Pete,
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
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
- 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.
In many countries, people have a right to free speech: to voice opinions, engage in speculation, and so on. I feel quite certain that we agree that the right to free speech is a good thing to have.
But Wikipedia and Wikidata are not experiments in free speech. They are designed to be reference works.
Wikipedia, in its early days, was faulted by Wikipedians – rightly so – for publishing material that could not be traced to professionally published sources, including much material that was plain wrong (crank theories etc.). That was considered unacceptable for a reference work; hence the requirement for references, the no-original-research rule, and all the rest of it.
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.
Perhaps we can agree that reliable sources are a useful part of a crowdsourced reference project. The more citations Wikidata contains, the more useful it will be. Citations make data provenance transparent to the end user. They enable end users to verify, judge and correct the information they're given, if they so desire.
Data provenance is all the more important if Wikidata content comes to be spread far and wide, as seems possible, given major search engines' involvement.
In my opinion, Wikidata's CC-0 licence undermines that, because it allows re-users to cut the chain between the end user and the data's original source.
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.
I agree with you that there appears to be an undue amount of secrecy.
Jimmy Wales said[1] over two weeks ago, in response to questions about the Knight Foundation's Knowledge Engine grant, in the context of ousted board member James Heilman's complaints about a lack of transparency,
--------------------
"What sort of details do you want? I'll have to talk to others to make sure there are no contractural reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant letter should be published on meta. The Knight Grant is a red herring here, so it would be best to clear the air around that completely as soon as possible."
--------------------
That sounded reassuring. But to date neither the Knight Foundation grant letter nor the Foundation's grant application have been published on Meta.
The fact that nothing has happened following Jimmy Wales' statement has been discussed in the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group. As you probably know, Jimmy Wales said there yesterday,
--------------------
"Assurances"? Please don't make things up out of thin air. I've expressed my opinion, but contrary to some people's fantasies, me expressing an opinion doesn't have the force of law.
--------------------
In the same discussion, a WMF staffer said last week that WMF staff would be delighted to publish that documentation, but haven't been given leave to do so.
That sounds to me like there is a continued intent to withhold the documentation of this restricted grant from public view. I believe that is a mistake.
If there is nothing objectionable in it, publication now will stop the rumour mill. If there is something objectionable in it, then it is better for that to come to light now, rather than six months or a year down the line.
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.
I agree. Thank you for raising the issue.
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=...