Disclaimer first - I'm not exactly conversant in the intricacies of WikiData, if I was to take the information on 14th Dalai Lama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama
it links to Wikidata at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17293
the en article has 2 references that list his date of birth, the WikiData item has two references for the same piece of information WikiData source;
1. just says imported from Russian language Wikipedia, which links to Wikidata page on the Russian Wikipedia not to the source url nor does it link to permanent url so as a source its meaningless, while may just be the result of who did the data import linking to Russian language Wikipedia is kind of obscure for a source, I can understand a tibetan, mandarin, or cantonese language source as they would be associated with the region 2. Integrated Authority File links to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q36578 on WikiData it doesnt provide a url or any other information which enables someone to verify what is said
Despite two reference the data itself appears to be immediately untraceable to a reliable source.
The circular reference of Wikidata to a Wikipedia of any language is ok but the link should be traceable to a specific article version which would then make it possible to verify the data even if the current data on Wikipedia is changed after its imported, that in itself shouldnt be difficult to engineer. If that was the case then to me a Wikipedia reference for all data is a reasonable minimum standard to start at, finding a way to replicate the same data 2891 times in Liams scenario shouldnt be much of a challenge if WP can replicate templates in 100,000 articles, as a standard we have GLAM making donations of images in quantities of 10,000's I htnk someone has already solved this in a meaningful way
On 27 November 2015 at 20:51, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 November 2015 at 12:08, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
The Wikimedia movement has always had an important principle: that all content should be traceable to a "reliable source". Throughout the first decade of this movement and beyond, Wikimedia content has never been considered a reliable source. For example, you can't use a Wikipedia article as a reference in another Wikipedia article.
Another important principle has been the disclaimer: pointing out to
people
that the data is anonymously crowdsourced, and that there is no guarantee of reliability or fitness for use.
Both of these principles are now being jettisoned.
Wikipedia content is considered a reliable source in Wikidata...
<snip>
I agree that "reliable source" referencing and "crowdsourced content" are indeed principles of our movement. However, I disagree that Wikidata is "jettisoning" them. In fact, quite the contrary!
The purpose of the statement "imported from --> English Wikipedia" in the "reference" field of a Wikidata item's statement is PRECISELY to indicate to the user that this information has not been INDEPENDENTLY verified to a reliable source and that Wikipedia is NOT considered a reliable source. Furthermore, it provides a PROVENANCE of that information to help stop people from circular referencing. That is - clearly stating that the specific fact in Wikidata has come from Wikipedia helps to avoid the structured-data equivalent of "citogenisis": https://xkcd.com/978/ If/When a person can provide a reliable reference for that same fact, they are encouraged to add an actual reference. Note, the wikidata statement used for facts coming in from Wikipedia use the property "imported from". This is deliberately different from the property "reference URL" which is what you would use when adding an actual reference to a third-party reliable online source.
Furthermore, the fact that many statements in Wikidata are not given a reference (yet) is not necessarily a "problem". For example - this https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21481859 is a Wikidata item for a scientific publication with 2891 co-authors!! This is an extreme example, but it demonstrates my point... None of those 2891 statements has a specific reference listed for it, because all of them are self-evidently referenced to the scientific publication itself. The same is true of the other properties applied to this item (volume, publication date, title, page number...). All of these could be "referenced" to the very first property in the Wikidata item - the DOI of the scientific article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269312008581 This item is not "less reliable" because it doesn't have the same footnote repeated almost three thousand times, but if you merely look at statistics of "unreferenced wikidata statements" it would APPEAR that it is very poorly cited. So, I think we need a more nuanced view of what "proper referencing" means in the context of Wikidata.
-Liam
wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata _______________________________________________ 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