Hoi, The first priority of Wikipedia is having correct information. The argument that information may be out of date is for paper encyclopaedias acceptable, using it as an argument for Wikipedia is not really acceptable any more particularly because Wikidata can trigger your Wikipedia watch list when the associated item is edited,
It does help when red links exist that either are true red links or link to reliable information. Wikidata can serve as a source of information that is maintained in the same way as any Wikipedia.
The benefit of Wikidata is that when people have a Wikipedia article on their watch list this watch list will be triggered by changes on the Wikidata item. Our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge. That is a bit much to ask for. With lists that are also populated from Wikidata we can at least share in the sum of all available knowledge. Thanks, GerardM
On 21 May 2015 at 10:10, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
First I must say I can't speak for the Dutch community, I can only try to sense how pages with coding are perceived. Seeing the editwars about users from outside the Dutch community adding properties to articles, seeing the following discussion, and seeing the general discussion about automated lists on nlwiki, I do not think this will happen. Based on this I can only draw the conclusion that the community will not accept automated lists in the article namespace. Being able to click in the top of the page on edit and then edit the page, is perceived as basic value of Wikipedia, an unwritten rule that may not be broken. Having these codes in the article namespace will scare people off.
At the same time I personally see some value in automated lists. I also noticed in the discussions that if users use these codes in their user namespace or in pages of wikiprojects, that it is not so much a problem. As I think that automated lists are not allowed in the main namespace, while they do have some value, I think it is more likely to create a separated namespace for this kind of lists. In that way all pages in the article namespace stay editable and at the same time this information is available on Wikipedia. A namespace called "List:" or in Dutch: "Lijst:".
I also should mention that the first priority of Wikipedia is not to be up-to-date, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and its nature is being running behind. This is the priority and the focus, this does not mean it can't be up-to-date.
So it matters not so much if the knowledge is or isn't available in the Dutch Wikipedia, it does matter for users that all pages in the article namespace stay without codes, that these pages stay editable in that page itself. And it also matters that linking to other Wikipedias is not allowed in pages in the article namespace. While we did not have a voting about whether it is allowed to link to Wikidata, but having seen earlier a discussion about linking to Q...'s which was ending in the conclusion being not wanted, I think that links in articles to Wikidata items when there is no article in Dutch, will not be allowed.
Romaine
2015-05-20 9:27 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi Romaine,
I follow what you say. What would the opinion be of the Dutch community about lists that include information that is NOT available on the Dutch Wikipedia. You may have noticed that I blogged about the N-Peace award; none of the people have an article on Dutch Wikipedia and there is no article about the award yet either. A list created by Magnus's list tool and bot will maintain the information properly. It is the only way I know to ensure that the latest (2014 / 2015) people who were awarded a prize actually get included...
Does this make sense to you?
Thanks, GerardM
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/05/wikipedia-farkhunda-iii.html
On 19 May 2015 at 19:53, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Egon,
The main use of the codes is to test it in the Wikidata sandbox or in the user sandboxes. Other usage is so far I know not implemented.
The basic reason for that is that there is no consensus about the usage of Wikidata data in templates on the Dutch Wikipedia. The usage of properties in templates is considered a big change, and big changes need consensus first, as it is not easy to go back if it gives problems or unwanted situations, and it has impact on many users. The usage of the codes directly in articles is not the what parser functions are for, parser functions do not belong in articles. Usage of these codes directly in articles is not accepted. If there is consensus of using Wikidata, the question also will be where this would be welcome and where not. And also which data may be used. (In the past we had for example discussions about the number of inhabitants, and there it came up that CIA Factbook data is is not allowed for quality reasons.) Also some guidelines need to be defined to avoid problems and to assure quality.
