There is also a more general and very useful discussion of the same issues at this page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_State_of_affairs
(check recent edits, last 5 days or so).
Since it is not related to any decision-making (at least not yet) I would expect it is easier to comment there, though some editors are really hostile (I was at some point labeled as a "part of Wikidata crowd" in a negative sense and had to point out that I have 15 times as many edits on the English Wikipedia than the editor who was attacking me).
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Yes Yaroslav, I totally agree with you (and don't worry, I wouldn't dream of commenting there). On the other hand, this is extremely relevant for the Wikidata mailing list and I am really grateful to Dario for posting about it, because I had no idea. I stopped following that "2017 state of affairs" thing when it first got ugly back in January. I suggest that in cases where (as Dario suggests) highly structured and superior data from Wikidata *could* be used in Wikipedia, that we create some sort of property to indicate this on Wikidata, along the lines of the P31->Q17362920 we use to show that a certain Wikipedia has a pending merge problem. If the information is ever used on that Wikipedia (either with or without that "Cite-Q" template) then the property for that specific Wikipedia should be removed. Ideally this property could be used as a qualifier at the statement level (so e.g. for paintings, a statement on a collection property for a painting that it was stolen and rediscovered, or on a significant event property that it was restored and reattributed, or that it was owned by the Hitler museum and stored it the depot in Linz during WWII, etc).
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Dario.
May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course open to everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of the English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely negatively. Please be considerate.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dario Taraborelli < dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hey folks,
I wanted to draw your attention to a deletion nomination discussion for an experimental template – {{Cite Q}} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Q – pulling bibliographic data from Wikidata:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discus sion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q
As you'll see, there is significant resistance against the broader usage of a template which exemplifies how structured bibliographic data in WIkidata could be reused across Wikimedia projects.
I personally think many of the concerns brought up by editors who support the deletion request are legitimate. As the editor who nominated the template for deletion notes: "The existence of the template is one thing; the advocacy to use this systematically is another one altogether. Anybody seeking that kind of systematic, radical change in Wikipedia must get consensus for that in Wikipedia first. Being BOLD is fine but has its limits, and this kind of thing is one of them."
I find myself in agreement with this statement, which I believe applies to much more than just bibliographic data from Wikidata: it's about virtually any kind of data and contents reused across projects governed by different policies and expectations. I think what's happening is that an experimental template – primarily meant to showcase how data reuse from Wikidata *might *work – is perceived as a norm for how references *will* or *should* work in the future.
If you're involved in the WikiCite initiative, and are considering participating in the deletion discussion, I encourage you to keep a constructive tone and understand the perspective of people who are concerned about the use and misuse of this template.
As one of the WikiCite organizers, I see the success of the initiative as coming from rich, highly curated data that other projects will want to reuse, and from technical and usability advances for all contributors, not from giving an impression that the goal is to use Wikidata to subvert how other Wikimedia communities do their job. I'll post a note explaining my perspective.
Dario
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
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata