Andreas, That's just not true. You can re-use and remix Wikimedia content as much as you like. When you say you "can't cite one Wikipedia article as a source in another", this is also not true, as we see this done in translated articles in the edit summary. Fortunately Wikipedia articles need sources, so those are translated along with the rest f the content and are perfectly valid to take from one project to another. In art history, when we are talking about paintings, we are all mostly talking about the same sources anyway, worldwide. This is probably true for most other disciplines as well.
As far as citing goes, the ratio of cited vs. uncited statements in Wikipedia is probably much greater than in Wikidata, except we can't measure that. All we measure is the "reference" statement, but there are lots of sources in various properties and my guess is that most items with zero statements are early imports that have just not had anyone click on them yet. When we use images in Wikipedia articles, we do not "cite" Wikimedia Commons. Indeed, this is exactly the problem we have when we talk to GLAMs about image donations. The link itself is enough to allow the user with a few clicks to get at the image information on Commons, where there is more information, including sources. When I as a Wikipedian use images of paintings from Commons in a Wikipedia article, I am using multiple sources for that article, but some of those sources may be from the Commons image itself, as some of these are particularly well-sourced. When I am updating the associated Wikidata item, I add all of the sources that I have found, and for the more famous paintings, others add links from their own sources, making Wikidata much richer as a source of references than any single project. As Lydia explained however, not every individual statement in Wikidata is sourced, though each item may be sourced to multiple references. This is partially because we lack the tools to easily source each statement when we update multiple statements at a time, but it is also because we don't *need* to source obvious statements.
The point is, that publishing on any Wikmedia project, whether it's Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, or Wikidata, is a manually-driven complex process done by volunteers. It is not and never will be automatic.
Jane
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Jane,
The issue is that you can't cite one Wikipedia article as a source in another. If, as some envisage, you were to fill Wikipedia's infoboxes with Wikidata content that's unsourced, or sourced only to a Wikipedia, you'd be doing exactly that, and violating WP:V in the process:
"Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources. Also, do not use *websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources*." (WP:CIRCULAR)
That includes Wikidata. As long as Wikidata doesn't provide external sourcing, it's unusable in Wikipedia.
Andreas
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for that essay, Lydia! You said it well, and I especially agree
with
what you wrote about trust and believing in ourselves. I had to laugh at some of the comments, because if you substitute "Wikipedia" for
"Wikidata"
those comments could have been written 3 years ago before Wikidata came
on
the scene.
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Lydia Pintscher < lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de wrote:
That is actually not correct. We have built Wikidata from the very beginning with some core believes. One of them is that Wikidata isn't supposed to have the one truth but instead is able to represent various different points of view and link to sources claiming these. Look for example at the country statements for Jerusalem: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1218 Now I am the first to say that this will not be able to capture the full complexity of the world around us. But that's not what it is meant to do. However please be aware that we have built more than
just
a dumb database with Wikidata and have gone to great length to make
it
possible to capture knowledge diversity.
I've taken the time and written a longer piece about data quality and knowledge diversity on Wikidata for the current edition of the Signpost:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-09/Op-ed
Cheers Lydia
-- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe