displays the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where
Wikidata
overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
Have a nice day!
Ariel
[1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This is a good news.
Cheers!!!
Olaniyan Olushola CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd President, Wikimedia Nigeria Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation) Co-director Wiki Women Radio www.wikimedia.org.ng shola@wikimedia.org.ng olaniyanshola15@gmail.com +2348167352512
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Ariel Glenn, Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than on Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-) Kind regards Ziko
Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
Hoi, So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as Wikidata... HUUUUU Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF ariel@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped off
by a
tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that
displays
the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where
Wikidata
overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
Have a nice day!
Ariel
[1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but: Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots than by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for a few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the bots on the English Wikipedia has almost always been lower than the activity of anonymous contributors, and that activity has always been well below that of registered contributors. There was one exception, in 2013 where there was a spike of bot activity. We could also talk about the average number of edits per contributor which appears to be around 100 on the English Wikipedia and 1,200 on Wikidata (these numbers are after removing the estimated edits done by bots). Quite a difference. The different Wikimedia projects rely on the community to police and curate the content of these encyclopedias and data collections. I am therefore a bit wary of what is happening with Wikidata where more edits are still being done by bots than by real humans (by "real" I mean "real" not like "real" as in the TV series "real humans")
Best regards Gabe
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Olushola Olaniyan olaniyanshola15@gmail.com wrote:
This is a good news.
Cheers!!!
Olaniyan Olushola CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd President, Wikimedia Nigeria Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation) Co-director Wiki Women Radio www.wikimedia.org.ng shola@wikimedia.org.ng olaniyanshola15@gmail.com +2348167352512
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Ariel Glenn, Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than on Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-) Kind regards Ziko
Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
Hoi, So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as Wikidata... HUUUUU Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF ariel@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped
off
by a
tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that
displays
the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where
Wikidata
overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
Have a nice day!
Ariel
[1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
But... bots are operated, written, and reviewed by real humans ? Like if I spend 2 hours adding "painting by Vincent van Gogh" manually on every relevant item by hand, how is that more valuable than spending 20 minutes to write a bot that does that for me (and can be used for similar tasks) ?
Caroline
Le mer. 20 mars 2019 à 10:45, Gabriel Thullen gabriel@thullen.com a écrit :
Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but: Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots than by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for a few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the bots on the English Wikipedia has almost always been lower than the activity of anonymous contributors, and that activity has always been well below that of registered contributors. There was one exception, in 2013 where there was a spike of bot activity. We could also talk about the average number of edits per contributor which appears to be around 100 on the English Wikipedia and 1,200 on Wikidata (these numbers are after removing the estimated edits done by bots). Quite a difference. The different Wikimedia projects rely on the community to police and curate the content of these encyclopedias and data collections. I am therefore a bit wary of what is happening with Wikidata where more edits are still being done by bots than by real humans (by "real" I mean "real" not like "real" as in the TV series "real humans")
Best regards Gabe
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Olushola Olaniyan < olaniyanshola15@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a good news.
Cheers!!!
Olaniyan Olushola CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd President, Wikimedia Nigeria Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation) Co-director Wiki Women Radio www.wikimedia.org.ng shola@wikimedia.org.ng olaniyanshola15@gmail.com +2348167352512
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Ariel Glenn, Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than
on
Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-) Kind regards Ziko
Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
Hoi, So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as
Wikidata...
HUUUUU Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF ariel@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped
off
by a
tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that
displays
the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where
Wikidata
overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
Have a nice day!
Ariel
[1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Well I guess it's great to see the popularity of Wikidata. That said comparing edit counts has never been really meaningful and we all know it.
So great milestone, does it mean anything more than there is a lot of work going on, I don't know.
That said Kudos to all people involved in Wikidata.
Le mer. 20 mars 2019 à 10:51, Caroline Becker carobecker54@gmail.com a écrit :
But... bots are operated, written, and reviewed by real humans ? Like if I spend 2 hours adding "painting by Vincent van Gogh" manually on every relevant item by hand, how is that more valuable than spending 20 minutes to write a bot that does that for me (and can be used for similar tasks) ?
Caroline
Le mer. 20 mars 2019 à 10:45, Gabriel Thullen gabriel@thullen.com a écrit :
Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but: Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots
than
by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for a few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the bots on the English Wikipedia has almost always been lower than the activity
of
anonymous contributors, and that activity has always been well below that of registered contributors. There was one exception, in 2013 where there was a spike of bot activity. We could also talk about the average number of edits per contributor
which
appears to be around 100 on the English Wikipedia and 1,200 on Wikidata (these numbers are after removing the estimated edits done by bots).
Quite
a difference. The different Wikimedia projects rely on the community to police and
curate
the content of these encyclopedias and data collections. I am therefore a bit wary of what is happening with Wikidata where more edits are still being done by bots than by real humans (by "real" I mean "real" not like "real" as in the TV series "real humans")
Best regards Gabe
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Olushola Olaniyan < olaniyanshola15@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a good news.
Cheers!!!
Olaniyan Olushola CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd President, Wikimedia Nigeria Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation) Co-director Wiki Women Radio www.wikimedia.org.ng shola@wikimedia.org.ng olaniyanshola15@gmail.com +2348167352512
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Ariel Glenn, Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than
on
Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-) Kind regards Ziko
Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
Hoi, So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as
Wikidata...
HUUUUU Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF <ariel@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number
of
revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was
tipped
off
by a
tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that
displays
the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where
Wikidata
overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is
888629401
2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
Have a nice day!
Ariel
[1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The code may always be written and and often reviewed by humans but the data clearly is not. There was an instance recently of a bot adding an incorrect date of birth of 1950 to thousands of entries due to a misunderstanding (by its human author) about VIAF file formats
JPS
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:51 AM Caroline Becker carobecker54@gmail.com wrote:
But... bots are operated, written, and reviewed by real humans ? Like if I spend 2 hours adding "painting by Vincent van Gogh" manually on every relevant item by hand, how is that more valuable than spending 20 minutes to write a bot that does that for me (and can be used for similar tasks) ?
Caroline
Le mer. 20 mars 2019 à 10:45, Gabriel Thullen gabriel@thullen.com a écrit :
Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but: Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots
than
by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for a few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the bots on the English Wikipedia has almost always been lower than the activity
of
anonymous contributors, and that activity has always been well below that of registered contributors. There was one exception, in 2013 where there was a spike of bot activity. We could also talk about the average number of edits per contributor
which
appears to be around 100 on the English Wikipedia and 1,200 on Wikidata (these numbers are after removing the estimated edits done by bots).
Quite
a difference. The different Wikimedia projects rely on the community to police and
curate
the content of these encyclopedias and data collections. I am therefore a bit wary of what is happening with Wikidata where more edits are still being done by bots than by real humans (by "real" I mean "real" not like "real" as in the TV series "real humans")
Best regards Gabe
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Olushola Olaniyan < olaniyanshola15@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a good news.
Cheers!!!
Olaniyan Olushola CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd President, Wikimedia Nigeria Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation) Co-director Wiki Women Radio www.wikimedia.org.ng shola@wikimedia.org.ng olaniyanshola15@gmail.com +2348167352512
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Ariel Glenn, Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than
on
Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-) Kind regards Ziko
Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
Hoi, So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as
Wikidata...
HUUUUU Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF <ariel@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number
of
revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was
tipped
off
by a
tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that
displays
the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where
Wikidata
overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is
888629401
2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
Have a nice day!
Ariel
[1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, The biggest benefit of Wikidata is that it knows about more subjects than any Wikipedia has articles. Like Wikipedia it has its own problems but it has its own benefits. The biggest problem with Wikidata is not its quality and the biggest benefit of Wikipedia is not its quality. Both have issues. All Wikimedia projects rely on their communities, that is where things are the same.
