agree getting information in is in and of itself a good starting point but ignoring the lessons learnt in other project in doing so is only creating more work for those that follow. Having less clear policy about sources and allowing unsourced information is only going to put Wikidata behind Wikipedia in quality, in doing so its not going to endear WikiData information to Wikipedians which in turn Wikipedians as they get data just arent going to go that extra step to share no matter how easy the step is to take
On 21 November 2015 at 19:13, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
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@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@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@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@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@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@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@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>
-- 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@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
-- 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@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