no I agree quality is more than just the sources, but without sources
quality cannot be achieved
On 29 December 2015 at 20:29, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi,
You do not get the point or you deliberately distort it. The point is that
quality is not sources. Quality is more than that.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 29 December 2015 at 13:27, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This is when sources truly become vital. But do
remember, the POV of the USA and many of its sources are as suspect as
those from Kazakhstan.
And that is why regardless of the fact a citation is so important,
because the person receiving the information must able to make their own
assessment of the sources reliability with a CC0 license and a
significant
selection of the information unsourced WikiDatas
data lacks the quality,
integrity we all expect of ourselves when we add content to any of the
projects.
On 29 December 2015 at 20:15, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi,
So you have determined that people can be manipulated. Good, then what?
If this is the tack that you take you will be grounded because there is
no
> plan. It is a negative attitude that only stifles. Quality is not only
in
sources,
sources can be and are manipulations in their own right. Many
important subjects are woefully underrepresented. The argument has it
that
it is because of a lack of sources..
Sources are relevant but we only are interested in particular subjects.
We
> do not need to look at Kazakhstan to find fault. Amnest (reliable
source)
> indicates that all USA police forces are not
in compliance with
> international agreements on the use of force. NOW WHAT ??
>
> When quality is the subject, it is important to decide how we
effectively
> improve quality. VIAF provided Wikidata with
a list of issues they
found.
Tom
checked it out and our quality is better as a result. It means that
more information is linked for people who visit a library. When awards
are
> known, adding known recipients in Wikidata based on info from multiple
> Wikipedias improves the quality and in this way many incorrect links
are
exposed.
When quality of our projects is the subject, decide how we can do a
better
job. When Facebook invites companies to
manipulate people, it is why
Facebook information is suspect. At most it is a reminder that
manipulation
> is an important issue. It does not mean that people cannot add data on
> their hobby horse.
>
> Quality is important but quality is more than sources. When sources are
> used as an argument that is detrimental to the quality of Wikidata,
then
in
my opinion we have forgotten why Wikipedia was
possible in the first
place.
It was not because of sources, it was because of
the web of information
we
> created, a web that is of a NPOV.
>
> Wikidata does not have a NPOV. It represents facts found in many
places.
As
> the information becomes more extended, it becomes possible to find
> manipulations, errors. This is when sources truly become vital. But do
> remember, the POV of the USA and many of its sources are as suspect as
> those from Kazakhstan.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 29 December 2015 at 11:44, Lilburne <lilburne(a)tygers-of-wrath.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On 28/12/2015 18:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
> >
> >> All I said is that the wiki way works, that's all. You can't hide
it
> when
> >> someone tries to take over a project, and that is the reason we
> shouldn't
> >> try to anticipate that with convoluted strategies. "Assume Good
Faith"
> >> will
> >> always win out over any strange misguided takeover strategy, which
is
why
>> governments that intend to do such things choose nowadays to just
block
> >> wikimedia altogether. It is not our wake-up call to take, but that
of
> the
> >> Kazakh people.
> >>
> >>
> > Facebook showed the other year that it could manipulate people by
what
it
showed
them in their feeds.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Facebook-conducted-…
>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28051930
>
> They didn't do this for fun, they did it to show their clients
> (advertisers, governments) that they could manipulate millions of
people.
You only
need a small push in one direction or another to influence a
large
> population. Doesn't matter if the push is to buy a particular soap,
vote
one way
or another, or how you see a particular minority, or issue.
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2450825/big-data-business-intelligence/…
> >
> > Do it to a naively trusted source and you have a triple word score
> > jackpot^H^H^Hboot.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU:
http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery:
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>