phoebe ayers wrote:
Not agreeing with the arguments of some editors *also* doesn't mean the entire engineering and operators department is "doing it wrong", or that the Wikidata project (which is not developed by WMF, incidentally, and is having its own interesting discussions *among its own community* as we speak) somehow is not capable of also debating these questions.
I do not agree with your arguments, Risker. I think Wikidata is great and I am happy it has been deployed (or will be soon). I think it will enable lots and lots of super cool things in the years to come, and having over the years lived through the deployments of commons, categories, new skins and who knows what else I am also confident, along with Denny, that we will figure it out in the wild as we go.
Hi Phoebe.
The infobox issues are tangential. Wikidata has _very real_ workflow issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikidata/Workflow. The current Wikidata implementation is incredibly anti-wiki. I think reading that page will clearly demonstrate this.
I agree that Wikidata is neat and I look forward to it to being available on Wikimedia wikis. However, I think it would be terribly (and painfully) premature to deploy it to a huge production wiki like the English Wikipedia in its current state.
I can understand the argument for allowing the workflow to naturally develop and evolve, but there are gaping issues right now, particularly the lack of a defined syntax for even using Wikidata data, that I don't believe should be overlooked or brushed aside.
I really don't understand what seems to be like a rush to deploy this on every Wikipedia.
MZMcBride