The notion that a community and text is better is in itself a fallacy because the integrity of data is easier to check with data and not so much with text. An example: I have repeatedly indicated that 6% of all the entries in a list in a Wikipedia is wrong. The problem is one of disambiguation.. For instance, for a chemistry award you would expect at least scientists better chemists. When a hockey player or a movie star is among them, it follows that you want to check this out. Easy to do at Wikidata, impossible at Wikipedia. It is possible but only only when Wikipedians and Wikidatans collaborate (they are not really).
When you suggest that bots are less secure than humans you are wrong as well. Research shows that a human with the best of intentions has an error rate of something like 6%. However when a list like a Wikipedia category of alumni of a given university is considered, there are no new errors introduced by a bot. All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors that already exist in a Wikipedia,. When we were to have consolidation processes, once a person is known to have studied at a university we could synchronise categories and data. In addition to this, bots import authorised data from ORCID indicating former students of universitiies. A consolidation process could update update both Wikidata and all Wikipedias who take an interest.
In addition when people search withing Wikidata, never mind the language they will find what Wikidata has to offer. Any Wikipedia is a subset of what a Wikipedia has to offer.
So as much as both Wikidata Wikipedia are wonderful products, there is room for improvement. Improvement will only happen when we truly care about sharing in the sum of all knowledge, when we truly care about quality and not assume that "we" (whoever we is) has a superior proposition. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 10:45, Gabriel Thullen gabriel@thullen.com wrote:
Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but: Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots than by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for a few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the bots on the English Wikipedia has almost always been lower than the activity of anonymous contributors, and that activity has always been well below that of registered contributors. There was one exception, in 2013 where there was a spike of bot activity. We could also talk about the average number of edits per contributor which appears to be around 100 on the English Wikipedia and 1,200 on Wikidata (these numbers are after removing the estimated edits done by bots). Quite a difference. The different Wikimedia projects rely on the community to police and curate the content of these encyclopedias and data collections. I am therefore a bit wary of what is happening with Wikidata where more edits are still being done by bots than by real humans (by "real" I mean "real" not like "real" as in the TV series "real humans")
Best regards Gabe
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Olushola Olaniyan < olaniyanshola15@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a good news.
Cheers!!!
Olaniyan Olushola CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd President, Wikimedia Nigeria Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation) Co-director Wiki Women Radio www.wikimedia.org.ng shola@wikimedia.org.ng olaniyanshola15@gmail.com +2348167352512
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Ariel Glenn, Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than
on
Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-) Kind regards Ziko
Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
Hoi, So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as
Wikidata...
HUUUUU Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF ariel@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped
off
by a
tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that
displays
the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where
Wikidata
overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
Have a nice day!
Ariel
[1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
"All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors that already exist in a Wikipedia,"
That's rather far from being correct. I already indicated one form of error, caused by erroneous scraping by bot from an external data set. And to the extent that information is inserted by humans from whatever sources, that is subject to error too. And less checkable as Wikidata does not reference sources directly as does Wikipedia.
JPS
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:46 AM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The biggest benefit of Wikidata is that it knows about more subjects than any Wikipedia has articles. Like Wikipedia it has its own problems but it has its own benefits. The biggest problem with Wikidata is not its quality and the biggest benefit of Wikipedia is not its quality. Both have issues. All Wikimedia projects rely on their communities, that is where things are the same.
The notion that a community and text is better is in itself a fallacy because the integrity of data is easier to check with data and not so much with text. An example: I have repeatedly indicated that 6% of all the entries in a list in a Wikipedia is wrong. The problem is one of disambiguation.. For instance, for a chemistry award you would expect at least scientists better chemists. When a hockey player or a movie star is among them, it follows that you want to check this out. Easy to do at Wikidata, impossible at Wikipedia. It is possible but only only when Wikipedians and Wikidatans collaborate (they are not really).
