Hi Bence, yes, I am thinking about rerunning the script and removing comments first. Didn't work out yesterday, I had a bug in my script, and noticed that only in the morning when it was already almost finished. Let's see when I have the time for the update. (Or if someone else picks up the code and does it). Thanks for the comments, Cheers, Denny 2012/6/25 Bence Damokos <bdamokos(a)gmail.com>om>: -- Project director Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

Amir, thank you for the thoughtful reply! Indeed our current plan is a kind of a staged deployment in the sense that we will not automatically transfer the links but let the editor community do it. On our test systems we already see bots being tried out and rewritten, so we expect that as soon as Wikidata starts, we will see that transition happening. But the current language link system will continue to work, so no article or Wikipedia is forced to switch to the Wikidata system. Complex language links configurations can still be handled manually -- and maybe even easier so, since conflicts between bots and human editors should be less likely to happen. I hope that this is the right path to "profit" :) Cheers, Denny 2012/6/25 Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il>il>: -- Project director Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

Hello, So may I guess that "double links" are usually the result of a Wikipedian who was not sure which language link to set, so in doubt, he simply put in the language links for two different articles? And in general, is it imagineable that different languages divide the knowledge in different ways, which could jeopardize the whole goal of Wikidata unifiying the language links? Kind regards Ziko 2012/6/25 Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>rg>: -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht -----------------------------------------------------------

This number, 99.2% was also mentioned on the Berlin Hackathon. It sounds much higher than what my (very scientifically relevant, obviously) gut feeling tells me. Could you indicate where this number is coming from? On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Denny Vrandečić <denny.vrandecic(a)wikimedia.de> wrote:

Hi All, Brent Hecht here :-) This has been a really interesting discussion, and I wanted to chime in with a few notes. The 99.2% is based on a quick script I wrote that looked at reciprocity among a sample of interlanguage links (ILLs) in 25 languages to address some questions that Denny and I brainstormed. It did not consider commented links, redirects, etc. However, in my lab’s published work that takes much more involved approaches to this problem, we also find that complex interlanguage link situations are the obvious minority, with simple 1:1 relationships being the norm. For instance, only 1% of connected components of the ILL graph (groups of articles linked together by ILLs) had more than one article per language edition in our 25-language dataset. There are some important details to note here. For instance, most connected components contain only one article (most concepts are covered by only a single language edition) and non-1:1 cases by definition involve more articles than 1:1 cases (all other things being equal). Also, general concepts of global interest are likely disproportionately represented in the non-1:1 situations (e.g. river, canal, high school, diplomacy). That said, given our data, I also think Denny is spot on with the “let’s start with the 1:1s” approach to building Wikidata, with solutions for more complex situations coming later. These solutions could be fascinating and important, but make sense as a second step, IMHO. Given that each language edition will be able to pick and choose from statements (last I checked, at least), this might provide additional flexibility as well, allowing greater variation to be included in the 1:1 model. If interested, I'd encourage folks to check out our CHI 2012 paper [1], as well as some excellent work done by Gerard de Melo and Gerhard Weikum that preceded us [3]. De Melo and Weikum establish an interesting taxonomy for causes of non-1:1 links: conceptual drift, different granularities, and mistakes made by editors. In my view, perhaps a greater problem is the one of missing interlanguage links, which I hope Wikidata’s popularity will help to solve. We’ve done some work to show that missing links can be somewhat substantial between certain language editions [2], although that was based on data from 2009. It's important to note, too, that some of the differences in coverage of a given concept across articles in different languages is addressed not with ILLs, but simply by describing concepts differently in each language edition. We call this "sub-concept diversity", and it can be substantial [2]. Our CHI 2012 paper describes a system we built, Omnipedia, that allows folks to browse the content about a single concept in 25 language editions. We’re hoping to launch the system sometime soon, but we have some practical considerations to deal with first (funding, finishing my thesis, etc. :-)). Lastly, I've been digging into the social science of this stuff a bit lately and many folks believe that, as Ziko said, different languages "divide knowledge in different ways" (even apart from any effects introduced in the Wikipedia context specifically). For instance, the linguist Anna Wierzbicka talks about the granularity differences as "cultural elaboration" and has all sorts of fun examples in her book "Understanding Cultures Through Their Keywords". You can also make arguments about this from a geographic perspective (my social science roots), psycholinguistics, and I'm sure other fields as well. This stuff perhaps explains some of the 1% of non-1:1 concepts, as well as some of the sub-concept diversity, although I am still brainstorming. In any case, hopefully this helps some! Happy to answer questions. Thanks again for a great discussion. - Brent p.s. Don't forget to support Denny and crew in the Knight News Challenge proposal :-) : http://newschallenge.tumblr.com/post/25575917516/wikidata-as-a-central-free… Brent Hecht Ph.D. Candidate in Computer Science @ Northwestern University Asst. Prof. of Comp. Sci @ Univ. Minnesota beginning 2013 w: http://www.brenthecht.com e: brent(a)u.northwestern.edu t: @bhecht [1] Bao, P., Hecht, B., Carton, S., Quaderi, M., Horn, M. and Gergle, D. 2012. Omnipedia: Bridging the Wikipedia Language Gap. CHI ’12: 30th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2012). [2] Hecht, B. and Gergle, D. 2010. The Tower of Babel Meets Web 2.0: User-Generated Content and Its Applications in a Multilingual Context. CHI ’10: 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, GA, 2010), 291–300. [3] de Melo, G. and Weikum, G. 2010. Untangling the Cross-Lingual Link Structure of Wikipedia. ACL ’10: 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Uppsala, Sweden, 2010). On Jun 26, 2012, at 7:56 AM, Denny Vrandečić wrote: