Lydia, I would be happy to help work on your suggestion, which page do you think this info should be added to? Should it be a new page or info added to an existing one?
Thanks
On 21 September 2017 at 01:22, Dario Taraborelli <dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Jane – I think you hit it on the nail.
I don't know exactly how this should be designed (some user research seems in order before coming up with any solution). The problem to me is how to design subscription/synchronization mechanisms giving people freedom to choose which data to reuse or not and which "fixes" to send upstream to a centralized knowledge base. I believe this is how the relation between Wikidata and other projects was originally conceived: something like this would allow structured data to be broadly reused without neglecting the very legitimate concerns, policies and expectations of data consumers.
Yaroslav – agreed, my mail was mostly a heads up about a problem that's an instance of something much bigger the Wikidata community needs to think about.
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:03 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
--
*Dario Taraborelli *Director, Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter http://twitter.com/readermeter
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata