(Note: I'm creating a new thread which references several old ones; in the most recent, "Profile of Magnus Manske," the conversation has drifted back to Wikidata, so that subject line is no longer applicable.)
Andreas Kolbe has argued in multiple threads that Wikidata is fundamentally problematic, on the basis that it does not require citations. (Please correct me if I am mistaken about this core premise.) I've found these threads illuminating, and appreciate much of what has been said by all parties.
However, that core premise is problematic. If the possibility of people publishing uncited information were fundamentally problematic, here are several platforms that we would have to consider ethically problematic at the core: * Wikipedia (which for many years had very loose standards around citations) * Wikipediocracy (of which Andreas is a founding member) and all Internet forums * All blogs * YouTube * Facebook * The Internet itself * The printing press
Every one of the platforms listed above created opportunities for people -- even anonymously -- to publish information without a citation. If we are to fault Wikidata on this basis, it would be wrong not to apply the same standard to other platforms.
I'm addressing this now, because I think it is becoming problematic to paint Wikidata as a flawed project with a broad brush. Wikidata is an experiment, and it will surely lead to flawed information in some instances. But I think it would be a big problem to draw the conclusion that Wikidata is problematic overall.
That said, it is becoming ever more clear that the Wikimedia Foundation has developed big plans that involve Wikidata; and those big plans are not open to scrutiny.
THAT, I believe, is a problem.
Wikidata is not a problem; but it is something that could be leveraged in problematic ways (and/or highly beneficial ways).
I feel it is very important that we start looking at these issues from that perspective.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]