Then you are willing to concede that we don't need references on
disambiguation pages? What about categories? What about templates? Those
all have items in Wikidata as well.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I understand there are some data (say, the sky is
blue) that are so obvious
and well-known that no one would expect a source to be provided. I'm
referring to data that everyone on earth doesn't know the answer to, like
dry
air contains 78.09*% *nitrogen.
Anthony Cole
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Why not insist that every piece of data added to
wikidata is supported by
a reliable source?
That's a genuine question. I don't know the answer.
Saying, "Well, Wikipedia is unreliable, too" doesn't answer the question.
You're all bright people, and I assume there is a good reason not to
insist on reliable sourcing for all of Wikidata's claims. What is it,
please?
Anthony Cole
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually I think Wikidata is sourced more thoroughly than any single
> Wikipedia. Looking at the last chart in those stats, less than 10% of
all
> items have zero sitelinks, and we can't
see in the stats whether 100% of
> those have zero referenced statements, but I would assume that is not
the
> case, especially since items with zero
sitelinks and zero internal
> Wikidata
> links tend to be "cleaned up and deleted". At least one sitelink means
the
> item is coming from a Wikipedia, and
therefore the Wikipedia article
will
> have references that could be used in the
Wikidata item and just haven't
> been added yet. Of all the items with zero or just one statement, I
expect
> a great deal of these to be linked to
categories, disambiguation pages,
or
> lists, as these types of items generally only
contain one statement.
>
> Also, we currently have no way to count unreferenced statements in
> Wikipedia articles, but there are very few Wikipedia articles that have
at
> least one reference per sentence. So
concluding that any single
> unreferenced statement no matter how many other referenced statements
> there
> are in the item brings an entire Wikidata item into the "untrustworthy
> zone" is just silly.
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <
> > > magnusmanske(a)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(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
> > New messages to: 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
New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>