When you suggest that bots are less secure than humans you are wrong as well. Research shows that a human with the best of intentions has an error rate of something like 6%. However when a list like a Wikipedia category of alumni of a given university is considered, there are no new errors introduced by a bot. All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors that already exist in a Wikipedia,. When we were to have consolidation processes, once a person is known to have studied at a university we could synchronise categories and data. In addition to this, bots import authorised data from ORCID indicating former students of universitiies. A consolidation process could update update both Wikidata and all Wikipedias who take an interest.
In addition when people search withing Wikidata, never mind the language they will find what Wikidata has to offer. Any Wikipedia is a subset of what a Wikipedia has to offer.
So as much as both Wikidata Wikipedia are wonderful products, there is room for improvement. Improvement will only happen when we truly care about sharing in the sum of all knowledge, when we truly care about quality and not assume that "we" (whoever we is) has a superior proposition. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 10:45, Gabriel Thullen gabriel@thullen.com wrote:
Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but: Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots
than
by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for a few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the bots on the English Wikipedia has almost always been lower than the activity
of
anonymous contributors, and that activity has always been well below that of registered contributors. There was one exception, in 2013 where there was a spike of bot activity. We could also talk about the average number of edits per contributor
which
appears to be around 100 on the English Wikipedia and 1,200 on Wikidata (these numbers are after removing the estimated edits done by bots).
Quite
a difference. The different Wikimedia projects rely on the community to police and
curate
the content of these encyclopedias and data collections. I am therefore a bit wary of what is happening with Wikidata where more edits are still being done by bots than by real humans (by "real" I mean "real" not like "real" as in the TV series "real humans")
Best regards Gabe
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Olushola Olaniyan < olaniyanshola15@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a good news.
Cheers!!!
Olaniyan Olushola CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd President, Wikimedia Nigeria Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation) Co-director Wiki Women Radio www.wikimedia.org.ng shola@wikimedia.org.ng olaniyanshola15@gmail.com +2348167352512
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Ariel Glenn, Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than
on
Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-) Kind regards Ziko
Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
Hoi, So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as
Wikidata...
HUUUUU Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF <ariel@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number
of
revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was
tipped
off
by a
tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that
displays
the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where
Wikidata
overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is
888629401
2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
Have a nice day!
Ariel
[1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Thank you for quoting out of context.
This is a quote to get the context: " However when a list like a Wikipedia category of alumni of a given university is considered, there are no new errors introduced by a bot. All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors that already exist in a Wikipedia".
My reality is that I have imported masses of people with awards and categories with people who are staff or alumni of universities. I have observed the issues that I described, I have blogged about it. My reality is that I make errors like everyone else. Because of this, when I import data from a category, I have learned to check the first entry and see if it created the expected statement. The start of this process are statements on the item for the category indicating what it contains. This allows later processes to be done fully automated by a bot.
Given that we include data from many Wikipedias, information from ORCID, we know about more people with articles in any Wikipedia that went to those universities for study or work. It means that we can, if a "community" allows for it, add those people to Wikipedia categories.
NB I have blogged about this for years now. People seem not to be interested in context [1].
However, both Wikipedias, Wikidata get it wrong. My argument, my point is that when we do work together, we get the facts straight for the subjects that are under consideration. The notion that Wikidata is done importing from sources is a fallacy. We are not ready for consolidation, most items are incomplete, often impossible to disambiguate and we are stuck with Wikipedia think that prevents us from seeing a bigger picture. The bigger picture is that the "sum of all knowledge" is not in articles nor in items. It is in how we bring things together. Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 22:34, Jennifer Pryor-Summers < jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com> wrote:
"All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors that already exist in a Wikipedia,"
That's rather far from being correct. I already indicated one form of error, caused by erroneous scraping by bot from an external data set. And to the extent that information is inserted by humans from whatever sources, that is subject to error too. And less checkable as Wikidata does not reference sources directly as does Wikipedia.
