Hoi, Maybe.. but not all Wikipedias are the same. It is verifiable that Wikipedia would easily benefit from Wikidata from Wikidata by replacing the existing links and red links with functionality that uses Wikidata.
It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error rate of 20%. When you check Wikidata for its quality I expect it to be much better than 90%.
It is blooming obvious that Wikipedians only see fault elsewhere and are forgiving for the error in their own way. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 January 2016 at 14:55, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske < magnusmanske@googlemail.com> wrote:
What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the respective Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or anecdotes
don't
count)
Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to fulfil one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally published source.
Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious that Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable source", isn't it?[2]
[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS _______________________________________________ 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