Hoi, Anthony, having sources is desired. The point is not that we do not want them. We clearly do. My point is that it is not the only yardstick of success and quality.
As I argued, Wikidata may be a tool to link links and red links properly. It will improve quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata. It has nothing to do with sources at the Wikipedia end because links are already based on existing sources. It improves quality because it is assured that the link go where they are supposed to go given the source :) .
When we ensure quality for all our Wikipedias, the implicit quality rises in Wikidata because we clearly want statements that describe the relation. As relations are linked to Wikipedia, the source of that Wikipedia applies. It does not mean that by other means the quality of the statements will not be checked and improved.
In this way everybody wins. It is about our quality, it is measurable, it is achievable, it is SMART. Requiring statements for every Wikidata statement at this time of its life cycle is not. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 January 2016 at 11:58, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Most editions of most books published in the last 40 years (certainly books from reliable publishers) have an ISBN that identifies one edition. Most reliable journal articles these days have a doi. For simple citing of web pages, you could automatically convert bare urls to archived versions of the cited web page.
There is a difference between unreliable assertions and knowledge. Wikimedia should be distributing knowledge. That's what the mission statement says. Wikidata could take citation a bit more seriously. On 26 Jan 2016 5:59 pm, "Jane Darnell" jane023@gmail.com wrote:
That is so true! Making book items is hard and then using them in reference statements is harder
-----Original Message----- From: "Andrea Zanni" zanni.andrea84@gmail.com Sent: 26-1-2016 09:20 To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
- It is really laborious to add references. Many references are a
book a
publication and I give you one example of a book [1]. It takes MUCH
more
time to add a source than it is to add a statement. The book, the authors they need sources in their own right..
Also, Wikidata has not found a way yet to work with books. Yes, it's relatively easy to create an item for a recent book and
populate
it with a few statements relatively to the main metadata (author, year of publishing, publisher).
What we don't have is a way to *consistently* work with books (which have often many translations and editions). We cannot import (yet) library catalogs in wikidata[1]. We don't even have a consistent way to link Wikidata to Wikisource (index pages, ns0 pages).
I think this is quite relevant for the reference issue.
Aubrey
[1] there is an ongoing project with the National Library of Florence, in Italy. We now have a script to import records in WIkibase, and will do
on a
local one. Then we will approach Wikidata. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
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