JPS
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:46 AM Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, The biggest benefit of Wikidata is that it knows about more subjects than any Wikipedia has articles. Like Wikipedia it has its own problems but it has its own benefits. The biggest problem with Wikidata is not its
quality
and the biggest benefit of Wikipedia is not its quality. Both have
issues.
All Wikimedia projects rely on their communities, that is where things
are
the same.
The notion that a community and text is better is in itself a fallacy because the integrity of data is easier to check with data and not so
much
with text. An example: I have repeatedly indicated that 6% of all the entries in a list in a Wikipedia is wrong. The problem is one of disambiguation.. For instance, for a chemistry award you would expect at least scientists better chemists. When a hockey player or a movie star is among them, it follows that you want to check this out. Easy to do at Wikidata, impossible at Wikipedia. It is possible but only only when Wikipedians and Wikidatans collaborate (they are not really).
When you suggest that bots are less secure than humans you are wrong as well. Research shows that a human with the best of intentions has an
error
rate of something like 6%. However when a list like a Wikipedia category
of
alumni of a given university is considered, there are no new errors introduced by a bot. All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors that already exist in a Wikipedia,. When we were to have consolidation processes, once a person is known to have studied at a university we
could
synchronise categories and data. In addition to this, bots import authorised data from ORCID indicating former students of universitiies. A consolidation process could update update both Wikidata and all
Wikipedias
who take an interest.
In addition when people search withing Wikidata, never mind the language they will find what Wikidata has to offer. Any Wikipedia is a subset of what a Wikipedia has to offer.
So as much as both Wikidata Wikipedia are wonderful products, there is
room
for improvement. Improvement will only happen when we truly care about sharing in the sum of all knowledge, when we truly care about quality and not assume that "we" (whoever we is) has a superior proposition. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 10:45, Gabriel Thullen gabriel@thullen.com
wrote:
Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but: Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots
than
by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for
a
few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the
bots
on the English Wikipedia has almost always been lower than the activity
of
anonymous contributors, and that activity has always been well below
that
of registered contributors. There was one exception, in 2013 where
there
was a spike of bot activity. We could also talk about the average number of edits per contributor
which
appears to be around 100 on the English Wikipedia and 1,200 on Wikidata (these numbers are after removing the estimated edits done by bots).
Quite
a difference. The different Wikimedia projects rely on the community to police and
curate
the content of these encyclopedias and data collections. I am
therefore a
bit wary of what is happening with Wikidata where more edits are still being done by bots than by real humans (by "real" I mean "real" not
like
"real" as in the TV series "real humans")
Best regards Gabe
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Olushola Olaniyan < olaniyanshola15@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a good news.
Cheers!!!
Olaniyan Olushola CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd President, Wikimedia Nigeria Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation) Co-director Wiki Women Radio www.wikimedia.org.ng shola@wikimedia.org.ng olaniyanshola15@gmail.com +2348167352512
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Ariel Glenn, Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know
that
making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker
than
on
Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-) Kind regards Ziko
Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
Hoi, So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as
Wikidata...
HUUUUU Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF <
ariel@wikimedia.org
wrote:
> Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number
of
> revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was
tipped
off
by a > tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script
that
displays
> the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point
where
Wikidata > overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC): > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py
-d
> www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 > revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z > revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z > revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py
-d
> en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 > revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z > revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z > revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z > > Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions: > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py > Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is
888629401
> 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422 > > Have a nice day! > > Ariel > > [1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345 > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
In my experience we are now leaving Phase one of filling Wikidata with basic data.
This first phase involved many botcreated items and wellmeaning semi-manual mass updates. This has resulted in many problems. Bots that is filling wrong Item, with same name but a different object, creating mess. Bot update that put in deathdates from a list of retirement dates creating a lot of angriness as it showed in Google search a lot of living persons being dead. And a lot of bewildering "Intance of"
Our reaction to this is that we are now putting a major effort to manually go through important classes of WD items in order to enter correct data, specially "Instance of". This in order to correct and stop erroneous data to be entered from now on. It also give a big advantage as fact control on datasets is much easier done by using Wikdata. Also after base data is correct, make mass updates and correction by bot.
