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@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@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@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@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-s...
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/f...
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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe