Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow that
without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been made.
Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong,
No we dont decide what is right or wrong, en:wp has very specific core
policies about this
- Original research - we dont draw conclusions from available data
- NPOV -
*which means presenting information without editorial bias*,
the moment we make that decision about whats right we exceed the
boundaries of our core pillars.... dont know, uncertain or conflicting
information means exactly that we dont get to choose what we think is right
The data article writers work with isnt black and white and its definitely
not set in stone Wikipedia content is a constant evolving collation of
knowledge, we should be careful when ever we put in place a process that
makes information definitive because people become reluctant to add to that
and they are even less likely to challenge something that has been cast in
stone already regardless of the inaccuracy of that casting . We see it
within Wikipedia when articles are elevated to FA status with the number of
editors who fiercely defend that current/correct version against any
changes regardless of the merit in the information being added with
comments like "discuss it on talk page first" "revert good faith
edit"
the more disjointed knowledge becomes the harder it is to keep it current,
accurate the more isolated that knowledge. Then power over making changes
takes precedence over productivity, accuracy and openness
On 21 November 2015 at 16:12, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi,
You conflate two issues. First when facts differ, it should be possible to
explain why they differ. Only when there is no explanation particularly
when there are no sources, there is an issue. In come real sources. When
someone died on 7-5-1759 and another source has a different date, it may be
the difference between a Julian and a Gregorian date. When a source makes
this plain, one fact has been proven to be incorrect. When the date was
1759, it is obvious that the other date is more precise.. The point is very
much that Wikipedia values sources and so does Wikidata. USE THEM and find
that data sources may be wrong when they are. In this way we improve
quality.
Many data sources have data from the same origin. It does not follow that
without original sources they are all right. Quite the reverse. It does
however take humans to be bold, to determine where a booboo has been made.
Yes, we do decide what is right or wrong, we do this when we research an
issue and that is exactly what this is about. It all starts with
determining a source.
In the mean time, Wikidata is negligent in stating sources. The worst
example is in the "primary sources" tool. It is bad because it is brought
to us as the best work flow for adding uncertain data to Wikidata. So the
world is not perfect but hey it is a wiki :)
Thanks,
GerardM
On 21 November 2015 at 00:32, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> *When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the same,**you
only
have to
check 15% and decide what is righ**t*....
this very statement highlights one issue that
will always be a problem between Wikidata and Wikipedias. Wikipedia, at
least in my 10 years of experience on en:wp is that when you have
multiple
sources that differ you highlight the existence
of those sources and the
conflict of information we dont decide what is right or wrong.
On 21 November 2015 at 06:35, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
wrote:
> Hoi,
> <grin> quality is different things </grin> I do care about quality but
I
do
> not necessarily agree with you how to best achieve it. Arguably bots
are
> better and getting data into Wikidata than
people. This means that the
> error rate of bots is typically better than what people do. It is all
in
> the percentages.
>
> I have always said that the best way to improve quality is by comparing
> sources. When Wikidata has no data, it is arguably better to import
data
> from any source. When the quality is 90%
correct, there is already 100%
> more data. When 100% is compared with another source and 85% is the
same,
you only
have to check 15% and decide what is right. When you compare
with
> two distinct sources, the percentage that differs changes again.. :) In
> this way it makes sense to check errors
>
> It does not help when you state that either party has people that care
or
> do not care about quality. By providing a
high likelihood that
something
is
> problematic, you will learn who actually makes a difference. It however
> started with having data to compare in the first place
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 20 November 2015 at 14:50, Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the
outside
> > world, at some stage the situation
becomes toxic. At this moment
there
> > are
> > > already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia
> > quality
> > > because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own
quality.
> > >
> >
> > Right. When some users blindly dump random data to Wikidata, not
> > communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the
situation
> > becomes toxic. At this moment there are
already those at Wikipedia
that
> > argue not to bother about Wikidata
quality because in their view,
> > Wikidatans do not care about its own quality.
> >
> > For instance, take a look at
> >
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM
> >
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:GerardM/Archive_1
> >
> > Erm
> > -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
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
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
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>