Hoi,
I respect the policy of Wikipedia. However, when multiple Wikipedias differ
and when there is no sourcing does this policy hold? When Wikidata has no
attributable sources but multiple statements is it not conceivable that
things are easy and obvious.. that they are wrong?
When you talk about the FA status of articles, you are considering
something totally alien to what is at stake. Typically we do not have
credible sources at Wikidata and typically there is an issue with the data.
When Wikidata is as mature as en.wp we will have on average 10 statements
for every item. Currently half of our items have at most two statements. We
do find issues in any source by comparing them. It does make sense to make
this effort. It is an obvious way of improving quality in all of our
projects and even beyond that.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 21 November 2015 at 10:26, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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>
--
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>