We also have the vision to "freeze" correct data (of data that should not change) by using Literialists, first to easy control big dataset, but after a while putting in logic that hampers changes in his data.
So not manually or Bot but both.
Anders
Den 2019-03-20 kl. 12:46, skrev Gerard Meijssen:
Hoi, The biggest benefit of Wikidata is that it knows about more subjects than any Wikipedia has articles. Like Wikipedia it has its own problems but it has its own benefits. The biggest problem with Wikidata is not its quality and the biggest benefit of Wikipedia is not its quality. Both have issues. All Wikimedia projects rely on their communities, that is where things are the same.
The notion that a community and text is better is in itself a fallacy because the integrity of data is easier to check with data and not so much with text. An example: I have repeatedly indicated that 6% of all the entries in a list in a Wikipedia is wrong. The problem is one of disambiguation.. For instance, for a chemistry award you would expect at least scientists better chemists. When a hockey player or a movie star is among them, it follows that you want to check this out. Easy to do at Wikidata, impossible at Wikipedia. It is possible but only only when Wikipedians and Wikidatans collaborate (they are not really).
When you suggest that bots are less secure than humans you are wrong as well. Research shows that a human with the best of intentions has an error rate of something like 6%. However when a list like a Wikipedia category of alumni of a given university is considered, there are no new errors introduced by a bot. All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors that already exist in a Wikipedia,. When we were to have consolidation processes, once a person is known to have studied at a university we could synchronise categories and data. In addition to this, bots import authorised data from ORCID indicating former students of universitiies. A consolidation process could update update both Wikidata and all Wikipedias who take an interest.
In addition when people search withing Wikidata, never mind the language they will find what Wikidata has to offer. Any Wikipedia is a subset of what a Wikipedia has to offer.
So as much as both Wikidata Wikipedia are wonderful products, there is room for improvement. Improvement will only happen when we truly care about sharing in the sum of all knowledge, when we truly care about quality and not assume that "we" (whoever we is) has a superior proposition. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 10:45, Gabriel Thullen gabriel@thullen.com wrote:
Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but: Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots than by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for a few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the bots on the English Wikipedia has almost always been lower than the activity of anonymous contributors, and that activity has always been well below that of registered contributors. There was one exception, in 2013 where there was a spike of bot activity. We could also talk about the average number of edits per contributor which appears to be around 100 on the English Wikipedia and 1,200 on Wikidata (these numbers are after removing the estimated edits done by bots). Quite a difference. The different Wikimedia projects rely on the community to police and curate the content of these encyclopedias and data collections. I am therefore a bit wary of what is happening with Wikidata where more edits are still being done by bots than by real humans (by "real" I mean "real" not like "real" as in the TV series "real humans")
Best regards Gabe
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Olushola Olaniyan < olaniyanshola15@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a good news.
Cheers!!!
Olaniyan Olushola CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd President, Wikimedia Nigeria Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation) Co-director Wiki Women Radio www.wikimedia.org.ng shola@wikimedia.org.ng olaniyanshola15@gmail.com +2348167352512
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Ariel Glenn, Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than
on
Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-) Kind regards Ziko
Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
Hoi, So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as
Wikidata...
HUUUUU Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF ariel@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number of revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was tipped
off
by a
tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that
displays
the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where
Wikidata
overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000 revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
Have a nice day!
Ariel
[1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
El mié., 20 mar. 2019 a las 7:48, Ariel Glenn WMF (ariel@wikimedia.org) escribió:
Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
[ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is 888629401 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
This is the escape velocity, I think that Wikipedia will never surpass Wikidata again.
The singularity is near.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:50 PM Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
This is the escape velocity, I think that Wikipedia will never surpass Wikidata again.
The singularity is near.
Hey Emilio! Or, it passed us a while ago, but so quickly that we're only now noticing it.
///S
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org