The focus of the Dutch community is (concerning Wikidata) currently mainly to get all the articles with basic statements on Wikidata. This we do by hand to make sure all the basic statements are actually there, as most of them can't simply be added by a bot. Also this makes sure that there are no/less duplicate items on Wikidata. As Wikidata is pretty new, most users need to get a bit acquaintanced with Wikidata in the first place. In April a user organised a voting, which resulted in the situation that all local interwikis have been removed from all the articles. This was completed in April. So we do not accept local interwikis any longer. When all local interwikis were gone, I wrote in the central discussion page a call for all users to add there articles on Wikidata + to add certain basic statements as described in the message. Since then, a group of local users is working on getting the number of not connected articles in Wikidata down. From the 4000+ unconnected articles already 75% have been done. At the same time, new articles have been checked for being linked on Wikidata. If users forget to add their article, we add their article for them on Wikidata and a personal message with basic information is added to the user talk page who created the articled. The message says that maybe you have been forgotten, or was still intending to add the article to Wikidata, then the message is not needed, but it is needed that the author of an article adds his/her article to Wikidata. In the message is also described why this is needed, where someone can find links, and how to add an article to Wikidata. There are two types of messages: one for users who should have added their article to an existing item (assuming the existing item already has the basic statements), and one for users who should have created a new item with the basic statements.
The basic statements include *instance of* (for everything), (for places and objects:) *coordinates*, *country*, *located in the administrative territorial entity*, (for people:) *gender*, *date of birth*, *place of birth*, *date of death*, *place of death*, *occupation*, (music:) *performer*, *date of publication*, (animals/plants:) *taxon rank*, *taxon name*, *parent taxon*, and anywhere if exists: *Commons category*. These are the basic statements for the most written articles. With these statements it is possible in case of multiple items with the same label, to add a sitelink to the right item and to easily check if an item is added to the right item.
By adding their own article for them to Wikidata with the basic statements, they have a good example (close to home) what is expected. We ask them with the next article to do it themselves. Also, something that is important, I say they can come to me with questions any time. Adding a sitelink mostly works (only 3 people do not want to do this or find it too difficult). All other users which have been informed, add their articles now to Wikidata, mostly, if they do not forget as they still get to be used to it more. Only authors that only write once in a while need to get informed. The last group of users, the new users, should then still be acquaintanced with Wikidata, but that is something that is probably only useful when they manage to write an article that follows the conventions of Wikipedia.
But when informing the users about it is needed to add their articles to Wikidata, the most heard reaction is "I didn't know". The second most heard reaction is that they do not find it easy or intuitive to get to Wikidata, add the article and add some statements.
This feedback is given, but having users add their article on Wikidata is a great success. We notice that users like it to have someone who looks over their shoulder and helps when it is not added properly. In this way already some users have grown to do it completely by themselves.
But I also see the signals of users that they are afraid to be asked to do more than that. The usage of Wikidata for interwikis is now accepted, to add some statements has a large understanding as they see the benefit of this. But doing more than that seems mostly not needed, and also seems to go beyond the maximum of acceptance. That some users are capable of using codes is great, but the large majority must feel themselves comfortable with codes as well to be able to allow it, and to me it seems they mostly are not comfortable with it. It seems for most users a bridge too far.
And having automated lists with data directly from Wikidata seems also not acceptable in the article namespace, reading the reactions in a current discussion. Automated lists created by the software seem much like special pages which have a special namespace. Being able to edit an article (lists included) is considered to be very important for the functioning of Wikipedia, if it is not a basic rule for Wikipedia.
If such automated lists are wanted, it would be more likely to have them accepted if they are added only to a (new) special namespace for automated lists.
And yes, Lydia, has a point, as nlwiki is an early wiki where the arbitrary data has been made available, users from other wikis have added codes to articles, which have been undone as such is not acceptable on nlwiki.
Periodically multiple times all parser functions and magic words have been removed from articles on nlwiki as they are not acceptable in articles, and are considered to limit and disturb the ability to edit Wikipedia too much.
Greetings, Romaine
2015-05-19 14:41 GMT+02:00 Egon Willighagen egon.willighagen@gmail.com :
Dear Lydia,
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de wrote:
The rollout of arbitrary access on Dutch Wikipedia
Is there an overview of Dutch WP pages where it is being used? The Berlin/Germany use case experienced resistance, needed further discussion and consensus first? Has it been adopted on other Dutch pages? How was it received there?
Egon
-- E.L. Willighagen Department of Bioinformatics - BiGCaT Maastricht University (http://www.bigcat.unimaas.nl/) Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/ LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/ PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers ORCID: 0000-0001-7542-0286 ImpactStory: https://impactstory.org/EgonWillighagen
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata